>>The tulipmania ended without disaster.<<
bill, how do you square what you said above with the following? based on this information, i've still seen no evidence that a bubble ended without a disaster, your statement to the contrary notwithstanding.
workers.org
>>"The fever kept on getting wilder and wilder until suddenly at the beginning of 1637 the market cracked. In a few days hundreds were ruined. The losses were such that the whole credit system, not merely for tulips, was endangered.<<
>>The collapse of the tulip market was a national catastrophe for Holland and had its reverberations in London, Paris, and other parts of Europe as well.<<
britannica.com
>>Almost overnight the price structure for tulips collapsed, sweeping away fortunes and leaving behind financial ruin for many ordinary Dutch families.<<
sunwayco.com
>>Many businesses and financial institutions closed their doors, never to reopen. The whole country was left impoverished.
The aftermath. In some ways, Holland never fully recovered from tulip mania. There were so many bankruptcies that the national treasury was exhausted as tax revenues plunged. The Dutch army and navy had to be dramatically reduced as there was no money to pay for them. As a result, Holland lost many of its overseas colonies.
New York is New York, and not New Amsterdam, because of tulip mania. In the 1640s, England was able to take New Amsterdam away from the Dutch without firing a shot since there was no Dutch army or navy left in the New World to defend it.<<
this appears to fit a rational person's definition of "disaster," inho. |
