1918.] Till-. NKCESSITV FOR ORGANIZATION-. 67 



cient explanation of the fact tliat farming is not the most 

 prosperous lousiness in the country. 



I5ut the world at lart^e is still groping for the S(jlution of 

 the great i)r()blem of buying and ^cdling. I wonder if y(ju 

 realize that no manufacturing city ever rose to the first rank 

 ■ among cities. A few ha\'e risen to second rank or third, hut 

 none to first. The only cities that have ever risen in any 

 countrv to first rank are the trading cities. Of course, no 

 manufacturing city can get along without doing some 

 trading, and all trading cities do a certain amount of manu- 

 facturing. Nevertheless, the dominant business in the large 

 cities of all countries is buying and selling, — wholesaling and 

 retailing, — rather than manufacturing; whereas in all of these 

 countries a number of cities have risen to second and third 

 rank where manufacturing is the dominant business and 

 trading is only of secondary importance. Moreover, the 

 great fortunes of the world have been made, not in the ma- 

 jority of cases by manufacturing, but by trading, — buying 

 ^nd selling, — by men wdio have not been skillful in the art of 

 manufacturing, but skillful in the arts of trading. Even the 

 manufacturers, therefore, have many problems in the way of 

 buying and selling which they have not yet worked out, but 

 the farmers are even further behind. Manufacturers are now 

 beginning to realize that the selling organization, or the sales 

 department, is the most important p?.rt of their business or- 

 ganization. In some cases it is almost the wdiole business, 

 the actual work of manufacturing being carried on mainlv 

 for the purpose of keeping the hopper full in order that the 

 selling organization may be kept busy. 



Even the trust, though it claims to be eliicient in pro- 

 duction, owes its success mainly to its efficiency as a buyer 

 and seller. It may be able to control a source of raw mate- 

 rials and thus get its raw materials on better terms than its 

 competitors. The producers of the finished product do not 

 know the difference and think the trust is an efficient pro- 

 ducer, wdiereas, in this case, it is only an efticient bargainer. 

 It may secure better transportation rates than its competitors, 

 and thus gain an advantage over them. This, again, is not 

 •efficiency in production, but efficiency in bargaining. It may 

 "be al;)le to control the labor situation more eff"ectivelv than a 



