The fundamental premise of the tulip bubble is that tulips can be supplied unlimitedly and the threshold is not high. When the price of tulips soared, the demand increased dramatically and the supply could not keep up in the short term, so supply and demand became unbalanced and prices continued to rise. As a result, more and more people cultivated tulips, resulting in a further imbalance in demand and a further surge in prices.
But what is the situation with BTC? BTC has skyrocketed, demand has skyrocketed, and the number of miners has skyrocketed, and BTC production has skyrocketed, but there is still a threshold for miners, so supply is still not as good as demand in the short term, so BTC supply and demand are further unbalanced. Later, due to monetary tightening, BTC prices began to fall, demand plummeted, and the number of miners began to increase dramatically as the production capacity of mining machines increased, so BTC prices plummeted, but after the plunge, the money supply began to surge, so BTC supply and demand were unbalanced again, and this happened repeatedly.
So the core is that the supply of BTC cannot continue to grow rapidly, but the supply of currency is growing continuously, so we can see that BTC is rising in a long-term bottom-up and fluctuating manner, rather than rising continuously without looking back.
Looking back at the history of China's real estate, it was the same. When there was an imbalance between supply and demand and a large increase in supply was needed, the governments of Shanghai, Shenzhen and other places chose to restrict supply, and mainly allocated land for commercial use rather than residential use, artificially creating hunger marketing. Therefore, the so-called real estate speculation was not caused by the Wenzhou real estate speculation group, but by the local government. Now, I don't know who the so-called "houses are for living, not for speculation" is aimed at. After all, under the purchase restriction, the real estate speculation group cannot hoard houses, but the current policy does not restrict it, and even encourages local governments to sell less land in the short term.
The current housing price drop is not because there is enough supply of houses. In fact, the supply of houses is also structural. Second-hand houses are not homogeneously supplied. The current housing price drop is mainly because M1 is too low, that is, M1 is very low when M2 is extremely high, which means that money is not flowing, and everyone's risk appetite is extremely low, and expectations have deteriorated. In the future, as long as there is a way to stimulate M1, according to the current land supply, it must be a surge in the first-tier cities. (The inventory is extremely low, but it is expected that it will not be easy to sell in the future, so the supply is also continuing to decline.) Of course, they may not stimulate M1, and they don't even dare to stimulate M1 now, because they also know that if they don't stimulate M1, the economy will get worse and worse, but once M1 is stimulated, the housing prices in the first-tier cities will go up, and all the previous efforts will be wasted. That's why they want both now, and keep stimulating, but it has no effect, because they dare not take real action.
Demand is determined by price and currency, while supply is different. Therefore, every time money is distributed, the first things to increase in price are those with rigid supply, monopoly, and particularly elastic demand, such as Hermes, Rolex, Moutai, and houses, because these are limited in supply and use hunger marketing. When the prices fall, it is mainly second-hand goods from speculative funds that begin to pour out.
