Arizona republican., 1914-02-21
NONOPOL|ST|C SYSTEM
(Continued from Page One.)

and it is the plan of the bureau to investigate this question.
 While from a governmental point of view there are various aspects of the trust question which are of great importance, such as the relation of trusts to popular government and their effect on the social and econo-
 mic conditions of labor. there are two aspects of it which are peculiar ly within the domain of the bureau, namely, the effect upon the cost of production and distribution and the effect upon the price to the con sumer.
 Tt is contended by some that with the increase in the size of in
 dustrial enterprises there goes a re- duction in the cost of extraction, manufacture and distribution and that such reduction in cost is ac- ccmpanied by lower prices to the consumer and does not involve a reduction in wages or an impairment
 of the conditions of labor.
 Even if these claims were true the question would still remain, of course, whether the evil resulting from large combinations would not be greater than the alleged advan- tages of cheaper production and dis tribution. It is contended, on the other hand, that the source and ori- gin of monopoly is found chiefly in the desire to exploit the general pub
 
 immediate profit of the promoters.
 or for the purpose of obtaining con- rrol of the market and exacting un- duly high prices from the consumer. Many large combinations have failed and demonstrated their econo- mic inefficiency. Combinations which have obtained control of the market | and it is admitted, have prospered | but this is alleged to be due to their monopolistic position, and not to su- perior efficiency According to those who hold this view, there is a point | beyond which the increase in size Of operations does not result in an in crease of economy and efficiency, but 1 rather in loss and waste, so that the I | by large combinations, but instead l by concerns of moderate size If this | latter contention be true, then, as 1 has been said, the monOpolistic sys- I tenn contains in itself the seeds of | it's own decay.
 Again, some of those who dispute ] the superior efficiency of large com | binations contend that this claim is i made merely as a blind for the pur- pose of selling watered stock. They
 say that such organizations are es- l tablished for the purpose either ot getting control of the market and ex- | acting excessive prices from consum-
 CTS, or of issuing large amounts of | Watered stock for the purpose of | selling such stock to the public. In i the first case. it is argued such | combinations are not concerned with
 the promotion of greater efficiency
 but merely with obtaining a mono poly; in the second case they are chiefly concerned with selling the stock, and as they cannot claim to
 the general public that it has q value
 due to monopoly. they are obliged tc find another selling argument, name l ly, superior efficiency.
 l "Of almost equal importance with l the determination of this question oi | comparative efficiency is that of the
 rrice policy of such large industrial
 combinations as have achieved a
 substantial control of the market
 Those who allege that such industrial
 enterprises result in greater econo-
 my and efficiency in production oft
 en overlook the equally important lquestion whether or not they absorb 1 all the benefits of such economies in increased profits without conced- ing any share thereof to labor ir higher wages, or to consumers ir
 relatively lower prices or impI owed quality of goods, etc. The determin
 ation of the facts in respect to this question also might not be such as
 to establish broad generalizations ol
 conclusions, but the importance ol
 having the facts is none the less
 obvious"