Bubbles are typically very local and specific.
Tulip mania? Netherlands.
South Sea Bubble? England, although events in Spain played a role in unseating this one.
Dot Com Bubble? United States. (Though this fails the true "bubble" test, as the NASDAQ still operates today, and some of the individual stocks are still around at lower valuations.)
You could make a distinction between communication networks and the lack thereof, but the overriding point is, they're very localized. Enter Bitcoin. It is, by its very nature, global. It has also shown resilience in the face of rather volatile price movements. Bubbles don't inflate, pop, then re-inflate. They typically go to a minimal value - either just as good as zero, and/or interest fades completely and it isn't traded anymore.
Bitcoin has experienced multiple events in this regard. It isn't dead, it most certainly IS traded all over the world, and the adoption curve on a longer-term perspective certainly has some headroom. For Bitcoin to be a bubble, every single country in the world would have to been involved already, and every single participant would have to decide to not use it anymore after a period of brief excess.
I consider that probability to be extremely remote. But, it never stops the critics, does it.
Real estate bubble? It was global!
Also , at the time of the tulip bubble , Europe was the world.
With everything collapsing around of course people tend to say that anything that gains value and they don't have a clue about it is a bubble.
Nope the real estate bubble wasn't global. Many countries did have a bubble and crash between 2001-2007 e.g. Spain, Ireland, US. On the hand many countries didn't have any bubble e.g. Germany, Italy, Poland, Brazil. In other countries the bubble continues to grow from 2001 e.g. UK, Canada, France.
It looks like Germany might be starting to have a bubble at the moment but I think the point is clear, global real estate markets are not in sync. There's always property rising and falling somewhere in the world.
