Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

evils which are incident to the form of ownership. selected. Private railways can be controlled if government is strong and pure enough for this control. Wages and conditions of service, as well as rates, can be adjusted under government ownership if government is strong and pure enough to devise right standards and to resist popular clamor.

LITERATURE

While a great deal has been written on the subject of this chapter, it will generally be conceded that it is for the most part entirely unsatisfactory. There are, however, some exceptions. All recent text-books of economics deal with this subject in what is considered its proper place. In addition to these text-books, it is sufficient for the purposes of the present chapter to call attention to a few other works.

BEMIS, EDWARD W., and others, Municipal Monopolies. New York, 1899. This book is altogether the best work on the subject; with which it deals.

HADLEY, ARTHUR T., Railroad Transportation; its History and its Laws. New York, 1885. A scientific treatment of the subject; unfriendly to national ownership. HUDSON, JAMES R., The Railways and the Republic. New York, 1886. A sharp arraignment of the railway management of the United States, with proposal of public ownership of the road-bed with private and competing operation; a plan which finds few, if any, advocates at the present time. The chief value of this work is its criticism of railway management.

MEYER, B. H., Railway Legislation in the United States. New York, 1903. Gives results of regulation in the United States.

In addition to books, mention may be made of Municipal Affairs, published by the Reform Club Committee on City Affairs, 52 William Street, New York City. This is altogether the best magazine which deals with the various phases of municipal government, and has many excellent articles on the subject of municipal ownership.

CHAPTER VI

THE CONCENTRATION AND DIFFUSION OF WEALTH

THERE is unanimous agreement among all writers that within the past century the production of wealth has been increasing enormously. Never before has man been so successful in exploiting the earth as at the present time. But there is no such unanimity in the answers to the two questions of how this wealth is actually distributed, and how it ought to be distributed. Of course, we all know there is no equal division of wealth. Some people are very rich and some are very poor. But are these the exceptions? Are the mass of the people well off? Or are the many poor because the few are so very rich? Whatever the facts, how great ought the inequalities to be? Before entering upon a discussion of these questions, we must consider some definitions and distinctions.

The term "" concentration of wealth is here used in the sense of " concentration in the ownership of wealth," as distinguished from the concentration of capital in large-scale establishments. If the stock of the United States Steel Corporation were owned by individuals holding one share each,

the concentration in industry would be just as great as it is now, but there would be a wide diffusion in the ownership of the wealth of the corporation. Possibly it may be true that the two kinds of concentration are inseparable, but at any rate the ideas are totally different. Obvious as this distinction may seem, it is one that is constantly being ignored. An excellent illustration of this fact is seen in the notable series of articles that appeared in the New York Independent for May 1st, 1902. These articles were written by persons in various walks of life on the general topic, "The Concentration of Wealth." Some of the writers discuss the merits of large-scale production, others the distribution of wealth, and only one makes the distinction clearly.

But the idea of concentration in the ownership of wealth is itself somewhat perplexing. In general terms we may say that it means a divergence from an equal distribution, but what is the criterion by which to say that the concentration is small or great? Is it sufficient to say that when wealth is equally distributed there is no concentration, that when it is all in the hands of one person, there is the greatest possible concentration, and that between these two extremes there is every possible gradation? The difficulty that may arise is shown by the following example: Let the diagrams represent two ways of distributing one hundred dollars among ten persons:

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

16 16 16 16 16 4 4 4 4 4

Is the concentration greater or less in the second case than in the first? On the whole, we should probably say greater, since the richer half of the group has a larger proportion of the total wealth in the second case, but there has also been a diffusion within each half. We must recognize, therefore, that there may be movements both of concentration and diffusion going on simultaneously and one has to be balanced against the other.

« AnteriorContinuar »