In this case, the video uses the term bubble specifically as it was used to describe the tech bubble in the late 90s. The video offers a number of cues to suggest this is the intended meaning of the word.
There will always be overvaluations and undervaluations in the stock market. That's the nature of investment risk. What's missing here is a widespread pattern. This is like worrying that Xerox was overvalued for their Palo Alto Research lab-- a valid concern for Xerox stockholders maybe, but no concern at all for the rest of the world.
We're debating what this all means.
"this is an economic bubble as defined by the mere fact that companies are being valued (privately or publicly) too high"
When you say "bubble" you strongly suggest the current situation somehow compares to what happened in 2000. It doesn't compare.
Yes, this is my only argument. The rest -- that it doesn't matter very much if Facebook goes under -- is obvious enough that I'm not bothering to mention it much. A bubble burst, to most of us, means disaster based on foolishness. There really isn't very much foolishness going on right now.
Just because it doesn't match the hysterics exhibited back in the 90's doesn't disqualify this. And it seems your only argument has been that. I also found your analysis of dot-com companies back then to be lacking.
Personally I don't think it really matters, there are way more important economic issues that needs to be addressed, be it the real estate bubble, credit meltdown, or the war America is engaged in.
Also, for what it's worth: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116679843912957776-fF...
And PS: I own Apple stock. And yes, it is greatly overvalued. And I love it.