We've visited the author of this piece, Professor Andrew Odlyzko a few times, he is something of a polymath. An MIT trained mathematician with an interest in financial history....That was understating the case.
In addition to his work on the valuation of networks, which gave a much higher (IEEE Spectrum) figure for say, Facebook, and thus saved his followers from embarrassment and loss in contemplated short-sales (ahem) he may be the, or at any rate one of the top experts on the minutiae of the British railway manias (there were two).
Via the University of Minnesota's Digital Technology Center:
Revised version, June 21, 2010
Abstract.....MUCH MORE (23 page PDF)
The collapse of an investment mania usually reminds people that the phrase “This time is different” is dangerous. Recollections of this mantra then typically either state outright or at least imply that “It is never different.” However, there is at least one counterexample to this cautious view, a giant and wildly speculative investment episode that was profitable for investors. The British railway mania of the 1830s involved real capital investment comparable, as a fraction of GDP, to about $2 trillion for the U.S. today. It faced withering skepticism and criticism, much of it very reasonable, as its supposedly rosy prospects were based on extrapolation from the brief experience of just a couple of successful early railways. Yet by the mid-1840s, it was seen as a great investment success.The example of the railway mania of the 1830s serves as a useful antidote to claims that bubbles are easy to detect or that all large and quick jumps in asset valuations are irrational. This episode also suggests the need to reexamine much of the work on business cycles and diffusion of technologies. The standard literature in this area, starting from Juglar, and continuing through Schumpeter to more recent authors, almost uniformly ignores or misrepresents the large investment mania of the 1830s, whose nature does not fit the stereotypical pattern.1
Introduction
The literature on investment manias, meaning episodes of intense investor excitement, is dominated by cases that lead to collapses. As an example, the 1989 edition of Kindleberger’s Manias, Panics, and Crashes[18] explicitly declared (pp. 3–4):
We are not interested in the business cycle as such, the rhythm of economic expansion and contraction, but only in the financial crisis that is the culmination of a period of expansion and leads to a downturn. If there be business cycles without financial crises, they lie outside our interest. Isolated financial crises that prove so manageable as to have no effects on the economic system will also be neglected. The financial crises we shall consider here are major both in size and in effect and, as a rule, international in scope.The popular perception is that this is the inevitable result of all rapid asset price rises. For example, in 2009 the economist and political columnist Paul Krugman claimed that“bubbles always burst sooner or later,” [19].
Neither a mania nor a bubble has a precise definition. In this paper, a mania is taken to denote an episode of intense investor excitement, accompanied by a flow of money and price rises. A bubble, in the popular sense that arises in the Krugman quote, usually denotes a rapid rise in valuations of some assets, which is implicitly or explicitly assumed to be followed by a collapse. For economists, a bubble is a rise in asset valuations that is not justified by fundamentals. In the early 19th century, a bubble meant a company created primarily to swindle investors (as in the South Sea Bubble, as the South Sea Company was perceived to be in that category). The topic of this paper, the British railway mania of the1830s, involved a rapid rise in prices and substantial flows of investment funds, so certainly qualifies as a mania. It was followed by a price collapse, so in the popular sense it was a bubble. However, the flow of investment money continued, prices recovered, and investors got to enjoy above-market returns. Thus this mania was not a bubble in the economics sense, as it was justified by fundamentals.
By any standard other than that of the larger and more famous Railway Mania of the 1840s, the one of the 1830s was giant. At the peak of the financially exuberant early phase, British investors undertook to plow over 8% of their country’s GDP into the new infrastructure, equivalent to over $1 trillion for the U.S. today. (By way of comparison,estimates of rebuilding the U.S telecommunications infrastructure with fiber range between $150 and $300 billion. The wasteful and wasted spending on U.S. long-haul fiber networks during the Internet mania amounted to only about $100 billion.) By the time they were done, half a dozen years later, cost overruns had led British capitalists to invest twice that much, equivalent to about $2 trillion for the U.S. today .But within a few years they were happy, as they were earning above-market returns. In the fall of 1845, just as the excitement of the big Railway Mania was reaching its peak, The Times (of London) was railing against what it saw as a mad and dangerous new folly. However, an observer had a rejoinder, based on the experience of the mania of the preceding decade, which had faced similar opposition:
Of the 27 old companies some have succeeded to the extent of more than 150 percent. advance on their original value; others 100, 80, 50, 30per cent.; and all, so far as I know, are paying a fair percentage, or in the immediate prospect of doing so, on the capital invested. These, therefore, are not speculations, but triumphant successes; and the absorption of so much capital in them is no more to be regretted than the outlay in the dwelling-houses of London, which brings in its return in rent.1This paper provides a brief sketch of those investment successes of the 1830s. Calling them “triumphant” is a bit of an exaggeration, as returns were not munificent, and were a pale shadow of what promoters had been promising at the start. But they were satisfactory for investors....
