DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42346#0040
28
THE NEW COMPETITION
labor-unionist, and every small manufacturer know that
where cooperation is effective wages and prices are more
constant.
The very theory of our anti-trust laws is that they sup-
press cooperation, and, by encouraging competition, pro^
mote the widest possible fluctuations in prices—for the sup-
posed benefit of the consumer who is—the law forgets—first
of all a producer.
2. This error is more firmly grounded. If competi-
tion is a disintegrating and wasteful force then it cannot
possibly be “a stimulus to productive efficiency,” and it is
not. Its effect is altogether disheartening and discouraging.
It may seemingly result in introduction of new methods and
new inventions, but progress in these directions is due to
broader influences.
The great inventions of the world were not due to com-
petitive conditions—competition had no more influence on
Watts than on Newton. Bell’s interest in the telephone was
primarily scientific. Few inventions have been so perfect
at the outset that competitors could at once make use of
them. On the contrary, it has usually required long co-
operation of labor and capital, in the face of jeering op-
position, to bring an invention to practical perfection.
It is true artificial monopolies resting upon grants from
the crown or state have been notoriously indifferent to ad-
vancement, but not so with monopolies resting upon the
ability of men to hold trade; they are as quick to develop
improved methods as if they had many competitors.
The Standard Oil Company was charged with having
been for a generation or more a monopoly, yet no one would
claim its methods were not up to date—the actual complaint
is that its methods were a little too advanced to admit of
competition. As a producer and distributor of oil that com-
pany has led the world.
The United States Steel Corporation is charged with
THE NEW COMPETITION
labor-unionist, and every small manufacturer know that
where cooperation is effective wages and prices are more
constant.
The very theory of our anti-trust laws is that they sup-
press cooperation, and, by encouraging competition, pro^
mote the widest possible fluctuations in prices—for the sup-
posed benefit of the consumer who is—the law forgets—first
of all a producer.
2. This error is more firmly grounded. If competi-
tion is a disintegrating and wasteful force then it cannot
possibly be “a stimulus to productive efficiency,” and it is
not. Its effect is altogether disheartening and discouraging.
It may seemingly result in introduction of new methods and
new inventions, but progress in these directions is due to
broader influences.
The great inventions of the world were not due to com-
petitive conditions—competition had no more influence on
Watts than on Newton. Bell’s interest in the telephone was
primarily scientific. Few inventions have been so perfect
at the outset that competitors could at once make use of
them. On the contrary, it has usually required long co-
operation of labor and capital, in the face of jeering op-
position, to bring an invention to practical perfection.
It is true artificial monopolies resting upon grants from
the crown or state have been notoriously indifferent to ad-
vancement, but not so with monopolies resting upon the
ability of men to hold trade; they are as quick to develop
improved methods as if they had many competitors.
The Standard Oil Company was charged with having
been for a generation or more a monopoly, yet no one would
claim its methods were not up to date—the actual complaint
is that its methods were a little too advanced to admit of
competition. As a producer and distributor of oil that com-
pany has led the world.
The United States Steel Corporation is charged with