The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1906-08-02
RoBBING AMERICAN BUYERS.

RUbblNO HmERICHN BUYERS.
Coming from the standpatter, the
proposition that it is good business for
manufacturers to sell for less to people
abroad than to people at home was to
have been expected sooner or later,
Notwithstanding that it involved an
abrupt and complete change of front.
The standpatters could not indefinitely
persist in their fiat denial of the fact
that the trusts were selling goods to
foreigners for less money than to con-
sumers in the United States. With the
evidence of the fact piling up, it was
like denying the existence of noun
tain. The steel trust, the farm imple-
ment trust and dozen others, finally
the watch trust, which congressman
Rainey exposed the other day, are
plainly seen to be doing profitable
business abroad on scale of prices
ranging TO- 30, so and in some instances
as low as rs per cent under the prices
for the identical articles sold in this
country.
The proposition that this is"good bust
ness" is plea in confession and avoid
ance which is chiefly significant for it's
confession OF what has been so long
denied. That extortions practiced up
on the consumer at home over and
above the profit which is represented in
foreign sales may be "good business"
for the trust cannot be gain-said, but
that it is good from the peoples stand
point is only one more characteristic
absurdity of the Dingley defenders, who
have no regard for logic, truth, consist
ency and plain fact.
How can it be good for the people of
this country to pay monopoles excess
sive profits? 1t could be good for
Americans to pay more than foreigners
for the same thing only upon the en-
tremely doubtful theory that the excess
was necessary to the maintenance of
the industry in this country. In the
first place, this theory assumes that the
goods are sold at loss abroad, which is
an absurdity on it's face, requiring no
proof. But that the foreign sales rep
resent profit has been completely
demonstrated, were demonstration nee
essary.
But, assuming that the goods are sold
at a loss, for the sake of argument,
where is the necessity for selling goods
at loss-how can sales at loss to
foreigners justify the operation of in
dustries in this country? How could
industries be shown to depend in any
degree upon sales at loss to foreign
ers? How could it pay any industry of
whatever character or dimensions to do
business abroad at an ultimate loss? 1t
is conceivable that in order to gain an
entrance into the foreign market for
American products the trusts could af-
ford, for time, to sacrifice profits and
even sell under the cost of actual pro-
duction, but that they could afford to
continue business on that plan is not
credible for an instant. When it is
cheaper not to sell than to sell, the sale
will not be made and, as matter of
fact, it has never been shown in a single
instance that a dollars worth of Ameri-
can goods has been sold abroad for less
than the cost of manufacture However
the monopolies and their political and
legislative defenders will be forced to
argue, despite every known economic
principle, against all logic and in the
face of the mountain of facts, that their
goods are sold at a loss abroad.
If they admit that their foreign sales
represent profits, their case is at ar
end. Since if the goods can be sold fol-
less abroad, why charge the home con.
sumer extortionate rates? The Ameri.
can people do not care to pay an excess
for no better purpose than to bulge the
pockets of monopolists. If it could be
argued plausibly that in order to keeE
our industries going it was necessary tc
manufacture more goods than could be
sold at profit, the trusts would be in
clover, since the absurd principle could
be extended ad lib. to justify any de.
gree of mulcting of the home consumer
The more goods sold at loss abroad
the better for the American people, the
trusts would explain as they went down
deeper and deeper into the American
peoples pocket for profits to Offset the
foreign loss.-St. Louis Republic.
ExTORTIONATE PRICES AND