What you know about tulip mania is mostly wrong. Tulip mania: the classic story of a Dutch financial bubble is mostly wrong
Good article. Certain agitators on this forum have screeched about tulipmania for years. Pity they got tulipmania all wrong. I was very surprised after reading what really happened.
Oh. But only people who bought last lost money? That’s exactly what a crash is. Those who get early usually are fine. Those who bought at the peak lost money. So same with tulips . Article explains pretty much the same. Maybe wasn’t as violent, maybe wasn’t as dramatic. Still was a bubble, still popped.
Noobieboy is right - it's not about those who bought bitcoin at $5 each (woohoo and brilliant timing) ... it's about those who buy at $23,000 each and then screech when the value drops by 50%. That's also what the Tulip bubble was - paying excessively in anticipation of the market going up, and getting caught when reality finally arrived
It appears there was a boom and a bust in prices though, Goldgar says that they still don't know what triggered the collapse According to Goldgar, we don't really know what ignited the sell-off. Though this is of course is true for many bubbles. She writes that one dubious source says it may have started with a deal gone bad in Haarlem. Others say buyers may have finally begun to blink at the stratospheric prices. The collapse also coincided with a minor plague that swept through the country. TULIPMANIA: The True Story Of How A Country Went Totally Nuts For Flower Bulbs And for some more light reading The Truth About Tulipmania [This article originally appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.] This site from the Netherlands Flower Bulb Information Center contains quite a bit of history about tulips. Including this timeline.
The point is that they were buying something that wasn't available yet, kind of like futures. And most people didn't really "lose" money as such, because no money was handed over until the product being traded became available. This is not your typical bubble/crash at all, as we have been lead to believe. None of the bulbs were actually available – they were all planted in the ground – and no money would be exchanged until the bulbs could be handed over in May or June. So those who lost money in the February crash did so only notionally: they might not get paid later. Anyone who had both bought and sold a tulip on paper since the summer of 1636 had lost nothing. Only those waiting for payment were in trouble, and they were people able to bear the loss.
Incorrect. Futures is a contract. It is a legal agreement to buy or sell something at a predetermined price at a specified time in the future. I sold you bulbs. You entered into contract with me. I am spending money to plant the bulbs you bought. Money lost. It depends on how enforceable is the futures contract. In my humble opinion, the writer knows nothing about economy.
I said "like" futures. Not the same as futures at all. And no one said no money was lost, just like it was nowhere near the scale that people claimed afterwards. So, since the author who actually reasearched this extensively has got it completely wrong, would you care to share your evidence about what actually happened?
Wikipedia gives a good view of this, with an explanation of why the bubble story was so widely believed. Tulip mania - Wikipedia
Looks like there are more similarities with crypto than Sydney property. It's funny too because certain posters on this forum have made wild claims about tulips that were never challenged. I guess we should not assume that wild claims made by ____ are accurate and let them go unchallenged.
