In an important contribution, Lei et al. (2001, Econometrica) argue that speculation is not the driver of bubbles in the absence of common knowledge of rationality, suggesting a focus on mistakes and confusion. We revisit Lei et al.’s (2001) design, confirming the existence of bubbles. However, we argue that, although their design removes the ability to speculate, it introduces several unintended design artifacts. We discuss four possible behavioral implications of the design that may put upward pressure on transaction prices. The first is extreme initial asymmetric endowments. Second, cash to asset ratio increases with each transaction. Third, the combination of a high cash to asset ratio and removal of cash and assets from the market with each transaction impact perceived scarcity of assets more than cash. Lastly, actual scarcity of assets is present in these markets. We argue that these factors individually or in combination lead to the observed bubbles despite prohibiting speculative behavior.

中文翻译：

---

重新审视非投机泡沫

Lei 等人做出了重要贡献。 （2001，《计量经济学》）认为，在缺乏理性常识的情况下，投机并不是泡沫的驱动因素，这表明要关注错误和混乱。我们重新审视 Lei 等人 (2001) 的设计，证实了气泡的存在。然而，我们认为，虽然他们的设计消除了推测的能力，但它引入了一些意想不到的设计工件。我们讨论了该设计的四种可能的行为影响，这些影响可能会给交易价格带来上行压力。首先是极端的初始禀赋不对称。其次，现金资产比率随着每笔交易而增加。第三，高现金与资产比率以及每笔交易从市场上撤走现金和资产的结合对资产稀缺性的影响大于现金。最后，这些市场确实存在资产稀缺的情况。我们认为，尽管禁止投机行为，但这些因素单独或组合起来会导致观察到的泡沫。