72. Opponents of the formation of corporate trusts in the late nineteenth century often argued that trusts would
Answer: B
Trusts would decrease competition and raise prices.
Opponents of the formation of corporate trusts in the late nineteenth century often argued that trusts would decrease competition and raise prices, leading to monopolistic practices that would harm consumers and small businesses alike.
A) improve labor productivity
This option is incorrect because opponents of corporate trusts did not believe that trusts would improve labor productivity. Instead, they were concerned that reduced competition would lead to less incentive for companies to improve efficiency or worker conditions.
B) decrease competition and raise prices
This option is correct as it encapsulates the main argument made by opponents of trusts. They feared that by consolidating power within a few corporations, trusts would limit competition, allowing these entities to artificially inflate prices.
C) reduce business costs
While some may argue that trusts could streamline operations and reduce costs, opponents highlighted that the resulting lack of competition could lead to complacency and inefficiency, ultimately harming consumers.
D) increase the supply of capital
This option is incorrect because opponents were more focused on the negative consequences of trusts rather than potential benefits such as increased capital. The concern was that concentrated capital could lead to monopolistic control, not its availability.
E) create better working conditions for labor
Opponents did not believe that trusts would lead to better working conditions for labor; rather, they feared that the consolidation of power would diminish labor rights and protections, as fewer competing firms could lead to lower wages and poorer conditions.
Conclusion
In summary, the argument that trusts would decrease competition and raise prices directly addresses the fears of opponents regarding monopolistic control and its adverse effects on consumers and the economy. All other options either misinterpret the concerns raised or fail to align with the historical context of the opposition to trusts.