Sorry this does not show that it was the governments fault. This shows that the money supply in the Netherlands was essentially based on precious metals without any government involvement. The only thing the bank of Amsterdam did was keep the gold and silver in a central place and issue a receipt for it, so that people could more easily trade with the receipts rather than the actual gold. In fact this situation is pretty close to the gold standard that Chicago school people yearn about. Thus, any increase of the money supply was caused by the free market for precious metals not due to any govt involvement. So it is not "the government's fault."

Also the tulip mania cannot be explained by an increase of money supply. If that is the reason than why only tulips? If there is inflation and the market behaves efficiently and rationally everything should have gone up in price not only tulips. Why for example did one contemporary state that tulips became more expensive than the ground they were grown in? If the only reason is inflation, than the ground the tulips were grown on would increase in price proportionally to the tulips.

Thanks for the link. Interesting analysis.

Still, I think it proves my point that you can always blame the government if you want to.

In my view, the reasoning has one major flaw. If money supply was the cause, then why weren't there other bubbles in addition to tulipmania?

If you correctly identify the cause, then it should be both sufficient and necessary for the result. If the cause was the Dutch monetary policy, then there should have been other bubbles contemporary with the monetary policy.

As far as I understand it, the tulipmania did not cause a recession or depression even if some very rich people lost all their money. If the author's reasoning was correct, then there should have been other bubbles caused by the same government policy.