Didn't you just black-hole the fourteen years in between when comparing valuations? :)
Also, even if we go along with your line of reasoning and the net worth of the survivors pretty much equals the net worth of all the internet companies in 2000, that still means that almost 99% of the internet companies were worthless and all the venture capital poured therein lost. Still sounds very much like a bubble, no?
> If we add up all the value of the survivors, maybe we come to the conclusion that there was no bubble?
Factoring in inflation would that still be true? Do the internet companies make up a significant percentage of the stock market like they did in 2000? Is this comparison even valid since I'd expect the tech/internet sector to have grown significantly as the internet has matured since 2000?
I would argue that most of the value of those companies was created post-bubble.
Apple is not an internet based company. Facebook's stock is privately held for the most part. Half of Google's publicly held stock is non-voting. The founder's class B shares carry 10 votes apiece.
Your syllogism doesn't work. The dot-com bubble wasn't "the ultimate promise of the Internet". It was the irrational valuations assigned to a specific set of unsustainable business models popularized in the late 90s, and driven by pre-profit and often pre-revenue companies going directly to the public market for liquidity.