Competitive methods often show a loss, however, which society should, and will in time, eliminate. Spurred on by a desire to increase trade, competitors sometimes uselessly duplicate plants and equipments, with the result that society must pay more for their particular goods than would otherwise be the case. Delivery of milk in cities is a common example of this waste. Not infrequently as many as a half dozen milk drivers visit the same apartment house in the course of the early morning hours, the combined service being little greater than that which one driver could have rendered in the same time. Recent investigations of the conditions surrounding the delivery of milk in a large Middle Western city disclose the interesting fact that the cost of delivery from city milk stations to the homes is greater than the combined cost of producing the milk and shipping it to the city. We may see similar wastes in a duplication of small stores, each with its staff of clerks and its delivery system working but part time.

Society has already made much progress in the matter of waste prevention, by facing squarely the fact that some industries by their very nature are monopolistic in character and not competitive. As a result few cities have duplicate water stations, electric lighting systems, or artificial gas plants. Usually also one street railway system suffices. Competition between telephone systems still persists in some localities. Obviously, the duplication of an electric lighting system would be a social waste, especially if some means other than competition can be made an effective regulator of service and price. Such means have been found in positive legislation in which the benefits of competition are gained without the loss arising from duplication of plants, equipment, and labor force.