近4年前，微软公司（Microsoft）以150亿美元的估价，向Facebook注资2.4亿美元。我相信这是人们首次开始公开担心新一轮互联网泡沫的到来，此后这种担心逐渐蔓延开来并达至最高点。但直到最近市场出现动荡之前，此类担忧被认为是不明智的，往坏里说就是愚蠢的。

    对于拒绝承认互联网泡沫的人而言，这段时间是他们“扬眉吐气”的大好时光。在这些人中，最能言善辩且顽固不化的要数科技博客TechCrunch的萨拉•蕾茜。上周二，她又在一篇题为《好消息！从未膨胀过的泡沫破灭了》（Good News! The Bubble that Never Inflated Has Popped）的博文中对互联网泡沫论发起猛烈攻击。

    我喜欢萨拉，但她的观点大错特错了。她不仅错在拒绝承认存在互联网泡沫，更错在对泡沫后果的判断上。

    首先，我得声明，我写此文的本意既非要做事后诸葛亮，也不是要显摆我明察秋毫，没有漏掉任何重要的市场趋势。换言之，就是有可能成为互联网泡沫论的彼得•谢夫（美国经济学家、作家、商人及金融评论家，一贯唱空美国经济——译注），我也不在乎。此外，就此事来说，我也并非独行侠。

    我之所以在意这件事，是因为所有泡沫最终都会破灭（或者至少会瘪掉），随后引发的混乱会伤及人们的利益。最初引发通货膨胀的人需要迅速认清自己的所作所为，承担责任，确保这类泡沫不会继续膨胀。

    蕾茜认为有两种泡沫：经济泡沫和心理泡沫。最近的住房泡沫就是典型的经济泡沫，而17世纪30年代的郁金香泡沫则属于典型的心理泡沫。她还分析说，这二者之间的主要分别在于其产生的影响不同。她认为，经济泡沫会切实引发经济损失。而心理泡沫由于腐蚀了社会信心，会影响到人们未来的行为模式。因此，上世纪90年代的互联网泡沫同时带有二者的味道。

    按照这一理论，我认为，眼下的互联网泡沫属于经济泡沫。因为它自始至终属于私有市场现象，而远非公共市场现象。具体而言，靠风险资本支持的互联网公司以过高的估价获得了太多的资金。这种做法必然导致经济困境。以下是一些数据：

    律师事务所Fenwick & West的报告显示，2010年第四季度，硅谷的风险融资估价增长了61%。这是该公司的监测报告连续第六个季度显示，硅谷的风险融资平均估价呈现增长之势；2010年第三季度增长了28%。

    汤森路透社（Thomson Reuters）的数据显示，自2007年以来，美国IT领域的风险资本交易的投资前估值翻了一番还多。

    摇钱树报告【MoneyTree reports：根据美国市场调查机构普华永道和美国风险投资协会(NVCA)基于分析Thomson Reuters数据库生成的投资报告——译注】显示，自2000年第四季度以来，按美元计算，“专注于互联网”的公司在2011年第二季度融到的首轮风险资本创下了最高值。

    如果只是当作奇闻趣事来听，在早期风险投资圈里，几乎所有的人都说，互联网公司估价一直在疯狂地飙升，即将失控。就在前几天，我曾引用阿伦•帕特里科夫（美国投资家——译注）的话说：“许多半年或一年前定价仅为200万美元的早期交易，现在其投资前价格已飞涨至700美元。”另一位风险资本家最近给我看了一张冰球杆图表（a hockey-stick chart：某一数据在长时间持平后突然直线飙升，与横轴形成了一个接近90度的夹角，形似一个直立的冰球杆——译注），我开始还以为它反映的是一家初创公司的营业收入，但他告诉我说，该图实际上记录的是他的投资机构一直以来支付的互联网交易的平均价格。

    Nearly four years ago, Microsoft (MSFT) invested $240 million in Facebook at a valuation of $15 billion. I'm pretty sure that's the first time people began publicly worrying about another Internet bubble, and it's been a slowly crescendoing chorus ever since. Well, until the recent market tumult seemed to render such concerns uncouth at best and asinine at worst.

    That means it's salad days for Internet bubble deniers, the most eloquent and persistent of whom has been TechCrunch's Sarah Lacy. Her latest salvo came Tuesday, in a post titled: Good News! The Bubble that Never Inflated Has Popped.

    I like Sarah, but she's dead wrong on this. Not only about the bubble's existence, but also about its consequences.

    First, let me be clear that my intent isn't future vindication. Or relief that I didn't overlook a major market trend. In other words, I could care less about becoming the Internet bubble's Peter Schiff. Moreover, it's not exactly like I'm a lone wolf on this.

    Instead, I care because all bubbles ultimately pop (or at least deflate) -- and people get hurt in the resulting mess. Those responsible for the original inflation need to quickly recognize what they've done, own it and be sure to stop perpetuating it.

    Lacy argues that there are two types of bubbles: Economic and psychological. The recent housing bubble was an example of the former, while the tulip bubble of the 1630's was an example of the latter. The primary difference, she argues, is the type of impact. Economic bubbles, she says, cause actual pocketbook pain. Psychological ones, on the other hand, impact future behavior by eroding at societal trust. The 1990s Internet bubble, therefore, was a little bit of both.

    Adopting this dichotomy, I believe that the current Internet bubble is economic. It has been a private market phenomenon much more than a public market one. Specifically, too much money has gone into VC-backed Internet companies at too high a valuation, which will result in some economic hardships. Some data:

    • Law firm Fenwick & West reports that valuations for Silicon Valley venture financings rose 61% in Q4 2010. This was the sixth straight quarter in which their barometer showed an average valuation increase, including a 28% bump the prior quarter.

    • Thomson Reuters data indicates that pre-money valuations for VC deals in the U.S. tech sector have more than doubled since 2007.

    • MoneyTree reports that "Internet-specific" companies raised more first-round VC dollars in Q2 2011 than in any other quarter since Q4 2000.

    From a more anecdotal perspective, it's hard to find an early-stage VC who won't tell you Internet company valuations have been spiraling out of control. Just the other day, I quoted Alan Patricof as saying: "A lot of earlier-stage deals that would have been priced at $2 million six or twelve months ago have risen to $7 million pre-money." Another recently showed me a hockey-stick chart that I first thought was a startup's projected revenue, before he told me it was the average prices his firm had been paying for Internet deals.