Summary This contribution discusses the ambivalent role of the telephone in commodity futures trading. On one hand, the telephone proved to be useful in commodity futures trading since it was easier to use than the telegraph; on the other, it helped to spread prejudices about the commodity futures business. Indeed, this became a political issue in the 1890s as reforms were demanded. The large agrarians of Prussia in the East were particularly interested in these reforms. Above all, the marginal trading deriving from commodity futures was accused of being ‘unfair business’ and provoked great controversy among jurists before 1891. The prevailing view was that marginal trading ‘was the equivalent of a lottery contract’ and thus could not be litigated in court. Max Weber argued forcefully against this view in his work on stock markets, and the view was eventually rendered obsolete by a judgement from the Supreme Court of the Reich, which prompted law makers to act. Although the telephone benefited commodity trading, it also aroused perceptions of unproductive activity which were easy to associate with the view of commodity futures trading as a form of lottery. This was particularly the case because the self worth of workers rested at the end of the 19th century on ‘hard physical labour’, so that the impression of idleness was not tolerated. This is supported by Popitz’s essay “Was tun wir, wenn wir spielen” from 2000: ‘The actions of gamblers do not [leave behind] a product. [Rather], when they play, they are being creative in an unproductive way.’ As such, the telephone helped commodity futures trading to communicate quickly, but at the same time it was also a symbol of unproductive activity and thereby fed the widespread mistrust of the commodity futures business and its associated marginal trading.
Read full abstract