Sec. 14. #Monopoly’s power to raise prices#.  There is no doubt that the formation of a combination from competing plants can and does give a control over prices, a monopoly power, not possessed by the separate competing establishments.  The same kind of power might be attained by the growth of one establishment outstripping all its competitors, or by a new enterprise coming into the field backed by powerful capitalists.  But this would work slower and less extensive results than does the formation of a combination.

Of course, the fundamental principles of price cannot be changed by a trust; a selling monopoly can affect price only as it affects supply or demand.[12] The strongest trust yet seen has not been omnipotent.  Many careless expressions on the subject are heard even from ordinarily careful writers and speakers:  “The trust can fix its own prices,” “has unlimited control,” “can determine what it will pay and for what it will sell.”  This implies that trusts are benevolent, seeing that the prices they charge are usually not far in excess of competitive prices in the past.  Such a view overlooks the forces that limit the price a monopoly can charge.  If the supply remains the same, no trust can make the price go higher.  The monopoly usually directs its efforts to affecting the supply, leaving the price to adjust itself.  It can affect the supply either by lessening its own output or by intimidating and forcing out its competitors.  It is true that this logical order is not always the order of events.  The trust may not first limit the supply, and then wait for prices to adjust themselves; it may first raise its prices, but unless it is prepared to limit the supply in accordance with the new resulting conditions of demand, such action would be vain.  The control of the sources of supply is the logical explanation of the higher price, even tho the limitation of supply is effected later by successive acts found necessary to maintain the higher price.

The report of the Federal Industrial Commission, which, from 1898 to 1901, investigated the trusts, showed that immediately upon their formation, the industrial combinations had raised their prices.[13] Prices might be lowered again but only when and where competition became troublesome, thus causing either “price-wars” or discrimination.

[Footnote 1:  See Vol.  I, p. 76.]

[Footnote 2:  As in the list in sec. 8, below.]

[Footnote 3:  See Vol.  I, chs. 8 and 31.]

[Footnote 4:  See Vol.  I, ch. 8, on competition and monopoly, and ch. 31, on monopoly prices and large production.  An understanding of the definitions and of the general principles distinguishing competition and monopoly is a necessary prerequisite to a profitable discussion of the practical problem of monopoly.]

[Footnote 5:  See Vol.  I, p. 267, on capital; pp. 388-393, on large production.  See also references in preceding note on monopoly; and ch. 27, secs. 1 and 2, on corporate organization.]