New-York tribune., 1910-01-10
THE COST OF LIVING.

An investigation by Congress into the
gested that it seems not improbable one
will be undertaken, sooner or later,
which will go into the subject more
broadly than the Agricultural Depart.
ment will be able to do in the inquiry
it is at present making.
The value of such an investigation
would probably be largely scientific.
Considerable information of use TO
scientists might be obtained, but it is
hardly likely TO lead to any such def
mite conclusions that legislation would
result from it. The subject is complex.
The causes of the rise in prices are
presumably various, and it is imprOb-
able that the fundamental ones could
be reached by legislation.
Economists have one favorite eX-
PLANTATION for the phenomenon. ''The
New York Journal of Commerce" re-
Gently asked the leading professors of
political economy in the American uni
versities for their views upon the ques-
tion, and published contributions from
number of them, including, for example,
Professors Taussig, Sumner, Carver,
Seligman, Fisher and jerks. Without
exception, the American economists
named the increased gold supply as the
chief cause for the increase in prices.
Only one emphatic dissent was heard.
that of NJ. Yves Guyot the editor of lie
Journal des Economistes,' Of Paris,
who, however, does not accept the guam
titatiye theory of money. Aside from
the fact that this theory is only theory,
and not one of universal acceptance, be-
fore the increase in the supply of gold
can be accepted with any degree of cer-
tainty as the chief cause of the rise of
living expenses it would have TO be
shown that the gold supply had in
creased faster than the uses of gold
have increased through the growth of
the worlds population and through the
Increased number of nations whose cur
rency is now on a gold basis. Material
on which to-base sound conclusion is
lacking.
Moreover. the difficulty with accent
ing any one cause as an explanation is
that the rise in prices is not character
iLNu u. dHs
nifty. There are doubtless commodities
whose prices have stood stiiI during this
period Of rise. Some have more than
doubled in price while others have in
creased only % per cent. Moreover,
there are other obvious causes which
are not in the domain of hypothesis like
the quantitatiye theory of money. Pro
duction of many commodities, especially
of food products, can be shown not to
have kept pace even with the increase
ii population, while the average con-
sumption of individuals has steadily ia
creased. To each single explanation it
is possible TO raise objections. If the
American tariff is suggested as cause,
il is possible TO point to the same
phenomenon of advancing prices in free
trade England and to the fact that
though the tariff was lowered the cost
of living goes up. To the trusts as the
sole explanation it is easy TO object
that greater rise of prices has taken
place in commodities not controlled by
trusts than in those thus engrossed.
Perhaps the explanation will be found
in study of the factors that used to
keep prices down and in an inquiry as
TO how far they are operating to-day.
The factors which largely contributed to
low prices were the opening of virgin
lands to agriculture, the multiplication
of labor saving inventions and the
widening of the competitive area in the
labor market. Virgin lands are no
longer being opened. Labor combina-
tions and labor laws have changed con-
ditions in the labor market. Production
is no longer being revolutionized by la
Dor saving inventions TO the extent it
formerly was.