5 ms·
We’re on year 13 of a pump and dump?
by travoc 5y ago
We’re on year 13 of a pump and dump?
- mmastrac 5y agoThe South Sea company bubble in the 1700s (arguably a similar circumstance) was ~9 years in, if I'm correct in my math. Tulip bubble was ~40 years in.
- reginold 5y agoTulip Mania: the classic story of a Dutch financial bubble is mostly wrong: https://theconversation.com/tulip-mania-the-classic-story-of-a-dutch-financial-bubble-is-mostly-wrong-91413 https://theconversation.com/tulip-mania-the-classic-story-of...
- mmastrac 5y agoWhile the story itself might be inflated, it still shows that a bubble doesn't have to be at the start of the market. And the South Sea company collapse far beyond its founding _definitely_ had ramifications.
- exdsq 5y agoI don't know if you read that link or have read elsewhere on the topic but modern economists argue the tulip mania thing wasn't even a bubble and if it was, it was far smaller than you probably assume. Even the wikipedia page covers these topics quite nicely.
- lancemurdock 5y agothe tulip bubble lasted like 8 months
- kjksf 5y agoAccording to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania it was more like 3 years: "contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels, with the major acceleration starting in 1634 and then dramatically collapsing in February 1637"
- mmastrac 5y agoFrom the same page -- the Tulip market didn't start at the time of the bubble. Their popularity and cultivation in the United Provinces (now the Netherlands)[32] is generally thought to have started in earnest around 1593 after the Southern Netherlandish botanist Carolus Clusius had taken up a post at the University of Leiden and established the hortus academicus
- protoax 5y agoThe dot-com bubble lasted around 10 years, increasing almost exponentially in the last 2-3. Subsequently dropped 80% and took 15 years to return to those prices.