IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v48y2024i2p187-212..html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

Ricardo’s finances and Waterloo: legends by Samuelson and others lack historical evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Wilfried Parys

Abstract

Paul Samuelson and others suggested that Ricardo (‘the richest economist in history’) made a life-changing coup on the Stock Exchange after the Battle of Waterloo (1815), but archives reveal that Ricardo amassed his fortune more gradually, often by small profit rates upon large investments, as a jobber on the Stock Exchange and a contractor for seven British Loans. The 1815 Loan generated exceptional profits for Ricardo, but not the million sterling mentioned in unreliable legends about Ricardo or Rothschild. Such legends neglected the stock price statistics, the suboptimal timing of Ricardo’s transactions in 1815 and the dominant role of the Baring-Angerstein consortium, which took a much larger part of the Loans than Ricardo’s consortium. Insufficient attention was also paid to the special year 1813, when Britain exceptionally launched not one, but two very profitable Loans. After his large 1813 profits, Ricardo started contemplating his retirement and bought Gatcombe Park in 1814. Samuelson neglected this and overestimated the influence of 1815 events. Moreover, Samuelson claimed that today Ricardo might be prosecuted for using unscrupulous market manipulation and inside information. Archives and statistics show that Samuelson’s allegations lack historical evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilfried Parys, 2024. "Ricardo’s finances and Waterloo: legends by Samuelson and others lack historical evidence," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 48(2), pages 187-212.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:48:y:2024:i:2:p:187-212.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bead055
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:48:y:2024:i:2:p:187-212.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.