> Ok so how on earth does the fact that derivatives permitted the tulip Bubble is an argument in favor of derivatives?
It's not, not was I making an argument in favour of derivatives. (I'm generally in favour of them; I just wasn't making that argument.)
Rather, I was responding to your argument, which I would paraphrase (I hope not unfairly) as "I hate these new inventions, we should go back to before they existed, when markets worked properly!" by which I suspect you meant the 1950s, but really it's the 1550s. :) (And given how different markets were back then, I'd even go further and say there has never been a time when markets worked the way you imagine. I'm not even sure they could.)
In short, if you don't understand the history of financial markets, your conclusions based on your flawed understanding of that history will have greatly diminished value.
> old does not always equal good
Quite right. But it's very different to say "the last 500 years have been a mistake" versus "the last 50 years" or (especially) "the last 5 years". For one thing, it's a lot harder to imagine the counterfactual.
I can guess what the world would be like if the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act had never passed (probably very similar to the current day, but again, that's a separate argument); I can't imagine what the world would be like without derivatives, because they have been a part of the past 500 years of development of our economy, laws, and culture. A change of that magnitude requires extraordinary justification.
