White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1916-06-09
The Fallacy Of
Cooperative Buying

The enthusiasm and persistence
with which certain officials of the de-
partment of agriculture advocate CO.
operative buying Of farm equipment
and supplies convey to the untn-
formed the impression that they have
made wonderful discovery. Some
times we think that the officials them
selves really believe such is the case.
They speak of it as though 1t were
something new in the line of co-opera-
tive effort, yet so sound in theory that
success is absolutely certain, success
with them meaning reduced cost Of
farm necessities for all who join in a
cooperative buying movement.
Far from being new, either in theory
or practice, cooperative buying is a
form of cooperation that has been
tried many times and rarely, if ever,
with results beneficial to the partici-
pants. If the department had used
the history of cooperative buying as
it's guide in determining it's attitude
toward the question it never would
have offered one word in favor of it..
For the record Is replete with stories
of the utter failure of cooperative
buying to accomplish what it's advo-
Gates claimed for and expected from
it, So complete has been it's failure
in many instances it is discredited in
the minds of thoughtful farmers.
The most important gathering Of
farmers in the history Of the country
was the conference held in Chicago
last November. More than so speak
ers addressed the meetings and only
one mentioned cooperative buying as
a desirable phrase of cooperation. His
utterances were received in silence.
The conference led to the forming of
the most important organization OF
farmers. Neither the constitution nor
bylaws of this organization contains
one word about cooperative buying.
The National grange sometimes dis
cusses cooperative buying, but that is
as far as it goes, for it's older men,
bers have not forgotten the co-opera.
tive buying failures of the original
granger organization. Most of the
other farmer associations ignore the
question. The one notable exception
is the American Society Of Equity,
from which has issued some of the
widest and most impracticable the
cries of both buying and selling that
were ever evolved. This organization
has promo ted some cooperative
stores, form Of cooperative buying
against which farmers we're warned
by writer in the 1915 year book of
the department of agriculture. Per-
haps it has tried the other form Of
cooperative buying in some lines,
such as binder Irvine and fertilizer,
but so far as observations go, even
this radical association has never at
tempted to promote collective buying
of agricultural machines. The farm
ers" at Washington have monopoly
of that brilliant idea.
One of these is Charles e. Bassett.
Mr. Bassett virtually has acknowl-
edged that farm machinery Of quality
cannot be purchased except through
dealers. Now he suggests that col
lective buying be done through deal
ers, provided they allow a discount.
When asked what would happen II
the dealer handling lines wanted re-
fused to cut their prices, Mr.. Bassett
replied to this effect: eve will have
| fo tp fnr VIZ onrpnQ1l.
| ing manufacturers to sell their goods
to anybody wanting them and at equal
prices" Only a year or so ago con-
gress enacted law which specifically
provides that any seller has the right
to choose his own customers. This
right never has been denied by law,
but congress feared that certain parts
of the Clayton act might be so con-
strued, hence took pains to protect
the right by enactment. In the face
of this fact, the remark quoted is alb.
surd.
The progressive farmers, both In and
out of organizations, are more con.
cerned about the marketing of their
products than about the buying of sup.
plies. They are satisfied with the pres.
ent system of distribution and dealer
| service. They recognize the dealer as
a necessity and, unlike Charles E.
Bassett Of the department of agricul.
ture, they do not expect him to sell
goods at loss.