The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-12-06
SOCIAL WELFARE. WILL BE TEST 0F FUTURE INDUSTRY

(Conttnued from Page Six.)
 introduced the more sanitary methods, they would have to raise thelr prices and their competi- tors would then get the business. 4 remedy was found, however, In an arrangement by which all the employers were simultaneous 1y required to introduce the i'm provements. A principle of great significance is to be found in this illustration. Whether competi- ton is wholesome or not depends upon the level of competition. When unfair and unwholesome methods of competition are intro duced, the aduIteration of goods, the making of false representa- ton, local underseIling for the purpose of ruining a local com petttor-these and other unfair methods can and should be pre- vented. Trade practices and pub lie sentiment go far in this mat ter. Where necessary, the law should step in. The game of business competition must be played fairly. There must be no hitting below the belt. On the other hand, business men should compete vigorously, seeking new markets. avoiding price agree ments, introducing improvements and so on. The man who can offer a better product at cheap CT price is performing real service for mankind, and the profits which he earns by so do- ing are a legitimate reward of human endeavor.
 Free Enterprise.
 Free enterprise, again, together with competition and private property, is vital to economic progress. The man with ideas and initiative must be given free scope to carry out his plans. By and large, free private enterprise is so enormously superior to gov ernm ent ownership of industry, under government regulation that the man who has seen both systems in operation intimately can have little doubt about the matter.
 Free enterprise and competi- ton are highly undesi rable under some conditions. There Is gen. eral agreement that unregulated competition between two parallel lines of railroad may bankrupt one or both. Competing tele- phone systems In a given city are pernicious. There is no room for competing street railway systems upon the city streets. In cases of this sort we reluctantly surrender competition, and we introduce government regulation. Unregulated monopoly, virtually all agree, is tntoIerabIe In cases where monopoly is inevitable, we accept the fact. We make the best of 1t by subjecting it to gov ernment control. But when we do this, the demand of the Socialists for going further becomes insis- tent and strong, because of their program Is within sight. A power full political movement arises for government ownership of raiI- roads, of telegraphs, and the like, and 1t is not certain that this movement can be resisted. Even in the cases of regulated mo- nopoIy, private ownership is pre- ferable to government owner ship. Private ownership even under government regulation Is more efficient than government ownership and operation, but business men will do well to realize that there is no cer- tainty that private ownership can be retained in these cases. If industry generally is allowed to become highly concentrated and combined under the regulation of such a body as the Federal Trade Commission, 1t may not be long before the movement for govern ment ownership and control will become powerful.
 For the general field of indus try, private enterprise and com petition must, In the long run, share the Sa me fortune.