The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-02-16
C0-OPEkAT.OE by CONCENTRATING Re.
TAIL CUSTOM.

that traders do not impart any additional
value to the commodities which they trans
pert, manipulate, assert and distribute, and
that, therefore, they do not earn the price at
which they sell them. The New York
Tribune illustrates this phase of the protec-
ton theory by asserting that those who live
by trade 90 stand between the producer and
consumer, shaving both" Now, in point of
economic fact, people engaged in mercantile
pursuits, a class which does not include gam
bling spectators, are Intermediary producers.
Like the weaver who converts raw wool or
raw cotton into cloth; like the shoemaker
who converts leather into shoes; like the cut
Ter who converts iron into knives, scissors,
razors, and so forth; like the carpenter who
converts lumber into houses; like the baker
who converts flour into bread the trader
takes commodities which have already under
| gone one stage, perhaps several stages, of pro-
duction, and by his skill and his labor he
superinduces upon them an additional value.
| This enhancement may be due to change Of
| place. TO alteration Of form and arrangement,
| or to both these facts combined But to
whatever specific causes referable, it is some
| thing produced, and the trader is its pro-
Queer.
He is not On original producer, TO be sure
| But where shall We find in civilized industry
such a thing as original production? The
farmer and the gardener, who come nearest
to it, work with tools supplied to their hands
and with soil which has already been made
arabic Fence they are, TO say the least, sec
ondary producers. In scientific truth, the
only original producer is nature; for wherever
a man may work, nature was at work before
him, and the utmost which his ingenuity and
his industry can accomplish is limited to the
mere modification of her products
The fallacy that the trading class are in
no sense producers, but that they stand be-
tween the producer and consumer, shaving
both, has done much to introduce to popular
favor what is known as the cooperative store
system. The CRESCENT took occasion, not
long since, to analyze this system. and
showed that the effect of cooperative store
could not be to furnish consumers with mer-
chandise at first cost, or TO give them the BEN
eft Of retail profits, but that it simply de-
yolved upon cooperative association the
functions of the Intermediates in ordinary
commerce, subjecting the co-operationists to
the same expenses, liabilities and hazards.
They may, it is true, get rid Of paying that
part Of the increased cost of goods which
formerly went to the merchant as net profit.
But this they can do only by taking the place
of the merchant and investing their capital as
he invested his, but without the prospect of
realizing any dividends upon it, inasmuch as
they propose to be their own customers They
save in respect to the net profit of the mer-
chant simply because they lose in the matter
of a dead investment of capital In short.
when men enter into an arrangement for buy
ing from themselves and selling to themselves
there can be neither profit nor loss in the
transaction, let the prices be never so high or
never so low. The whole question as to the
advantages held out by the cooperative store
system, must turn upon whether consumers
can do the work for themselves of CONNER
cial Intermediates without detriment to their
position as capitalists or as laborers. As
long as the great majority of men cannot
afford to make their OWE shoes, their own
and washing, their own printing and publish
ing, their own medical practice or law bust
ness, there may well be serious doubt whether
it would pay for them to do their own mer-
chandising. The tendency of commerce is to
embrace the civilized world in vast co-ope-
ratiye system by the utmost distribution of
labor and the utmost multiplication of special
arts and avocations.
Whatever may be the merits of the co-ope-
rative store, itcertainly does not appear to be |
an institution that harmonizes with the prin-
ciple of commercial cooperation above re-
ferred to.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of reason why
consumers Of moderate means should combine
for the purpose Of cheapening the various ne
cessaries which they are compelled to buy at
retail. Complaints are frequent in the Lon
don papers about the grievous exactions to
which poor people are subjected by the small |
shops at which they do their trading. Refer |
ring to these complaints, a Northern journal |
remarks, and no doubt with truth, that the
same grievance prevails in the large cities Of
this country. The question arises whether
the sufferers fIom this evil cannot find a |
remedy in a species of cooperation that would |
not demand the investment Of their spare |
capita without interest in co operative store |
Is 1t not possible for them to ENJOY the adj |
vantages which it is the aim Of such an insti- |
tuition to serve, and at the same time avoid its |
expenses, liabilities and hazards? In the |
opinion Of the london Saturday Review, such |
a cooperation is altogether feasible Indeed, |
the Review mentions the existence Of a scheme |
in London which affords p.lctical illustra- |
ton Of its feasibility. This scheme proposes
to hberate buyers from the exactions of a |
swarm Of small shops, the profits Of which |
signify tax which poor consumers pay for |
the misfortune OF being poor, by concentrat. |
ing their custom on few specified stores |
This idea was, doubtless, suggested by |
the fact that as general rule; the |
large retail houses are the cheapest. It /