> the labour market has not much to do with whether it is a bubble or not

How can the very market we're talking about not indicate whether there is a bubble in that market or not? Do you think we should be looking at the price of soybeans instead?

> definition of bubble is that the market cap must precipitously reduce, which it hasn't.

Incorrect. It has, just not by very much. Which isn't surprising as we already established that there wasn't a crash.

▲

simianwords 2 days ago | parent [-]

What is your definition of bubble then? If not by market cap?

▲

9rx 2 days ago | parent [-]

Why read comments in isolation? We already went over this:

- Rapid price appreciation

- Speculation

- A disconnect from fundamentals

- Widespread media attention

- An eventual correction

If market cap, how do you explain housing bubbles? Market cap is not applicable to housing.

▲

simianwords 2 days ago | parent [-]

of course market cap of housing went down! individual houses fell down in price.

that didn't happen for tech stocks. you are making your own definitions of bubble - the sufficient thing to happen is for the market cap to go down precipetously which it didnt.

	▲	9rx 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> of course market cap of housing went down! individual houses fell down in price. Traditionally, market cap only refers to companies. I accept your pet definition that includes any kind of market, but then we can apply it to the software development market just the same. Individual software developers have fallen in price. There was not a significant drop, but a slow decline. > that didn't happen for tech stocks. Nor gold. But what does that have to do with the software development market? Are you under the impression that stock certificates write code?