| ▲ | shiandow 3 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 | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||