The conclusion is offered, therefore, that not only can poor methods and imperfect understanding result in losses far in excess of a demonstrated drawback, but that this drawback may be overcome by other and more correct methods. It is difficult to understand why the opponents of speculation are continually harping on these points of gambling and percentage as bearing particularly on operations in stocks or commodities. If a man buys a certain security because it is cheap, or because he considers it cheap, and pays a certain commission to a broker for effecting the transaction, he is no more playing a percentage game than if he purchases a piece of real estate because it is cheap and pays the real estate broker a commission for his services. Marginal trading is another abomination of the anti-speculative element, but here again the critics do not discriminate between use and abuse. Trading on insufficient margin is one of the greatest evils in the speculative world and when, as is frequently the case, this evil is combined with lack of knowledge as to values and conditions, the result is certain loss. But what is objected to here is the hazy view and comprehensive condemnation of _all_ marginal speculation. The line of demarcation is usually carelessly drawn. If an individual buys 100 shares of stock for cash, has it registered in his own name and later borrows funds from his banker with these shares as collateral, he escapes impeachment as a marginal speculator; but if he buys on margin, and borrows from his broker the unpaid balance, he is a gambler. And yet it would be hard to point out the difference in the two methods. If we wish to go a little further afield, we may reduce a very large percentage of the commercial structure to marginal trading. We may, in short, place in this category every merchant who buys goods on credit and every man who buys real estate on payments, if their object when buying is to sell at a profit. It is highly probable that these contentions will be vigorously attacked, on the theory that more evil than good results from speculative ventures, and that therefore the whole structure should be razed on a “greatest good to the greatest number” basis; but aside from the intensely unphilosophical character of this view, it is not at all probable that any such thing can be effected unless human nature undergoes a radical change. Tear down every stock exchange in the United States tomorrow, and people will be speculating, a majority of them foolishly, in another week. The cure lies not in paternalism, but in evolution and understanding. As has been said, more has been accomplished in recent years by the educational crusade of the press than by all the rantings and warnings of a century. We have our periods of reckless over-indulgence, it is true, but the evil is dwindling. The South Sea bubble would deceive a much smaller number of people today than it did in the days of John Law.