5 Economic Collapses More Ridiculous Than This One
These days, with all the pundits preaching doom and the impending collapse of society into some kind of Mad Max style wasteland, it's easy for us to imagine that the economy is as unhealthy as it's ever been.
But any historian would give you a hard backhanded smack for even saying that out loud. History is full of economic idiocy, and here are five economic collapses that make 2010 feel like the Renaissance.

Every Christmas, there's some "hot toy" that has parents standing in line in the wee hours of the morning, getting in fistfights, and paying 10 times retail on eBay--all for something the kid will get bored with a week later. But of course it's not about the kid, it's about the hunt.

The second most dangerous game.
The toy becomes valuable to them only because it is valuable to other people. It's a self-sustaining cycle of irrational stupidity.
But that phenomenon isn't new. In fact, a consumer craze (over flowers, of all things) created the very first recorded economic bubble, almost 400 years ago.
In the 1600s the tulip was still pretty new to the Netherlands, and they quickly became a Beanie Baby-style "must-have" item among people who had too much money to spend.

Tulips! I can't fucking believe it!
Now, as with most plants, tulips have a very specific growing season, so they weren't available to buy year round. But the Dutch wanted assurances right the hell now that they would own a tulip by year's end, so suppliers set up a futures market, which basically meant that in the off-season people could buy tulip IOUs to be exchanged for real tulips when said tulips actually grew.

Fun fact: A "Dutch tulip" is also a very fancy way to roll a joint.
And then people started playing the market and inflating the prices and, well, it was just a matter of time until things got really, really stupid.
What Went Wrong?
At the peak of trading in the early months of 1637, the futures market had gotten so out of hand that even a single tulip bulb had become ridiculously valuable. While no one really agrees just how insane the prices became, it's understood that some bulbs were trading for at least 10 times the annual wage of a skilled craftsman. That's 10 years' salary for one, solitary flower that just goes into the garden and sits there.

Get a job!
Eventually a whole lot of people stopped and said, "What the fuck are we doing?" and the bubble burst, the price of tulips falling back down to sane levels. The downside is that a whole bunch of people had locked themselves into tulip contracts during the height of the craze, and were therefore committed to handing over the family fortune for something that was worth about a buck fifty.

Financial ruin never smelled so sweet.

As ridiculous as the tulip thing sounds, at least those were physical objects that existed, and that people weren't throwing their money away on a purely imaginary idea.
Which brings us to France's Mississippi bubble.
In 1715, King Louis XIV of France finally keeled over and died of exhaustion from screwing France's economy for 72 years straight. Louis had also exhausted France's supply of gold via a series of costly wars and the small matter of having built himself a gilded palace that Liberace described as "a bit tacky."

Louis was eccentric to say the least.
By the time he was done, there wasn't enough gold left to sustain the minting of new coins.
A shrewd economist named John Law leapt to the aid of the nation by proposing a new concept he called a "bank", at which people could trade their heavy and primitive gold for colorful and exciting bank notes that were just as valuable, but easier to hide under mattresses and in bras.

What Went Wrong?
Unfortunately, the newly appointed regent of France didn't understand economics worth a damn, specifically the rule that money is supposed to represent things that are, you know, valuable. You can't circulate more money than can actually be exchanged for things of real value. They printed so much money that it represented five times more wealth than France actually had.
It wasn't long before the people became suspicious that they were actually walking around with their pockets full of Monopoly money. John Law knew he had to make a move, so he told everybody about an exciting new investment opportunity: the French colony of Louisiana in the not-yet-United-States.

After all, he said, just think of the piles of gold, precious gems and Mardi Gras beads that were sure to just be littering the Mississippi river. The people could invest their money in the venture, so that not only would the government obtain more concrete wealth, but it could quietly dispose of the ridiculous surplus of paper money and pretend the whole thing never happened.

Of course, it turned out Louisiana was a wretched, inhospitable swamp. Instead of fields of rubies, rivers aflow with diamonds and mountains made of solid gold, all the French found along the Mississippi were alligators, giant rats and a whole lot of gumbo.

It's still pretty much the same, but with more Saints fans.
Unfortunately the people of France had already invested their life savings in Louisiana shares, and were sitting around with big dumb smiles on their faces waiting for the ships to return to port laden with their promised riches.
When word got out that the only gold to be found in Louisiana was inside the mouths of hillbillies, people quickly offloaded their shares for a fraction of the original price, then trampled each other to death to run to the bank to change their paper money back into gold before it ran out and their notes became worthless.

At around the same time France was getting screwed over, Britain was also feeling the sting of government overspending. They looked at what was happening on the mainland with interest and decided that they would attempt a similar scheme, but haughtily pledged that they were too smart to fall into the same pitfalls that their old enemy had encountered. And they were right. Sadly, they just found different traps to impale their economy on.

Is there anything Mortal Kombat can't illustrate?
It was well known in Europe that, unlike the smelly armpit of North America that was the Louisiana bayou, there really was a shitload of gold to be had further South. There was so much gold there that the Aztecs actually valued feathers more highly. Someone just needed to go over there and trawl through the garbage bins of Tenochtitlan.

Cue the formation of the South Sea Company, which the British government granted exclusive trading rights to the whole of the super rich continent of South America. It came as no surprise that when shares in the company hit the market, they were snatched up in no time by eager speculators.
Rich and poor, everybody opened their wallets until basically the entire GDP of Britain was locked up in the South Sea Company's bank vaults. All they had to do was wait for the gold to come sailing in!
What Went Wrong?
There was of course the small detail that South America was largely owned and controlled by Spain. And when Britain politely asked to send their ships over to retrieve all of that spare garbage-gold, Spain said no.

Or as they say in Spain, "No."
The people of Britain thought for some reason that the King of Spain had recently decided to grant their British BFFs permanent unlimited use of their trading ports, which turned out to be a slight exaggeration. What the King actually said was that the South Sea Company could send over a single ship and then get the hell out. This wasn't secret information, but the masses chose to believe the ridiculous rumor over the documented truth, because it just made so much more sense that Spain would let them have all of the gold they wanted, for free.

M.C. Hammer would utilize similar logic centuries later.
When it eventually became abundantly clear that they had all been cripplingly retarded, shouts of "Buy! Buy!" turned quickly into screams of "Sell this flaming turd now!" and the stock plummeted. Most people couldn't give their shares away now, when just a week past they'd mortgaged their homes and sold all of their possessions just to have a hand in the "can't miss" company. This single venture completely crippled the British economy, and an entire generation nearly went bankrupt.








"Unfortunately, the newly appointed regent of France didn't understand economics worth a damn, specifically the rule that money is supposed to represent things that are, you know, valuable. You can't circulate more money than can actually be exchanged for things of real value. They printed so much money that it represented five times more wealth than France actually had.
ReplyIt wasn't long before the people became suspicious that they were actually walking around with their pockets full of Monopoly money."
But the federal reserve printing money like its going out of style,claiming that its backed by the "
good faith and credit" of a government that simply borrows money from other nations to pay for its wars and other "necessities",isn't a recipe for major economic collapse......
Bullshit.
Reply#4 sounds awfully current...
ReplyTulipmania is a little overblown. From records of the period, it didn't actually kick off any sort of major economic collapse. It looks like some individuals lost out, but the Dutch economy kept growing. And the suggestion is that it might've been more like a handful of rich society people dealing with the tulips, rather than the whole nation.
Reply"Think about that. At some point, a guy actually looked upon the last tree in existence, and made the conscious decision to cut that bastard down. What was he thinking?"
ReplyAnd this is why I worry about our future. We've got better machines than those silly folks on Easter Island.
Just wait, they will be laughing at us 200 years from now with our oil addiction.
ReplyWhy wait 200 years? Why wait another minute? Laugh now!
Mortal Kombat cannot illustrate the tender love between a man and his ass.
Reply"Diocletian introduced a new currency that was literally worth less than the material it was printed on."
Reply Hide All See All 7 RepliesIt still exists. It's called the penny. A penny actually costs 1.4 cents to make.
I sincerely doubt that.
As of 2010, it cost the U.S. Mint 1.79 cents to make a cent because of the cost of materials and production. - Wiki
"As of 2010, it cost the U.S. Mint 1.79 cents to make a cent because of the cost of materials and production." - Wiki
Upon looking it up - "As of 2010, it cost the U.S. Mint 1.79 cents to make a cent because of the cost of materials and production."
That's correct, but it doesn't contain more than 1.0 cents of the base metal.
Ah, but the penny plays a vital role as the smallest denomination. Without pennies, nickles would become the new pennies, and life would suck far more. So it's worth it in the end.
It's not the production cost that counts, it's the intrinsic value of the metal versus the value of the coin. Materials is only a part of the cost of making a coin. As long as the metal in a penny is worth less than 1 cent, people won't be tempted to melt it down, since they could get more for metal by using the coin to buy some.
"The new emperor Diocletian inherited the throne"
ReplyWell, for a given definition of "inherited." The "killed the previous emperor and plopped himself down in the blood-spattered seat" one.
The Roman definition.
i laughed more at that "invest in gold" ad at the bottom.
Reply"Note: Dollars don't melt easily" I lol'd
ReplyI finished reading about the South Sea bubble, and a foolish investment in gold. What was my ad for? Invest in Gold.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesThat's... that's not in any way the same. I mean, i get what you're saying, but, like, nah dog. Nah.
Investing in actual gold is one thing. Investing in gold that might not actually be there is quite another.
No, inveting in gold is bad. Or do you think that these companys are TRYING to lose money by swapping your useless cash for their awesome gold!!!
Great article. Funny how historic examples of societies collapsing from too much investment in health and education are harder to find.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesNo, but societies collapsing from too much 'investment' in government-run industries are pretty easy to come by.
Kinda how Europe is collapsing now and we are just going along WITH THEIR PLAN!!??!
Stupid liberals never learn anything. Every commie country collapses in front of their eyes and they refuse to draw any inferences.
And isn't it a contradiction that these left-wing idiots are all "indie" and not "down with the man" yet want Uncle Sam to own all of the citizens, the industry, and be the sole employer in the country?
The contradiction is that you're f*****g retarded and at the same time believe you can actually formulate a good opinion about anything.
What's truly amazing is the way people believe that things like "public schools" or "not leaving poor people to die in the streets" are bad ideas because "every communist country has failed". Pretty sure some capitalist countries have failed too, guys.
Capitalism and socialism are human inventions, like guns and cars. You can use them well, or drive into an orphanage shooting children... which, it turns out, is doing them a favor because it's a for-profit orphanage that was sending the poor brats to work in a sulfur mine.
Complete communism saps the competitive drive ("why should I work as hard as possible if I'll always get paid exactly as much as the guy barely meeting quota?"), whereas unchecked capitalism creates class warfare and seriously screws people not born into money. It makes sense to implement capitalism in areas where you need innovation, and it makes sense to temper that with some socialism to keep the society as a whole healthy, well-educated, and not-sending-kids-into-sulfur-mines.
damo: you sir, win.
one thing i like about using cracked: using bikini girls to illustrate a point, any point. It's like finding a quarter on the ground at random times.
ReplyI haven't even finished the article, but when I saw the picture of the Furby with the reference to "The Most Dangerous Game" I automatically fell in love.
Replylol at the targeted advertising on this page- long term stock ideas
ReplyI got one saying that Congressman Boehner will answer my questions.
the Rapa Nui are sorta like the Onceler from Dr. Suess' "The Lorax" (yes that sentence drove spell check apes**t!) He cut down all the Truffula trees to make thneeds (which everyone, everywhere needs!) and drove away all the Brown Bar-ba-loots (who frolicked and played in their Bar-ba-loot suits)
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesExcept the Onceler was a shameless bastard about getting money, which makes more sense to us because that's what we're socialized to do too, whereas these people were shameless bastard about... making giant stone heads whose significance is not readily apparent to us.
the Rapa Nui are sorta like the Onceler from Dr. Suess' "The Lorax" (yes that sentence drove spell check apes**t!)
Nice one.
Comment props!
Well, at least the thneeds didn't weigh 4000 pounds and people wanted them.
Doctor Seuss' Lorax was the first thing I thought about on #1. In fact, it could actually be the real-life version of the Lorax!
PomoSapien, the Rapa Nui stone heads are religious edifices in the same way our Federal Reserve Banks are religious edifices. Believing in the Almighty Allah or the Almighty Dollah ($) is not that different; it's a blind faith into an invisible prosperity-generating power. A "Get rich in your next life" scheme, if you prefer.
I saw a Easter Island Excavated Site with feet not sure if it was shopped or what anyone else see this pic?
Replyno but def shooped
Labour supporters love to whine about how Thatcher sold most of the recreational grounds, but cheerily neglect to mention that time when Gordon Brown sold over 60% of the country's gold reserves for rock-bottom prices just so the economy could see a small increase for a quarter of a year. How anyone can still support those traitors is beyond me - at least the Conservatives are honest about their intentions even if they are often s**t.
Reply Hide All See All 10 RepliesAnd yeah, before anyone asks - that post was indeed related to the article since Labour ended up obliterating the English economy and, although the recession was global and affected many other countries, England suffered it worse than a lot of places because Brown didn't think about, you know, maybe not spending several times more than was available and perhaps making sure there would be some left over in times of need. It's actually a shame in many ways that he didn't get re-elected, because at least then Labour would get total blame for it and their most hardline of supporters wouldn't now be trying pathetically to blame the new government for it - the same supporters who, of course, said none of it was Labour's fault since it was a worldwide problem.
Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble on like that. I'm not a conservative by any means but it makes me so furious that the supposedly 'ethical' left-wing party that cares for all people keeps raping its population and yet somehow manages to shoehorn the blame for their indiscretions onto whichever poor sods are brought in to clear everything up. Still, all of that pales in comparison to the Easter Island tale.
Having atchuly met Prime minister Brown when he came to my barracks, I can honestly say I'm sure his intentions were good, even if he made a mess.
No one cares about your strange bad toothed island.
America IS a socialist country, all Capitalist(and Communist) countries are really socialist, just differing degrees of it. Capitalism and communism don't actually exist in the human world, only the idea of one.
Just like money doesn't exist just the idea of it. Or life doesn't exist just the idea of it.
Here is your problem - You think Labour is a left wing party.
You are utterly wrong. They are a "centrist" meaning "slightly less right wing than their opposition" party. The same thing has happened to pretty much every western left wing party over the years.
Corporations bribe both sides of the house.
If another Cracked article is to be believed, the US did the same thing by deciding to get rid of our helium reserve for cheap, so by the middle of this decade when it's all gone you might need to cough up $100 to fill a child's balloon.
Actually, we're still ridding ourselves of precious helium on the cheap.
If we took a hint from Africa and regulated it to be "blood helium"(tm), we could stand to make a huge profit off something truly rare and useful (of which diamonds are neither).
Yes, the economy very much, tally ho old chum. MOAR BOOBIES!
Abject bollocks obee1; the economy showed consistent growth throughout the Labour years, the banking crisis started in the States, Brown used the exact same solution to avert it in the UK that Bush used in the US. National Debt was coming down, the NHS was well funded, the economy was showing stronger growth than any other major economy. Economies haven't been based on gold since the abandonment of the Gold Standard in the '60s. It wasn't real gold that was sold but "gold futures" and we were committed to surrendering it to the European Central Bank anyway under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty which this country was locked into by John Major. National Debt fell by nearly a third under Labour, growth was up and even in the face of a global economic meltdown when the great unthinking voted them out and a coalition of amateurs and liars in, we had a lower level of public debt and larger reserves (per capita) than any other major Western economy. In a single year of the ConDems, growth is hovering between zero and negative, government borrowing has skyrocketed, large companies have been allowed to "forget" their tax liabilities and services the ordinary taxpayer had already paid for have been slashed, theft in all but name and the OECD has marked the UK as the only one of the G9 to be heading for a double recession despite other members of the G9 being up to their eyeballs in the Euro debt crisis that is entirely manufactured by the banks anyway.
I'm really glad someone wrote this article. For some reason our collective memory in the US only seems to last as long as the election cycle. Who would argue that we're in worse shape than in the 1970's when we had hyperinflation and gas-lines?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesOur debt is much, much higher. So it could well be so argued.
I am 55, and I remember those days. It's a bit worse now. Also, we did NOT have 'hyperinflation'. Inflation was pretty high (low double-digit), however, HYPER-inflation means at LEAST triple-digit. At minimum.
What you mean is "Stagflation". High unemployment and high inflation, something unheard of before. Inflation usually occurred during periods of economic growth. But during the 1970s, the economy slowed but inflation rose.