TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Bu-~ness Research The University of Texas Vol. XIV, No. 1 February 28, 1940 A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas and the Southwe1t Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas En.tereu u ac.cuuJ cli::1.se matte1 on May 7, 1928, at the pwt office at Austin, 1ex.11.1, undtir Act ef Au1u•t 24, 1912 IND E....X t.S 0 f' Bu IL0 ING p E. ~M IT., IN 2 9 TE.XA~ CITIE..5 1929=1ooy.. 1929-39 BuP..r..Au of" Bu~1Ni:.:.-:. 12.E~EAQ.CH THI!.. UN IV. OF T t:.l<.A~ 100 eo ... 60 2 Lt') ..q­ m iJ v ro d w LL 1&.140 c. Cl. ~ ~ 20 N0Tt.:T1-1£.. C1T1E.::i 1NcLuo£..o ARE: Ae1L£..Nt.,AMA0.11.,.Lo. Au.sT1N. 5EAUMONT, CLE.e,uP.NL,(OP.PlJ5 C~Rl:'.>TI, COP.5\CANA,DALLA5, DE.L P.10, LL DA50, fORT WOP.TH, GALVE.'.:>TON, Wou:sTON, JACl(.!:>ONVI LLE, LA O.E.D o, Lue,BocK., McALLEN, MAP.'.:>WALL, PAP.1 ~ ,DLA1Nv1E.w, PoP.T ARTwuR.,5AN ANGE.Lo, .SAtJ AN.TONto, 0HE:RNIAN 5NYD£..R, 5wn:.TWATE.R. ,TY LE.P..WACO A ND Wt CH ITA f A LL!>. TEN CENTS PER COPY ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW INDEXES or BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS AV ER AGE MONTH Of 1930 a 100 /.· WEIGHT IN COMPO S ITE IND£)( tMPLOYM[NT ---2,% FAEIOHT CAJlLOADINO.s---20Y. PAY ROLLS 2,% CRUDE OIL JlUNS '" OEPAATMENT STO RE S ALES·IO ~ tLCCTRIC PO WER CONSUtr,tPTIOM-1$ % Bur t 1 u o f Bu.s i nt.s.s Re.stare.ti The U1iY er .sity ot Tuu Business Review and Prospect GENERAL BUSINESS e~ployment, and miscellaneous freight carloadings de­ It was generally expected that the unprecedented rise in national business indexes during the last four months of 1939 would be followed by a recession (after adjust· ment for seasonal influences) during the first quarter of 1940; few, however, expected the sharp drop which has actually occurred during the past three weeks. Most of the decline is the result of the abrupt drop in steel aCtivity, the factor, by the way, which was mainly responsible for last fall's sensational boom. lndica· tions are that the national business indexes will continue their decline for at least a month or so longer, but at a more moderate rate than that of recent weeks. Barron's index (adjusted for seasonal changes, long­time trend, and population growth), at 84.8 on Febru· ary 10, was well above that of the corresponding date last year when the index stood at 74.7. Thus, industry and trade still enjoy a favorable margin of 13.5 per cent over last year; but this spread has been narrowing dur­ing the past few weeks.. Should the business curve soon begin to level off as expected, the present margin of gain over last year might be maintained and later increased, temporarily at least, since the business curve continued downward until early June a year ago. Among indicators of a probable nearby reversal of the recent downward business trend are, first, the firming of commodity prices, notably wheat and copper-the Dow-Jones commodity index is now twenty-six per cent above that of a year ago; second, retail sales, which are currently running substantially above the level of the corresponding period last year and should maintain this margin of improvement, at least, with better than even chances of widening the spread as spring approaches; and third, the inventory situation, which is considered less menacing now than it was last fall, and in any event, it is far less serious than it was three years ago. Inventories were piled up fastest by the manufacturers of heavy goods, additions to stocks being most marked in heavy machinery, automobiles, aircraft, iron and steel products, and textiles. In the final analysis, however, it must be recognized that present calculations of business prospects are highly tentative, subject to all of the uncertainties induced by abnormal international conditions and the impending \ general elections. TEXAS BUSINESS The composite index of business activity in Texas declined almost two per cent from December to January, but remained more than four per cent above January, 1939. Of the six components which make up the com· posite business index, only two showed an increase-­the indexes of oil refining activity and of electric power consumption. The index of department store sales de­clined only slightly, while the indexes of pay rolls, clmed substantially. The composite indexes for the comparable periods together with the indexes for each of the six components are as follows: INDEXES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS Jan. Jan. Dec. 1940 1939 1939 Employment --------------------------89.87 87.16 92.97 Pay Rolls -------------------------------92.75 89.87 96.76 Miscellaneous Freight Carload­ings (Southwest District) ____ 62.76 62.45 68.70 Crude Runs to Stills____ __ _________ 202.42 199.50 186.31. Department Store Sales___________ll0.12· 101.27 ll0.62 Electric Po·wer Consumption ....131.53 120.39 129.52* COMPOSITE INDEX ------------99.07 94.91 100.74* •Revised. It is not likely that the T€xas business index will reverse its downward tendency until after the national indexes of business activity indicate clearly that the upward trend has been resumed; but it is not expected that the total decline in this State will be nearly as drastic as it has already come to be in the nation at large. On the cover page of this issue of the REVIEW is a chart showing the trend of building permits in Texas since 1929. The gain in permits since the low point of 1933 is impressive. However, it should be pointed out that building activity had already declined sharply by 1929, and a return to that level would still leave some distance to go before reaching the heights of the mid­twenties; and, although it is not intended to minimize the progress which has been made in the building in­dustry during the past three years, it should be kept in mind that: first, favorable comparison with the extreme depression lows mean but little; second, the low average rate of building during the past ten years is associated with an increase of about 400,000 in the population of the State; and, third, in spite of the efforts of the federal government and the inducements of favorable financing which now prevail, building may still be said to lag. Can this failure of the building industry to respond more adequately to the exceJlent financing programs of government and private agencies be the result of failure of other segments of this industry to meet their share of the responsibility? Now that financing costs have been made attractive, would it not be well to seek ways for making the other cost factors of this industry equally attractive? AGRICULTURE CASH INCOME Income from agriculture in Texas during January, as computed by this Bureau, was $16,878,000. For the corresponding month in 1939 the computed income was $18,907,000. The index numbers were accordingly 72.l for January 1940 and 82.4 for January 1939. This For Other Texa& Data, See Statistical Tables at the End of This Publication decline of approximately 10 per cent in farm cash income from January last year is the result of a sharp decline in shipments of livestock. Since the total num­ber of animal units on farms in Texas on January 1, 1940, as estimated by tht United States Department of Agriculture, is approximately equal to that on the same date last year, it suggests that, other things being equal, unfavorable year to year comparisons in livestock ship· ments early in the year will be followed by favorable comparisons later. Present indications are that farm cash income, exclusive of government subsidies, during 1940 will exceed that of 1939. In the following table are listed the index numbers of farm cash income during January, for the State as a whole and for the separate crop reporting districts. The article which follows by Mr. Carroll E. Brown, graduate student in the University, gives a brief analysis of the seasonal shifts which have taken place in the farm cash income in Texas and the methods which have been used in adjusting for these shifts in computing our monthly index of farm cash income. The same method which Mr. Brown describes in regard to computing the index for the State as a whole was applied to the in­dividual crop reporting districts. From now on the monthly indexes of farm cash income will he adjusted for shift in seasonal as described in the article. F. A. BUECHEL. INDEX OF AGRICULTURAL CASH Jan. Diotrictt 1940 1-N ____ 53.5 1-S 84.9 2 ------52.5 3 ------94.4 4 -----71.3 5 -----40.7 6 ________.136.8 7 _____143.7 8 ----------99.0 9 ___________105.6 10 _______136.6 10--A _______138.4 STATE ________ 72.l Dec. Jan. 1939 1939 71.9 78.7 68.6 95.7 61.2 45.7 74.5 106.9 81.7 66.5 42.5 50.9 101.2 214.8 59.0 121.6 79.9 109.5 112'.6 100.2 156.7 178.5 162.7 153.5 80.6 82.4 INCOME IN TEXAS Computed Ca1h Income Jan. Jan. 1940 1939 (ooo Omitted) $ 1,638 $ 2,397 1,743 1,966 1,353 1,215 957 1,080 2,232 2,045 427 524 1,632 2,562 1,434 1,201 1,139 1,254 1,227 1,118 519 682 2,577 2,863 $ 16,878 $ 18,907 Seasonal Shifts in the Index of Agricultural Cash Income in Texas The Index of Agricultural Cash Income in Texas, which has been published monthly by the Bureau of Business Research since October, 1936, for the State and for each of the agricultural reporting districts, has been based on the assumption that there was no significant shift in the income for a given month either for the State or for the component districts. On this basis a fixed index of seasonal variation for a given month for all of the years involved has been used, as illustrated by the horizontal dotted line in the accompanying charts. An assumption of this kind was necessary originally because of the short period during which these agricultural data were available. Since 1936, however, sufficient data have been made available for the Bureau to verify the original data as well as the assumption that there has been no significant shift in income. By reference to Table I certain very definite changes can be seen to have occurred in the income from cotton, livestock, livestock products, fruits and vegetables, and canning. Cotton, because of its long standing as the chief agricultural product of Texas, has brought about the major portion of the change. From its contribution of approximately 67 per cent of the income in 1927, cotton has gradually declined to the point of contributing only 35 per cent of the income in 1939. During the same period of time livestock has almost doubled its pro­portionate contribution, livestock products have trebled and fresh and canned fruits and vegetables have almost quadrupled. This shift in income from one major crop --cotton-to a number of smaller products has much wider significance than merely a change in the source of the farmers' income. The shift also means that the distribution of the income during the fall months, which has been the chief income producing season, has been supplanted by a more even distribution of income during the year since the marketing of livestock has peak seasons during the spring and during the fall. Livestock products, especially milk products, are more nearly year· TABLE I PER CE T OF THE TOTAL FARM CASH INCOME IN TEXAS CONTRIBUTED BY EACH OF THE SPECIFIED PRODUCTS FOR THE YBRS Cotton and Cottonseed_______ _______ Live&tock • ----------------------------­Livestock ProductsT-----------------Grainst -----------------------------­ Fruits, Vegetables, and Canning§____ TOTAL__________________________ 1927 THROUGH 1939 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 19311 1939 66.5 63.2 57.8 50.1 49.5 56.3 63.4 55.1 53.1 51.8 45.7 38.2 34.8 18.5 21.3 23.4 25.3 23.3 18.9 14.6 20.6 22.4 21.6 26.0 31.3 33.8 5.6 6.3 7.3 9.9 11.7 9.8 12.6 12.5 13.8 15.0 12.0 13.9 14.7 7.6 6.6 7.7 9.0 9.8 7.0 5.7 7.8 6.7 7.2 10.4 10.0 9.9 1.8 2.6 3.8 5.7 5.7 8.0 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.4 5.9 6.6 6.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 • Includes Cattle, Calves, Hogs, Sheep, Lambs, Chickens, and Turkey1. tlncludee Wool, Mohair, Egge, Milk Product•. tlncludes Oate, Wheat, Grain Sorghum, Rice, and Corn. §Iocludes Citrus Fruit•. Vegetable Truck Crops, and Product.I Canned. Source; Computed from Officia] Monthly Production and Price Report• received by the !uraau of Bu1ine11 JlMN.rch. round income factors, and the fruit and vegetable crops are in season throughout the entire year in at least one of the twelve crop reporting districts. The shift from cotton has also had its effect on the utilization of land and has caused a shift to the produc­tion of crops which were of relatively small importance prior to the depression years and the period of govern­ment regulation. The production of feed for livestock has brought the forage crops to a more important posi­tion in Texas farm cash income. The utilization of land for truck crops especially adapted to the localities or areas in the various districts, when combined with the uses to which land has been put, as described above, makes it probable that even though within the next few years complete freedom is allowed the cotton grower, to plant as he chooses, he will not return to his former pro­duction of cotton. Then, too, the world market which the Texas cotton producer formerly enjoyed has been partially taken away by Brazil and India. The substi­tution of other crops, the smaller market for American cotton, and a more even distribution of income through­out the year will all serve to check the return of cotton to its former position as the chief contributor of Texas farm cash income. Naturally, such a marked decrease in the income from cotton and the corresponding relative increase from other agricultural products caused the Bureau to make a further study of the indexes of seasonal variation which are used in adjusting the indexes of farm cash income for seasonal variation. Accordingly, during the summer of 1939 a study of the monthly income was begun and it was found that for each district, as well as for the State as a whole, the farm cash income in some months showed a definite tendency to increase and in others to decrease over the thirteen year period from 1927-39 while still other months showed no shift. For example, the month of February, as shown on the accompanying chart for each of the years from 1928-38 when expressed as a perc~ntage of the twelve-month moving average, shows a consistently upward trend; while the month of July shows fluctuations around the normal of 77.3 but no consistent increase or decrease. On the other hand the month of September for the same period of years shows a consistently decreasing income. In view of the fact that there is a shift in the seasonal index of Farm Cash Income during this thirteen-year period in nine months of the year and an absence of shift in the remaining three months it can be seen that \ within a short time the index of in~ome for the months fa which there was either an increasing or decreasing trend would not indicate the true condition for the month considered, unless the index of seasonal variation takes this shift into account. For example, assume that the average monthly income for the State during the month of February for the base period was $11,511,000.00 and that after adjusting for the shift in income for February, 1939, the expected income is approximately $16,141,­000.00, hut that the actual income for the month of February, 1939, was $15,096,000.00. If adjustment is not made for the shift in seasonal income, an index of 131.1 is obtained, but with adjustment for this factor an index of 93.5 is obtained. The reason the index of 93.5 is a better indication of the relative income for Feb­ruary, 1939, is that, as can he seen from the chart for February, there has been a consistent increase in the income for that month and though the actual income exceeded the income for the base period by three and one-half millions of dollars, it was below its tendency to increase by over one million dollars. Similar fluctua­tions for each month during 1938 and 1939 as shown in Table II further illustrate the need for considering sea­sonal shifts in monthly income. This tabulation further substantiates the statement that, unless the shifting sea­sonal ~hich results from crop changes is recognized, the first six months of the year will he overstated and the last six months understated. TABLE II COMPARISON OF STATE I NDEX OF F ARM CASH INCOME W1nr ADJUSTMENT FOR SHIFT AND WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT FOR SHIFT IN Mo TH LY F ARM CASH I coME 1938 1939 Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted for Shift for Shift for Shift for Shift January ---------------------__ 98. 7 109.0 82.4 95-5 February --------------------91.3 123.8 93.5 133.3 March ---------------------------93.7 128.5 85.9 128.6 April ----------------------------84._7 83.0 102.4. 103.9 May ------------------------------96.8 118.8 90.3 114.9 J une --------------------------97.2: 127.0 8~.l 112'.91 July _ _________________ ____ ______ 102.5 94.8 90.l 84.8 August ------------------------69.6 64.4 82.9 78.0 September --------------------76.1 66.1 84.. 1 70.4. October ------------------------59.6 58.0 58.8 56.0 November ---------------------72.8 73.3 62'.7 62.9' December --------------------84-6 81.0 80.6 77-4 Source : Computed from Official Monthly Production and Prfoc Reports re­ceived by the Bureau of Business Research. As a result of the realization that there was a seasonal shift in the income for nine months of the year for each of the districts and for the State, the Bureau of Business Research computed indexes of seasonal variation in which the shift in income was eliminated from each month for each of the agricultural reporting districts and for the State total. The procedure for making this adjustment was as follows: 1. The twelve-month moving average centered on the seventh month of the year for each district was computed from the income expressed in dollars for the period from 1927 through 1938. This gave an estimate of the income that would have been received each month had there been no seasonal variation in the income. 2. The actual income for each month for each district was then divided by the twelve-month moving average computed as described above. This procedure gave the percentage each of the monthly income figures was of the moving average for the year and thereby eliminated the seasonal factor. 3. The percentage figure!! thus computed were plotted by districts and for the State as a whole (See Chart) for each of the twelve months in the year. For example, the twelve percentage figures for the month of July in the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW • TEXAS MONTH LY FARM CASH I NC OME EXPRESSED AS A PERCENT OF ~ TWELVE M ON TH MOVI NG AVERAGE INCOME ( ENTERED 0 N THE 5 EV ENT H Mo NTH -SHIFT AvERAGE MON T H O F 192<5-~2-100,1. -PERCENT MONTH IS OF MOVING TOTAL ------FIXED INDEX OF SEASONAL VARIATION Ii 1. t--.---.l~MY =, ~A....,....~~,___.., 1100 I I 80 / i\. / _L-:o:::L_J I A\___]7-~ I 0 : -:-:l1rn"~T\11J~1J I · 11 20-+----+-+----+I-T I -~~s~ IP. , u~i~_~___,____,I l• I I A I i 11 I 1,,~JJiLL!'J, JL_I I 11 l I \I V: I : :J -\ I 10-i I I I/ I I II I! 5v :i !. iI Y iI I Imm'~I ! i I I I I I I I 11iI o NOV EMB ER I I l I I I 1: II I I tf;·\ I 1 116 I I , \1 J \ I ~· I12­ ........ \I 8" 1~1~1~1~1~1 ~ 1~1 ~ 1~1 ~ 1~1 ~ 1~1 BU REAU OF BUS I NESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS years from 1927-38 for the State income during that month are placed on one chart. 4. From the graphs prepared as described in 3 (above) and illustrated in the accompanying charts, any shift in the percentage of income for the State during July could readily be seen. A line was then drawn by inspection showing the shift in seasonal which took place during the thirteen-year period for the given month. 5. From the line thus fitted to the percentage figures as plotted on the chart, the index of seasonal variation was read from the point where the dotted line intersected the perpendicular line designating each year. When the indexes thus read from the charts for each month of the year for a given district were added they came within ten points of 1200 per cent. Since this deviation was due to slight errors in fitting the line by inspection, the deviation was then levelled to total correctly. 6. The indexes thus computed and levelled were ap· ~lied to the average monthly income during the base period from 1928-32 for each district in order to get the expected income for each month in each district. The income expected as thus computed contains neither sea· son al variation nor shift. 7. The income expected each month was then divided into the actual income for each of the districts for the months from 1927-38 to get the Index of Agricultural Cash Income for each month in each district. In the future in order to determine the Index of Seasonal Variation for each month, the actual income for the months will be plotted as described above and the shift line projected. The Index of Agricultural Cash Income will then be obtained after dividing the actual income by the product of the index of seasonal variation multiplied by the average monthly income. This same procedure will be followed for each of the agricultural reporting districts. CARROLL BROWN. Some Implications of T echnologic Progress This is one of a series of articles dealing with a per· spective of the world we live in. In a former paper, "Some Implications of Industrialization," some of the broader aspects of industrialism as a great institutional force were dealt with briefly. The obvious groupings in modern economic activity, agriculture, industry, and commerce are recognized, of course, by all. What is not so generally recognized is how agriculture and commerce have come to be under the aegis of industry. Furthermore, the economics of industry operate in a sphere quite different indeed from that of the economics of agriculture. And, though agri· culture as we understand it in the Western World has long been under the aegis of industry, agriculture has not as yet been industrialized. Agriculture has been pretty generally mechanized; its industrialization is something quite different, introducing into the picture a very different set of economic implica· tions and social reactions from those that still obtain generally in agriculture. The agricultural revolution, so-called, has been the coming to terms of agriculture with an industrialized world. The industrialization of agriculture, if it comes, will have its economic reactions -reactions that will be in the limelight for perhaps a half-century, and possibly twice as long-but its social reactions, directly and indirectly, will be more important still. I am using this brief introduction to emphasize the need for considering more deeply and in wider perspec· tive the things about us in our work-a-day world. On the one hand there are the hard facts of earth conditions and natural conditions, "and the history of peoples have been shaped thereby to a far greater extent than their historians have in general been wont to take into account." The natural endowment, itself a dynamic feature in point of time, sets the limits to what man may do on this planet. Science and technology are ever extending these limits-but limits they remain. The natural endowment not only sets limits; it presents possibilities, and even advantages, whose breadth and depth are ever being extended by the results of science and technology. Of the profound significance of the various natural environ· ments of the world as more than just providing the material basis, but as contributing to the very warp and woof in human endeavor in the streams of history in our current activities and problems, we can see at least dimly the broader features of the comprehensive pattern. To carry out these studies dealing with the interactions in human geography, anthropology, history, economics, even in the arts and the sciences, in literature, music, the history of science, and the like, though lacking in the spectacular so much in current vogue, is none the less the basis for future intellectual progress, which in the wider perspective of history is seemingly the important thing. Far removed from the natural environment, it would appear at first glance, is the other side of the shield, the social order and all that that concept implies. Between the natural environments and the social order exist a complex nexus of institutions which I would not presume to enumerate. One of these institutions, however, is technology in its wider sense, the concept recently briefly discussed by President Conant. Another is organization which obviously is of numerous forms. A possibly overstressed, but none the less jarring, statement con· cerning the implications of one sort of organization has been given by Bertrand Russell in his "Freedom versus Organization, 1814-1914" (published by W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.). The quotation is as follows: "Two men have been supreme in creating the modern world: Rockefeller and Bismarck. One in economics, the other in politics, refuted the liberal dream of uni­versal happiness through individual competition, sub· stituting monopoly and the corporate state, or at least movements towards them. Rockefeller is important, not through his ideas, which were those of his contem­poraries, but through his purely practical grasp of the type of or<'anization that would enable him to grow rich. Technique, working through him, produced a social revolution; but it cannot be said that he intended the social consequences of his actions." Like all condensed brief sta tements, it says at once too 111uch and too little, for ohjectivelv the positions of Hockefoller and Bismarck were set in institutional un­foldiiwi> of tlieir period in modern history. All(~her institutional fon:e, I have stated, is industrial­ism, of whose inhere11l charncteristics we know but little. The foundations of industrialism lie in combinations of natural resources brought together in certain patterns of interdependence; the d yna111ics of industrialism are the science ancl technology mutually growing out of the utilization, and in turn being applied back to natural re;;our('eS in man's long-time attempts to become better adj usled to ea rth em·ironments. . Whal I am hen' leading up to is this: that the social H"ie11cl~S, parlicularly, must give consideration anew to the whole problem of life in an industrialized world. Perhaps others can aud will state the problem better and more explicitly. That there is such a problem and that il is of fundamental importance is being recognized in more or less crystallized expressions from a great variety of sources. That there are numerous points of approach t" the problem is evident from an examination of writ­ ings and queries in a large number of fields of endeavor. One approach is exceptionally well presented in a recent address of Karl Brandt, Professor of Economics, Food Research Institute of Stanford University. I shall quote extensively from this remarkable address, hoping that the author's concepts may not be distorted without presenting the paper in full. Among other things Brandt !!tates: "Glancing over the tirne-condensed examples that were cited, we recognize that all supposedly stable equilibria between production and wants as established and main­ tained hy fl exible prices are shifting and are basically u11stable. They float on top of the existing and changing standards of applied technology. Technical progress is continually attacking the equilibrium, because the possi­ bility of upsetting it temporarily and gaining thereby i~ the great motor for progress. ''Technological progress is responsible for a contin· nous process of destroying and depreciating capital, while at the same time it creates new capital. It renders machines, tools, houses, bridges, highways, ~nd every ::orl of capital economically obsolete even though they ar.~ !t:chnically still useful, and forces their rapid and premature depreciation. This circle of creation and dc$lruction is a vital principle for the satisfactory opera· tion of our economic system. The power of competition keep" the process of scrapping aliYe. Monopoly in rnrious forms is capable of pre\·enting the competitive price economy from keeping technological progress and its capital-destroying and capital·creating function alive. If the competitive system is abolished, then technological progress must be kept aliYe by planning lest we suffer a siak of s~agnation and all its accompanying conditions. Technological progre~s in the enlargement and regenera· tion of human and physical resources constitutes the enzyme~ and bacteria that keep the body of an economic system alive. It permits producing aud consuming dif­ferent things. It brings about change. Change is the essence of a living economy. Mechanization creates wealth. But it also creates rigidities and increases the danger of increasing violence of depressions. If mechanization is introduced too quickly at a time of gestation when the flow of investment is faltering already, it may produce the temporary phenomenon of technological unemployment. But this is exclusively a result of congestion. However, this is only a fraction of the truth. Since technological progress discards machines and rigidities, it is technological progress also that makes it possible to absorb the people who have been set free on the labor market into other useful occupations. Inventors do their part in attempts to save us from the vicious condition of the machines' running us instead of our running them. "In speculating where they shall start their venture, i11Yentors, engineers, and research scholars take a good deal of their stimulus and 'hunch' from the economic sphere. Here technicians can obtain most valuable cooperation from economists. But finally only those accomplishments become a reality in agriculture, in­dustry, and commerce that mature economically into applicability." . . . "After all, the wealth of nations depends on the volume and quality of production. To be familiar with the progress at that frontier of those who toil with their brains is something worthy of a good economist. How otherwise is it to be explained that in countries like Germany, Russia, and Italy, countries with a long and distinguished history of political economy, economics haYe been thrown on the scrap head and engineering has been put into its place? It seems to be an imminent danger in other countries as well that the tran sf er of economics into a more or less static theory that does not suit the necessities of the life of a nation costs the loss of public endorsement. It is no accident that frequently the most utopian and cockeyed economic plans are drafted by engineers, architects, and chemists who are often the most brilliant technicians in their field. This international phenomenon seems to indicate that many of the most inventive brains in technology despise eco· nomics because it is too static, too skeptical, and too little aggressive. Many economists in turn disregard experi· mental technique and its problems entirely because it seems to them some sort of a lofty hobby that has little connection with the economic process. The same eco· nomists, however, do not hesitate to draft economic blue prints for economic planning. Many of these plans are jnst as cockeyed as those by engineers because they lack sufficient familiarity with technical problems." ... "Though we should not be swayed in our judgment by overstre3sing the effects of technical evolution, we should be familiar with the character and strength of its rejm·enating power, observe the rate of progress, and try to allow in our analysis, our interpretation, and our forecasts for its fermenting animation. To do so leads me to vigorous protest against certain tendencies in contemporary economic thought. "During the last decade a new interpretation of the prolonged depression and widespread unemployment has been conceived by some economists of distinguished reputation. In its essence it suggests that our present economic system has reached more or less its ultimate saturation point for three reasons: First, the growth of the population of the world is declining and approaching a point of stagnant population. Secondly, no inventions like the railroad and steamship are to be expected. Thirdly, the discovery and development of new territory and new resources like the development of the American continent are not likely to happen in the . future. "This latest emanation of historical materialism and determinism is usually not expressed in so comprehen­sive a_ picture and is not very bluntly stated. Yet it is frequently interwoven into the fabric of all sorts of diagnoses on the roots of the evil of unemployment. The validity of this pessimistic and deterministic economic philosophy surely warrants our sharpest at­tention. The whole thesis of saturation of our economic system is an economic parallel to Spengler's famous thesis on the "Decline of the West." Both assume that due to inherent laws of the aging of a civilization, its vigor and vitality are diminishing. Spengler assumes this supposedly natural process of maturing and decay­ing for a specific type of ethnographical and geographical civilization. The economists who proclaim the saturation of the capitalistic system do so for the realm of the competitive. price economy usually in com­bination with an assumption that the liberal political doctrine is the concomitant environment. To be sure, this prophecy of finality and predestination is nothing new. It has any number of precedents. In 1908 a German economist, Julius Wolf, wrote a book on polit­ical economy as exact science in which he claimed that further investment in the traffic system of the world did not pay because costs had declined to an irreducible minimum. "One of the best recent examples of the pessimistic interpretation of the present historical situation is to be found in Professor Alvin Hansen's presidential address delivered at the Fifty-first Annual Meeting of the Ameri­can Economic Association at Detroit in December, 1938. In this remarkably wellbalanced and skeptical survey, Mr. Hansen points out that with reference to the growth of population Western Europe has 'already virtually reached a standstill.' He admits, however, that popu­lation is still growing in Eastern Europe notably in Russia, and in the Orient. He points out also by quoting from the book on Limits of Land Settlement that the frontier outlets for new investment are rapidly being closed. Then he rounds up his further conclusions by the following statements: 'The growth of modern in­dustry has not come in terms of millions of small increments of change giving rise to a smooth and even development. Characteristically it has come by gigantic leaps and bounds.' ... 'It is the cessation of growth which is disastrous.' . . . 'It is in connection with the growth, maturity, and decline of great industries that the principle of acceleration operates with peculiar force. And when giant new industries have spent their force, it may take a long time before something else of equal magnitude emerges. In fact nothing has emerged in the decade in which we are now living.' "To me this economic pessimism that is so much in vogue now is hardly more than a philosophy ex post which offers a reflection upon our particular situation of these days. It is one interpretation of a certain selection of facts which happen to be shared more or less by all Marxian economists. But facts and even identical facts are open to very different interpretations. I doubt very much whether statistical data support this philosophy very well. As to the forecast on the future trend of population, it appears to exaggerate the oppor­tunity for demarcating the scope of future happenings by statistics of the past." And of economic "trends" and the problems and dangers of placing too much reliance upon certain ones, Brandt continues: "Why is it impossible that after an era of rapid concentration of industries and densest urbanization and after the experiment of one generation to live with high consumption but few or no children, people should tend in their majority again to another attitude? Metropolitan areas have ceased to increase in concentration and are already dispersing. Moreover, the city is changing in character. Our city of today is not what the city was 30 years ago when it meant a lot of congestion. It is-to be sure-not at all impossible that the population trend should make a turn. It is equally untrue that only the crude growth of population causes an increase in the capacity of the economic system to absorb and to yield revenues from investment. The economic capacity to produce goods is a function of inventiveness, education, technique, and last but not least a function of the will-power to toil instead of idling . along. It is the capacity to produce that decides the capacity to consume. Indolence and lack of ambition are indeed a psychic barrier against any progress and prosperity and the only one that counts. I have, how­ever, not seen in any country a race or group of people yet that was absolutely lacking the desire to improve their consumption, either in Mexico or among the ne­groes and poor whites of the South. At least there are varying degrees of ambition. Moreover, I suspect that poor physical conditions are responsible for a good deal of the inertia. "As long as people are not so degenerate as to be content in poverty, I do not see any logical reason for a cessation of economic progress. We must not think exclusively of physical goods but also of the intangibles like all the services that are inseparable from the essence of becoming really civilized. Services to body, soul, and intellect are so innumerable that no reason is to be seen for any limitation. It seems to be a result of the fatalism involved in thinking in terms of 'trends' or the unconscious raising of a graphic symbol like the 'trend' to the power of a totem pole. Trends are merely lines on paper which may deviate at any time from a previously regular direc­ tion. "I cannot see more documentary proof either in behalf of the other components of Professor Hansen's economic pessimism. He says at one point in his paper: 'What we need is not a slowing down in the progress of science and technology, but rather an acceleration of that rate.' Yet he reduces this recognition of the creative power behind technological progress to a negligible role because he assumes that only such progress as that of the railroads and the moving colonial frontiers can cause sufficient change and thereby opportunity of investment. Is that really borne out by the facts? I wonder whether this is not an illusion similar to that of Karl Marx about the gen· eral, necessary, and inescapable drift into concentratio.n of production and distribution. We know now that this prophecy became reality neither for agricult~re nor for the distributive field. If we try to summanze the tre· mendously widespread change that has been going on through more than five or six generations and ~11 the immense depreciations of capital and regeneration . of capital outside of the building of railroads and outside of the American frontier, it seems fairly safe to say that though the development of the railroads was a monu· mental single item that could easily be measured and grasped, hundreds of other changes have contributed as a whole more to the rising standard of living and employ· ment than railroad construction in itself. Why should we belittle the construction of the worldwide electric empire with all its ramifications, the advent of the mobile combustion engine, the new widespread and diversified chemical industry with nitrogen, rayon, dyes, ancl--pb_ar­maceutica, the radio industry, the concrete industry, high­way construction, and transcontinental and transoceanic airmail which all are absorbing capital in large amounts? Why should we forget the eternally basic investment industry: housing, as a potential large-scale employment opportunity for capital? I.ooking upon the housing conditions for labor and farmers in large parts of this continent, I see for a century sufficient tasks for immense improvement. Are we not forced perhaps to consider our houses as obsolete although they may off er satisfactory utility according to the standards of yesterday? Have ' not the heating engineers, through progress in gas, oil, electrical furnaces and ranges, through better insulation and new designing, changed our concept of usefulness of houses? Have not the architects and contractors, the lumber and building material industries done their best to render millions of houses obsolete at a faster rate than ever? Are they not the ones who are going to put idle man-power to work?-Whether we can afford to wreck them depends on the total amount of labor that is put into production." (To be continued next month) ELMER H. JOHNSON. Financial Situation Perhaps the most encouraging development in the financial situation during the past month has been the attitude of congressional committees toward the budget recommendations submitted to the Congress on January 5th. In his budget message, President Roosevelt ex· pressed the opinion that the recommendations submitted, which involved a reduction in expenditures of ap· proximately $675,000,000, represented the minimum amounts acceptable to the people of the country and added "Therefore those who call for further cuts should have ;he courage and the honesty to specify where they should be made." Apparently, Congress and its com· mittees have accepted the President's challenge, for, to date (February 19th), they have tentatively reduced the recommendations of the President by approximately $300,000,000. Among the items cut were those so dear to the administration as national defense and agriculture. Of course, there is no way of knowing, as yet, whether the economy drive will he strong enough to withstand the assaults of the supporters of Administration spending and subsidizing, and accomplish substantial economies. In fact, reactions in certain quarters to some of the proposed reductions indicate that, in spite of economy efforts, the final accounting for the fiscal year 1941 may reveal actual expenditures that equal or exceed the President's budget recommendations. Supplementary items and deficiency appropriation hills may provide the means of meeting additional demands by various groups for public funds, and the desi~e ?f go~erm~ent spende~s to provide such largess. It Is m this pomt of publ~c and Administration attitude toward the use of puhhc funds, rather than in mere budget figures that the funda· mental budget problem lies. In concentrating upon the figures, one is likely to overlook the fact that the budget merely reflects the dollar and cents cost of the services which the people are willing to accept, or insist upon receiving, from the Government. In the first instance, as long as there is a willingness to accept government services, even though such services may be beyond the pale of a reasonable concept of the functions of government in a capitalistic society, the Government will not be likely to relinquish the political power inherent in such a system of mass subsidization. Secondly, once accustomed to the benefits of government gratuities (which, incidentally, must he dispensed at the expense of other groups in the country) the beneficiaries can be expected to resist strongly any change of policy which will cut off their access to public funds. Reduce relief expenditures and the country is con· fronted with the spectacle of relief clients staging walk· outs and strikes; eliminate a politico-economic bureau or agency and many minor bureaucrats clamor for its re-establishment; propose a reduction in gratuities to agriculture-as the Committee on Appropriations of the , House of Representatives did recently-and professional lobbyists for the farmer descend upon Washington to enter their protest, and (to quote the Commercial & Financial Chronicle, February 10th) "the President, , .. rushed before the spotlight to utter denunciations of the e?onomics proposed by t~e committee and boldly hinted his support of restorat10n of the so-called 'parity· payments' against which, in the absence of special taxes to meet them, he has somewhat f eehly and perfunctorily protested from their inception." . In spite of such difficulties, barring the way to restora· t10n of a sound fiscal policy, it is encouraging to find that an increasing number of congressional leaders are willing to support a curtailment of those expenditures which are inconsistent with government economy. To some extent, at least, this action of politicians reflects the attitude of their constituents and it may be that an enlightened public opinion is beginning to emerge from the confusion and financial legerdemain of the past decade. In the final analysis, it is this power of public opinion which will ultimately restore sound policies of government finance by delimiting the e~onomic.and social activities of the Government to essential services whose cost is within a manageable limit. Although the President suggested in his budget mes­sage that Congress legislate new taxes to meet the proposed increase in national ?efen~e expenditures,. it is questionable whether such action will be taken durmg the present session. In the first place, the obvious political reaction that would be aroused by an attempt to impose additional taxes during a pre-election session of Congress upon an already heavily taxed citizenry is a natural deterrent. Moreover, the Administration is strongly opposed to any increase in consumer-taxes, while congressional leaders appear to be hesitant to add new business taxes for fear of transforming a lagging recovery into a genuine recession. But, if actual expenditures during the 1941 fiscal year are not kept within the budget recommendations, un­ willingness to enact additional taxes will raise the issue of the national debt limitation for congressional action. Although there is considerable opposition in Congress toward an increase in the public debt, it would not be surprising if such legislation were enacted. Recently, the Secretary of the Treasury voiced the opinion that Congress should raise the debt limit to $50,000,000,000, adding that when the outstanding debt reached $49,000,. 000,000 it would, then, be time to re-examine the situa­tion. If it is to be assumed that the Administration is still bent upon spending in excess of income-and there is very little indication of a change in policy-then, undesirable as a further expansion of the public debt would be, it would probably be the lesser of two evils, for the debt limit is by no means an insurmountable barrier to deficit financing. The powers of monetary manipulation granted to the Chief Executive by the Thomas Amendment in 1933­and, unfortunately, never repealed-provide a possible source of several billion dollars. The most dangerous provision of the Amendment permits the President to authorize the issue of $3,000,000,000 in 'greenbacks.' In addition, by issuing silver certificates against silver on the basis of $1.29 per ounce approximately $1,500,­000,000 would be made available, and if the monetary value of silver should be raised to its full statutory limit additional billions of dollars could be created. Still further, the Treasury has $1,800,000,000 of unused gold profit, which, although allocated to the stabilization funds at present, could be diverted to other uses. In brief, if group pressure is sufficiently great, and the inclination to spend is still sufficiently strong, ample funds are available without raising the debt limit. Unless public sentiment overwhelmingly supports re­trenchment and economy, Administration access to these alternative means of obtaining funds may be one de­termining factor in inducing Congress to permit addi­tional use of the borrowing power of the Government. wATROUS H. IRONS. Manufacturing Developments in Texas During 19 3 9 Additions in almost every line of industry already established in Texas are represented in the group of 289 new plants which comprise the list of manufacturers located in Texas during 1939. Included in this list are factories manufacturing paper, airplanes, machinery, petroleum products, foods, and many other types of goods for local, State, or national distribution. Plants established to meet the needs of the building expansion in the State have increased in number and variety. Five new lumber and millwork plants and seven concerns manufacturing industrial equipment and machinery have been reported, besides more than thirty others producing materials used in the building industry and household furnishing. Building permits in Texas during 1939 totaled $89,329,979, an increase of $11,588,778 over the previous year. More than forty plants in Texas now manufacture air­conditioning equipment. Ten of these factories making cooling and ventilating machinery were established during the past year; and although many of the plants in the State at present have only local distribution, the industry is becoming one of considerable importance in Texas. According to a list received from the State offices, there are 128 petroleum refineries now in operation in Texas. This list prepared by the Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission does not show refineries closed during 1939, but includes those which have been added during the year and those which have been ex­panded or reopened. The building of pipe lines and the extension of power lines, more especially for rural electrifieation, were important activities in Texas during 1939 and affected manufacturing in the State directly and indirectly. The average number of wage-earners employed in Texas factories during 1939 was estimated at 128,259, an increase of 2.5 per cent over 1938. Estimated wages paid by Texas factories to wage-earners totaled $129,­456, 710, which represented an increase of 1.9 per cent over the previous year. In making these estimates we do not account for decreases in employment caused by firms going out of business during the year, or increases caused by the establishment of new plants. More than forty food-processing plants of all types were added to the list of Texas manufacturing plants during the year 1939. This number includes three cheese plants, besides the new factory of the Kraft Cheese Company under construction at Rusk, Texas, which ex­pects to begin operation in March. Manufacturers of ice cream and creamery butter comprise a total of nine other new producers of dairy products in the State. Campbell-Taggart Associated Bakeries, Dallas, other bakeries, canning plants, and frozen food plants are in­cluded in the food-processing group. · The clothing industry was increased by the establish­ment of sixteen new plants during the year, and by several plant expansions including that of the Sledge Manufacturing Company, Tyler, makers of men's cloth­ing' Besides two new manufacturers of boots and shoes, H. J. Justin and Sons, Fort Worth, have built a large modern plant which greatly increases their facilities for the production of their well-known brands of boots and shoes. New firms established during 1939, plants under con· struction and factories which have been rebuilt or en· larged d~ring the past year as reported to us through the chambers of commerce, the railroads, State offices, and other sources, are listed alphabetically by cities below. We do not, however, have sufficient information to indicate plants which have been closed since the Directory of Texas Manufacturers was published two years ago and which contained 8,280 names. NEW PLANTS IN CITIES FROM "A" THROUGH "C" Graves Overhead Doors, garage doors, Arlington; Kar Kooler Kompany, air conditioning units for automobiles, Arlington; Kraft Cheese Co., cheese plant, Athens; Dr. Pepper Bottling Co., Austin; Heffington Petroleum Co., refinery, Austin; Tribune Publishing Co., Austin; J. H. Richardson, cedar ·oil plant, operating part time, Bas­trop; Jefferson Venetian Blind and Supply Co., Beau­mont; Magnolia Petroleum Co., alkylation process unit, Beaumont; Thomas M. Royal & Co., Beaumont; Pure Oil Co., refinery, Beaumont; Pennsylvania Shipyards, Inc., Beaumont. The last three named Beaumont concerns reported plant expansions. Pay-Tex Oil Co., Benavides; Dickey and Reynolds Foundry, Bonham; John Moosberg Cheese Plant, Center; Col-Tex Refining Co., Corpus Christi, road-building material. NEW DALLAS PLANTS The following represent new plants or expansions in Dallas during the past year: Ace Printing Co., A-C Bed­ding Co., mattresses and bedding; A-Date-With-A-Nut Co., nut confection; A. and W. Brands Co., food products; Air-Thro., Inc., air conditioning equipment; American Furniture Mfg. Co.; A-L Cabinet Shop; Art· craft Poster Co., printing, signs and posters; Baker Sheet Metal Works; Ball-Harris Co., typesetting; B. & B. Mfg. Co., children's clothing; Jack Beason Sheet Metal Works; B. & G. Pants Co., men's and boys' clothing; Borden Co., ice cream; Butane Equipment Co., Inc.; California Tan Co., fur coats; Campbell-Taggart As­sociated Bakeries; Cedar Crest Hats; Century Furniture Studio; Milo E. Clark and Son, printers; Cook Mfg. Co., oil well equipment and supplies; Craft Cabinet Shop; Crispettes Potato Chip Co.; Dallas Art Em· broidery Co., dress trimmings; Dallas Cast Marble Co., artificial building stone; Dallas Chenille Co., chenille bed spreads; Dallas Bean and Seed Cleaning Co.; Dallas Machine and Engine Works, machine work, heavy forgings, tanks; Dallas Parade, publishing; Dallas Table Pad Mfg. Co.; Dal-Sec Bakery; Day Mfg. Co., boxes; Delta Hat Co.; Dixie Ice Cream Co.; Eaves Printing Co.; Eagle Printing Co., Eunice Gillette Co., uniforms and dresses; A. S. Foy Sheet Metal Works; Gar-Airco En­gineering Co., air conditioning; General Office Supply Co., printing and publishing; G. & M. Body Works, auto and truck bodies; Grand Broom Works; Green-Way Mfg. Co., clothing; E. H. Harold Co., Venetian blinds; Hi­Stile Hat Mfg. Co.; Rusley Cabinet Shop; Jeanette Mfg. Co., coats, suits and sport clothing; J. & J. Cigar Co.; Johnson Gilmore Mfg. Co., woodwork; C. C. Jones Sheet Metal Works; Jones-Warlick Refinishing &Upholstering Co., and Koon's Food Mfg. Co., food products. Long­horn Roofing Products is reported as under construction. Other Dallas plants are: Mac's Old Plantation Crack­ling Co., food products; J. P. Mahon, color press; Marbrook Mfg. Co., women's dresses and suits; May & Lofland Corp., steel fabrication plant; Milco Novelty Co., Inc., artificial flowers, costume and novelty jewelry; Morgan Mfg. Co., dresses; Nardis Sportwear, Inc., women's ready-to-wear; National Pants Corp; Nuzon­Texas Corp; Old Gold Kitchens, chili; Oriental Trans­mission & Packing Co.; Original Printing Shop; Orogold Co., beverages; Peerless of America, Inc., refrigeration and air conditioning equipment; Pearl Coffee & Tea Co.; Lou Peters Uniform Mfg. Co., uniforms; Peters Mfg. Corp., sheet metal products; Pork Skin Chips Co., Inc., food products; Premier Publishing Co.; Quick Foods Co., prepared pastry and pie filling; Reflecto Mfg. Co.; Ross Machine Works; Safeway Bakery Co.; Edwin W. Smith Machine Works; Southern Garment Co., dress manufacturers; Southern Maid Donut Co.; Southwest Advertising & Display Service, Inc.; Snoair Co., air conditioning equipment; Superior Venetial Blind Co.; Superlite Co., experimental laboratories; Time Brewing, Inc.; Townsend Sign & Process Service; Treadwell Chili Factory; Trinity Mfg. Co., cabinet makers; Universal Mfg. Co., attic ventilating fans; J. C. Williams Hat Block Mfg. Co.; Woodcraft, Inc.; Wunder lick Pecan Co.; and Zum-berge Mfg. Co., underreamers for use in foundation work. NEW PLANTS IN DENISON, DENTON AND EL PASO Barker Dairy Co., ice cream, Denison; J. Holland Russell, rayon underwear, Denton; Universal Body & Mfg. Co., truck bodies, El Paso; agricultural implements and irrigation pumps manufactured in Floydada, firin name not given. NEW PLANTS IN FORT WORTH Fort Worth plans added during 1939 include: Ameri­can Metal Products Co., air conditioning equipment; Baker Machine and Plating Co., window weights; Barnes Sanitary Bottle Rack Co.; Bennett Aircraft Corp., air· planes; Berg Laboratories, chemicals; Carpenter Belt & Pattern Works, industrial belts and wood patterns; Case· bolt Biscuit Co.; Cozzens Dental Laboratory; Jack Dempsey Neon Service; Denton Mill & Elevator Co.; Di-Function Co., Inc., medicinal products; Duchess Lab­oratories, chemicals; Electric Pump Co.; Fort Worth Peanut Co.; Fortson Venetian Blind Co.; Garm-A-Form Specialty Mfg. Co., dry cleaning equipment machinery; Graphic Arts Agency, printing; H & S Shoe Co.; In· dustrial Machine Co.; Ingle Display Co.; H. J. Justin & Sons, boots and Shoes, new plant; Latimer & Mathis Artificial Limb Co.; National Aircraft Corp., to be built; NYA Wood-Working Shop; Posey's Chemical Co., jani­tor's supplies; Premier Publishing Co.; Purcell-Turner; Regal Seal Co., food products; The Rike Co.; Spencer Smith Venetian Blinds; Southern Venetian Blind Co.; Southwestern Mfg. & Refining Co., refining of asphalt; Texas Offset Supply, Inc.; Texas Radio Mfg. Co.; Ther· molizer System, steel cabinets for sterilizing bedding; Weir Foundry, aluminum and copper alloy; H. N. Whalin Co.; Wilson Foundry; and Worth Dispensing Machine Co., coin operated machines. NEW PLANTS IN GAINESVILLE, GALVESTON. GLADEWATER, GONZALES AND HASKELL Tydal Refining Co., Gainesville; Graughnard's Bakery, plant expansion, Galveston; Gulf Marine Ways, addition of machine shop, Galveston; Gladewater Refining Co., Gladewater; Gonzales Cotton Mill, Gonzales; Haskell Cheese Plant, Haskell. NEW PLANTS IN HOUSTON Acme Concrete Pipe Co.; Airline Valve and Machine Works; American Can Co., plant expansion; Armstrong Featherweight Decoy Co.; Art Shade and Drapery Co.; Atlas Engineering Works; Automatic Butane Gas and Equipment Co.; Better Built Bedding Co.; Big Three Welding Equipment Co.; Champion Paper & Fibre Co., plant expansion; Chip Steak Co. of Houston, meat processing; Clipper Mfg. Co., ventilating equipment; H. E. Cockburn, iron ore processing plant; Continental Box Co.; Continental Casket Corp of Texas; D. and P. Chemical Co., steam vaporizer; Debonair, Inc., sham· poo; Douglas Sulphur Co., sulphur grinding; Eastman Kodak Co., laboratory; Electromatic Educational Serv· ice, electrical transcription equipment; Esko Mfg. Corp., attic ventilating fans; Francis Metal Door and Window Corp.; Fruehauf Trailer Co.; Fuel-Less Motor Corp., mechanical devices; Geophysical Machine Works, scien· tific machinery; Green and Green Mfg. Co., plant ex­pansion; Gulf Drug Co., winery; Gulf Publishing Co.; Gulf spray Shower Doors; Hammond Exploration Co.; J. W. Harrington, billard equipment and attic ventila­tion; Hobbs Trailer Co.; Houston Tank and Welding Co., pressure vessels and butane gas systems; Houston Trailer Coach Co.; Hylo Co., Inc., cleaning compound; Jingle Bell Frozen Products, Inc.; Kay Mfg. Co., wire products; Kuhn Paint and Varnish Co.; Lone Star Bag and Bagging Co.; Marigold Products Co., cosmetics and barber supplies; Martha Ann Custom Garments Co., uni· forms; Minamax Mfg. Co., refrigerator device; Modern Metalcraft Studios; National Mattress and Bedding Co.; North Texas Iron and Steel Co., under construction; North Texas Iron Works, fabricated steel products; Earle C. Parker Co.; Pavlu Mfg. Co., sheet metal products; Piggly-Wiggly Corp., coffee roasters; Phoenix Refining Co.; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.; Pollock Paper and Box Co., waxed wrapping and boxes; Red Rock Beverage Co.; Redi-Rice Co.; Russell Oil Co., refinery; Seaboard Rice Mill, Inc.; Siesta Mosaic Tile Co. 'Shell Oil Co., alkylation plant at Deer Park Ref.; Sillcrest Chemical Co., metal polish; Southline Metal Products Co., filing cases, fabricated steel cabinets; Specialty Mfg. Co., oil field equipment tools; Southern Plastic Co., seismograph supplies; Star Smelting and Refining Co., lead smelting; Texas Attic Fan Mfg. Co.; Texas Industrial Insulating Co., boiler insulation; Texas Venetian Blind Co.; Velvet-Air Mfg. Co., attic ventila­tion fans; Velva Ice Cream Co.; Vent-Master Co., attic ventilating grills; Vernor's Ginger Ale Co., and Wolf Pattern Works, metal castings, completes the Hou1ton list. NEW PLANTS FROM "J" THROUGH "R" Industrial Iron Works, school bus bodies, plant under construction, Jacksonville; Motor Fuels Corp., refinery Levelland; Southland Mills, Inc., paper, newsprint, Lufkin; Texas Foundries, Inc., Lufkin. New Lubbock plants include: Ace Printing Co.; Betty Lou's Potato Chips; Blackwell Mattress Co.; Boldin Planing Mill; Brown's Pure Foods; Dean's Planing Mill; Gibson Printing Co.; Hobbs Trailer Co.; Home Fried Pies; Kitchen Maid Bakery; Lubbock Blue Print Co.; Lubbock Tent & Awning Co.; Martin Bros. Planing Mill; Panhandle Supply Co., air conditioning equip· ment; Pioneer Cookie Co.; Prairie Maid Foods Products; Pogue & Bigham Sheet Metal Works; Puritan Water Co.; Seven-Up Panhandle Co.; Tech Shoe Shop; Woodson Bakery; and E. E. Wright, floor sweep. Madisonville Creamery, butter, Madisonville; plant for production of candelilla wax at Marathon (firm name not known); C. P. & L. vegetable freezing plant at Mercedes; DeWitt McDonald, frozen food plant, Mid­lothian; Box Factory of the Crazy Water Co., Mineral Wells; Chickasha Cotton Oil Co., Muleshoe; Phoenix Ref. Co., Pettus; Atlantic Refining Co., Port Arthur; Gulf Oil Corp., refinery under construction, Port Arthur; Venetian Blind Service Co., Port Arthur; Johnson and Steele Canning Plant, Powderly; Evergeen Farms Co., dehydration plant, Raymondville; Coronado Corp., recycling plant, Refugio; Kraft Cheese Co., plant under construction, Rusk. NEW PLANTS FROM "S" THROUGH "Y" San Antonio plants include: Acme Cover Co., auto seat covers; Alamo Broadcasting Co., broadcasting equipment; Alamo Products Co., food products; Ameri­can National Aircraft Co.; Arsate Products Co., cattle dip, etc.; C. P. Mfg. Co., silver polish, dog remedies, veterinary supplies; Double Cola Co., Inc.; W. G. Dun­can, containers; Hobbs Mfg. Co., auto truck bodies; J. E. Ingram Equipment Co., agricultural implements; Lone Star Brewing Co.; Lone Star Noodle Co.; Neo­Rite Co.; Standard File Exchange; and Superior Wood­work Co. Delta Refining Co., Southerland City; Wheatley Mayonnaise Co., Terrell; Pan-American Ref. Corp., Texas City; Three Rivers Ref. Corp., Three Rivers; Canning Plant, Troup; Owens-Illinois Glass Co., plant to be constructed in Waco; Waxahachie Garment Co., Waxahachie; Rhodes Gasoline Co., Wichita Falls; Westex Boot and Shoe Co., Wichita Falls; Cotton Oil Mill, Wills Point; L. & G. Products Co., food product1; Swift and Co., ice cream, Yoakum. CLARA H. LEWIS. 14. Cotton The increase in the demand for American cotton mental to the country's agricultural economy. The abroad during recent months has been rather spectac· American cotton carryover amounted to 13,033,000 bales ular. The exports of American cotton have nearly on l.ast August first. This indicates the importance of doubled over the corresponding period of the preceding foreign m_arket~ to the cotton farmers in this country year. Of course, this has been due to the fact that the and especially m Texas. foreign buyers have taken advantage of the ~xport sub­The improvement in cotton prices could not be sidy and have been encouraged to stock Amencan cotton brought about by any artificial program such as above market price loans. But what is desirable is to findmore freely. The greater consumption of American cotton abroa~ constructive ways and means whereby the country could is an important factor in the national economy of this later !ncrease the domestic and foreign consumption of country. It is evident that the P.roduc.tion could not b.e Amencan cotton. placed on a purely domestic basis as it would be detn· M. R. THADANI. COTTON BALANCE SHEET FOR THE UNITED STATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1 (In Thou.sands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Government Imports Estimate Consumption Exports Carryover to as of to to Balance Aue. I Feb. l• Dec. 1 Total Feb. 1 Feb. 1 Total Feb. 1 4,530 30 14,243 18,803 2,%0 4,479 6,939 11,864 1931)-1931-------------------------------­ 6,369 47 16,918 23,334 2,626 4,957 7,583 15,751 1931-1932----------------------­ 9,682 59 12,727 22,468 2,812 5,040 7,852 14,616 1932-193L--------------­ 8,176 68 13,177 21,421 2,923 4,919 7,842 13,579 1933-1934-------------------------­ 1934-1935_____________________ 7,746 56 9,731 17,533 2,685 2,865 5,550 11,983 19~1936____ __________________________ 7,138 56 10,734 17,928 3,014 4,004 7,018 10,910 1936-1937_____________ ___________________ 5,397 72 12,407 17,876 3,435 3,848 7,283 10,593 1937-1938__________________________________ 4,498 46 18,746 23,290 3,078 3,832 6,910 16,366 1938-1939___________________________ 11,533 77 12,008 23,618 3,397 2,192 5,589 18,029 13,033 66 11,792 24,881 4,042 4,161 8,203 16,678 1939-1940------------­ •In 500-pound baleo. tTbe cotton year beclna Aucu1t 1. . . d b U . Non: Theae 6a;urea have been revi1ed iD accordance with rov111ou.1 ma o 1 tho 1uted Statu Bureau of the Cen1u1. JANUARY P URCHASES OF SAVINGS BONDS JANUARY CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY AND EGGS Coot Price Cost Price Jan. Jan. 1940 1939 Shipment11 from Texas Stations Cars of Poultry Abilene ---------------------------------$ 64,106 $ 32,961 Live Dressed Cars of Eggst Amarillo -----------------------------80, 700" t Chickens Turkeys Destination* Chickens Turkeys Austin -------------------------------------113,119 74,700 Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 1940 1939 1940 1939 1940 1939 Beaumont ------------------------------134,663 74,063 1940 1939 1940 1939 Big Spring -----·---------------------------28,425 21,6382.9 49 12 11 27.5 20.0 TOTAL -----------2 2 3 Brownsville ------------------------------13,988 4,575 2 2 4.0 4.0 Brownwood ------------·--------------2:1,056 14,47510 9 23.5 16.0 ~~~~~:~:~: =::=::::= -2 ~ 3 29 49 Dallas ------------------------------------562,594 422,663 Origin Receipts at Texas Stations Denison --------------------------------35,569 36,675 2. 15.5 Denton ---------------------------------11,794 9,694TOTAL ---------------1 2 3.5 El Paso -------------------------------------214,369 174,619 Intrastate ------------­Fort Worth --------------------·--------------56,865 241,313 1 ----12.0 Interstate ---------------Galveston -----------------------·----------84,675 110,569 ---;:rbe destination above is the first destination as shown by the original waybill. Gladewater -------------------------------51,413 35,944 Changes in destination brought about by diversion orders are not shown •. Harlingen ----------------------------------12,900 15,113 tPowdered egga and canned frozen eggs are converted to a shell egg _equivalen t. Kenedy -------------------------------------7,500 1,931 Non: These data are furnished the United States Department of Agnculture by railroad officials through agents at all stations which originate and receive carload Longview ---------------------------------53·,025 53,494 shipments of poultry and eggs. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Marshall ---------------------------------44,831 8,738 Research. McAllen -----------------·-------------------11,531 5,156 Odessa ----------------------------------------18,881 • t CEMENT Palestine --------------------------------27,319 12,206(In Thousands of Barrels) Dec. Pampa ----------------------------------7,913 1,144 Jan. Jan. 1939 Plainview -----------------------------19,031 19,163 1940 1939 Port Arthtµ"----------·--------------------59,531 29,756 Texas Plants: San Angelo----------------·-------------46,050 37,181445 673 547 Production -------------- San Antonio -----------------------------· 469,275 213,394 450 628 518 Shipments ------------ San Benito -----------------------------------9,506 7,988 826 911 Stocks ----------------906 Sherman ------------------------------------2.4,000 10,163 United States: Tyler ----------·--------------------------129,225 130,181 Production -----------6,205 5,301 9,488 Waco ------------------------------------12:1,500 42,750 5,640 6,772 Wichita Falls ------------------------------121,838 138,769 Shipments -----------3,889 23,495 Stocks ------------------25,765 23,615 TOTAL ----------------------------------$2,557,611 $1,981,016 Capacity Operated_____ 28.5% 24.3% 43.3% •Not included In total. tNot available. ~: From U. S. Department of Interior, Buree.u of Mince. EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS JANUARY, 1940 Estimated Percentage Chan1e Eatlmated Percentage Chan1e Number of from from Amount of from from Workers Dec. Jan. Weekly Dec. Jan. Employed 1939 1939 Pay Roll 1939 1939 Manufacturins All Manufacturing Industries-----·-------------------·---130,247 + 0.1 + 4.3 $2,580,844 2.5 + 7.6 Food Producu Baking..----------------------------------------------6,740 -3.7 + 2.3 165,158 + • + 14.9 -- Beverages, Carbonated.------------------------------------1,608 4.0 + 11.3 29,284 7.4 + 11.2 Conft"Ctionery________ _______________________________________ 884 -16.l 9.6 11,206 -i:>.3 + 13.2 F1our Milling_____________________________________ 1,533 t 4.1 35,386 + 0.5 + 5.4 Ice Cream.-----------------------------------------------------------447 3.5 0.9 8,919 5.3 -13.8 Meat Packing______________________________________ 3,780 + 2.0 + 5.9 101,386 + 5.9 + 9.2 Textiles Cotton Textile Mills_ __________________________________ 4,045 + 0.5 + 11.3 71,357 + 0.6 + 32.1 Men's Work Clothing_________________________ 2,905 4.0 -13.2 23,329 + 0.9 -8.4 Forest Products Furniture_ ____________________ _____________ 1,916 5.6 + 15.5 34,082 -12.1 + 36.6 Planing Mills.--------------------------------------2,493 4.1 -0.3 34,325 -10.9 + 4.7 Saw Mills___________________ ____________ 12,225 + 7.6 + 17.1 156,010 + 0.2 +25.9 Paper Products____________ ___ _____ ____ 345 2.8 + 9.3 4,566 5.5 + 4.5 Printing and Publishing Commercial Printing.________ --------1,881 0.6 6.8 49,634 -4.3 8.6Newspaper Publishing______________________ 4,257 7.2 + 4.4 117,856 -13.3 + 3.2 Chemical Products Cotton Oil Mills___________________________ 1,837 + 11.8 -11.4 27,532 + 5.1 + 12.9 Peuoleum Refining____________________ 18,676 0.4 + 3.0 674,291 3.9 -1.6 Stone and Clay Products Brick and Tile___ 788 + 1.1 -13.l 10.].64 -14.8 -22.8 Cement.. 1,349 + 3.5 -13.3 21,617 1.7 -20.9 Iron and Steel Products Foundries and Machine Shops______________________________ 10,098 + 1.7 + 6.2 .'Hl,964 + 2.0 +20.9 Struc,tural and Ornamental Iron._____________________________ 1,562 -1.4 + 21.7 31,959 -1.1 + 30.4 Employment Pay Rolls Employment Pay Rolls Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change Dec. 1939 Jan. 1939 Dec. 1939 Jan. 1939 Dec. 1939 Jan. 1939 Dec. 1939 Jan. 1939 to to to to to to to to Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 Nonmanufacturing Citie1 Crude Petroleum Production -0.5 + 0.8 -1.2 2.5 Abilene --------------------------­-18.9 -19.3 5.2 -12.5 Quarrying ---------------------­+ 0.2 2.6 -8.9 3.5 Amarillo --------------------­2.4 + 18.2 7.1 +29.2 Public Utilities ---------------­-0.8 + 4.0 -0.8 + 6.3 Austin ----------·-----------­5.4 7.6 8.2 1.1 Retail Trade ---------------------­-20.5 + 5.7 -18.9 + 3.6 Beaumont -----------------------3.8 + 4.0 6.7 2.3 Wholesale Trade --------------­3.8 + 2.5 -4.4 + 2.8 Dallas --------------------------9.2 1.3 9.5 2.3 Cotton Compresses -----------2.1 +46.2 + 16.9 + 83.3 EI Paso -----------------------­+ 3.0 + 2.0 + 3.1 + 8.5 Dyeing and Cleaning__________ _ -11.0 4.0 2.5 1.3 Fort Worth ------------------­1.3 2.2 1.7 0.2 Hotels ----------------------------------+ 2.5 0.4 + 2.8 + 3.6 Galveston ---------------------­1.0 7.3 5.8 5.0 Laundries ---------------------------0.3' + 1.2 + 1.4 + 5.8 Houston ---------------------­3.9 + 9.4 3.9 + 13.8 Port Arthur ------------------­t + 5.3 3.9 + 2.1 San Ant()nio ---------------­-10.9 5.1 6.9 + 2.4 Sherman -------------------+ 12.4 + 6.4 + 18.9 + 8.2 Waco ------------------------4.6 + 12.7 7.9 + 15.0 Wichita Falls -----------------6.3 3.3 2.1 + 2.5 STATE ------------------------3.3 + 3.3 4.1 + 3.3 •Leos than 1/ 20 of 1 per cent. t No change. Prepared from reports {rom repregentative Tex.as estab lishments to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the United States Bureau of Labor Stati1tlc1. JANUARY RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES Ii'\ TEXAS Total Total Number Percentage Chana• Number Percent11• Chan1• of in Dollar Sa!M of in Dollar 51!00 Firm.1 Ian. 1940 Jan. 19'0 Flrm1 Ian, 1940 Jan. 1940 Re· frem from Re· from from portin& Ian. 1959 Dec. 1939 portln1 Ian. 1939 Dec. 1939 TOTAL TEXAS--····------------1,060 + 2.7 -35.9 Stephenville --·-·--------------·--5 2.9 -41.l All Others______________ _ __ _______ 17 + 2.1. -26.4 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY DISTRICT 4.___________________ ____ 253 -0.5 -37.5 PRODUCING AREAS: Cleburne --·-·--·-···-···---------8 + 3.1 -52.2 ·+ 12.6 -24.9 DISTRICT 1-N ------------------68 Commerce --------------------------6 -13.8 -45.5 + 12.5 -35.l Amarillo -----------------------· 12 Corsicana --·-----·-····-···-------7 -14.6 -48.0 Canyon ----------------------5 + 8.4 -45.4 -3.9 -32.8 Dallas ---------------···-----------41 Pampa -------------------~---11 +27.7 -22.0 -31.4 Denison ·······---------------------· 6 +17.0 +24.2 -18.l Plainview ·------------------------14 Ennis ---------------------------8 + 1.5 -25.2 -16.5 -14.5 All Others...·-------------26 Fort Worth____________________ __ 42 + 3.3 -47.6 DISTRICT 1-S_____________________ 20 -26.4 +23.3 -6.4 -42.0 Sherman ··----------------------·-·· 6Big Spring.___________________ 7 +41.2 -4.0 Taylor -----------------·--·-------6 -30.6 -22.6 + 13.9 -36.0 Lubbock -----------------10 Temple ---------------------------12 + 3.5 -36.3 All Others...-------------------····· 3 + 76.3 +60.8 Wa.co -------------------------------30 +23.4 -14.4 DISTRICT 2,_ _________________ 89 -1.9 -34.3 All Others________________________ 81 -16.4 -39.l DISTRICT 5__ _______________________ 108 +10.5 -33.0 12 -8.0 -49.4 Abilene ----------------------·-···· +15.7 -44.7 Bryan -----·---·--------------------9 + 7.3 -44.6 Sweetwater -------------------5 -25.6 Longview -----------·--·------------9 + 9.7 -8.7 Vernon --·------------------5 + 4.5 Wichita Falls__________________ Marshall -----------------------7 +15.8 -31.8 ---------------------------+17.6 -40.3 15 + 3.7 -39.l All Others....-----·--------------52 6.3 -23.5 Tyler 16 All Others______________________ 67 -31.4 + 9.0 DISTRICT 3...-----------------------M + 0.8 -31.4 DISTRICT 6_ _______ ___________ 33 +11.7 -34.2 9.3 -51.3 Brownwood -----------------··-7 El Paso ---------------------------20 +13.4 -35.6 Eastland ··--···--------------·---5 + 9.3 -25.9 All Others_______________________ 13 4.6 -11.l DISTRICT 7 ----------------------------51 + 3.8 -35.2 Brady -----------------------8 + 9.8 -M.6 San Angelo_______ _____________ 11 + 8.0 -34.8 All Others______________ ______ __ 32 1.8 -35.9 DISTRICT 8-------------------------190 5.3 -35.5 Austin -------------------------------21 -11.l -51.5 Beeville -----------------------5 -U.9 -15.3 Corpus Christi..._ _________ _____ 14 2.5 -27.4 Cuero ----------------------------5 8.4 -59.4 Lockhart -------------------------5 + 6.6 -25.0 San Antonio___________________ 62 4.7 -33.5 San Marcos_______________________ 7 -2.9 -10.7 All Others__ _ ___________________ 71 -1.3 -24.5 DISTRICT 9___________________ _ _____ 157 + 3.4 -40.0 Bay City______ _ _________________ 5 -18.8 -50.6 Beaumont -------------------------18 + 4.3 -51.9 Galvesto~ ------------------------21 + 2.4 -23.0 Houston ----------------------53 + 3.2 -42.2 Port Arthur_ ____________________ 16 -1.2 -40.2 Victoria --------------------9 + 8.2 -26.8 All Others________________________ 35 + 13.l -9.9 DISTRICT 10....----------------------57 + 6.3 -23.6 Brownsville ----------------------13 + 6.1 -39.5 Harlingen --------------------------8 +10.9 -27.4 Laredo ---------------------------5 -10.1 -M.l All Others__ ___ ________________ 31 +13.5 -5.9 Non: Prepared from report• from Independent retail 1tore1 to the Bnreau of Bu1Ines1 Reeoarch, co81eratln1 with the United Statet Department of Commtrc•. JANUARY RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS Juuary, 1940 -----...., Number Percentac• Changoof from from Flrmo Jan. Dec. Reporting 1939 1939 TEXAS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,060 + 2.7 -35.9 STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL·-----------------------------------------------------------·-----------------------------------------------------· 120 + 0.9 -45.6 Family Clothing Stores--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 2,7 + 8.4 -56.7 Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 42 + 2.1 -45.3 Shoe Stores-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 19 3.6 -54_9 Women's Specialty Shops-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.2, 0.7 -41.8 AUTOMOTIVE_________________ ________________________ __ ________________________________ _____________________________ 118 + 13.9 -11.2 Filling Stations.--------------------------------------------------------------·------------------------------------------------36 -2.4 -8.3 Motor Vehicle Dealers.------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-----------------------82 +14.5 -11.2 COUNTRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLIES______________________________________________________ 92 + 0.7 -22.8 DEPARTMENT STORES.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53 + 2.3 -53.4 DRDG STORES...--------------------------------------·----------·----------------------------------------------------------· 123 + 5.6 -18.8 DRY GOODS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE..________ __ _____ ____ _______ ______ _____________ __ 12 +13.0 -55.4 FLORISTS.------------------------------------------------------·-··--------------·--------------------------------------------32 + 0.8 -39.6 FOOD--------------------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------· 141 + 0.8 -10.7 Grocery Stores---------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-------------------------37 + 3.6 -8.2 Grocery and Meat Stores-----------------------·--------------------------------------------------------------------------· 104 0.1 -11.4 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD_________________________ __ _____________ ____________________ ________ __ _ __________ 54 + 1.1 -41.9 Furniture·------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------------49 + 0.5 -42.7 Household Appliance Stores.----------------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------5 + 9.3 -2,9.4 JEWELRY---------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------------40 +30.6 -68.5 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE..·-----------------·----------------------------------------------------230 -17.9 -21.9 Farm Implement Dealers---·---------------------------------··-----------------------------------------------------------11 +18.3 -20.5 - Hardware Stores--------------------------------·-----------------·-·----------------------------------------------------· 75 2.2 -23.0 Lumber and Building Materials Dealers_·-----------------------------------------------------------------------· 144 -2:4.8 -21.6 RESTAURANTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23· 3.4 -0.8 ALL OTHER STORES--------------·----------------·-----------------·-----------------------------------------------------------· 22 -7.7 -47.6 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPULATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of- Over 100,000 Population___________________________________________________ _ _______________ _ _______ __ ______ __________ 218 + 1.6 -39.3 50,000-100,000 PopulatioIL__ _ _______ _________________________ ____________________________ __ ______ _ ___ _ _______ 106 + 4.4 -37.9 2,500-50,000 PopulatioIL________ __ __ _________ _____________ _ _____________ _ _________________________ _____ __ __________ 46{) + 4.9 -33.6 Less than 2,500 PopulatioIL___________ __ _ ·-----------------·----------------------------------------------------276 + 1.2 -18.7 NOTE : Prepared from reports of independent retail stores to the Bureau of Buiineu Research, coOperatina-with the United States Department of Commerce. PETROLEUM Daily Average Production (In Barrels) Jan. Jan. Doc. 1940 1939 1939 Coastal Texae*--------------------------226,610 212-,200 251,200 East Central Texas____________ ___ 79,140 92,200 92,900 East Texas ----··------------------------394,490 372,150 469,000 North Texas -·---·-----·----------------80,980 79,500 91,650 Panhandle --------------------------------80,100 63,950 79,950 Southwest Texas -------------------206,760 23-2,650 232,800 West Central Texas_ ______ _ __ ___ 31,770 30,050 31,950 West Texas ----------------------------23-2,930 204,600 258,900 STATE ----------------·-------________ l,332,780 1,287,300 1,508,350 UNITED STATES ______ _________3,584,900 3,242,800 3,776,500 Imports ---·--------------------------------156,914 100,250 132,464 *Include1 Conroe. NOTE: From American Petroleum Institute. See accompanying map showin' the ~ii producing districts of Texae. Gasoline sales as indicated hy taxes collected by the State Comptroller were: December, 1939, 111,336,000 gallons; Decem­ber, 1938, 104,798,000 gallons; November, 1939, 104,582,000 . gallons. JANUARY CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Number of Credit Sales Collections to Credit SalariesStores to Net Sal es Ou t&tandingll!I to Credit Salee Reporting. 1940 1939 1940 1939 1940 1939 All Storea..­ --­-···-·---··-·-···-­-- --··-·---­ - 68 67.1 66.0 39.9 39.1 1.3 1.5 Stores Grouped by Cities: Amarillo_______________ ·--­ ·-·-­ 3 61.3 59.4 51.2 46.7 1.8 2.2 Austin__·-­---··-·····--···-----­--·-­--··­---­-··­Beaumont·--·--···-···-·­·-··-··-··---­·--··-·-·­Dallas....---··--­·-··-···-·--·-···-·-··­----­----­Fort Worth..·-·--·­-----·-----­·· Houston__.________ __________ ___________ 7 3 10 6 8 61.8 73.8 73.4 66.3 67.3 58.8 69.7 73.5 65.5 66.0 45.5 44.6 39.3 36.4 41.9 44.4 43.8 38.3 36.3 41.5 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 ____ San Antonio----·-····-·-··---·-·--·-----···· Waco_·-·--·-···--·-­-·-··-------·---­-·­-----·­--All Others...·-·--··-----·---·---·----­---·­-··----·-­ 5 5 2:1 50.9 66.8 59.Z 46.3 65.5 58.5 46.l 33.5 39.Z 45.6 31.3 38.5 1.3 1.7 1.9 0.6 1.7 2.0 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ------·-·-­Department Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) _ _ ____ ___ 19 11 68.7 36.8 65.8 59.0 41.9 35.6 41.1 36.3 1.3 2.4 1.5 2.6 Dry Goods Apparel Stores..·-···--·---···--··--··-·-·­-----­·-­--Women's Specialty Shops.·-···--··-·--··-­--·----·-·­Men's Clothing Stores__·-·-------­---­-----··­ 5 15 18 64.9 68.7 70.5 61.7 65.5 70.l 36.9 35.5 38.8 36.0 34.3 37.7 2.4 0.8 1.6 2.0 1.0 . 1.6 Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1939: Over $2,500,000..-------------­$2,500,000 down to Sl,000,000______ $1,000,000 down to $500,000...­----·­·-·--­$500,000 down to $100,000....------·--·--· Less than $100,000...----·--·-­·-·----------­ ----­--·- 8 11 9 30 IO 67.l 63.3 60.4 63.l 61.6 70.1 61.6 60.0 59.4 61.1 40.9 41.8 42.5 38.9 35.9 40.8 41.3 4-0.6 37.3 35.0 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 3.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.5 4.4 Nonr:: The ratios shown for each year, in the order in which they appear from left to right, are obtained by the following computation•: (1) CredJt ulef divided by net sale1. (2) Collection1 durin1 the month divided by the total accounu unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salarie1 of the credit depart. ment divided by credit wales. The data ara reported to the Bureau of Bueineq Research by Tent retail 1torea. COMMODITY PRICES Jan . J&n. Dec. 1940 1939 1939 ELECTRIC POWER CONSUMPTION WHOLESALE PRICES: (In Thou.sands of K.W.H.) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1936 = 100) ___________····· 79.4 76.9 79.2 Percentage Change The Annalist (1926 = 100) ··--·-·-···--· 82.0 79.2 81.7 Jan. 1940 Jan. 1940 J an. Jan. Dec. from from FARM PRICES: 1940 1939 1939 Jan. 1939 Dec. 1939 U. S. Department of Commercial .... 45,662 43,610 46,045 + 4.7 -.08 Agriculture (1910-14 = 100) .......... 99.0° 94.0 96.0 Industrial ·-··-· 74,711 86,181 85,964 -13.3 -13.l U.S. Bureau of Labor Residential --·· 45,293 35,684 34,926 + 26.9 + 29.7 Statistics (1926 = 100) ···-·····--·······-69.1 67.Z 67.6 All Others._.____ 25,792 23,028 24,820 + 12..0 + 3.9 RETAIL PRICES: TOTAL --·-·····-·191,458 188,503 191,755 + 1.6 -o.z Foor (U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1923-25 = 100) ..--·-······-77.1 76.9 77.5 Nete: Prepared from reports from 13 electric power companies to the Bureau of Business Research. Department Stores (Fairchild's Publications, Jan. 1931 = 100) ···-· 92.3 89.1 92.0 •Preliminary. JANUARY SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ Ca ttl e Calves Hogs Sheep Total 1940 1939 1940 1939 1940 1939 1940 1939 1940 1939 Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU..·--·----···-···-2,761 4,505 847 976 669 639 409 522 4,686 6,642Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth.·-·--···-····-341 815 71 179 22 45 21 73 455 1,112 TOTAL SHIPMENTS..·---·-···-···-····-··-·--·-· 3,102 5,320 918 1,155 691 684 430 595 5,141 7,754 §'Rail-car Basis: Cattle, 30 head per car; calves, 60; hoga, 80; and sheep, 250. 1JFort Worth shipment!! are combined with interstate fon\·ardings in order that the bulk of market disappearance for the month may be shown. NoTE: These data are furnished the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railway ofliciala through more than 1,500 station agents representine-every . live ttock ihipping point in rhe State. The data are compfled by the Bureau of Business Research. ' · BUILDING PERMITS POSTAL RECEIPTS Jan. Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. Dec. 1940 1939 1939 1940 1939 1939 Abilen/ _ --------------$ 64,93S $ 80,130 $ 16,980 Abilene _ ___________ $ 18,374 $ 18,971 $ 22,242: Amarillo ----------------132,747 171,940 106,865 30,3-13 45,169Amarillo ___ _ ________ 32,401 Austin -----.;!-----------483,268 842',641 275,898 Austin ------------------66,252 79,308 76,134 B~aumo~t --/,-------78,700 91,807 85,401 Beaumont -------------27,637 27,384 36,594 Big Sprmg__ _ ____ 36,320 29,248 6,975 Big Spring __ ________ 6,386 6,319 9,416 7 Brownsville r 12,030* 1,361 33·,902 Brownsville _____ _______ 6,536 6,102 8,553Corpus Chri ti_____ 1,311,810 178,697 178,204 Brownwood -----------6,136 6,076 8,871 Corsicana --------------10,825 27,115 11,035 Childress ---------------3,004 2,724 4,907 Dallas ___ ___ ------· __ 872.,378 1,475,614 623,040 Corpus Christi_ ______ 28,081 24,101 36,284Del Rio ,______ ________ 4,075 Z,540 5,150 Corsicana ------------5,916 5,721 8,618Denton .,L_ __________ 13,010 2·3,400 9,200 Dallas -------------------378,901 367,184 469,400 El Paso _.L.z--------135,717 240,699 161,205 Del Rio ------------------5,624 4.,425 5,393Fort Worthj"_________ 283,113 332,094 403,092 Denison ----------------6,223 5,563 8,566 Galveston -------------335,590 134,772. 107,071 Denton ----------------6,264 7,743 9,672 Gladewater r-_ 5,500 290 0 El Paso -----------------46,100 44,965 75,888Harlingen ~-/----_ _ 20,190 4,630 26,599 Fort Worth ---------142,478 135,108 197,123 Houston _If:.____ __ 3,655,705 2,040,375· 1,940,045 Galveston --------------30,350 25,942 42.,254 5,250 2700 Gladewater -----·------3,499 3,049 3,898 J.~~~m~___::::=:::: 2~:~g 22,450 45:452 Graham ------------------2,548 2,624 3,330 Lubbock ~----·---__ 595,630 256,584 844,804 Harlingen ------· ------6,483 6,182 8,292McAllen v;;,.-. _____ 41,780• 14,835 1,910 Houston -----------------253,482 233,795 334,794 Marshall -----------··· 12,483 33,581 16,666 3,480 4,099 Jacksonville ________ __ 3,477 Odessa _____ __ ____ 35,788t t 41,337t Kenedy --------------1,4-95 1,455 1,562 7 5,149 2,489 Palestine -~--7-----18,996 Longview --------------10,059 9,937 10,619 Pampa ---v:-----·-·--23,975 14,000 29,975 Lubbock --------------20,091 18,747 23,435 Plainview ____ ___ 5,350 3,200 1,400 4,360 6,060 Lufkin ----------·--------5,146 Port Arthur 7······----65,258 138,325 69,821 McAllen ---------------5,884 5,426 6,751 San Angelo__ ~----44,254 25,117 10,905 Marshall ---------------6,452 6,705 8,639 San Antoni7 ----437,082 628,194 461,898 Odessa -------------------7,133 7,072 8,087 Sherman ----·;;;r· .. 15,434· 35,441 16,949 Palestine ---------------6,663 5,475 6,726 Sweetwater ----------·-9,805 7,365 9,950 Pampa --------·--------7,580 7,004 10,040 Tyler -----~-~:__ __ ____ 38,459 113,810 24,755 Plainview ----·------4,931 4,782 5,237 Waco _ ____1:_ ___v-··-· 152,943 302,107 57,296 Port Arthur ______ ___ 13,671 14,000 24,473Wichita Falls ______ _ 88,630 58,395 62,165 San Angelo _______ __ 12.,384 11,892: 17,353San Antonio ________ 128,084* 120,825* TOTAL ---------------$9,048,022 $7,341,156 $5,649,797 t San Benito ____ __ _ _ 2,690 2,549 3,268 NoTE: Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the Bureau Sherman ----------------7,802 7,487 11,427 o f Business Research. 1,665 •Does not include public works. Snyder -----------------1,831 1,901 tNot available. Sweetwater -----------5,357 6,000 6,248 !Not included in total. Tyler _________________ 16,047 15,942 20,559 Waco ____ ..... _______ 32,233 35,966 41,910Wichita Falls ______ 23,561 25,450 32,468 TOTAL ____ ____ . ___ $1,277,162 $1,238,993 $1,666,260LUMBER NoTE : Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the Bureau of Business Research. (In Boa rd Feet) *Not included in total. tNot available. Jan. Jan. Dec. 1940 1939 1939 Southern Pine Mills: TEXAS CHARTERSAverage Weekly Production per unit ------------------·---243,272 271,204 285,566 Jan. Jan. Dec. Average Weekly Shipments 1940 1939 1939 Domestic Corporations:per unit ---------·-___ _ 221,914 260,779 251,321 Capitalization• ________________ _________ $2,055 Average Unfilled Orders per $1,869 $2,532 Unit, End of Month --------693,178 675,425 619,613 Number ----------------------------·---------------143, 127 114 Classification of new corporations Non: From Southern Pine AHociation. Banking-Finance -------------------4 3 6 Manufacturing -------------------------26 18 15 Merchandising --------------·---------35 25 '2:l Oil ----------·---------------------------------23 24 17 Public Service -------------------------2 0 0TEXAS COMMEROAL FAILURES Real Estates-Building -·------------9 14 18 Transportation. ----------------------9 7 5 Jan . Jan. Dec. All Others·--·---------------------------35 36 26 1940 1939 1939* Number capitalized at less than Number ------------------------------·------_____ 25 31 17 $5,000 ------·------------------------------62. 49 60 Liabilitiesll ______________ -----------____________ $254 $858 $462 Number capitalized at $100,000 Assets II -----·-----------------·-·---·--------------126 386 163 or more ----------------------------------3 6 2 Average Liabilities per Failurell-----10 28 27 Foreign Corporations (Number)________ 'l:l 34 23 •Revi1ed. •In thousand1. IIn tbouund1. Non: Compiled from record1 of tho Secretary of State. Non: From Dun and Bradatreet, Inc. BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) January, 1940 Dalla• United Diatrict State• 832 $33,555 Condition of reporting member banks on-January 31, 1940 AssETS: DEBITS to individual accounts-------------------------------·-------------------------------$ Loans and investments-total__________________ __ _ ________________________ _ 540 23,174 Loan&--totaL_____________________________________________________________ 277 8,499 Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans-------------~---------184 4,295 Open market paper__ ____________________________________________________________ _ 2 32.1 Loans to brokers and dealers in securities__________________________________ _ 3 614 Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities_____________________ , 14 485 Real estate loans....-----------------------------------------------------------------------­ 22; 1,183 1..oans to banks-------------------------------------------------·---------------------------· 54 Other loans_______________________________ __ _________________ ___________________________________ _ 52: 1,547 Treasury Bills-----------------------------------------------------------------------------· 16 648 Treasury Notes....------------------------------------------------------------------------------­44 1,747 6,482, 0bligations fully guaranteed by U.S. Gov'L------------------------·-53 2,414 Other securities-----------------------------------------------------------------------· 57 3,384 U.S. Bond11----------------------------------------·-------------------------93 Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank_________________________________________ 136 10,258 Cash in vaulL----------------------------------------------------------------------------11 458 Balances with domestic banks________________________________________________ _ 277 3,067 Other assets-net__ ____________________________________________________ _ ______________________. 29 1,247 Lu.BILITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted__ __________________________________ __ ______________ _ 471 19,199 Time deposits---------------------------------------------------------------------------------136 5,257 U.S. Government deposits----------------------------------------------------------­31 573 lnter-bank deposits: Domestic banks·--------------------------------------------------------------·----· 265 8,029 Foreign banks...--~-------------------------------------------------------------------1 738 Borrowings_____________________ _ __________________ __ ______________ _______________ __ .__ 1 Other liabilities_____________________________________________________________________________. 3 690 Capital accounL------------------------------------------------------------------86 3,717 •Five Weeke. tNot available. NOTE : From Federal Reeerve Board. January, 1939 Dalla1 United District States $ 1,061 * $42,773* February I , 1939 510 21,442 244 8,233 161 3,767 1 324 3 792 14 535 20 1,174 99 45 l,~ ... t I t t t t 41 1,789 59 3,247 108 7,521 9 394 244 2,593 25 1,241 434 16,048 134 5,183 34 631 207 6,359 576 4 713 83 3,681 December, 1939 Dallas United District Statea $ 1,197* $48,940* January 3, 1940 548 288 193 2 3 14 23 53 17 42 95 49 57 138 12 264 29 448 137 33 284 3 86 23,087 8,674 4,353 315 700 504 1,186 50 1,564 595 1,755 6,353 2,412 3,298 9,831 504 3,140 1,193 18,566 5,276 586 8,190 740 683 3,714 CONTENTS PAGE Business Review and Prospect, F. A. Buechel _______________________________ _____--------------------··---_______ -------------------------------------3 Cotton, M. R. Thadani_________ _ _______________________________________________________________________________ ______________ __ _____ -------------------------------------14 Financial Situation, Watrous H. Irons___________________________________·-------------------------------------·----__________ _ _-----·-----------------------10 Manufacturing Developments in Texas During 1939, Clara H. Lewis ___---·--· ________ _ ____ --------------------------------------11 Seasonal Shifts in the Index of Agricultural Cash Income in Texas, Carroll Brown --------------------------------------------------4 Some Implications of Technologic Progress, Elmer H. Johnson. ____ ________ ----------------------------------------------------------------7 LIST OF CHARTS Building Permits.~-------------------------------------------------------------------· · ·---------------------------------------------------------------·-------------------------------------------------------1 Indexes of Business Activity in Texas__________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------------------2 LIST OF TABLES Banking Statistics.--------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20 ~l~~