though it can be called a kind of economic competition. Seeing that this is the worst form of competition, — a kind which always works badly, it would follow that the best kind of coöperation would be a kind which would stop this process of conspicuous waste and display. A few religious sects have undertaken to do something in this direction, but they have not been very popular. Vanity is apparently an even stronger motive than greed itself. It is greed which leads to the worst evils of competitive bargaining; it is vanity which leads to the worst evils of competitive consumption.

From what has been said it will appear that economic competition is not synonymous with the productive methods of struggling for existence as outlined in the beginning of this chapter. There is such a thing, it is true, as competitive production, but competitive bargaining is partly persuasive and partly deceptive. It is persuasive when it takes the form of clever advertising, of expert salesmanship, or of shrewd and reasonably honest bargaining; it is deceptive when cleverness in advertising takes the form of artistic lying (of overstating the merits of an article advertised), or when expert salesmanship takes the same form. Competitive consumption has no productive features about it. The effort to keep up appearances, to dress better than one can afford, to spend money for purposes of display, are all deceptive, besides being wasteful and to that extent destructive. These, however, are among the more refined and less repulsive forms of destruction. For this reason, perhaps, neither law nor public sentiment has condemned them very definitely as yet.

In what fields coöperation may succeed. They who are interested in promoting coöperation should bear all this in mind. It is a waste of time and energy to try to substitute coöperation for competition in all cases. In the first place, it cannot be done, because, so long as people prefer themselves and those who are near them to others who are farther from them, competition in some form will exist. In the second

place, even if coöperation could be substituted for competition, it would be undesirable in many cases, though desirable in others; that is to say, there are some cases in which competition works so well that coöperation could not improve upon it. To be more specific, competitive production, as stated before, always works well. No one has yet succeeded in making coöperation in production, either on a large scale or on a small scale, work successfully for a long period of time. This is not saying that producers may not occasionally coöperate, as when farmers help one another in special lines of work. In our rural communities, especially in previous generations, there were many barn raisings, log rollings, corn huskings, and other examples of genuine and beneficial coöperation. But these events were only incidents in a kind of life which remained, in spite of them, predominantly competitive. Even competitive bargaining sometimes works well. Where this is the case, nothing is to be gained by coöperation, and it is therefore certain to fail, because the coöperators will sooner or later lose their enthusiasm, when they see that they are not gaining anything by it, that is, when they see that it is not working any better than competition. The would-be coöperators should choose for their field of effort some situation where competitive bargaining is working badly. There they will have a chance of success. But no coöperative scheme runs itself. Even where there is a distinct and undoubted need for it, it will succeed only when some capable person gives a great deal of time and study and hard work to it.

Compulsion versus voluntary agreement. With an unerring instinct for economic falsehood a certain class of writers have persistently obscured this question of coöperation versus competition by confusing it with working under compulsion versus working under freedom of contract. The Panama Canal was not built coöperatively. The government of the United States decided to hire others to do it instead of bargaining with contractors. They who did the work did not coöperate,

any more than the men who build our railroads and factories or work on our streets. If a large number of farmers unite to run a creamery or a shoe factory of their own, but do not work in it themselves, they sometimes call it a coöperative creamery or shoe factory. In reality it is only quasi coöperative. The people who do the work in the factory are hired and have no more to say about the management than they would have if the factory were owned by an ordinary joint-stock corporation. A coöperative shoe factory, of the class which we are now discussing, is merely an organization formed for the purpose of bargaining for its shoes more successfully than it could otherwise do. It finds that it can bargain directly with workingmen, tanneries, and others to better advantage than it can bargain with private owners of shoe factories. That is the way in which the Panama Canal was built. It was found that the government could bargain more successfully with the engineers, directors, and workingmen than with private contractors. It was as if a private citizen who was about to build a house should decide to hire his own workmen and foremen instead of bargaining with a contractor.

It is particularly erroneous to speak of an army as though it were a coöperative body. It works under authority and compulsion rather than under a system of free contracting. Soldiers do whatever they are commanded to do and not whatever they see fit to bargain to do. Experience has shown that armies can succeed in no other way. It has also shown that industry can succeed on the basis of free contract, under which no one does anything until he sees fit to contract to do so. A little military experience will thoroughly convince our people that the distinction between compulsion and freedom is not the same as the distinction between coöperation and competition.

Coöperation in setting standards of consumption. There is always an acute need for a kind of coöperation that can stop competitive consumption. Unfortunately that need is not very widely understood. One reason why it costs us so much to

live is that we are everlastingly trying to keep up with someone else. "It takes all my income," said a certain congressman, "to keep up with my fool neighbors." He was expressing in this picturesque manner one of the profound facts of our economic life. The things which cost us so much money are not the things which we prize for their own sakes, but the things which we feel that we must have because our neighbors have them. We are, each of us, trying to live up to a standard set by someone else. Rich and poor alike are afflicted by the same disease. The rich are doubtless more to blame than the poor, but the poor cannot escape all blame. If they would try to live rationally, and not try to keep pace with someone else a little richer than themselves, they would not find it so hard to make both ends meet. A little coöperation among themselves, in the way of setting their own standards of dress and fashion, would be a great help. If, likewise, the well-to-do would not try to imitate those still richer, they could be saved much worry and vexation of spirit. The individual finds himself almost helpless. "As well be out of the world as out of style" is a saying which pretty well sums up the situation, so far as the individual is concerned. But a large group of people who would coöperate in the work of setting their own styles need not be either out of style or out of the world. Educated people who see the principle involved should take the lead. In so doing they would not only be doing themselves a favor, but they would be conferring a priceless benefit upon the whole nation.

1 Compare also Mr. Irving Bacheller's book entitled "Keeping up with Lizzie."

CHAPTER V

LAW AND GOVERNMENT

The need for law. Law and government have a most important part to perform in promoting the prosperity of the people. Bagehot1 has said that the first great need of primitive man is for law,- definite, concise law. He even argued that it is more important that the law be definite and concise. than that it be just, though both are of very great importance. It is probable that a system of laws which are well understood because they are clear and concise, and which are regularly enforced without variation or favoritism, even though they are in some respects unjust, is better for a people than a system of laws which are in essence just, but which are not clearly understood and not regularly and impartially enforced; but of course it would be still better if they were both just, on the one hand, and clear, concise, and regularly enforced, on the other. When everyone knows definitely what the law is, and knows definitely that it will be enforced not only against him but equally in his defense, he at least knows what he can count upon. Nothing so discourages industry and enterprise as uncertainty as to what other men are likely to do, and uncertainty as to the enforcement of law contributes to that uncertainty as to what other men are likely to do.

The problem as to what the government can do, through its laws and its administration, for the promotion of the economic prosperity of the people, is of the very greatest importance. The specific aim should be to call out the very best and most productive efforts of every individual. Since the greatest resource of any nation is the productive energy of the people 1 Physics and Politics, fifth edition, p. 21. London, 1879.