According to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl,
$8m in 1972 was the equivalent of $41m today. They had 4 partners then, so $10m in present day money per partner. That is definitely lower. Seems like the big funds have at least 4x that now.
When Kleiner Perkins was raising its first fund, it was not an established brand and the idea of venture capital was still very new. I suspect KPCB would have liked to raise more.
YC's first fund was a lot smaller than that. It just goes back to the point that you don't have to launch something with a $100m bling marketing budget to succeed. If the product/service is right, organic growth can happen very, very fast.
Wrong context. The amount of money raised is a function of how much money is chasing that particular kind of deal. A better context is the current cost of doing business. The inflation adjusted costs of computers, licensing, and marketing are all down. Therefore startups need less funding, not more.
People forget that there is a cost to receiving too much funding, which is that you now need a success that justifies the money spent. Which means that if you spot a viable opportunity which is smaller than that target, you can't explore it. Even though in other circumstances it could have been perfectly appropriate for that company.
For an interesting book that covers the dynamics of how over-funding kills success, I highly recommend The Innovator's Solution. It is a follow-up to The Innovator's Dilemma, but the discussion of how money distorts organizational dynamics is only in the sequel.
