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

70 points by dotcoma 3 hours ago

silotis 2 hours ago

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-...

Hilliard_Ohiooo 43 minutes ago

So many of these articles get it completely wrong. Economically. People weren't going crazy for tulips just because, the government had incentivized investment in tulips. The government at the time basically told people that they could not lose money on investing tulips. It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania which it was not.

kaon_2 15 minutes ago

Does it make sense to talk about "the government" in this age? It probably misguides us more than informs us. I've always felt the perception of government at the time is closer to our perception of the captain of the local football team - at best distant and upholding the honor of the village, at worst a thief with a title - rather than how we view it today. Authority of information lay with the church. Maybe replace by "Persons of wealth in positions of power"?

cucumber3732842 23 minutes ago

>It should be a story about governments misallocating resources. That's it, but people quit. Keep twisting it into a story of psychology and mania which it was not.

The fact that it's marketed as a story about psychology and mania rather than government policy gone awry is arguably itself a story about psychology and mania.

People have a need to feel like the forces that control them know what they're doing.

stingraycharles 20 minutes ago

roenxi 44 minutes ago

It is also worth pointing out how patchy the price data seems to be. Looking at Wikipedia [0] it seems like there isn't much actual evidence and the exciting part of the bubble was 6 months.

I expect the people involved cared a lot, but it looks like more of a cool curio than an event that could have had serious fallout. Paying $200k for a tulip looks quite tame compared to Blue Poles.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

namdnay an hour ago

Really interesting article, thanks!

iambateman an hour ago

Maybe we should update our lexicon to "NFT mania" –– far more people lost money in that phenomenon.

brap an hour ago

At least in the tulip case, they actually had some minor value. You owned a pretty flower. You could also make the case for crypto money, I guess.

Any person with common sense and basic technical understanding could tell you NFTs were an incredibly dumb and useless idea from the very start. All you “own” is an entry on some ledger, which doesn’t inherently give you ownership over anything else.

vmg12 18 minutes ago

Using your reasoning a large number of collectible items should be worthless. What really makes an NFT different from a Pokemon card, a Birkin bag, or even an original Monet? My guess is that the seller has to have some sort of authority and established reputation for these kinds of artificially scarce luxury goods to maintain value.

im3w1l 14 minutes ago

hodder 35 minutes ago

Exact same argument for crypto though. It is all just supply demand. BTC has much more demand currently and likely more sustainably. Alt coins are just less popular. It is all just supply vs demand.

root-parent 35 minutes ago

>> All you “own” is an entry on some ledger, which doesn’t inherently give you ownership over anything else.

No different from bitcoin...

jMyles 19 minutes ago

I'm not really convinced that people thought there was "anything else", it's just that people thought that the entry on the ledger was going to increase in value, even from some of the stupifying initial values.

I own several NFTs that are important to me, and they're worth every penny I paid. I never had any illusions that I owned anything other than a historical footnote; I think that this sort of ownership is meaningful and important.

It's much more realistic to me than "buying a song" from one of the corporate music distributors. "Owning" a song seems to be much more of a misunderstanding of how data works in a digital world than owning an entry in a ledger.

amelius 7 minutes ago

> when a single flower was worth more than a house

Yeah but housing prices weren't as crazy as they are now.

graeme 2 hours ago

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, but does anyone have better knowledge of the state of our understanding of the history of tulip prices?

Edit: the top comment provided what I had been thinking of. My account above about profits wasn't right, because the trades were never fulfilled. When prices went too high, people didn't honour their contracts and that was that. No one went bankrupt. And as the bulb owners had bought at lower prices they also were fine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48322546

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...

xnorswap 2 hours ago

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".

JKCalhoun an hour ago

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

danbruc an hour ago

According to Copilot you can get one or two offspring per year from a tulip. So if you spent the price of a really nice house on one of those, it will take you quite some time to multiply the price down into reasonable territory. And even if you stay in unreasonable price territory, an average home, it is one thing to find a buyer for one tulip at that price, it is a very different thing to find a bunch of them. And you are still looking at three, four, five years of tulip growing to get the price down to a tenth of what you paid.

jansan 2 hours ago

By that definition every pyramid scheme is rational (of course only until you run out of greater fools).

toenail an hour ago

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.

gbear605 an hour ago

shiandow 2 hours ago

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

somenameforme 2 hours ago

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 reasonable chance of making a profit, and even if you didn't make a profit then you'd stand an even more reasonable chance of getting out with fairly minimal losses. Nobody thought there was any remotely high chance of a poor quality rendering of an ape being worth more than a house for the indefinite future. It was just speculation, sometimes poorly and sometimes reasonably measured.

ses1984 35 minutes ago

bri3k an hour ago

tardedmeme 2 hours ago

watwut an hour ago

vasco 2 hours ago

There are so many of these breeding ponzi schemes every few years. Guinea pigs, "rare" snakes, long distance pigeons, you name it. They are all ponzis regardless of the animal reproducing, with the added benefit that instead of just being part of a financial scam you can also be part of animal abuse, because most people don't give two shits about the animal, mess it up, abandon them later, etc.

renegade-otter 28 minutes ago

Perhaps beanie babies is an example that we actually know about.

TheOtherHobbes 26 minutes ago

I wonder if there are more recent examples?

dalben 25 minutes ago

NFTs

renegade-otter 16 minutes ago

phaser 39 minutes ago

I didn't learn anything about tulips, markets, or the tulip market in this article.

root-parent 34 minutes ago

If you want to learn about crowd insanity read Nietzsche, if you want to learn about bubbles read about 1998 to 2001 and the current AI bubble. Both were and will be worst than 1929.

hootz 2 hours ago

You know, we also have the tulips of our time...

walthamstow an hour ago

We've had loads of tulips this century, from beanie babies to NFTs

dude250711 an hour ago

Once OpenAI/Anthropic IPO, until then it's not a perfect analogy.

wiseowise an hour ago

I'm all for shitting on hyperscalers, but let's not compare LLMs to tulips/NFTs.

root-parent 28 minutes ago

conartist6 an hour ago

ian_holt 15 minutes ago

I better not show my beautiful, flower-loving wife this article. We already have enough flowers (and I would like to be able to keep our home)

1970-01-01 2 hours ago

throw0101c 40 minutes ago

When Quinn and Turner wrote their book Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles they concluded Tulipmania was not a bubble and so did't include it:

* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/48989633-boom-and-bus...

Quinn did an AMA when the book was published (2020):

* https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/i2wfsm/i_am_...

* Book talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLl3Ijb01I0

Garber does have it though, along with Mississippi and South Sea:

* https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262571531/famous-first-bubbles/

See also perhaps Perez's book on tech hype and bubbles (starting with Canalmania):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Revolutions_and_...

pedrocr 14 minutes ago

In the AMA you link they say the tulip mania was probably a bubble just not a major one that impacted the economy meaningfully.

expedition32 19 minutes ago

It's funny to me as a Dutch citizen that all of our cultural heritage comes from abroad. Even cheese was apparently invented on the Asian steppes.

baobabKoodaa an hour ago

Subject is very interesting but this article does a poor job exploring it

Bengalilol 2 hours ago

jpmattia an hour ago

Manias, Panics, and Crashes by Charles Kindleberger is a more modern book, which I'd recommend as well.

ck2 an hour ago

ah there's a good term

so "AI" mania ("AI" derangement syndrome?)

when ram and storage starts to cost as much as rent or a car eventually

now we just wait for the bubble collapse and lots of cheap hardware even if slightly used

rvz an hour ago

Now we have startups that have 0 revenue, 0 product and 0 cash flow now somehow being worth over a billion which is more than mansions.

andsoitis an hour ago

> we have startups that have 0 revenue, 0 product and 0 cash flow now somehow being worth over a billion

What is one such example?

rvz 9 minutes ago

Many such prominent examples such as Thinking Machines, SSI and AMI Labs and many others like them.

Of course, the only reason for this 'valuation' is because of the founding team but that is just not enough.

This is still a crystal clear bubble.

hodder an hour ago

We do this now with something even less intrinsically valuable than tulips: BTC.

It all just comes down to supply and demand.

ACV001 2 hours ago

Similar articles in the future. "Bitcoin mania: when a single bitcoin was worth more than a house"

toenail an hour ago

Similar articles from the past: "Bitcoin mania: when a single bitcoin was worth more than a pizza"

gosub100 an hour ago

Bored ape

irishcoffee 2 hours ago

It feels so much worse to me. You could at least hold a tulip bulb, plant it, look at it, smell it, and it was a real thing.

The closest you can get to that with bitcoin would be what? Print out your keypair? Maybe write it down on fancy stationary using fancy calligraphy? (Never do these things)

tempoponet 9 minutes ago

- You can send any amount of money to anyone in the world very quickly and cheaply, and nobody can stop you.

- No government can dilute it or limit its supply.

Stuff like that. Maybe that matters to you, maybe not, but BTC was created because that didn't exist. And even if you don't use it, you're living in a world where financial institutions have to live alongside an alternative that does these things, for whatever that's worth.

zulux 2 hours ago

Convert it to drugs. With the right combination, you can talk to Mr. Bitcoin.