Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 February 2011
The September 1966 issue of this Journal contains a study by Professor Irwin Feller on the rate of adoption of the Draper Automatic Loom in the New England cotton textile industry. I have no quarrel with his central conclusions concerning the economic rationality of the New England cotton manufacturers. I do, however, have some comments on his analysis of the relative costs of producing cloth on plain (power) as opposed to automatic looms.
1 Feller, Irwin, “The Draper Loom in New England Textiles, 1894-1914: A Study of Diffusion of an Innovation,” The Journal Of Economic History, XXVI (1966), 320–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Ibid, p. 339.
3 Ibid, p. 341.
4 Ibid, p. 342.
5 Ibid, p. 343.
6 Ibid.
7 This becomes apparent when it is noted that the depreciation charged to the two methods differs only by 10 percent. In Uttley's calculations, depreciation at 7 percent for both methods resulted in a depreciation charge on automatic looms more than three times as great as the depreciation charge on plain looms.
8 U.S. Congress, House, United States Tariff Board (not Tariff Commission as Professor Feller would have it), Cotton Manufactures, 62d Cong., 1st sess., 1912, House Doc. 643, p. 469.
9 Ibid, p. 366.
10 Ibid, p. 465.
11 Ibid, p. 470. This example, in which all the plain looms considered were at least 30 years old, also puts a somewhat larger depreciation charge in the plain loom cost column than in the automatic loom column.
12 Ibid, pp. 471-72.
