蕾茜对这类担心嗤之以鼻，她表示：“估价理应反映其未来前景，但这种前景有可能永远无法变成现实。风险资本家的本职工作就是冒险根据这样的估价下赌注。”

    此言不假，但并非一向如此。过去两年里，投资行为已经发生了改变。难道帕特里科夫投资的公司在过去半年里“未来前景”翻了2.5倍？或者由于市场形势一片大好，风险资本家欣喜若狂，被冲昏了头脑，而一头栽了进去而不能自拔？至少，根据以上数据，如果还说风险资本家是在依照估价进行投资就很难站得住脚了。

    我们再来看看蕾茜更为锋芒毕露的观点：即使风险资本家被冲昏了头脑（她并不相信存在这种可能性），也不等于就会形成泡沫，因为受到影响的只有“局内人”。不会出现大量美国人因此迅速破产、失业，需要向政府申请食物券的情形。

    她的看法忽略了一点：事实上，风险资本家并未将绝大多数风险资本用于投资。风投公司凯鹏华盈（Kleiner Perkins）和红杉资本公司（Sequoia Capital）等机构的投资活动基本上都是代表其他公司或个人进行的。这些机构或个人包括学校教师、非营利性基金会、大学捐款、以及公共养老金领取者等等。

    风险资本导致的投资泡沫殃及最深的是这些个人或者组织，而不是贝宝（PayPal）黑手党成员，后者具备较强的能力承受这类损失。风险资本中可能包括一小部分这类组织的投资组合，但是表现理应好于公共股票和债券的正是这部分投资组合。当预期中的最佳投资表现差强人意，投资人就得冒险承担巨大的未来债务。当然，这种泡沫造成的破坏力之深、范围之广尚无法与住房危机相提并论，但谁说泡沫一定得像海啸一样可怕？

    但我也不说互联网泡沫已经萎缩了，尽管有人这么说。公共市场一直以来过于动荡不安，因而难以对之做出长期性总结。而且，上周的首次公开募股大灾难基本上还是限于不太知名的股票发行商（让我们拭目以待，看下个月团购网站Groupon和社交游戏公司Zynga公开上市的情形会怎样）。此外，据报道，就在上周四，另外一家团购网站也以7亿美元的估价融到了资金（指专门面向儿童的团购网站Zulily——译注）。

    因此，或许此轮互联网泡沫已然宣告终结，或者它也可能仍然在持续中。无论是哪种情形，它都切实确在，而且不容忽视。

    译者：大海

   Lacy basically shrugs off such concerns, saying that "it's the job of a VC to make risky bets at valuations which are supposed to reflect future promise and may never materialize."such concerns, saying that "it's the job of a VC to make risky bets at valuations which are supposed to reflect future promise and may never materialize."

    True, but that's always been the case. What we've seen over the past couple of years is a change in investment behavior. Did the companies in Patricof's queue gain 2.5x in "future promise" over the past six months? Or have VCs gotten caught up in a market euphoria that has clouded their judgment? At the very least, the data makes it impossible to plausibly say that it's just been VC business as usual.

    So we move onto Lacy's more salient point: Even if venture capitalists have lost their heads (which she doesn't believe they have), it doesn't constitute a bubble because only "insiders" will be felled. No rash of Average Joe bankruptcies or mass layoffs or food stamp applications.

    What this ignores, however, is that venture capitalists don't actually invest the vast majority of venture capital. When firms like Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia Capital invest, they are mostly doing it on behalf of others. School teachers. Non-profit foundations. University endowments. Public pensioners.

    These are the people and groups who get most burned by a VC-fueled investment bubble. Not a few members of the PayPal mafia who can better afford to take the loss. Venture capital may only comprise a small part of such groups' investment portfolios, but it is the part that is supposed to outperform public equities and bonds. When expected alpha goes rotten, future obligations get put at risk. It's not as broadly-devastating as the housing crisis, but since when did a bubble have to be of the same mass as a tsunami?

    I also am not yet ready to say that the bubble has deflated, although others are beginning to make that case. The public markets have been too volatile to reach long-term conclusions, and the week's IPO debacle mostly was limited to low-profile issuers (let's wait until next month, when Groupon and Zynga are expected to price). Plus, just today another daily deals site raised money at a reported $700 million valuation.

    So maybe this Internet bubble is already over. Or perhaps it has a bit more runway. Either way, it is real. And it matters.