Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 13, 1900)
4 'Cbe Conservative * The marked in- OUR KXPOBT . crease in our ex. TUADE. , . . ports of merohan- dise affords aii interesting subject for investigation by those interested in political economy. For the twelve months ending November 1 , the total export trade amounted to $2,277,800,048 , a sum that seems almost incredible and far beyond the expectation of the most sanguine advocate of foreign markets of a few years ago. In a surprisingly short time we have become a competitor in the world's market and not only a competitor but a very active and re markably successful one. Where trade is unrestiicted and people ple have absolute freedom of choice in making their purchases Labor Cost. chases they buy where they can buy the cheapest. When foreigners buy our products they do so because they can obtain them from us cheaper than they can from anybody else. The interesting question is , what has enabled us to undersell foreign com petitors ? Is it because the Ameri can wage scale has been reduced ? This theory is untenable for the reason that the report of the United States commissioner of labor shows that there has been a slight raise rather than a de cline in wages during the last five years. Perhaps changes in methods of pro duction and distribution have had some- thing to do with Managerial Expense. 11 i cheapen ! u g the relative cost of putting the American product upon the market ? The last five or ten years have witnessed almost rev olutionary changes in industrial organi zation. Consolidation has been the great principle at play in the commer cial world. Small industries have com bined their limited capitals and operate now under a single management. To secure greater economy in production and distribution is the principal reason assigned for the formation of these large combinations or "trusts , " as they are commonly known. Oau it be that the economies resulting from consolidation have enabled us to successfully 'com- , pete in the world's markets ? Do not the facts in the case tend to show that this view is the correct one and that we are meeting foreign competition not because of cheapened wages but on account of the saving in expense of management brought about by com bination ? If this be true is it not a fairly strong argument in favor of the principle of combination ? Under these conditions is there any need for alarm because of the further application of the latter principle ? Do not the results justify a postponement of judgment and further experiments with industrial combinations before denouncing them all as unmitigated evils , demanding immediate annihilation ? Apropos of our increased foreign trade , Mr. Ulysses D. Eddy , of Flint , Eddy & Company , one of An Exporter's the largest export Opinion. . . , firms in the coun try , in a recent interview made the fol lowing sensible explanation : "What people call trusts , are respon sible for this phenomenal trade. With out such combinations of capital and interests - terests as have taken place in this coun try within the last few years such growth in our foreign commerce would have been impossible. In the first place , it takes a great deal of money for a new dealer to build up a market in a foreign country , and few manufacturers in this country could afford to do so until they pooled their issues. Most of them were afraid to make the costly effort because they feared that as soon as they had cultivated a demand other manufactur ers in the same line of goods would im mediately take advantage of the results of their enterprise and expenditures , Few were willing to take the risk. Then , again , small quantities of mer chandise cannot be handled with econ omy. It cost just as much to sell $10,000 worth of goods as $1,000,000 worth , on which the profits are , of course , so many times the larger. Therefore the trusts , or whatever you may call the amalga mated companies , are able to do a for eign business at a greatly reduced cost with much greater profits than private firms and corporations. "It does not pay manufacturers to seller or ship small quantities. The difference in freight rates on a cargo and a single invoice is of itself a good profit. Form erly orders from foreign buyers were scattered among a dozen or a hundred different manufactories in small lots. Now they are concentrated in large lots , which can be handled at the same cost and the same trouble. This centraliza tion not only enables us to produce butte to sell and ship with greater economy. A few years ago , before what are call ed trusts were organized , there were two of conduct- , , , Old methods. . . . , ing foreign trade. One was through commission houses , who placed orders with jobbers or man ufacturers for specified articles. Anoth er was for manfactnrers who had a sur plus of goods which they could not sell at home to consign them to a selling agent in some foreign country and let him get rid of them on the best terms possible. The result was that foreign merchants came to this country only for such goods as they could not get else where , and an irregular and spasmodic trade was going on between our manu facturers and merchants in foreign countries , with very little profit to either. Now our manufacturers can afford to establish agencies of their own to study conditions and work up a trade for staple articles ; they can give more liberal credits , because of their larger capital , and better prices than the indi- vidual manufacturers could offer , which enables them to meet successfully the European competition. Larger ship ments give them lower transportation rates. They send goods by trainloads and fill ships at the lowest possible cost. The saving in production , transporta tion and distribution combined is so great that they are not only enabled to give lower prices but declare larger profits. 1 'If yon will notice the export statis tics , " continued Mr. Eddy , "you will see that the slowest growth in our for eign trade is in the dry goods line. That is because the manfaoturers are not or ganized. The most rapid growth is in the various forms of iron and steel , be cause the manufacturers in those lines are thoroughly organized and have made a united and intelligent attack upon the foreign market. " The same pee > , , pie and tiie same newspapers that depict the distress of farm life and the brisk competition which farmers give each other in mar keting their abundant products are also strenuously advocating governmental ap propriations , with which to dig ditches and construct reservoirs on the arid and rainless plains and so make more farms , more products , more competition among the bucolic producers. The government is a born pauper. The United States cannot donate a dollar lar for irrigation Taxes. purposes except out of money gathered from its citizens by taxation. It has no other money. Thus the paradox of bemoaning the farmer's fate because of the intense competition with Paradox. . . , . . , which his products meet in all markets and then proposing to tax the same farmer and all the rest of the American people for the purpose of fertilizing with water a vast area of arid land which is aow unfertile , and thus to create more competition. If it is a duty or function of govern ment to manure lands with water , why not equally a duty and function of gov ernment to furnish solid fertilizers ? If right to governmentally bring arid plains in the West into productivity by legisla tive fertilization and then give them away to homesteaders ; why is it not equally right and proper for the govern ment to restore the old farms of New England by paying for the commercial fertilizers necessary to bring them again into profitable production ? In a government like this can pater nalism prevail ? Who are to be given the _ . . . functions of par- Putorniillsm. , , , r , enthood and who are to play the children's part ?
