Taft Vs Roosevelt And Trusts

925 Words4 Pages
Trusts are groups wherein holders, or trustees, join together with other trustees to gain some form of advantage in their respective markets. Trusts were centrally important throughout the beginning of the 20th century. However, because of their harmfulness to the economy as whole antitrust legislations were created, and numerous antitrust lawsuits were filed. Trust busting, or the regulation of trusts by the government, became a central focus of politicians. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft are both excellent examples of antitrust supporters. A monopoly is defined as “exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices”. A prime example of a monopoly was the United States Steel Corporation, formed by industry giants J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and William Edenborn among smaller companies. The United States government generally opposes trusts and monopolies, because of the danger they present to the economy. This danger is present because when a monopoly effects an industry, it is very easy for the holders of the monopolistic trust to manipulate the prices of their products, putting a stressful load on consumers and the economy. Teddy Roosevelt, a popular president of the United States, was also well known as a trust buster. Roosevelt believed the government had the obligation to control trusts, and prevent them from monopolizing any given industry. Roosevelt didn’t believe that all trusts were inherently evil. Roosevelt felt some trusts were integral to the economy, and actually worked to preserve them. The way Roosevelt saw it, trusts that increased the prices of their products purely to increase profit margins weren’t helpful in any way, however trusts that kept reasonable prices and benefitted the economy could be considered positive. Hoping to disband bad trusts
Open Document