The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
Pollution Control-
Proper Policies Could Improve
Functioning of Market Economy
A new dimension has been added to because prices affect a producer's
more profitable. Producers devote
economic concerns in recent years.
revenues and costs-and, therefore,
more resources to its production
Historically, a major concern has
his profits-they are a primary deand fewer to the production of the
been for policies that would stimterminant of the final allocation
second item. But in deciding to reUlate a nation's economic growth.
spond to the change in demand, a
of resources.
To this has now been added an inproducer must compare the costs
A simple example will illustrate
creasing awareness of the conseof increased output of the first
the point. Assume that consumer
qUences for the environment of
item-or a shift to its productiontastes change and demand for one
maintaining many policies aimed
with the expected revenue.
item rises while demand for anTheoretically, so long as the
primarily at economic growth.
other falls. The results are twoadditional revenue from selling
The environmental consequences fold: a shortage of the first item
of growth-such as water and air
that puts upward pressure on its
more of the item exceeds the additional costs of production, he will
pollution and the rising noise level- price and a surplus of the second
item that puts downward pressure
increase output. And if the market
have become a widespread conis perfectly competitive, he will
on its price.
cern. Many consider the situation
As the prices shift, production
continue to expand production
a fundamental economic problem.
until the additional costs of proTo clarify the problem and begin of the first item becomes relatively
reaching for a solution, it is necessary, first, to examine the economic
system that has allowed pollution
of the environment to develop as a
Seemingly inevitable and certainly
Marginal costs of cleaning up pollution
unintended side effect of growth.
eventually outweigh marginal benefits
In the United States, that means
COSTS AND
an examination of the market
BENEFITS
economy. After defining the mar(DOLLARS PER UNIT OFTIME)
ket characteristics that encourage
Pollution, it becomes possible to
clarify some of the economic consequences of often espoused antiPollution policies and to formulate
MARGINAL COSTS
criteria for evaluating pollution
Control programs.
The market economy ...
Consumers in a market economy
base their decisions partly on their
Personal preferences and buying
POWer. But market prices are also
a major factor influencing their
deC.isions. The higher the price of
an ltem, the greater the sacrifice a
conSUmer must make for it in terms
of other consumption that he has
to forgo.
Producers' decisions are also
affected by market prices. And
llusiness Review / October 1973
POLLUTION TREATMENTS
(UNITS OF POLLUTION REMOVED PER UNIT OF TIME)
1
ducing a unit of the item exactly
equal its market price.
•.. and the envh'onment
The problem regarding the environment enters in connection
with producers' costs. All the costs
to this point have been private
costs-the producer's out-of-pocket
costs for such items as labor and
materials and his implicit costs for
use of such resources as the plant
and equipment he owns and could,
otherwise, rent to someone else.
Most of these costs are paid in
money and are, therefore, thought
of in terms of money. But there
is another sense in which they are
true costs. Because resources used
by the producer for one purpose
cannot be used for others, the cost
of allocating scarce resources to the
production of one item is the loss of
production of another. This loss,
however, does not always equal the
total cost to society.
The social cost of an item is the
private resource cost incurred by
the producer plus any additional
loss of resources that can be attributed to the production but is not
paid for by the producer. Correspondingly, the resources sacrificed
from other endeavors in the production of an additional unit of the
item are the marginal social costs
of producing that item.
Ideally, marginal private costs
would equal marginal social costs.
That, however, is not always the
case. When marginal social costs
exceed marginal private costs,
there is a loss in resources that
exceeds the loss indicated by private costs.
This loss in resources is a cost
the public must incur over and
above the factor-input costs directly incurred by the producer.
One example of this extra cost,
which arises when decisions made
in the marketplace are based on
private costs that do not fully
reflect social costs, is pollution.
2
The implications of such a situation are many. The primary implication, however, is that more
resources are devoted to pollutioncausing activities than would be the
case if all costs were incurred by
producers and paid by consumers.
Take a situation, for example,
where a manufacturing company
operates a plant on the banks of a
public stream and dumps its
wastes into the stream. The company incurs many private costs by
paying suppliers for the resources
used in production. But because
no one owns the waterway, no one
can charge the company for
dumping its wastes in the stream.
And since this resource cost is not
counted among the producer'S
costs, it is not reflected in the
prices charged for the product.
Yet, when waste has built up in
the water to a point where the
stream is being destroyed-from the
standpoint of either economic usefulness or environmental healththe public is losing an important
scarce resource. And there is nothing inherent in the market system
to reverse the destruction-at least,
in time to prevent a significant loss
of the resource.
Just as businesses make their
decisions on the basis of private
costs, so do consumers. In deciding between two goods that provide the same level of satisfaction,
consumers can usually be expected
to choose the lower-priced one.
And in cases where the social costs
of production exceed the market
price, consumers may actually encourage pollution by picking the
lower-priced good.
Only when pollution increases
to the point of impinging on private costs and, thereby, exerts
upward pressure on market prices
do consumers consider substitutes.
This, unfortunately, rarely happens before society incurs serious
environmental problems. And
these problems are usually irre-
versible in the short run and,
sometimes, even in the long run.
In situations where social costs
exceed private costs because of pollution, reliance on the free market
can lead to an overproduction of
goods with which pollution is associated. In its 1972 report to the
President, the Council of Economic
Advisers stated:
The basic environmental problem,
for example, is that some resources,
like air, are common property and
consequently the private economic
system does not put a price on
their use. The result is overuse or
misuse-such as the dumping of
excess pollutants into the air.
The council went on to suggest,
however, that solutions to the
problem can be defined in the
framework of a market economy:
The lesson of all this is not laissezfaire. There are conditions where
a functioning price system does
not naturally exist and has to be
created or simulated.
One approach to the problem
There are, doubtlessly, many ways
of attacking pollution problems.
Most, however, seem to center on
three basic approaches. All can be
explored in terms of a single example-water pollution.
Returning to the situation of a
manufacturing company that
dumps its wastes into a stream, one
way to lessen the pollution would
be for the public to undertake construction of a plant to treat the industrial waste. Such an approach
might eliminate the pollution, but
it has some inherent disadvantages.
With construction financed presumably out of general tax revenues, there would be no direct
increase in the manufacturer's
production costs and, therefore, no
cost-induced price increase for his
product. And without this price
increase, no pressure for a reduction in the amount of the good
demanded would be initiated froIll
the supply side of the market.
Some reduction in demand
lllight result, of course, from the
increase in taxes required to build
the treatment plant, but the reduction would probably be slight. Just
how effectively such an approach
would influence the demand side
would depend on the proportion of
taxpayers that bought the product
of the offending plant, the extent
of the tax increase, and the sensitiVity of demand for the product
to changes in disposable income.
The greatest limitation of this
approach, then, is that, with no
direct implications for change in
either production costs or conSUlller prices, the costs of pollution
are still incurred by the public at
large rather than being incorporated in the market price of the
product. And, of course, to the
ex:tent that some taxpayers are not
consumers of the good produced at
the polluting plant, the program
Subsidizes those that are.
Consumers have no incentive to
shift demand to less polluting
products. The producer has no
l~centive to change either productlOn methods or the volume of
?oods produced. And little change
In the amounts of waste produced
by the plant can be expected.
Another approach
Another approach would be to require the company to adopt certain pollution standards. This approach would eliminate the need
for public construction of a waste
treatment plant. Instead, the company would be required to change
Its production technique to reduce
the volume of pollutants.
Although some flexibility could
be built into the pollution stan~ards, there would probably be
Instances in which a company
Could not make the necessary
Changes in the time allowed and
WOuld, presumably, have to stop
Production. Considerations of the
availability of substitute goods,
llusiness Review I October 1973
any social benefits of having adequate supplies of the good produced by the polluting plant, and
any problems connected with
closing the plant-such as unemployment, loss of capital equipment, or costs of relocation-would,
therefore, have to be taken into
account in formulating standards.
Revamping a plant to meet disposal requirements will almost
certainly result in corresponding
increases in its production costs. If
the goods could have been produced
at a lower cost initially without
polluting the stream, the producer
would presumably have already
done so. And if a technique with
less pollution is not known, the
producer will have to incur the
cost of searching for it. For the
company to stay in business, at
least part of these costs of meeting
pollution standards-which will
vary with the particular industry
and the severity of the restrictions
-must be passed on to consumers
as higher prices.
Transfer of resources represents
another cost resulting from this
approach. It takes time and money
to retool a plant or move equipment from one company to another. And when new production
techniques are forced on a producer, some specialized equipment
is probably rendered obsolete.
In the long run, these changes
will bring higher prices, which, in
turn, will lead some consumers to
consider other goods with an eye
to reducing their use of the goods
in question.
And a third approach
The third alternative is in most
direct harmony with efforts to
devise a better-functioning price
system. It would involve two
stages: the cost of waste treatment
would be estimated, and, then,
this estimated cost would be levied
on the polluting company. Imposed as a tax on units of waste
discharged-and possibly varied if
marginal cleanup costs could be
related directly to the volume of
discharge-the levy could be used
to build and maintain a waste
treatment plant.
With production that resulted
in pollution now costing more
than production that did not, the
company would be encouraged
to update its plant as fast as new
equipment and techniques became
available. And with the tax cost
reflected at least partially in the
price of the product, consumers
could decide whether they wanted
the product enough to pay the full
cost of its production.
If there were not enough consumers willing to absorb the higher
costs resulting from pollution control, the company might have to
stop production altogether. In
such a case-and assuming there
were social benefits to be derived
from the good-the public might
want to consider alternatives to
doing without the product. It
would still have the option, for
example, of financing waste treatment out of general tax revenue to
keep a company in business.
This third approach to pollution
problems represents an effort to
create a functioning price system
where one does not exist. By placing m0re reliance on the price
system for the allocation of resources, this approach is more
nearly consistent with the proper
functioning of a market economy.
Where suitable technology is
available for cleaning up pollution,
revenue from the pollution tax can
be used for that purpose. Meanwhile, the company is given an incentive to develop more pollutionfree production techniques.
In the case of many water pollution problems, the technology for
pollution treatment does exist.
And policies consistent with the
conceptual framework of the third
alternative have been proposed.
3
Application of this approach,
only the restoration of natural resources for purely productive use
however, need not presuppose
but also such noneconomic matters
knowledge of how to reverse the
adverse consequences of continuing of general welfare as ecological
pollution. By raising the cost of
balance, the abatement of noise
producing the polluting product
and odors, and a reduction in
threats to personal health, dollar
and, thereby, reducing its provalues are hard to assign.
duction and consumption, a polIt seems clear, however, that
lution tax can hold pollution to
where effluences have been treated
acceptable levels.
very little and pollution has beProposals for such a pollution
come a serious problem, the public
tax have already been made in
connection with the use of electric- can reap substantial benefits from
efforts at cleaning up the environity and automobiles. Progressive
taxation on the use of electricity,
ment. With each additional effort,
more benefits may be achieved.
it has been argued, should be substituted for declining unit-cost
But at some point, about as many
structures that encourage conbenefits will have been obtained
as can be without enormous addisumption. Similarly, taxes based
tional effort.
on the pollution capacity of automobiles have been proposed.
Using the economic tool of marWhile reduction in output would ginal analysis, the benefits of pollucome at a cost to the public, so
tion control can be viewed in terms
would continued deterioration of
of its marginal benefit-the benefit
the environment. When the deteri- from removing an additional unit
oration has become so great that
of pollution from the environment
the state of the environment is
for a definite length of time. This
more important than the loss of
might measure, for example, the
some production, this application
gain to society from removing a
of the third approach becomes
ton of pollutants from the atmosimply a matter of choosing the
sphere for one day. Costs can be
"lesser of two evils."
considered in terms of the marginal
cost of such benefits-the dollar
A guide for policy
cost, again, of removing a unit of
Problems of formulating adequate
pollution for a specific period.
Since the marginal benefits of
pollution control policies are comeliminating pollutants rise rapidly
plicated by the difficulties of asrelative to the cost of such efforts
signing dollar values to the excess
until some point where the relaof social costs over private costs.
tionship begins to reverse itself
A suitable conceptual framework
and every additional benefit costs
is available, however, to provide a
progressively more to achieve, the
guide in choosing between promost efficient allocation of reposed policies.
sources to pollution control can be
Both benefits and costs are inplotted. The slope of the marginal
volved in cleaning up pollution.
cost curve depends on many facThe costs are fairly easy to identors, such as the type of production
tify. They are the dollar costs of
involved in the cleanup and the
resources used in the cleanupstructure of the market for inputs
presumably with no complicating
to the cleanup. After a point, howside effects, such as pollution from
ever, marginal costs will begin risthe cleanup itself.
ing steadily, reaching their maxIt is the benefits that pose idenimum only after the marginal
tification problems. Since the
benefits have been tapering off for
benefits of a cleanup include not
4
some time. By contrast, marginal
benefits rise initially and then normally level off and begin slowly
tapering downward.
The optimal level of pollution
control would be at the intersection of these curves-at the point
where marginal benefits exactly
equal marginal costs. Until then,
although the difference is narrowing, the benefits of removing another unit of pollution always
exceed the costs. After the point
of intersection, the marginal costs
exceed the marginal benefits.
This simple technique of analysis has ready application to policy decisions. In 1971, for example,
the Senate passed an amendment
to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act requiring absolutely
no discharge of pollutants into
streams by 1985. The cost of
achieving this zero discharge goal
has been estimated at $316.5 billion. But it has also been estimated
that as much as 95 percent of the
pollutants flowing into lakes and
streams-and possibly as much as
99 percent-could be eliminated at
a cost of $118.8 billion. This means
the bill would require a marginal
cost of nearly $200 billion to eliminate from 1 to 5 percent of the
water pollution-and that after the
achievement of what is considered
high-quality water.
Concluding comments
Any effective environmental policy
will necessarily impose hardships
on the economy, for such a policy
would be designed to change behavior and resource-use patterns.
There is now general agreement
that some changes are necessary,
but they will undoubtedly be
costly and often difficult to make.
Discussions, usually in engineering or ecological terms, have already resulted in broadly accepted
proposals for alleviating some of
the problems of a deteriorating
environment. Some of these pro-
posals have been enacted into laws,
and new laws are to be expected.
Hopefully, these laws can be designed to make prices reflect the
true relative costs of products.
Such an approach seems to be the
only way to continue placing primary reliance on a market econOmy to allocate resources and yet
escape from those environmental
problems that have been the unintended consequences of choices
made in a free market.
-Clifford L. Fry
New member bank
The Houston State Bank, Houston, Texas, located in the territory served by the
Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, opened for business
September 25, 1973, as a member of the Federal Reserve System. The new member
bank has a capital structure of $1,000,000, consisting of capital stock of $400,000,
surplus of $400,000, and undivided profits and reserves of $200,000. The officers
are: James B. Bexley, President and Chief Executive Officer; Franklin Allen, Vice
President; and Bill McClellan, Cashier.
New par banks
The Parkdale Bank, Beaumont, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in
the territory served by the Houston Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, September 4, 1973. The
officers are: Arthur S. Cagle, President; Richard R. Boyd, Cashier; and Roy
Walters, Assistant Cashier.
The Concordia Bank & Trust Company, Vidalia, Louisiana, an insured nonmember
bank located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, and its Ferriday Branch, Ferriday, Louisiana, were added to
the Par List on September 20, 1973. The officers are: John Dale, Jr., President;
Travis Gore, Executive Vice President and Cashier; Kenneth Blaylock, Vice
President and Manager, Ferriday Office; Willie R. Smith, Vice President;
S. L. Winston, Jr. (Inactive), Vice President; William E. Chisholm, Assistant
Vice President; Darrell L. Cobb, Assistant Vice President; Victor Cross, Assistant
Cashier; and John M. Taylor, Assistant Cashier.
........
nu'SIness Review /
October 1973
5
Texas Banking-
Their Small Size Costs Banks
Business of Large Companies
Some of the biggest corporations
in Texas report that banks in the
state are too small to meet their
needs. Almost all the prime bank
customers covered in a recent survey maintain extensive banking
ties in other states. And some of
the most prominent companies
based in Texas do no significant
banking in the state at all.
The survey was undertaken by
the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas after interviews with eight of
the state's very largest companies.
When the interviews cast doubt on
the adequacy of banking resources
in Texas, 34 other major corporations were asked detailed questions
about their banking connections.
Responses show a heavy dependence on out-of-state banks for
credit and services. Most of the
demand deposits of these companies are held outside Texas, and
even more of the loan balances.
All but three of the 42 companies asked for information have
revenues that rank them among
the state's 100 leading corporations. And those three just miss
being counted in that elite group.
Together, these companies have
annual sales of more than $19 billion and assets of nearly $18 billion. They employ some 400,000
people, working around the world
to produce a variety of goods and
services for regional, national, and
international markets.
Survey results ...
Most of the companies use Texas
banks. Taken as a whole, however,
they use twice as many out-ofstate banks. And five use no Texas
banks at all. More than half of the
financial officers contacted re6
ported that their company's principal bank was out of state.
All told, they maintain more
than $600 million in loan and deposit balances at banks in other
states. About four-fifths of their
current bank loan balances and
outstanding lines of credit originate outside Texas. And their deposit accounts are three times
greater at out-of-state banks than
at banks within the state.
Many of the companies have to
turn outside the state for vital
bank services. Nearly half of those
needing international banking
services, for example, reported that
they have to go out of state for the
types of service they need.
Three-fourths of the nearly 100
out-of-state banking ties reported
are with the nation's largest banks
in New York, Chicago, and California. New York banks are especially important. They account for
two out of every five out-of-state
banking relations. And they receive more than half of the out-ofst ate loan and deposit business
generated by these companies.
Most of the reporting officers also
turn to New York banks when
they cannot obtain international
banking services in Texas. And
most of the officers named aNew
York institution as their principal
bank. Foreign banks, on the other
hand, receive very little of their
banking business.
The main reason for this outflow
of banking business is clearly the
size of Texas banks. Banks in the
state are simply too small to compete effectively with large out-ofstate banks.
N early a third of the corporate
officials reported that the compar-
atively low lending limits of their
Texas banks cause them financing difficulties. These difficulties
include inconveniences and problems of timing and coordination.
Nine out of ten of these dissatisfied customers have taken their
business to out-of-state banks.
Many of the corporate giants
would bank more in Texas if they
could arrange bigger loans within
the state. Of the companies surveyed, close to half would use
Texas banks more if lending limits
were increased 50 percent. And
way more than half would use
Texas banks more if the limits
were doubled.
Companies still banking in the
state deal primarily with the
largest institutions. The five largest
banks in the state, for example,
had well over half the in-state
banking ties of these companies.
The ten largest banks had threefourths. And the 25 largest had
over 90 percent.
Banking activity is even more
concentrated. The five largest
banks held 79 percent of the loan
and deposit balances these companies had in Texas. The ten largest
had 86 percent. And the 25 largest
had 99 percent.
But in nearly three-fifths of
the cases where Texas banks are
used, the banks have to enter into
participation loans to meet the
borrowing needs of the companies
surveyed. And this is despite twofifths of the companies being unhappy with participation arrangements. More than two-thirds of the
participation loans were entered
into by out-of-state banks.
More than four-fifths of the respondents regard the largest banks
in Texas as offering rates and services competitive with those found
in New York, California, and other
lUajor money markets. Asked
about Texas banks in general,
slightly more than half of them
still said that in cost of borrowing
and quality of service, Texas banks
are competitive with banks out of
state. And 7 percent said Texas
banks are better. But a significant
tWo-fifths believed that the state's
banking system is not competitive.
Regarding their opinions of
Texas banking services, nearly
half the companies had uncomplilUentary comments to make. The
lUost frequent complaint was that
Texas banks are not big enough to
Provide adequate loans and serVices. Most of the other criticism
related to poor service in technical
areas, especially international
banking, or to poor service in general. In all but two cases, the disgruntled corporate customer has
gone out of state for the services
he could not find at home.
, , , and implications
~he amount of out-of-state bankIng. done by major Texas corpo;;~t~ons is impressive. Even in this
<umted sample, well over half a
fillion dollars in loans and deposits
eft the state last year. The lost
loan volume on 34 of the reporting
companies alone represented
rearly 7 percent of all business
oan activity at Texas banks.
b Not all out-of-state business
elongs at home. The far-flung
~perations of these large cOl'poraIOns require that many of them
~aintain banking relationships in
the market areas they serve. But
e state's banking industry is
~~early ~osing a great deal of potencial busmess-perhaps over a billion
oUars a year.
f A.gain, however, the main reason
iOr this business going out of state
s the size of Texas banks. Comtlanies as large as those covered in
llll .
Slness Review / October 1973
the survey often need much larger
banking is prohibited in Texas and
loans than Texas banks can accom- internal growth is slow and uncertain, the bank holding company
modate. They find it costly and
device seems to hold some promise.
inconvenient to deal with small
Large multibank holding comloans or elaborate participation
panies not only pool the resources
arrangements.
of their members but may provide
N early a third of the companies
management efficiencies, better
had switched principal banks to
access to organized capital marlarger ones, even though the move
kets, and diversification in both
could have cost them preferred
product
lines and geographic areas.
status during periods of tight
Care
must
be taken, of course,
money. Such moves pose a probto preserve the competitive market
lem for the banking industry in
Texas. If its prime customers bank structure of the state's banking
industry. Otherwise, undue conelsewhere, the industry will have
trouble developing the size and ex- centration of banking resources
could reduce the output of credit
pertise needed to attract and hold
and services instead of increasing
large corporate business. But the
But statewide concentration is
it.
problem also impacts on other
not a problem now. The largest
businesses. If sophisticated bankbanking organization in Texas
ing services are not developed in
controls
only about 7 percent of
Texas for use by large corporate
the
state's
deposits. Since the
customers, they will not be availBank
Holding
Company Act proable for smaller businesses either.
vides
regulatory
authorities tools
As regards the growth of nonto prevent anticompetitive develfinancial enterprises in Texas, it
opments, the current bank holdis encouraging to find that large
corporations have no trouble even- ing company movement may be a
healthy response to the banking
tually finding the bank credit and
in Texas.
deficiencies
services they need. But what about
smaller companies that do not have
-J ohn R. Stodden
nationwide reputations and connections? It is the small, rapidly
growing enterprises that usually
need capital and financial expertise most desperately. What are
such companies to do if local
banking resources are not adequate for their needs and out-ofstate banks will not serve them?
In one sense, the survey may
have covered the wrong companies.
A canvass of smaller companies
might have done better uncovering local banking problems. But
results of this study clearly suggest that banking resources in
Texas are either inadequate orprobably because they are so
thinly spread among small banksinefficiently organized.
One remedy would be the promotion of larger banking organizations in the state. Since branch
7
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
October 1973
Statistical Supplement to the Business Review
Total credit at weekly reporting
banks in the Eleventh District
rose substantially in the four weeks
ended Sep't ember 19. Heavy loan
demands were financed mainly by
a sizable inflow of deposit funds.
The increase in total loans was
due largely to a greater than usual
rise in demand for business
lo~s. Real estate loans rose only
shghtly, as construction in the District remained weak-probably
because of high interest rates and
rising costs of labor and materials.
Demand for consumer loans was
fairly weak, as many borrowers
apparently were more restrained as
a result of uncertainties over the
outlook for inflation and general
business conditions.
Despite a decline in their holdings of Treasury bills, on balance,
banks added to their portfolios of
Government secur,ities. Holdings
of other securities fell slightly, even
though banks added a small volume of municipal issues to their
portfolios.
As a result of gains in both demand deposits and time and
?avings deposits, total deposits
Increased substantially. Reflected
mainly in the rise in time and
savings deposits was a sizable increase in large CD's outstanding.
With an ample supply of deposit
funds to meet credit needs, banks
?Ubstantially reduced their borrowIngs in the Eurodollar market.
Also, bank-related commercial
Paper declined slightly.
'l'he seasonally adjusted Texas industrial production index advanced 1.1 percent in August to a level
7.3 percent higher than a year
before. The advance resulted from
~ains in manufacturing and minIng. Output of utilities declined.
August 1972. Cumulative registraIn manufacturing, production of
nondurable goods was up 1.5 pertions for the first eight months of
cent, reflecting advances in chemthis year were 16 percent greater
ical and allied products, petroleum
than in the same period last year.
refining, and leather products that
Dallas had the largest cumulative
more than offset declines in food
gain-an 18-percent increase. Other
and textile products. Production
cumulative gains were Harris
of durable goods increased 1.3 perCounty (Houston), 17 percent;
Tarrant County (Fort Worth), 15
cent, despite declines in furniture
percent; and Bexar County (San
and fixtures.
The advance in mining was lead
Antonio), 11 percent.
by a rise of more than 3 percent
Department store sales in the
in the production of metal, stone,
Eleventh District were 15 percent
and earth minerals. Crude oil prohigher in the four weeks ended
duction was up 1.2 percent, but
September 22 than in the companatural gas production dropped
rable period last year. Cumulative
slightly. As a result of declines in
sales through that date were 13
the distribution of electricity and
percent greater than in the corgas, the output of utilities fell
responding period last year.
nearly 1.3 percent.
Seasonally adjusted total employment in the five southwestern
states rose 0.3 percent in August,
reaching a level 3.3 percent higher
than a year before. Because of a
sharp 0.6-percent increase in the
labor force, however, the unemployment rate rose, reaching 4.1
percent, compared with 3.8 percent
in July.
N onagricultUFal employment
was up 0.2 percent. Led by impressive gains in mining and construction, employment outside manufacturing rose 0.3 percent. But
manufacturing employment was
about the same as in July. Although employment in durable
manufacturing increased, the gain
was offset by a decline in nondurable manufacturing.
Registrations of new passenger
automobiles in the four largest
metropolitan counties of TexasBexar, Dallas, Harris, and Tarrant
-increased in August, reaching a
level 13 percent higher than in
Agricultural prospects in the
Eleventh District were generally
improved in September. Although
heavy rains delayed some harvesting and other field work over much
of the District, most crops benefited and grazing conditions improved. The main exception was
the rice crop, which suffered heavy
losses from Tropical Storm Delia.
The month began with sorghum
production in District states estimated at 488 million bushels and
soybean production at 55 million
bushels. Both estimates represented improvements in outlook over
a month before and sharp increases over 1972 production levels.
The cotton estimate totaled 6.3
million bales. This projection for
the five-state area-3 percent higher than output last year-was due
primarily to expanded cotton acreage in Texas. Crops in Louisiana,
New Mexico, and Arizona were,
however, expected to be off from a
year before.
(Continued on back page)
:::ONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING COMMERCIAL BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Thousand dollars )
ASSETS
Sept. 19,
1973
Aug . 22,
1973
Sept. 20,
1972
Federal funds sold and securities purchas e d
under ag ree ments to resell .. . .. • . .... •• . . . . .
Other loans and discounts, gross •. ....•••... • •.•
1,001,502
9,729,332
947,045
9,646,081
914,050
8,183,490
4,405,737
4,352,716
---3,635,246
283,442
280,006
193,508
851
46,163
821
44,925
1,166
85,227
Comm ercial and industria l loan s. . . .... .. .... .
Agricultural loans, exclud ing CCC
certiflcates of interest . •• ..... . . .. . .. •-: . ...
Loans to brokers and dealers for
purcha sing or carrying :
U.S. Governm ent se curities •••••. .••..• . ....
Other se curities •••• . .... • . .. .. ....•••. . • •
Oth er loon s for purcha sing or carrying:
U.S. Governm ent se curities •... .............
Oth er securities •. . •.... .. . ..... . •. . ••.•••
Loons to nonbank flnancial institution s:
Sal es flnance, p ersona l flnance, factors,
and other business cre dit compan ies •.... ..
Other ..... .. ........ ...... ............
Real estate loans .. •...•...•...•.••. . .. •.. .
Loans to dom estic comm ercial banks.... ..• . . .•
Loans to foreig n ban ks ...•..•. •...• . ... . .. ••
Con sum er installment loan s . •.. .. .•.• • ..•••••
Loan s to foreig n governme nts, offlcial
institution s, central banks, and international
institutions .. • ..... . .. . . . • .. •.. . . ...... •.
Other loans ••••••.•••.•••••••.•.•••.••••••
Total investments • • • • . . ... . . • .. . ..•.....••. . .
Total U.S. Governm ent securities ••• •• •. ...••••
Trea sury bills •• . . . . . ... ... ... . . • . ••• •• ••
Trea sury certifi cate s of in debte dn ess .• • •... .
Trea sury notes and U.S. Govern ment
bonds maturing:
Within 1 year • .. . . . .•. . ...... . .... . ...
1 ye ar to 5 years • • ••. ••.. • •••. • .••• • .•
After 5 ye ars ... .. ......... ... ...... ..
Obligations of stales and political subdivisions:
Ta x warrants and short· term notes and bills•••
All other • ••• • . •••. • ••• ••• ••• •.•••••••••
Other bonds, corporate stocks, an d se curities:
Certiflcates re prese nting participations in
Fed eral ag ency loans .. • . . ...... . . . . . ••
All oth er {including corporate stocks) • • ••... ..
Cash items in process of collection ••• . . •.••..•..•
Reserves with Federa l Reserve Bank •.••..•. •..•.
Currenc y and coin •••.....•... ...•...• • •.....
Balanc es with banks in th e United States •• . . ..•.•
Balances with banks in foreign countries •• .... . ..•
Oth er a sse ts (including investments in subsidiaries
not consolidated) •• ...... . .. . ... • . .......••
---- - ---
7,076
479,036
7,466
481,535
6,429
454,692
145,158
651,955
1,367,185
32,412
74,151
1,062,766
153,813
646,904
1,37 1,310
28,053
63,572
1,058,758
131,919
686,753
1,092,046
16,120
30,846
925,273
270
1,173,130
3,951,594
520
1,155,682
3,940,221
0
924,265
3,647,053
958,742
207,595
0
1,000,772
166,736
0
Aug. 22,
1973
Sept. 20,
1972
13,333,464
12,438,720
4,877,827
277,867
150,032
1,231,179
4,813,100
405,462
70,912
1,209,546
4,738,032
374,337
264,431
1,302,538
2,972
49,820
110,330
6,824,385
3,362
52,846
93,859
6,684,377
3,336
36,370
81,231
5,638,445
1,137,139
3,749,203
1,787,378
21,954
103,691
1,146,924
3,602,304
1,803,200
23,267
83,862
1,194,620
2,942,334
1,370,267
22,945
93,779
25,000
20
24,800
20
13,400
1,100
2,473,564
311,161
561 ,304
165,814
14,359
1,222,568
2,472,358
202,649
560,895
166,161
13,982
1,230,580
1,953,034
100,236
449,724
139,68 1
19,159
1,139,903
TOTAL LIABILITIES, RESERVES, AND
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS .... ........ . . .... . 18,273,182
17,980,089
16,240,457
Sept. 19,
1973
LIABILITIES
Total de posits ........ .... . . . . .. .. . .......... 13,524,412
Total demand deposits • •••.•••... • ..••.•••••
---------6,800,275
6,700,027
6,649,087
Individua ls, partn erships, and corporations ... .
Stat es and political subdivisions ... . ...... ..
U.S . Governm ent ...... . ...... ....... . ...
Banks in th e United States •. . . . .. .... . . . . ••
Foreig n:
Governm e nts, olAdel institutions, central
ban ks, and international institutions . • ....
Comm ercia l ban ks ..... ..••........•...
Cer tifl e d and officers' ch ecks, e tc .. .. .. .. ....
Totol time and savings d e posits .... . . . . , . " ...
Individuals, partn ers hip s, and corporation s:
Saving s d e posits .... ... .. ...... ........
Oth er tim e de posits .... . ... . . .. . . ... . . .
- - --
975,473
169,812
0
151,180
494,950
159,531
----
137,788
446,637
166,722
135,193
492,360
206,483
128,478
2,595,067
144,653r
2,574,819r
142,818
2,253,818
8,561
244,0 15
1,433,964
755,292
124,102
446,822
15,321
8,520
253,487
1,463,689
651,768
124,089
391,679
17,070
15,004
234,641
1,445,180
926,969
104,447
400,564
12,354
815,253
798,447
606,350
- -- -
TOTAL ASSETS ..... . ..... .. . . ........... 18,273,182
---17,980,089
States and politicol subdivisions .. ... ..... . ..
U.S. Governm e nt (includ ing postal saving s) .. . .
Bank s in th e United States . . ..... .. .......•
Foreign:
Govern ments, official institutions, central
banks, and international institutions . • ....
Commercial ban ks .. . .......... •. .•.•. .
Fed eral funds purch a se d and securiti es sold
under agreeme nts to re purcha se • •. ...... • .•.•
Oth er liabilities for borrow ed mon ey • ... . . . .... .
Oth er liabilities • ••••• . . . .•..•• . ••..•.• . •••.•
Reserves on loan s. •. ..•.•...•.......... . ....•
Rese rves on se curities .• ..................••..•
Total capital accounts • . •• .. . ... .. ......• • . •. .
DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Ave rag es of d ally figures. Million dollars )
DEMAND DEPOSITS
16,240,457
r-Revlsed
U.S.
Total
Adjusted '
Government
Total
Saving s
1971 : August .....
1972: August .....
September.
11,468
12,420
12,619
12,866
12,844
13,439
13,636
13,270
13,203
13,237
13,136
13,218
13,259
12,941
8,097
8,824
8,933
9,034
9,321
9,688
9,802
9,516
9,454
9,550
9,502
9,551
9,567
9,492
242
226
254
264
222
289
317
379
395
331
341
279
261
172
9,615
11,44 1
11,492
11,618
12,009
12,261
12,501
12,Bll
13,038
13,249
13,336
13,374
13,396
13,507
2,437
2,717
2,744
2,770
2,786
2,8 12
2,815
2,B17
2,848
2,855
2,859
2,884
2,868
2,857
1973: January .• ••
February • ••
March • ••• •
April ... ...
May . .. . ..
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Million dollars)
June ••••• . •
July . ••• • ••
August .. . ..
Aug . 29,
1973
Jul y 25,
1973
Aug . 30,
1972
loons and discounts, gross ••• •.••.•. . . . • ..
U.S. Governm ent obligation s. ..• . •• .••••• •
Oth er securities •. ••. ....•••••• . • •• . • .•••
Rese rve s with Federal Re se rve Bank •.••••. •
Cosh in va ult ••• • ..... .... ...... . .. • • . . .
Balances with bon ks in th e Unite d States .•.•
Balances with banks in foreig n cauntries o ••..
Cash items in proc ess of coll ection .•••...•. .
Oth er a sse tse . . . . . ... . ......• • •.•.. • • • .
18,719
2,279
6,036
1,435
352
1,194
21
1,588
1,514
18,691
2,266
5,906
1,369
342
1,221
15
1,558
1,48 1
16,033
2,310
5,228
1,501
314
1,190
16
1,514
1, 180
RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS
TOTAL ASSETSe ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... .
33,138
32,849
29,286
Eleventh Federal Reserve District
1,568
11,199
13,574
1,586
11,248
13,413
1,689
10,557
11,498
(Ave rages of dally figures. Thou sand dollars)
26,341
3,143
1,327
2,327
26,247
3,041
1,243
2,318
23,744
2,094
1,467
1,981
33,138
32,849
29,286
Item
ASSETS
LIABIlITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Dem and deposits of banks • •.. •••••••••••
Other demand deposits • ••.•• • ••. • • • •.. • •
Time d e posits . . • .. •. . . .. . . . .... . . . •....
Total deposits ••.••••• ••.•••.• • •••••••
Borrowing s .. •....•...................•
Other liabilities e ••••••..•.. . . .... ... . ..•
Total capitol accounts 0 • • • • •• • • • • • • • ••• • •
TOTAL LIABIlITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTSe . . . ...................
e-Estlmated
-
TIME DEPOSITS
Date
Octobe r •• •
November ••
December ..
CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS
---- ----
1. Oth e r than those of U.S. Gove rnment and domestlo commercial banks, lesS
cash ite ms In process of coll e ction
Item
Total rese rves held • • • ...... .. . •.•
With Federa l Rese rve Bank ••• •.•
Currency and cain •• • .•••••• ...
Re quire d rese rves •••••...••.• ....
Excess reserves ••. ..•..•. . .. •••••
Borrowing s .....••••.•• .• . ..... .
Free reserves ••• • . ..• • . • ... ••••.
5 weeks end ed
Sept. 5, 1973
1,795,557
1,491,421
304,136
1,786,515
9,042
102,966
- 93,924
-
4 weeks ended
Aug . I, 1973
5 weeks ended
Sept. 6, 19~
1,818,526
1,513,643
304,883
1,804,716
13,810
131,982
-118, 172
1,909,438
1,636,258
273, 180
1,890,748
18,690
3,09 2
15,598
------------------------------------------------------------
BANK DEBITS, END-OF-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER
(Dollar amounts In thousands, seasonally adjusted)
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS'
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change
August
1973
Standard metropolitan
(Annual.rate
statistical area
basis)
ARIZONA, Tucson • • •.••••••..•• • ••..•••...••••••••••
LOUISIANA, Monroe ...... ... ........................
$15,52B,923
5,010,090
Shrevoport . ..•.. . •.. . •.......•...••.••.•
19,~35,966
NEW MEXICO, Roswell ' ..............................
1,387,523
3,537,251
11,659,832
16,566,251
8,785,844
2,809,951
1,750,398
9,115,210
662,366
226,708,116
11,784,523
33,648,208
3,898,618
167,083,142
2,553,124
1,553,897
8,882,176
3,650,963
2,899,898
2,463,820
2,226,414
28,887,025
1,662,097
2,134,517
3,077,921
4,870,878
3,729,805
TEXAS,
~:~~~r~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::
Beaumont-Port Arthur- Orange ••.....• •......••..
Brownsville - Harlingen-San Benito ••••.. . .. •.......
Bryan- Colleg~ Station ... . . ... .. ..... . ... ... . ..
Corpus Christi .. ... ....... . .. ... ..... . ........
f~~f.~~1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~:~~~i~~~!~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : :
Galveston-Texas City ...... . ... ... . ..... .. .....
Lubbock •• • • •• • • •.• •• ••• • •• ••.• .••• • . .•. . •••
McAllen.Pharr· Edinburg ... . ........ . .... . ......
g~~~;o~li.:.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~
; ;
;;; ;;;;;;;;;;
~~~~~~
Sherman-Donison •••••• ••.•••.....•••••.•..•..
Texarkana (Texa s-Arkansas) . . . ...... . ..........
Tyler •• •.• • ••.•••••••• • ••••••••••••••••••.••
Waco .. ........ . 0 ' . 0 •••••••••••••••• • ••• • ••
Wichita Falls ........ . ..... .... . ..............
Total-30 centers •••••••••••.•••• • .•••••••• •• ••.••••
Annual rate
of turnover
August 1973 from
July
1973
17%
6
21
20
11
20
7
3
-6
21
2
6
8
2
10
7
-1
1
5
12
5
9
12
14
9
7
10
0
5
5
$608,164,747
6%
August
1972
51%
16
37
49
32
45
31
23
10
10
22
20
44
11
11
15
14
28
25
59
43
21
34
35
25
24
18
-2
6
29
28%
8 months,
1973 from
1972
August 31,
1973
$35B,618
120,147
311 ,284
50,402
141,192
210,867
447,251
282,943
112,168
58,101
297,011
41,739
2,887, 134
318,071
843,444
135,797
3,239,592
117,238
61,719
227,240
155,439
154,527
102,390
84,480
912,867
84,806
88,277
123,218
160,233
150,065
36%
21
22
19
21
29
15
17
21
14
15
24
27
17
11
17
19
27
24
39
34
16
20
23
20
15
12
13
16
17
$12,278,260
22%
August
1972
July
1973
August
1973
44.5
42.5
60.8
27.4
24.4
54.0
36.8
31 .0
24.4
30.1
31.0
15.8
77.7
36.8
39.8
29.0
50.6
21.6
25.8
38.5
21.8
18.5
23.8
26.5
31.7
19.3
23.5
24.0
30.6
24.4
3B.5
40.6
50.2
22.7
22.0
43.4
31.8
30.2
25.0
24.9
31.0
15.0
70.8
36.1
36.3
28.2
50.4
21. 1
25.2
34.6
19.7
16.8
21.4
22 .2
29.3
17.7
21.2
23 .1
29.7
23.1
32.6
38.1
47.1
21.0
21.7
42.6
29.3
26.6
25.6
30.2
28.0
15.2
56.2
35.5
38.1
26.9
46.6
18.7
24.5
28.6
18.5
16.3
17.3
21.1
27.8
17.7
21.2
26.6
30.6
21.8
49.0
45.7
40.9
1. Deposits of Individuals, partnerships, and corporations and of states and political subdivisions
2. County basis
CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
-
(Thousand dollars)
BUILDING PERMITS
item
Sept. 19,
1973
Aug. 22,
1973
Sept. 19,
1972
lotal gold certiflcate reserves . ...... .. .. ....
Cans to member banks .. . . ..... " ... . .....
F ther loans ••• • .••••.•••• . .• •••• .••••••••
Uodera l agency obligations .... .............
T.S. Government securities .• . ........ ..... ..
Mtalearning assots ... . . . ..... . ............
F omber bank reserve deposits . . ............
ederal Reserve notes in actual circulation-. . ...
374,202
185,432
0
65,755
3,074,281
3,325,468
1,400,793
2,359,558
196,193
72,375
0
71,676
3,303,148
3,447,199
1,274,045
2,357,258
258,294
37,500
0
47,298
3,149,752
3,234,550
1,624,810
2,177,107
VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
-
(Million dollars)
January-August
Area and typo
FIVE SOUTH WESTERN
STATES' ................
1,199
Residential building . . .... .
467
Nonresidential buildin g . .. .
385
Nonbuildlng construction ....
347
lINITED STATES . . ...... .... 10,303
Residential building •••• .••
4,233
Nonresidential building .•• • 3,241
Nonbuilding construction ....
2,828
-
July
1973
June
1973
1973
1972,
1,005
464
318
223
9,228
4,224
2,991
2,013
1,018
446
353
219
9,910
4,612
2,976
2,323
8,143
3,888
2,742
1,513
69,777
33,484
21,690
14,603
7,914
3,965
2,077
1,872
61,215
30,024
17,970
13,22 1
August
1973
1. Arizona, LOUisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
'-Revlsad
~OTE : Datalls may not add to totals because of rounding.
OURCE : F. W. Dodge, McGraw-Hili, Inc.
VALUATION (Dollar amounts in thousands)
Porcent change
August 1973
from
NUMBER
Area
August
1973
ARIZONA
444
Tucson •. .... ..
LO UISIANA
Monroe-West
64
Monroe .....
501
Shrove port •• . •
TEXAS
65
Abilone • ••••••
150
Amarillo • • • . ••
509
Austin ....... .
201
Beaumont .. ...
101
Brownsville ....
253
Corpus Christi ..
Dallas .•••.••• 2,696
23
Denison ... ....
519
EI Paso •••• • ••
319
Fort Worth •.••
63
Galveston ... . .
Houston . ... . .. 2,659
30
Larodo . ••••.•
116
Lubbock • . ••••
50
Midland •• • •••
117
Odessa ... . . . .
78
Port Arthur •..•
85
San Angelo •• ••
San Antonio .. . 1,923
23
Sherman . ... ..
59
Texarkana ....
225
Waco .. . . .. ..
84
Wichita Falls .. .
Total-26 cities ... 11,357
B mos.
1973
August
1973
B mos.
1973
July
1973
Aug.
1972
87%
8 months,
1973 from
1972
4,233
$12,526
$ 122, 191
656
3,632
1,612
5,341
20,657
57,724
-57
-2 1
62
- 17
13
36
593
1,297
4,010
1,550
794
2,348
12,376
222
4,241
2,984
445
21,353
352
1,256
656
882
819
651
14,681
296
42 1
1,658
604
689
2,993
27,499
3,319
5,393
1,829
27,671
62
23,323
11,525
377
58,174
778
3,855
278
714
410
993
24,577
352
1,656
3,492
12,294
19,044
36,950
179,256
22,920
22,409
37,133
226,421
1,911
126,544
84,413
6,756
490,710
14,324
49,708
10,204
10,565
4,571
7,403
169,603
4,145
4,690
26,911
25,056
-42
39
1
82
206
-61
-1
-51
112
46
20
40
-49
111
-62
7
136
-7
6
-14
150
11
756
-74
-32
41
183
247
-71
11
-81
155
47
-27
5
23
-10
-93
-71
-1 1
-4
-4
-11
346
-6
344
43
67
6
24
123
-19
-22
-16
4
48
-17
10
39
32
-35
-49
6
26
8
-20
-13
4
120
83,010
------$231,732 $1,782,219
34%
27%
20%
- 6%
5%
DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT
(Thousand barrels)
Five Southwestern States1
Percent change from
1973
July
1973
August
1972
July
1973
6,788.2
2,281.6
271.7
536.9
3,698.0
734 .1
1,888.8
251 .8
65.6
757.6
9,406 .3
6,760.2
2,281.8
269.0
521.0
3,688.4
738.7
1,870.1
) 254.2
62.4
763.0
9,346.0
7,042.7
2,608 .9
310.0
564 .5
3,559.3
731.7
1,727.5
249.8
67.1
783.2
9,622.9
0.4%
.0
1.0
3.1
.3
-.6
1.0
-.9
5.1
- .7
.6%
August
Area
FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES ...... . ......... .
louisiana ................
New Me xico ........ . .. . .
Oklahoma ...............
Texa s . ... .. ..... . . . .. . .
Gulf Coast .... . .... .. .
We st Te xa s .. . . .. . . . . .
Ea st Texa s (proper) • ....
Panhandle ........ . . ...
Rest of state . . . . . .. .. . .
UNITED STATES . .. .... . ....
(Seasonally adjusted)
August
Percent change
1972
-3.6%
-12 .5
-12.4
-4.9
3.9
.3
9.3
.8
-2.2
-3 .3
-2.3%
Item
Civilian labor force ••••••...•
Total employment •• • ... • •• ••
Totol unemployment •. •• . . . . .
Unemployment rate • • .......
Total nonagricultural wage
and salary employment . ..•
Manufacturing . . . . . ... . ••
Durab le . • o • • • • • • • • • • • •
Nondurable .. . . .. . ...•
r- Re vised
SOURCES: Am e rican Pelroleum Institute
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Aug. 1973 from
Thousands of persons
Nonmanufacturing . . . .....
Mining ..•.. •. ..•••... .
Construction .. . . . . .. ...
Transportation and
public utilities •.......
Trade •• .. . • .... .• ...
finance . ...........• .
Serlvice .• .• .. .• .. .. ..
Governm ent ..........
•
.
•
•
August
1973p
July
1973
August
1972r
8,946.0
8,582.3
363.7
4.1%
8,894.1
8,555.2
338.9
3.8%
8,686.0
,8,312.1
373.9
4.3%
7,081.2
1,233.8
693.1
540.6
5,847.5
234.1
489.7
7,064.5
1,233.5
690.9
542 .6
5,830.9
232.8
487.7
6,794.3
1,178 .9
646.6
532.3
5,615.4
479.5
1,693.5
385.9
1,156.9
1,407.8
478.4
1,691.3
384.6
1,153.2
1,403.1
463.2
1,626.0
362.3
1,112.9
1,368.4
231.5
451.0
July
1973
August
1972
0.6% 3.0%
.3
3.3
7.3 -2.7
' _.2
'.3
.2
.0
.3
- .4
.3
.6
.4
4.2
4.7
7.2
1.6
4.1
1.1
8.6
.2
.1
.3
.3
.3%
3.5
4.2
6.5
4.0
2.9%
1. Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
2. Actual change
p-Prellmlnary
r-Revlsed
NOTE : Detai ls may not add to totals because of rounding.
SOURCES : State employment agencies
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (seasonal adJuslment)
COTTON PRODUCTION
Texas Crop Reporting Districts
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
(Thousand 480-pound net weight bales)
(Se asonally adjusted indexes, 1967
1973,
1973
indicated
as percent of
= 100)
1973p
July
1973
139.9
144.5
159.0
134.1
124.5
156.4
126.2
125.7
122.2
130.7
113.1
152.4
August
1973
August
1972
142.S
157.0
132.1
123.3
158.5
137.3r
142.5r
157.1
I 32.0r
119.3r
157.9r
130.4
131.7
142 .2
124.1
121.3
153.1
126.5
126.2
123.4
130.3
111 .8
151.2
125.6r
125.7r
123.lr
129.3
109.8r
150.3r
116.3r
115.4r
109.7r
123.6r
108.8r
144.9r
June
Area
Sept. I
1972
1971
1972
1~N - Northern High Plains •. ••. . •...
409
1,755
386
415
16
491
25
44
117
55
50
88
118
16
292
219
1,036
205
200
6
311
19
23
121
37
28
54
80
7
269
117%
123
108
116
94
98
60
80
91
127
80
68
76
94
75
TEXAS
I O-N - South Texas Plains ... ... ... . . .
10-S - lower Ria Grande Valley •..•..
480
2,160
415
480
15
480
15
35
107
70
40
60
90
15
220
State.... .. .. .... .... .. ........ .
4,682
4,277
2,614
109%
p-Prellmlnary
r-Re vlse d
SOURCES: Bo a rd of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
1-5 - South ern High Plains .... . .• •..
2-N - Red Sed Plains ...... .. ... ... .
2-S - Red 8e d Plains.............. .
3 - We stern Cross Timbers ....... .
.4 - Black and Grand Prairies . . ... .
5 ~N
- Ea st Te xa s Timb ered Plain s.•• . .
5·5 - East Texas Timbered Plains•• • . .
6 - Trans·P ecos ... . . • . , . ••• .. • ..
7 - Edwards Plate au ............ .
B·N - South ern Texas Prairies ••......
8 · S - Southern Te xa s Prairies .•..... .
9 - Coa stal Prairi es•.. . . .. . .. •• ..
NOTE : Details may not add to totals because of rounding
SOURCE : U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cattle on feed in Texas came to
2.3 million head on September l.
Arizona, the District's other major
cattle feeding state, had 556,000
head on feed. Both totals were only
marginally over August-when
marketings in both states were off
from a year before. The number on
feed in Texas, however, was up 10
percent from September 1972.
There was a broad decline in
average prices received by Texas
farmers and ranchers since the
20-percent surge in the month
ended August 15. But prices
through mid-September continued
Area and type of index
Total indu stria l production ......
Manufacturing . . . •..... . .......
Durable •. . .... . ........ • . •.•
Nondurable . . . .. . .. . . .... .. ..
Mining .. . . .. . . .. . .. ... . ...... .
Utilitles. ............. .. .......
UNITED STATES
Total industrial production . . .. . .
Manufacturing . ... . .... . . . . . ...
Durable . . . ..... . .. . .........
Nondurable • ... .. .•• • .... • •.•
Mining ..•. . ....... . .......... .
Utilities . . .. .. .. ...• .• .. •. .. • . •
far above year-earlier levels. Cash
receipts from farm marketings in
the five states totaled $5 billion
in the first seven months of the
year-30 percent more than in the
same period last year.
138.S
@FedFRASER