Thus far, then, we have examined the one factor of demand for gold, among the "other things" (which were supposed to remain equal). There is abundant evidence to show that the demand for gold, in this recent period of rising prices (1896-1909) has been as strong as, or even stronger than, the demand for gold in the previous period (1873-1896) of falling prices. It looks very much as if we must seek for the causes of rising prices since 1896 in some of the "other things" not yet examined. There is no time, however, for extended discussion on these points.... The effects of Tariffs and Taxation, Unionism and higher Wages, and changing Agricultural Conditions in increasing expenses of production in all industries are so patent as to require no enlargement. Immediately after the passage of the Dingley Act in 1897, a large list of articles rose in price precipitously. Moreover, just so far as higher money wages for the same work, or the same money wages for a reduced number of hours, have been granted without a corresponding increase in the efficiency of the labor, the expenses of producing goods in general--and consequently prices--have risen. But, without doubt, one of the most important factors in raising prices--directly and indirectly--has been the increased price of food due to the changing conditions of agriculture. This most influential cause of higher prices is one of the "other things" which has been at work quite independent of the quantity of new gold. Moreover, the indirect effect of high prices of food produces the most serious practical problem. It wipes out all the gain of previous increases of wages, and drives laborers to repeat their demands for higher pay, thus working again to increase expenses of production. It is not too much to say that the gains of industry, shown by the fall in prices, as they stood about 1890 have been lost to us by the high tariffs of 1897 and the wastes of bad farming and the recent high costs of agriculture. Our analysis would be inadequate, however, if we stopped here with our examination of expenses of production. The really practical problem is still before us in trying to analyze the forces at work fixing prices in that vague and dangerous margin between actual expenses of production and the prices in fact paid by the consumer.... The whole _raison d'etre_ of monopolistic combinations is to control prices, and prevent active competition. As every economist knows, in the conditions under which many industries are to-day organized, expenses of production have no direct relation to prices. In such conditions, there is a field in which the policy of charging "what the traffic will bear" prevails; and this includes industries that are not public utilities.