Abstract

Around the 1860s, technological advancements in transport, communication and warehousing, contributed to the emergence of world markets for many staple commodities (e.g., cotton, wheat). At the same time, the economic needs of the companies involved in this commercial revolution stimulated the growth of markets for securities and shares. The growing complexity of global markets created propitious conditions for the emergence of a class of professional speculators. Initially, the frenzy that accompanied this process seemed to confirm traditional views, which identified speculation with gambling. With time, however, a new scientific literature emerged. Focussing on the last decade of the nineteenth century up to the early 1920s in the UK and US, our analysis brings to light how contributors to this new literature made the case for speculation against conventional wisdom. In so doing, they were not blind to the downside effects of speculation as a possible source of resource misallocation. Nevertheless, they chose to emphasise its constructive side, basing their arguments on the case of commodity markets, where the idea of a long-run equilibrium price to be attained by speculation appeared plausible. They employed the same arguments in the case of the stock exchange, downplaying differences between the two markets although they were well aware of them. Thus economists played a crucial role in convincing policymakers of the beneficial effects of the new speculative instruments, against the hostility of a large part of public opinion. Futures and their use for the purpose of short selling, the most controversial of the new trading practices, were gradually accepted and regarded as legitimate commercial transactions. On the other hand, options continued to attract suspicion for a long time and to be kept in a limbo between disreputable and acceptable operations. The paper expands the existing literature on the subject by providing the first systematic reconstruction of the shared analytical arguments that, in spite of differences between authors and contexts, contributed to making speculation gradually accepted in the UK and US.

摘要

在1860年代前后，运输，通讯和仓储技术的进步推动了许多主要商品（例如棉花，小麦）的世界市场的兴起。同时，参与这场商业革命的公司的经济需求刺激了证券和股票市场的增长。全球市场日益复杂，为一类专业投机者的出现创造了有利条件。最初，伴随着这一过程的狂热似乎证实了传统观点，即通过赌博确定了投机行为。随着时间的流逝，出现了新的科学文献。着眼于英国和美国的19世纪最后十年直至1920年代初期，我们的分析揭示了这些新文献的贡献者如何提出反对传统智慧的推测。这样一来，他们就不会忽视投机活动可能造成资源错配的负面影响。然而，他们选择基于商品市场的情况来强调其建设性的一面，在这种情况下，通过投机获得长期均衡价格的想法似乎是合理的。他们在股票交易中采用了相同的论点，尽管他们很清楚这两个市场之间的差异，但它们却轻描淡写。因此，经济学家在说服政策制定者新的投机手段的有益影响，抵制大部分公众舆论的敌对情绪方面发挥了关键作用。期货及其以卖空为目的的用途，在最有争议的新交易方式中，逐渐被接受并被视为合法的商业交易。另一方面，选择权在很长一段时间内一直引起人们的怀疑，并一直处于信誉不佳和可接受的行动之间。本文通过提供对共享分析论据的第一个系统性重构，扩展了有关该主题的现有文献，尽管作者和上下文之间存在差异，但有助于使投机逐渐在英国和美国被接受。