THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF TRUSTS 125 



Attention may now be directed to the reasons for this 

 belief in the tendency of large scale production to pass over 

 into monopoly, and to the criticisms which such views evoke 

 from writers who deny the existence of such a tendency. 

 In favor of this proposition three general lines of argument 

 may be distinguished : (a) the contention that a consolidated 

 enterprise possesses advantages over independent companies 

 in producing and marketing its goods; (b) the claim that 

 mere mass of capital confers powers of destructive warfare 

 so great as to deter possible competitors from entering the 

 field; (c) the belief that modern competition between large 

 rival establishments, representing heavy investments of fixed 

 capital, is injurious to the public, ruinous to the producers, 

 and in its final outcome self destructive. As our discussion 

 proceeds, it will become evident to the reader that ail of 

 these arguments can be employed, with consistency, only 

 by those who believe that the competitive regime is to be 

 replaced by an era of monopoly. 



First in this list is the contention that a consolidated 

 concern is a more efficient agent of production and exchange. 

 It is claimed that a combination can effect a saving in no less 

 than twenty different directions; and the economy arising 

 from such sources is declared to be great enough to give the 

 trust a control over the market based solely upon superior 

 efficiency, and to make competition " hopeless." For this 

 reason it is held that such combinations may confer "enor- 

 mous" benefits upon society. The critic may well entertain 

 the suspicion, however, after reading what is said upon this 

 subject, that these arguments prove almost too much; for, 

 if in twenty directions substantial economies may be realized 

 by a combination, it would seem that the utter futility of 

 competition would have been recognized by the business 

 world long ago. If these arguments be altogether true, 

 how is it that the trusts find competition so troublesome, 

 and consider it "good business" to resort to the most dis- 

 agreeable means of driving "interlopers" out of the field? 

 Such tactics are decidedly "bad business," if they are needless; 

 and we can hardly think that the shrewd managers of the 



