fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (08/02/85)
Regarding Charley Wingate's contention that U.S. Steel had monopoly powers over the United States steel industry: (Taken from Gabriel Kolko's book *The Triumph of Conservatism*) In 1889 there were 719 companies in the United States steel industry. The history of the next two decades shows attempted pricing agreements and pools, almost all of which were abysmal failures (only a steel rail pool was moderatley succesful). This was followed by a wave of mergers that ultimately led to the formation of U.S. Steel. Let's see just how much control U.S. Steel was able to exert over the steel market: commodity date market share ingots and casings 1901-1905 62.9% 1911-1915 52.5% 1921-1925 46.2% pig iron 1901 43% 1910 43% finished rolled products 1901 50% 1910 48% wire nails 1901 66% 1910 55% total steel output of U.S. 1901 66% 1920 39.9% Quoting Kolko, "In 1909 there were eleven firms other than U.S. Steel with at least $25 million in assets engaged in some aspect of the steel industry. At this time there were still 208 companies with blast furnaces, a decline of only 7% since 1899. The number of companies with steel works and rolling mills increased by one over the same period, to 446. The number of firms engaged in making tinplate and ternplate fell from fifty-seven to thirty-one ovver the period of ten years, but the number of wire mills using purchased rods increased from twenty-nine to fifty-six... If nothing else, the steel industry was competitive before the World War, and the efforts by the House of Morgan to establish control and stability over the steel industry by voluntary, private economic means had failed. Having failed in the realm of economics, the efforts of the United States Steel group were to be shifted to politics." For the rest of this somewhat depressing story, check out Kolko's book. --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/02/85)
In article <9560@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes: >If nothing else, the steel industry was competitive before the World War, >and the efforts by the House of Morgan to establish control and stability >over the steel industry by voluntary, private economic means had failed. >Having failed in the realm of economics, the efforts of the United States >Steel group were to be shifted to politics." > >For the rest of this somewhat depressing story, check out Kolko's book. > It is a common libertarian ploy to point out that much of the abuse that government regulations are meant to prevent was caused by govt. interference in the first place. Then they say: But if they had only kept a "free market" none of this would have happened. This point of view merely continues the myth of a feasable libertarian state. There were no EXTERNAL pressures for the govt. to get involved on the side of US STEEL. It was merely the natural result of the power dynamics in this country. IT WAS INEVITABLE, GIVEN THE ESSENTIALLY UNDEMOCRATIC NATURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVT. AT THE TIME. When the central govt. is weak, and a few men are very powerful, THE GOVERNMENT WILL DO THEIR BIDDING. It clear from history that nature abhors a power vacuum. Any libertarian society will rapidly subcum (sp?) to non-governmental power blocks, just as any "free" market will fall in the same manner. Kolko would probably reccomend that a POPULAR government be given the power to control those large corporations to prevent the situations described in his book. He's criticism of the particular history of U.S. govt. is hardly a condemnation of interference in the free market. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/05/85)
I'm going to have to punt on this one, as I cannot afford the time to research this further. C Wingate