Quote from: NF414 on March 30, 2013, 12:03:10 PM

Quote from: tutkarz on March 30, 2013, 11:59:11 AM

Quote from: NF414 on March 30, 2013, 11:52:39 AM

Quote

That's my point, did you read the article?

What are you implying? That there was not a Tulip-Bubble in the 17th Century?

Regards, NF414

Sorry but your comparison is wrong. You showed graph but why not all but first half? If it would be a bubble then it would fall and never got up. But bitcoin not only incrased in price but is more worth than before.

Please elaborate a little more on what you mean. It does not come quite across.

Regards, NF414

It seems that the tulip bubble between October 1636 and February 1637 was not all it appears to have been. See the fascinating paper by Thompson: http://www.econ.ucla.edu/thompson/Document97.pdf

In short, the "bubble" was the result of a general (and correct) expectation that the law would be changed to allow buyers to cancel futures contracts if the spot price fell below the futures price. The only cost to the buyer would be a fee of a few percent of the futures price. This, in effect, compulsorily converted futures into call options. The result was simply that sellers of such "futures" contracts (now in reality call options) increased the contract prices 30 fold to reflect the fact that the "price" was now a strike price rather than a sale price. The underlying spot price in tulips hardly moved at all.