DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42346#0060
48
THE NEW COMPETITION
dustries, and, in the last analysis, the trust is a labor- and
capital-saving device.
V4
In so far as the “trust” is a monopoly, that introduces
another and artificial condition, which must be dealt with
by itself.1
But a monopoly is a monopoly whether possessed by a
“trust,” a partnership, or an individual, and, of all forms of
monopoly, that of the large corporation is probably the
most vulnerable, the least stable.
Missouri has a law limiting the size of corporations
permitted to do business in the state to a capitalization of
ten millions.
The amount may have seemed abundantly large to the
legislature that passed the act, but the law is as absurd as
it is futile, except for mischief.
A distinguished political leader proposes to arbitrarily
limit any one corporation's control of an industry to 50
per cent.; if it controls 51 per cent, it is a bad trust—a
proposition without a shadow of reason. Aside from its
fundamental unsoundness it has its ridiculous aspects. The
corporation that is anxiously trying to keep within its 50
per cent, might find itself in the clutches of the law by the
unexpected retirement of a distant competitor, or a number
1“We must sharply distinguish between large scale production and
monopolistic production. This is something that the author has been
iterating and reiterating for the past fifteen years or more. Many
others have also been saying the same thing, and it seems now to be
generally understood. It is indeed strange that it should ever have
been difficult to understand the difference between vast production and
monopolistic production. One of our great retail stores, like Marshall
Field’s or Mandel Brothers’, in Chicago, or Wanamaker’s, in Philadel-
phia or New York City, represents very large scale production, but
along with the large scale production there is the sharpest kind of
competition.”—Prof. R. T. Ely, “Evolution of Industrial Society,” pp.
96-97.
THE NEW COMPETITION
dustries, and, in the last analysis, the trust is a labor- and
capital-saving device.
V4
In so far as the “trust” is a monopoly, that introduces
another and artificial condition, which must be dealt with
by itself.1
But a monopoly is a monopoly whether possessed by a
“trust,” a partnership, or an individual, and, of all forms of
monopoly, that of the large corporation is probably the
most vulnerable, the least stable.
Missouri has a law limiting the size of corporations
permitted to do business in the state to a capitalization of
ten millions.
The amount may have seemed abundantly large to the
legislature that passed the act, but the law is as absurd as
it is futile, except for mischief.
A distinguished political leader proposes to arbitrarily
limit any one corporation's control of an industry to 50
per cent.; if it controls 51 per cent, it is a bad trust—a
proposition without a shadow of reason. Aside from its
fundamental unsoundness it has its ridiculous aspects. The
corporation that is anxiously trying to keep within its 50
per cent, might find itself in the clutches of the law by the
unexpected retirement of a distant competitor, or a number
1“We must sharply distinguish between large scale production and
monopolistic production. This is something that the author has been
iterating and reiterating for the past fifteen years or more. Many
others have also been saying the same thing, and it seems now to be
generally understood. It is indeed strange that it should ever have
been difficult to understand the difference between vast production and
monopolistic production. One of our great retail stores, like Marshall
Field’s or Mandel Brothers’, in Chicago, or Wanamaker’s, in Philadel-
phia or New York City, represents very large scale production, but
along with the large scale production there is the sharpest kind of
competition.”—Prof. R. T. Ely, “Evolution of Industrial Society,” pp.
96-97.