3 ms·

I don’t know what you’re getting at. It would be like trying to better understand the microeconomic factors behind Beanie Babies. It’s an exercise in futility.

I don’t know what you’re getting at. It would be like trying to better understand the microeconomic factors behind Beanie Babies. It’s an exercise in futility. They’re toys and they ended up being resold at prices that made no sense to the common man. Of all the endless knowledge that humanity produces, you have to ask yourself whether or not there’s meaning in pursuing topics endlessly. They’re flowers. This isn’t a discussion about some ECON 500-level course topic. There’s an academic argument to be had about whether or not the accounts of the event are credible, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

vmception 6y ago
> This isn’t a discussion about some ECON 500-level course topic. It is. > There’s an academic argument to be had about whether or not the accounts of the event are credible, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. It is. You brought it up. You threw in conjecture. And every rebuttal is more complex than you decided to be willing to pursue. That doesn't become false by saying we aren't talking about something that we absolutely are, and all of your hyperbole keeps reinforcing your willing self-proclaimed but obvious ignorance.
- andrewmcwatters 6y ago
  Yeah, I’m ignorant and flowers can be planted by anyone, so great conversation. If you really want to have discussions with people maybe try not to focus on meaningless pedantry. Your side of the argument is ad hominem. I’m ignorant. OK, great, what’s your point? I should rethink tulips. Why? You don’t actually make an argument yourself; sure I spouted off some things I think are generally bad because my statements imply you’re not going to find long-term returns from that type of “investing,” but are you not also spouting off some points of your own?
  - vmception 6y ago
    Okay. Truce, one last "ad hominem" and I'll move on > Of all the endless knowledge that humanity produces, you have to ask yourself whether or not there’s meaning in pursuing topics endlessly. This is a verbose way of saying ignorance. Okay moving on. My real argument is that Tulip mania is actually the worst poster child of speculative bubbles, as the spot market was largely unaffected and for a brief period of time the futures market became very divorced. It also ended with a local bubonic plague, which means the speculators died, so we don't really know if there was merit to the future delivery or not. Also public policy played a role in the futures contracts, and for that I would have to brush off more literature to expound upon. But the idea in popular culture is quite wrong. I personally did not comment on beanie babies and ignored it. My first inclination on that speculative bubble is that it was silly, but I didn't comment on it because I don't know if there were supply and demand conditions to support it, and such imbalances can occur in any asset class whether there is utility or not. Regarding crypto in the light of other speculative asset price bubbles, even ignoring the utility that it does have for a broader and broader set of people, the staying power alone has defeated the bubbles you mentioned. But to counter the lowest hanging rebuttal of "but it can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" you have to then counter in how the utility does address a wider and wider market. Its not just a payments, it is far beyond payments right now, and all of these crypto assets inherit the payments capability.
    - vmception 6y ago
      > My first inclination on that speculative bubble is that it was silly, but I didn't comment on it because I don't know if there were supply and demand conditions to support it So I researched the Beanie Babies bubble and it also does not seem irrational. Ty Warner encountered a temporary supply chain problem and announced that was permanent, and this was not priced in as in, nobody expected that. Beanie Babies did have high sales before this, and people wanted ones they couldn't get. The Beanie Babies bubble burst when Ty Warner flooded the market with too many variants at once. He didn't know it at the time and was also more interested in his own revenue. It is not irrational if the traders factored in the possibility of the market being flooded. Does that include the infamous tale of a divorced couple splitting their Beanie Babies investments on a family courtroom floor? I don't think that matters. This is a hallmark of all markets, a spot commodity that there is more of. Beanie Babies traded at their retail value after Christmas 1999. It is possible to have sustained above market value, such as with diamonds. Maintain the scarcity properly at the expense of near term revenues. In relation to crypto, the market doesn't become diluted just because there is "more cryptos", the digital commodities that have known immutable supply and market share occasionally have supply shocks and are expected to have them at greater amplitude. At this point, I can only draw the line of irrational exuberance at equities and credit market bubbles. And even then, only sometimes. So that gives us South China Sea bubble, and the 90s Tech bubble in the Nasdaq.
  - nadahalli 6y ago
    There's your argument for Bitcoin. It cannot be planted by anyone, like tulips. Its supply cannot be increased arbitrarily. Tulips, in fact, could be a bit more complicated. Bitcoin is quite simple that way. Spent electricity is stored and traded - and is a good yardstick to measure other things, etc. etc.
    - simpss 6y ago
      wouldn't storing electricity mean that you're able to take some out of storage & use that stored electricity? I don't see a way to turn bitcoin back into electricity. One could exchange bitcoin to fiat currency and then buy new electricity(created from a different source) but that's not really using stored electricity.
      - nadahalli 6y ago
        That's true. It's a verifiable "burn of electricity". The only upside to the burning is the verifiability. If there was some other way to generate this verifiable scarcity of something that we all agree on (electricity is kind of universal, that way), that would be better - obviously.
solveit 6y ago
Oh come on, I'll bet you that there were in fact numerous 500-level Topics in Economics courses on precisely speculative asset bubbles with tulip mania as a central case study.

vmception 6y ago

> This isn’t a discussion about some ECON 500-level course topic. It is. > There’s an academic argument to be had about whether or not the accounts of the event are credible, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. It is. You brought it up. You threw in conjecture. And every rebuttal is more complex than you decided to be willing to pursue. That doesn't become false by saying we aren't talking about something that we absolutely are, and all of your hyperbole keeps reinforcing your willing self-proclaimed but obvious ignorance.

andrewmcwatters 6y ago
Yeah, I’m ignorant and flowers can be planted by anyone, so great conversation. If you really want to have discussions with people maybe try not to focus on meaningless pedantry. Your side of the argument is ad hominem. I’m ignorant. OK, great, what’s your point? I should rethink tulips. Why? You don’t actually make an argument yourself; sure I spouted off some things I think are generally bad because my statements imply you’re not going to find long-term returns from that type of “investing,” but are you not also spouting off some points of your own?
- vmception 6y ago
  Okay. Truce, one last "ad hominem" and I'll move on > Of all the endless knowledge that humanity produces, you have to ask yourself whether or not there’s meaning in pursuing topics endlessly. This is a verbose way of saying ignorance. Okay moving on. My real argument is that Tulip mania is actually the worst poster child of speculative bubbles, as the spot market was largely unaffected and for a brief period of time the futures market became very divorced. It also ended with a local bubonic plague, which means the speculators died, so we don't really know if there was merit to the future delivery or not. Also public policy played a role in the futures contracts, and for that I would have to brush off more literature to expound upon. But the idea in popular culture is quite wrong. I personally did not comment on beanie babies and ignored it. My first inclination on that speculative bubble is that it was silly, but I didn't comment on it because I don't know if there were supply and demand conditions to support it, and such imbalances can occur in any asset class whether there is utility or not. Regarding crypto in the light of other speculative asset price bubbles, even ignoring the utility that it does have for a broader and broader set of people, the staying power alone has defeated the bubbles you mentioned. But to counter the lowest hanging rebuttal of "but it can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" you have to then counter in how the utility does address a wider and wider market. Its not just a payments, it is far beyond payments right now, and all of these crypto assets inherit the payments capability.
  - vmception 6y ago
    > My first inclination on that speculative bubble is that it was silly, but I didn't comment on it because I don't know if there were supply and demand conditions to support it So I researched the Beanie Babies bubble and it also does not seem irrational. Ty Warner encountered a temporary supply chain problem and announced that was permanent, and this was not priced in as in, nobody expected that. Beanie Babies did have high sales before this, and people wanted ones they couldn't get. The Beanie Babies bubble burst when Ty Warner flooded the market with too many variants at once. He didn't know it at the time and was also more interested in his own revenue. It is not irrational if the traders factored in the possibility of the market being flooded. Does that include the infamous tale of a divorced couple splitting their Beanie Babies investments on a family courtroom floor? I don't think that matters. This is a hallmark of all markets, a spot commodity that there is more of. Beanie Babies traded at their retail value after Christmas 1999. It is possible to have sustained above market value, such as with diamonds. Maintain the scarcity properly at the expense of near term revenues. In relation to crypto, the market doesn't become diluted just because there is "more cryptos", the digital commodities that have known immutable supply and market share occasionally have supply shocks and are expected to have them at greater amplitude. At this point, I can only draw the line of irrational exuberance at equities and credit market bubbles. And even then, only sometimes. So that gives us South China Sea bubble, and the 90s Tech bubble in the Nasdaq.
- nadahalli 6y ago
  There's your argument for Bitcoin. It cannot be planted by anyone, like tulips. Its supply cannot be increased arbitrarily. Tulips, in fact, could be a bit more complicated. Bitcoin is quite simple that way. Spent electricity is stored and traded - and is a good yardstick to measure other things, etc. etc.
  - simpss 6y ago
    wouldn't storing electricity mean that you're able to take some out of storage & use that stored electricity? I don't see a way to turn bitcoin back into electricity. One could exchange bitcoin to fiat currency and then buy new electricity(created from a different source) but that's not really using stored electricity.
    - nadahalli 6y ago
      That's true. It's a verifiable "burn of electricity". The only upside to the burning is the verifiability. If there was some other way to generate this verifiable scarcity of something that we all agree on (electricity is kind of universal, that way), that would be better - obviously.

solveit 6y ago

Oh come on, I'll bet you that there were in fact numerous 500-level Topics in Economics courses on precisely speculative asset bubbles with tulip mania as a central case study.