SUBJECTS Abraham Lincoln on the Tariff: A Myth. Note. By F. W. Agricultural Credit in the United States. By J. E. Pope British Super-Tax and the Distribution of Income. By A. L. Business Cycles, Books on. By W. M. Persons. Rewiew Competitive Price, A Contribution to the Theory of. By J. M. Davenport's Economics and the Present Problems of Theory. By A. S. Johnson Deposit Guaranty, Four Years More of. By T. Cooke Development by Commissions of the Principles of Public Utility Depreciation and Rate Control. By A. A. Young Elsas' Ausnahmetarife. Review. By S. Daggett Federal Reserve Act of 1913. By O. M. W. Sprague 814 Railroad Over-Capitalization. By W. Z. Ripley Scientific Management, Literature of. By C. B. Thompson Published by Harvard University Books, periodicals, and manuscript to be addressed, EDITORS of QUARTERLY Business letters to be addressed, HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2 Univer- Editor F. W. TAUSSIG T. N. CARVER W. Z. RIPLEY O. M. W. SPRAGUE C. J. BULLOCK E. F. GAY W. M. COLE B. M. ANDERSON, Jr. CONTENTS FOR MAY, 1913 I. THE PLAN FOR A COMPENSATED DOLLAR II. THE TABULAR STANDARD IN MASSACHUSETTS HISTORY III. IV. . TENANCY IN THE SOUTHERN STATES V. THE ECONOMIC POSSIBILITIES OF CONSERVATION F. W. Taussig Willard C. Fisher George E. Barnett Benjamin H. Hibbard L. C. Gray R. C. McCrea Hammond V. Hayes III. ORIGINAL COST VERSUS REPLACEMENT COST AS A BASIS IV. THE MARGINAL PRODUCTIVITY VERSUS THE INPATIENCE dustries, 3. — The Tariff Board and the methods of revision, 5. Sugar duty lowered at once, to be abolished after three years, 8. Wool free, 11; lower ad valorem rate on woolens, 13. The probable consequences, 15. — Moderate rates on cottons, 17. Comparatively high rates retained on silks, 20. — Other changes: pottery (23), iron and steel (24), free list extended (25). — Administrative sections strengthened, to prevent evasion of ad valorem rates, 26. — Many reductions will be only of nominal effect, 28. What the future may bring, 29. THE Tariff Act of 1913 is described both by friends and enemies as a radical measure. It is said not only to lower duties, but to introduce new methods of assessing them and to rest upon principles essentially different. How far can it be said to make sweeping changes? The new principle of which most has been made by the advocates of the act is that of a competitive tariff." In 1909, the Republicans had professed to act on quite a different principle, - that of equalizing cost of production. These two have been set forth by both sides as starting from opposite poles in the 1 It tariff controversy. And yet, impartially considered, and assuming consistent application, they would seem to come to very much the same thing. The notion underlying equalization of cost of production is that of enabling the domestic producer to compete on even terms with the foreign producer. This would seem to be essentially the notion of a "competitive tariff." is true that in the statements of the principle of equalization, something was always said of a "reasonable profit" to the domestic producer; whereas the Democrats, when explaining what was meant by a competitive tariff," poohpoohed reasonable profits, and intimated that the competition should be such as to cut down domestic profits, and perhaps wipe out some of them. Yet a reasonable profit is obviously to be considered among the normal expenses of production, even tho it be not so reckoned under the usual methods of cost accounting. A competitive tariff" would seem to be one under which domestic and foreign producers could compete in such manner that both should get reasonable profits. Fairly and consistently applied, therefore, the principle of a competitive tariff cannot be said to differ in essentials from that of a tariff equalizing cost of production. In discussing the Tariff Act of 1909, I took occasion to point out the obvious fact that universal equalization of cost of production means universal application of protection. However high cost of production may be in the United States, duties must be made high enough, on this principle, to offset the difference. Anything and everything is to be made at home. The principle of a "competitive tariff" perhaps does not go quite so far, especially if applied with a less generous 1 In this Journal for November, 1909; cf. also my Tariff History of the United States, ed. of 1910, p. 363. |