DOCSLIB.ORG

FULL THESIS 19 September

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FULL THESIS 19 September The United States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-1936 Rasheed KM Saleuddin Corpus Christi College September 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. i ii The Unites States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-36 Rasheed Saleuddin In 1921, 1924 and 1929-1934, markets for the future delivery of wheat went through periods of extreme volatility and/or significant depression, and in all three cases there were significant and long-lasting changes to both the institutional and regulatory framework of these Chicago- dominated grain markets. There was no real change after these key reforms until 1974, while indeed much of the original regulatory and market innovation remains. The result of the severe depression of 1921 was the Futures Trading Act of 1921. In 1924-25, the so-called ‘Cutten corner’ market turmoil was followed by three key institutional innovations brought about in 1926 by US federal government coercion of the grain futures trading industry in collusion with industry leaders. The Great Depression gave birth to the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act. This Act was based on research done by the government and/or with government-mandated evidence that essentially saw the small grain gambler as needing protection from the grain futures industry, and was pushed through by a coalition of farmers’ organisations and the agency responsible for the 1922 Act’s administration. The government demanded information that was begrudgingly provided, and the studies of this data formed the basis of a political and intellectual justification of the usefulness of futures markets to the marketing of farm products that influenced the Act of 1936 and – more importantly - continues to today. My key thesis is that government worked closely with the futures industry to the extent that the agency was captured by special interests for much of the interwar period, and I claim that government intervention was responsible for the essential changes that assured the dominance of futures markets, with the Chicago Board of Trade as their hub. The lasting institutions created in the 1920s and 1930s continue to immensely influence the financial markets of today, including being incorporated into the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. My study differs from the accepted account that sees federal regulation as an irrational ‘populist’ attempt at controlling or even banning the markets, with the new institutions developed during the interwar period as the result of effective industry self-regulation in spite of state interference. The findings are based on a theory-driven reading of archives of the Chicago Board of Trade, its regulator the Grain Futures Administration, and the other key government agencies engaging with the grain trade, the USDA, the Federal Farm Board and the Federal Trade Commission. My approach differs from the accepted accounts in that it is based mostly on my archival work, including the newly reorganised (in 2014) Chicago Board of Trade archive, rather than on public sources such as Congressional hearings and newspaper stories. ii Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. Acknowledgements So many people have had a hand in making this thesis better than it would otherwise have been that it is impossible to name them all. Generally, the best part of the project was being able to interact with the financial and economic history communities at Cambridge and elsewhere, and I am grateful for the friendships and professional relationships I have made along the way. The exceedingly high level of scholarship amongst my friends and colleagues at Cambridge inspired my own work. I’d like specifically to thank Duncan Needham for providing guidance and leadership to the entire financial history community at the Centre for Financial History at Darwin College. I’d like to thank my supervisor, D’Maris Coffman, of course, who was also the founder of the Centre previously mentioned. I’d also like to thank those who patiently read and provided often incredibly insightful comments on my thesis drafts: Craig McMahon, my wife Christine Chen and Michael Hunt. This work was researched while the author was a PhD Scholar funded by the Cambridge Endowment for Research in Finance, and thanks goes to Bart Lambrecht for his leadership there. This work is deeply archival, and I would like to specifically mention the responsiveness of Megan Keller at the CME Archive at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Pamela Anderson at the National Archives in Kansas City. There were also too many helpful archivists to name at places such as the National Archives at College Park, the National iii Agricultural Library, and the Columbia Center for Oral History. Additionally, librarians at the Robarts Library at the University of Toronto were helpful in guiding me to useful rare documents. I presented this work in early stages around the world, including Portland, Oregon, Lexington, Kentucky and Cambridge, and I would especially like to generally thank discussants and audiences for their useful comments and questions, especially Shane Hamilton of the University of York. Finally, though there are too many individuals who have helped or guided me over the years to thank individually, special mention needs to be made of J Barry Smith of York University, Martin Lodge of the London School of Economics and Tiago Mata of University College London. Thank you. iv Abbreviations 1921 Act – The Futures Trading Act of 1921. 42 Stat. 187 1922 Act – The Grain Futures Act of 1922. 42 Stat. 998, 7 U.S.C. § 1 AAA – Agricultural Adjustment Act ADM – Archer Daniels Midland AFBF – American Farm Board Federation AMA – Agricultural Marketing Act BAE – Bureau of Agricultural Economics BCC – Business Conduct Committee CBOE – Chicago Board Options Exchange CBOT – Chicago Board of Trade or Board of Trade at Chicago CEA – Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. 49 Stat. 1491 CFTC – Commodity Futures Trading Commission CME – Chicago Mercantile Exchange FFB – Federal Farm Board FINRA - Financial Industry Regulatory Authority FNG – Farmers’ National Grain Corporation FTC – Federal Trade Commission GCNA – Grain Committee on National Affairs GFA – Grain Futures Administration GFC – Grain Futures Commission ICC – Interstate Commerce Clause KBOT – Kansas City Board of Trade NIRA – National Industrial Recovery Act. 48 Stat. 195 USDA – United States Department of Agriculture v Table of Contents 1. The Coming of Age of the Modern Futures Markets and their Regulation. Page 1 2. Governance, Opportunities and Threats at the Chicago Board of Trade. Page 48 3. The Grain Futures Act of 1922 and the Dominance of the CBOT. Page 72 4. The Co-construction of Modern Futures Markets, 1923 to 1926. Page 121 5. The Grain Gambler and the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. Page 178 6. The Causes and the Legacy of Interwar Futures Market Regulation. Page 228 Bibliography Page 240 vi Chapter One The Coming of Age of the Modern Futures Markets and their Regulation [I]t is not too much to say that free commodity markets […] are symbols of free societies […] State Socialism, whether Communist, Fascist, or Socialist, means the destruction of free markets and their replacement by governmental buying and selling monopolies […] Commodities exchanges are vital to the economic stability of a free society.1 1.1 Introduction: Crises and Regulatory Responses Futures trading came of age in the middle of the nineteenth century in many commercial hubs of the US, especially in the Midwestern city of Chicago.2 The exchange trading of contracts of specified quantities and qualities of a commodity to be delivered at some future date has since expanded to include most globally-traded commodities and, more importantly, currency, stock, bond and money markets. Such contracts are now ubiquitous in modern finance. In 2014, 21.87 billion futures and options contracts were traded on exchanges globally, for a dollar-equivalent volume of $50,000,000,000,000. In 1910, as in 1940, the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) was dominant, executing 80% to 85% of all futures contracts traded in the US.3 Chicago futures 1 Julius Baer and Olin Saxon, Commodity Exchanges and Futures Trading (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. xi. 2 For Dutch markets in the 16th century, see Milja Van Tielhof, The ‘Mother of All Trades’: The Baltic Grain Trade in Amsterdam from the Late Sixteenth to the Early Nineteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2002); Oskar Gelderblom and Joost Jonker, “Amsterdam as the Cradle of Modern Futures and Options Trading, 1550- 1650,” in The Origins of Value: The Financial Innovations that Created Modern Capital Markets, ed, William N. Goetzmann and Geert Rouwenhorst (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): 189-205. For Japan in the eighteenth century, see Shigeru Wakita, “Efficiency of the Dojima Rice Futures Market in Tokugawa-period Japan,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 25 (2001): 535-554. 3 Other commodity futures markets existed in other centres in the US. For example, wheat and most other grain futures were traded in other Midwestern cities such as Kansas City, and New York handled the 1 exchanges – with the CBOT now merged into its ex-rival, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) spun off into its own entity – continue to lead derivatives trading into the 21st century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Administrative Procedureâ•Fla Suggested Classification Of
    Washington University Law Review Volume 25 Issue 3 January 1940 Administrative Procedure—A Suggested Classification of Procedures of Regulatory Agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture Ashley Sellers United States Department of Agriculture Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Agriculture Law Commons Recommended Citation Ashley Sellers, Administrative Procedure—A Suggested Classification of Procedures of Regulatory Agencies in the United States Department of Agriculture, 25 WASH. U. L. Q. 352 (1940). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol25/iss3/25 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 352 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY [Vol. 25 Saturday Morning, February 17 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE-A SUGGESTED CLASSIFICATION OF PROCEDURES OF REGULATORY AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ASHLEY SELLERSt The title requires both definition and delimitation. The terms "procedure," "regulatory," and "agencies" do not go unchal- lenged, especially in these days of symposia and institutes on administrative law. For present purposes, the term "procedure" will be given a restricted meaning and will be used, in a manner especially familiar to lawyers, to describe the methods and practices relat- ing to administrative hearings. Someone has called this the "full- dress" level of administrative procedure. This description, if applicable to the procedure of any administrative agency, is hardly descriptive of that of a bureau of the Department of Agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Commodities Litigation: the Impact of RICO
    DePaul Law Review Volume 34 Issue 1 Fall 1984 Article 3 Commodities Litigation: The Impact of RICO Michael S. Sackheim Francis J. Leto Steven A. Friedman Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Michael S. Sackheim, Francis J. Leto & Steven A. Friedman, Commodities Litigation: The Impact of RICO , 34 DePaul L. Rev. 23 (1984) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol34/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMODITIES LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF RICO Michael S. Sackheim* Francis J. Leto** Steven A. Friedman*** INTRODUCTION The number of private actions commenced against commodities brokers and other professionals in the futures area has increased dramatically in the last few years. Although these lawsuits primarily have been based on viola- tions of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEAct),' the complaints have fre- quently included allegations that the federal Racketeering Influenced and Cor- rupt Organization Act (RICO)2 was also violated by the subject defendents. In invoking the racketeering laws, the plaintiff often seeks to take advantage of the treble damage provision of RICO.3 This article will analyze the application of the racketeering laws to com- mon, garden-variety commodities fraud cases. Specifically, this article addresses those cases where a brokerage firm is sued because of the illegal acts of its agents. It is the authors' contention that the treble damages pro- vision of RICO should not be applied to legitimate brokerage firms who are innocently involved in instances of commodities fraud through the acts of their agents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation
    The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation Roberta Romanot The U.S. regulation of derivative securities--financial instruments whose value is derived from an underlying security or index of securities-is distinctive from that (~f other nations because it has multiple regulators for .financial derivatives and securities. Commentators have debated whether shifting to the unitary regulator approach taken by other nations would be more desirable and legislation to effect such a ~:hange has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. But it has not gotten very far. This article analyzes the political history of the regulation of derivative securities in the United States, in order to explain the institutional difference between the U.S. regime and other nations' and its staying power. It examines the j;JUr principal federal regulatory initiatives regarding derivative securities (the Future Trading Act of 1921, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, and the Futures Trading Practices Act (if 1992), by a narrative account of the legislative process and a quantitative analysis (~f roll-call votes, committee-hearing witnesses, and issue salience. The multiple regulator status quo has persisted, despite dramatic changes in derivative markets, repeated efforts to alter it (by the securities industry in particular) and sh(fting political majorities, because of its support by the committee organization of Congress and by a tripartite winning coalition (if interest groups created by the 1974 legislation (farmers, futures exchanges, and banks). In what can best be ascribed to historical j;Jrtuity, different .financial market regulators are subject to the oversight (~f different congressional committees, and, consequently, the establishment (~f a unitary regulator would diminish the jurisdiction, and hence influence, ()f one (if the congressional committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Henry Agard Wallace, The
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES HENRY AGARD WALLACE, THE IOWA CORN YIELD TESTS, AND THE ADOPTION OF HYBRID CORN Richard C. Sutch Working Paper 14141 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14141 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 June 2008 Thanks to Connie Chow and Hiroko Inoue for research assistance, to Susan B. Carter for critical advice, to Mason Gaffney for prodding questions that stimulated much further research, and to Norman Ellstrand for assistance with the plant biology. Financial support was provided by a National Science Foundation Grant: “Biocomplexity in the Environment, Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems.” Administrative support was provided by the Biotechnology Impacts Center and the Center for Economic and Social Policy at the University of California, Riverside. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2008 by Richard C. Sutch. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Henry Agard Wallace, the Iowa Corn Yield Tests, and the Adoption of Hybrid Corn Richard C. Sutch NBER Working Paper No. 14141 June 2008 JEL No. N12 ABSTRACT This research report makes the following claims: 1] There was not an unambiguous economic advantage of hybrid corn over the open-pollinated varieties in 1936.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Agriculture
    NAL DIGITIZING PROJECT MBP0000254 GENTURY SERVieE the first 100 years of THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USDA HISTORY COLLECTION^ BOX__~r__ FOLDER __rä Tí n * merica's Strength . Agricultural Abundance CENTURY OF SERVICE the first 100 years of THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AUTHORS Gladys L. Baker Wayne D. Rasmussen Vivian Wiser Jane M. Porter ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE Agricultural History Branch CENTURY OF SERVICE the first 100 years of THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Growth Through Agricultural Progress COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL HISTORY The Committee on Agricultural History was appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in Memorandum 1440, to give direc- tion and leadership to a study necessary to the preparation of a history commemorating the Centennial of the United States Department of Agriculture, to establish policies and standards applicable to such a publication, and to provide guidance in its development. Membership of the Committee is: Nathan M. Koffsky, Administrator, Economic Research Service (Chairman). Oris V. Wells, Served as Chairman prior to his retirement as Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. R. Lyle Webster, Director of Information. Foster E. Mohrhardt, Director of the National Agricultural Library. James P. Cavin, Economic Research Service (Secretary). IV FOREWORD ORVILLE L. FREEMAN Secretary of Agriculture Agriculture in the United States has progressed from an economy of scarcity to an economy of abundance in the space of a hundred years. This profound change may be measured in a number of ways. For example, less than 9 percent of our labor force is engaged in agriculture today, as compared with 20 to 40 percent in much of Western Europe, over 45 percent in the Soviet Union, and 70 to 80 percent in some parts of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fusion of Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian Thought in the Republican Party of the 1920S
    © Copyright by Dan Ballentyne 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This work is dedicated to my grandfather, Raymond E. Hough, who support and nurturing from an early age made this work possible. Also to my wife, Patricia, whose love and support got me to the finish line. ii REPUBLICANISM RECAST: THE FUSION OF HAMILTONIAN AND JEFFERSONIAN THOUGHT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE 1920S BY Dan Ballentyne The current paradigm of dividing American political history into early and modern periods and organized based on "liberal" and "conservative" parties does not adequately explain the complexity of American politics and American political ideology. This structure has resulted of creating an artificial separation between the two periods and the reading backward of modern definitions of liberal and conservative back on the past. Doing so often results in obscuring means and ends as well as the true nature of political ideology in American history. Instead of two primary ideologies in American history, there are three: Hamiltonianism, Jeffersonianism, and Progressivism. The first two originated in the debates of the Early Republic and were the primary political division of the nineteenth century. Progressivism arose to deal with the new social problems resulting from industrialization and challenged the political and social order established resulting from the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian debate. By 1920, Progressivism had become a major force in American politics, most recently in the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson. In the light of this new political movement, that sought to use state power not to promote business, but to regulate it and provide social relief, conservative Hamiltonian Republicans increasingly began using Jeffersonian ideas and rhetoric in opposition to Progressive policy initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Marketing Service
    2016 Explanatory Notes Agricultural Marketing Service Contents Page Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................................... 21-1 Statement of Available Funds and Staff Years ........................................................................... 21-8 Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff Year Summary ............................................................ 21-9 Motor Vehicles Fleet Data .......................................................................................................... 21-10 Marketing Services: Appropriations Language ....................................................................................................... 21-11 Lead-off Tabular Statement ..................................................................................................... 21-11 Project Statement ..................................................................................................................... 21-12 Justifications ............................................................................................................................ 21-14 Geographic Breakdown of Obligations and Staff Years ......................................................... 21-22 Classification by Objects ........................................................................................................ 21-23 Status of Programs .................................................................................................................. 21-24
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Cftc V. Gibraltar Monetary Corp. and Vicarious Liability Under
    COMMENT CFTC V. GIBRALTAR MONETARY CORP. AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT Jason E. Friedman* This Comment analyzes CFTC v. Gibraltar Monetary Corp., a 2009 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit introduced a control requirement into the Commodity Exchange Act’s vicarious liability provision. In so doing, the court rejected the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s long-held totality of the circumstances approach, in which any one factor, including control, is not dispositive of an agency relationship. This decision has created an undesirable situation in which retail foreign exchange dealers and futures commission merchants need not investigate the character of their introducing entities before retaining them, allowing them to easily avoid liability for frauds committed in furtherance of mutual profit. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 738 I. CLIMBING UP GIBRALTAR: COMMODITIES REGULATION, THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT’S VICARIOUS LIABILITY PROVISION, AND CHEVRON DEFERENCE ........................................ 740 A. Overview of the Commodity Futures and Options Markets . 7 4 0 1. Commodities: More Than Just the Bacon in Your BLT ... 742 2. Commodities Derivatives Contracts: Futures, Forwards, and Options ....................................................................... 744 3. Categories of CFTC Registrants ........................................ 745 4. CFTC Enforcement Actions and
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Regulation of Agricultural Trade Options
    FEDERAL REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL TRADE OPTIONS Michael S. Sackheim* I. Introduction .............................................................................................. 443 II. Regulation of Deferred Delivery Commodity Transactions .................... 445 III. Economic Characteristics of Commodity Options ................................... 446 IV. Regulation of Commodity Options .......................................................... 448 V. Pilot Program for Agricultural Trade Options ......................................... 451 A. Registration of Agricultural Trade Option Merchants ...................... 452 B. Disclosure .......................................................................................... 452 C. Financial Safeguards .......................................................................... 453 D. Recordkeeping and Reporting............................................................ 454 E. Physical Delivery Requirement ......................................................... 454 F. Persons Exempt from ATOM Registration ....................................... 457 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 457 I. INTRODUCTION To manage the risks of fluctuations in commodity prices, various forms of hedging devices have been developed, including deliverable forward contracts, risk- shifting exchange-traded futures contracts and commodity options. Agricultural prices are often subject to greater volatility and uncertainty than prices
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet
    ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet To cite this version: Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics. 2021. hal-03227973 HAL Id: hal-03227973 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03227973 Preprint submitted on 17 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”∗ A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Delcey, Thomas† Noblet, Guillaume‡ May 2021 Abstract This article offers a historical analysis of the contributions of U.S. interwar agri- cultural economics to the economics of information. Concerned with improving the circulation of information on agricultural markets, agricultural economists an- alyzed the relationship between agents’ information and the behavior of prices on agricultural commodity exchanges, thus anticipating modern debates on informa- tional efficiency. We show that these debates were part of a more general context of agricultural market reform led by the U.S. administration to improve the pro- duction and diffusion of economic information. We argue that such reforms were a prerequisite for theoretical discussions on information, and established institutional tools that are still active today, such as the USDA market news service.
    [Show full text]
  • A Centennial History of the AAEA
    A CENTENNIAL HISTORY OFTHEAAEA Copyright 2010 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association. All rights reserved. No part of chis publication is to be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Contact [email protected] for permissions and/or more information. TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .................................................................vii PREFACE .................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE • The Beginning .................................................. l CHAPTER TWO • From the American Farm Management Association To the American Farm Economics Association: How Mergers Happen .................................. 15 CHAPTER THREE • The Association Finds a Voice: The Journal ofFarm Economics ............25 CHAPTER FOUR• The 1930s: Depression, Dust, and Farm Policy ........................ .35 CHAPTER FIVE• The Inconvenience ofWar ........................................ 51 CHAPTER SIX • The Contest . ................................................ , ...65 CHAPTER SEVEN • Back to Business ..............................................71 CHAPTER EIGHT• Some Major Problems ..........................................87 CHAPTER NINE• Progress - the 1950s . ............................................99 CHAPTER TEN • Celebrating Fifty Years ........................................... 109 CHAPTER ELEVEN • Beginning the Second Fifty Years ................................ 117 CHAPTER TWELVE • Struggling to Serve a Diversity
    [Show full text]
  • An Abstract of the Dissertation Of
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Kristine C. Harper for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History of Science presented on April 25, 2003. Title: Boundaries of Research: Civilian Leadership, Military Funding, and the International Network Surrounding the Development of Numerical Weather Prediction in the United States. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: E. Doel American meteorology was synonymous with subjective weather forecasting in the early twentieth century. Controlled by the Weather Bureau and with no academic programs of its own, the few hundred extant meteorologists had no standing in the scientific community. Until the American Meteorological Society was founded in 1919, meteorologists had no professional society. The post-World War I rise of aeronautics spurred demands for increased meteorological education and training. The Navy arranged the first graduate program in meteorology in 1928 at MIT. It was followed by four additional programs in the interwar years. When the U.S. military found itself short of meteorological support for World War II, a massive training program created thousands of new mathematics- and physics-savvy meteorologists. Those remaining in the field after the war had three goals: to create a mathematics-based theory for meteorology, to create a method for objectively forecasting the weather, and to professionalize the field. Contemporaneously, mathematician John von Neumann was preparing to create a new electronic digital computer which could solve, via numerical analysis, the equations that defmed the atmosphere. Weather Bureau Chief Francis W. Reichelderfer encouraged von Neumann, with Office of Naval Research funding, to attack the weather forecasting problem. Assisting with the proposal was eminent Swedish-born meteorologist Carl-Gustav Rossby.
    [Show full text]