I do not know with certainty if we are in the midst of a tech bubble. It feels like it — particularly with Uber in talks to raise funding at a $17 billion valuation — but I also felt that way when Microsoft invested in Facebook at a $1 billion valuation.
我不确定我们现在是不是处在高科技泡沫当中。打车软件Uber计划以170亿美元的估值进行新一轮融资，这让我感觉到了高科技泡沫，而微软（Microsoft）以10亿美元的估值投资Facebook，同样让我感觉到了泡沫的存在。
But I do know this: Whether or not we are in a tech bubble cannot be discerned by comparing today’s conditions to those of 2000.
但我可以确信的一点是：我们不能通过对比2000年的情况，来确定我们现在到底是不是存在高科技泡沫。
In her 2014 State of the Internet report, Mary Meeker acknowledged that there is some tech valuation “excess,” but then tried to allay fears by pointing out
在《2014年互联网趋势报告》（2014 State of the Internet）中，玛丽o米克尔承认，目前存在科技估值“过高”。但为了减轻人们的恐惧，她随后又指出：
* Tech IPO volume is 73% below peak 1999 levels.
*科技公司IPO总量比1999年的高峰期少了73%。
* NASDAQ is valued 18% lower than its March 2000 peak.
*纳斯达克的估值比2000年3月的高峰值低了18%。
* Venture capitalists invested 77% less in U.S. tech companies last year than they did in 2000.
*去年，风险投资家投资美国科技公司的规模比2000年减少了77%。
Conversely, there have been plenty of bubble believers who have written about the similarities between 2000 and today, in order to lend their argument further credence.
而与之相反，也有许多人相信高科技泡沫的存在，还撰文描述了2000年与今天的类似的地方，来为自己的观点提供更多证据。
But here’s the thing: Each bubble is unique. Each one has different causes and different magnitudes. Today’s tech market may indeed have crossed from “excess” into “bubble” territory, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will (or won’t) eventually help send the country into a recession (as the dotcom bust did in 2001). After all, sometimes bubbles pop and sometimes they just deflate. Or perhaps the fact that today’s tech landscape is so different than it was in 2000 — deep smartphone penetration, ubiquitous enterprise adoption, etc. — means that we could actually top 2000 in terms of things like IPO and VC volume without being in a bubble.
但有一点需要注意：每一个泡沫都是独一无二的。不同的泡沫有不同的原因和量级。如今的科技公司可能确实从“过高”进入到“泡沫”，但这并不意味着泡沫最终会（或不会）（像2001年互联网泡沫破灭那样）使美国陷入衰退。毕竟，泡沫有时候会膨胀，但有时却会缩小。或者因为如今的科技行业状况与2000年相比已经有很大不同，例如智能手机的深度渗透，以及广泛的企业采用率等，这些意味着即便IPO和风险投资的规模超过2000年，也不会出现泡沫。
There certainly is value in analyzing the past for clues to the future, but I think it’s dangerous to follow those clues into definitive conclusions. We’ll know our present-day condition with certainty once it’s in the rear-view mirror. Until then, let 2000 be its own bubble.
通过分析过去来探寻未来的线索，自然有重要的价值；但我认为，如果根据这些线索就得出决定性的结论，那是一种危险行为。只有当现在成为历史，我们才能确定无疑地知道当前的状况。在那之前，就不要拿2000年的泡沫来和现状对比了。