FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375  
376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   386   387   388   389   390   391   392   393   394   395   396   397   398   399   400   >>   >|  
ts Acquired Total Date Number or Controlled Nominal Capital Jan. 1, 1904 318 5288 $7,246,000,000 These figures compared with those given above would indicate that the industrial trusts had about doubled in the years 1900-1903 inclusive. Probably most of this growth was in the years 1900 and 1901; then the movement became very slow, because, as is generally believed, of the aroused public opinion, of more vigorous prosecution by the government, and of additional legislation against trusts. The authority last cited gives in a more comprehensive list, in six groups, all the monopolistic combinations in the United States, at the date of January 1, 1904, as follows (the figures just given above being the totals of the first three groups): No. of Plants Total Nominal Groups Number Acquired or Controlled Capital 1. Greater industrial trusts 7 1528 $2,260,000,000 2. Lesser industrial trusts 298 3426 4,055,000,000 3. Other industrial trusts in process of reorganization or readjustment 13 334 528,000,000 4. Franchise trusts 111 1336 3,735,000,000 5. Great steam railroad groups 6 790 9,017,000,000 6. Allied independent 10 250 380,000,000 --- ----- -------------- Total, 445 8664 $20,000,000,000 Sec. 11. #Motive to avoid competition.# This remarkable movement toward the formation of united corporations from formerly independent enterprises called forth a variety of explanations. The organizers of trusts gave as the first explanation of their action that it was the necessary result of excessive competition. It is not to be denied that a hard fight and lower prices often preceded the formation of the trusts. But as this excessive competition usually is begun for the very purpose of forcing others into a combination, this explanation is a begging of the question. It is fallacious also in that it ignores the marginal principle in the problem of profits. Profits are never the same in all factories, and to those manufacturers that are on the margin competition
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375  
376   377   378   379   380   381   382   383   384   385   386   387   388   389   390   391   392   393   394   395   396   397   398   399   400   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
trusts
 

industrial

 

competition

 

groups

 

excessive

 

formation

 
explanation
 
movement
 

independent

 
Number

Acquired

 

Controlled

 
Nominal
 

Capital

 

figures

 

united

 

corporations

 

remarkable

 
enterprises
 
organizers

factories

 

explanations

 
variety
 
called
 

manufacturers

 

margin

 

Allied

 
Motive
 

action

 

combination


forcing

 

purpose

 

begging

 

question

 
ignores
 

marginal

 
principle
 

profits

 
fallacious
 

Profits


result

 

denied

 

preceded

 
prices
 

problem

 

legislation

 

additional

 

government

 

vigorous

 
prosecution