
Paul Graham says there’s no bubble. Ha - lotusleaf1987
http://michaeldeshazer.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/paul-graham-says-theres-no-bubble-ha/
======
RickHull
Gah, this is even worse than I expected.

> _Paul, I like you, but (big but): the mortgage bubble of the 2000s didn’t
> have anything to do with increasing productivity in a “new economy” or money
> being moved from bonds to stocks, and that bad boy busted like an
> adolescent’s pimple._

Total non sequitur here. Bringing up the mortgage crisis is out of left field.
Paul's statement regarded the comparison of today's tech startup market with
that of the late 90s.

Is Mr. Shazer making a new comparison of today's tech startup market to the
mortgage crisis? I'm not sure. There's no _there_ there.

> _Paul, JP Morgan just closed on a $1.2 billion fund for new tech startups.
> And many other banks are following suit, because that’s what banks do, just
> like they wear them. Carlyle and other buyout firms are swallowing up VC
> firms like a toothless prostitute. So, a little more than a few guys like
> Yuri Milner and Zuckerberg._

Bandwagon != bubble. It could be that the tech startup market is still
undervalued. Just noting that banks are investing in it does not make it a
bubble.

Of course there is the question of bias. Mr. Graham clearly stands to benefit
from higher startup valuations. Tell us something we don't know and with less
hyperbole.

> _There is a bubble. And it’s getting bigger._

An effectively bald though entirely anticipated assertion.

~~~
ascendant
Just another case of someone with a catchy headline and no substance trying to
get picked up by major news outlets to drive some trafic/$$$ to the site.

~~~
itsdeshazer
and I don't serve ads, and probably never will. But I do appreciate the
traffic. Thanks.

------
dangero
The one point I do agree with is that PG is probably the worst person to ask
if there is a bubble in startup tech right now because he has more than almost
anyone to gain from high valuations.

I understand Paul wants to be unbiased, but he cannot realistically do so.
It's like asking the head of the Realtors board if home prices are stabilizing
or asking Ben Bernanke if we're seeing an economic recovery. They will only
ever give one answer because they have nothing to gain from giving any other
response.

~~~
mbyrne
It actually doesn't follow that someone with domain knowledge is "the worst
person to ask if there is a bubble." Furthermore, people who are successful
tend to be coldly honest about reality, and that is how PG strikes me.

I feel confident if PG thought there was a bubble in start ups now, he would
probably say just that, because being right "gains" something priceless, while
being someone whose words mean nothing, loses everything.

------
yan
Ok, what? 70% of that article are just quotes, and the other 30% is divided
into two comments. One doesn't mention the .com bubble at all but brings up
the mortgage bubble (why?), and the second just talks quantities. Both
however, share awful similes.

~~~
joe_the_user
The first comment is a little obscurely done. I think it's implication is just
because you don't have people saying productivity is going up fabulously
doesn't mean you don't have a bubble.

With second quote, I think I remember Alan Greenspan saying that the mortgage
bubble wasn't one because it involve "a lot of local markets" so reasoning is
"just because you have a very local phenomena doesn't mean you don't have a
bubble". The other point is that when you investment banks falling over
themselves to buy VC and when have Milner making a blanket investment in every
Ycombinator, you again have blind investment.

I don't know if all of this is true, just raveling his cryptic comments.

As bubbles go, one thing that comforts me is both the dot-com and the mortgage
bubble show that bubble need to reach a fair percentage of the whole economy
in order to truly die. So if this is a bubble, we've got some time ;->

------
ziadbc
I think math helps here.

If YC funds 400 startups, they've spent somewhere around 8 million dollars. In
the late 90s one .com startup probably spent that much on their office chairs.

Granted, there are subsequent rounds of funding, and maybe some less than
prudent investments, but while we may be in an 'expansion' cycle of funding,
it isn't fair to say that it's 1999 all over again.

------
fictorial
> Carlyle and other buyout firms are swallowing up VC firms like a toothless
> prostitute.

stay classy

------
suninwinter
I thought a bit bias was when a coin predictably landed on heads more than
tails.

