Live data from Hacker News

Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)

dutchreview.com

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)

#21
post #14

The brief mention that the fallout wasn't as disastrous as myth would have it greatly understates just how exaggerated the popular account of tulip mania is. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...

Really interesting article, thanks!

Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)

#26
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking because you think the LSAT is at odds with the article's description of the mania? Because it is not.

The article suggests people genuinely believed a tulip was, implicitly for the foreseeable future, worth more than e.g. a house. That suggests it was some sort of mania over rationality. The NFT thing is comparable. I think most of everybody investing understood that they were worthless and that it was a bubble, but there was a remote chance that it wasn't a bubble and even if it was a bubble then you'd still a reaso…

It is called the Greater Fool theory. I know that it is a foolish purchase, it true value is less than what I paid for. But there is a greater fool out there that will pay more.

Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)

#27
post #8
post #3

I teach the LSAT and one of the passages is famously about this mania and contends that it was actually rational. You paid a high price for a tulip bulb, planted it, and then sold the descendants which paid off the original price. The narrative from this article seems to be largely based on Thackeray's book from 1841. Wikipedia suggests the LSAT passage is modern scholarly received wisdom at least in some quarters, b…

That logic has a glaring flaw, that while tulips might be in short supply, the price is driven by everyone else doing that too, so there'll be a glut of new blubs in the future, so the future price shouldn't be assumed to be the current price. Anything self-replicating can't hold to "current price best predicts future price".

The Hunt Brothers (re)learned this with silver in the 70's. (80's?)

Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)

#28
post #8
post #3

I teach the LSAT and one of the passages is famously about this mania and contends that it was actually rational. You paid a high price for a tulip bulb, planted it, and then sold the descendants which paid off the original price. The narrative from this article seems to be largely based on Thackeray's book from 1841. Wikipedia suggests the LSAT passage is modern scholarly received wisdom at least in some quarters, b…

That logic has a glaring flaw, that while tulips might be in short supply, the price is driven by everyone else doing that too, so there'll be a glut of new blubs in the future, so the future price shouldn't be assumed to be the current price. Anything self-replicating can't hold to "current price best predicts future price".

[deleted]

Re: Tulip mania: when a single flower was worth more than a house (2025)

#29
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the pyramid scheme here? The Netherlands are the top producers of tulips today, seems like a sustainable business. A temporary inefficiency in markets does not make a pyramid scheme.

Pyramid schemes are defined by the price and structure. A business that sells knives is a fine business. A business that sells overpriced knives by promising that you can then find someone else to sell more knives for you at an even higher price is a pyramid scheme. Selling tulips is a fine business. Selling tulips at an insanely high price by promising that the market for tulips will keep on expanding and increasing…

Cutco?
Post reply on HN