Journal Article Thomas Joplin and the Theory of Interest Get access Ronald L. Meek Ronald L. Meek Glasgow Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 3, 1950, Pages 154–163, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295975 Published: 01 September 1950

Journal Article Three Versions of the Φ-Surface : Some Notes for a Comparison Get access G. L. S. Shackle G. L. S. Shackle Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 2, 1950, Pages 119–122, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295800 Published: 01 April 1950

I. Point of view, basic assumption, and source of data, 15. — II. Determination of average corporation tax rate, 20. — III. Rate of individual income tax, 22; (a) six broad categories, 23; (b) size classification, 24; (c) representativeness of the average taxpayer, 24; (d) average total income of a class, 27; (e) rates of tax on total income, 27; (f) rates on corporate net income, 32. — IV. Certain policy implications, 35; (a) two factors causing inequity, 36; (6) exploitation of stockholders having low net incomes, 40; (c) complete cure of inequity, realized-income basis, 43; (d) the taxation of income not realized by stockholders, 47; (e) taxing stockholders as partners, 50; (f) partial cures of inequity, 53.

should be identified with social control of the rate and direction of progress, not with the absence of progress (p. I6o, italics added). Lauterbach himself admits that this cannot mean an absolute individual security. But even so I do not feel that the effects of expansion in causing both unexpected change and personal insecurity are at all adequately appreciated. Nor does Lauterbach relate his emphasis on the non-material drives (p. I63) to the pressure group problems which change involves in any society. Scientific discovery is taken as more or less automatically self-implementing, within the plan, despite pressure groups. Finally, Lauterbach's political analysis seems fundamentally incomplete. It is greatly to his credit that he does not rely on mere elections to maintain freedom. Nevertheless, except for emphasis on elections and on the need for a good moral attitude taken by intelligent and educated voters, there is little of a constructive nature to be found in his treatment. He does not seem to have fully realized that, unless the voters have some economic independence, an election will tend to become a farce. Also, the role of competing employment opportunities in helping to underwrite such independence, and in facilitating the rise of independent leadership and discovery, is largely overlooked. On all these points I would like to refer the reader to my Democracy and Progress. Leaving aside political na-vete, the fundamental defect of the book is the lack of any coherent theory of social growth and economic development. If Lauterbach were advocating a stationary society he would be on much stronger ground economically at least. We could then combine decentralized planning with literal personal (economic) security. But Lauterbach specifically wants a higher standard of living, and it is just here that his analysis is most inadequate. However, not everyone believes in a growing society, and it is worth asking whether, even if we decided on a stationary state, it could be kept politically free. I do not think so. How would people be stopped from trying out new ideas unless there were established drastic social penalties for innovation, or some sort of inquisition for the suppression of dangerous thoughts? In short, the basic problem seems to me to be that if we make men genuinely free they become creative, and that if they become creative they simultaneously create growth and insecurity. No technique of planning can ever wholly overcome this difficulty, and while a workable compromise is certainly possible there is always the danger that as we cut down on the insecurity we may find ourselves cutting down on the growth. One can find these conclusions in Lauterbach, but not entirely with the author's help.

ONE of the outstanding developments in collective bargaining in I948 was the General Motors contract with the United Automobile Workers.' Two phases of this contract led to considerable discussion: (a) the cost of living adjustment clause and (b) the annual improvement factor for each of the two years for which the contract was drawn. Cost of living clauses are not unique in labor contracts.2 The inclusion of an annual improvement factor in the collective bargaining contract, however, did represent a significant departure from past practice. Under the General Motors' formula, provision was made for an annual improvement factor of 3 cents an hour in I948 and an increase of the same amount in May I949, in addition to adjustments required to meet changes in living costs. Since at the time the contract was signed, the average hourly rate for General Motors was about $1.50, the rate of improvement provided was about 2 per cent a year. The General Motors' rate of increase apparently was based on the long-term national average increases in output per man-hour.

Standard cost accounting began as a specialized branch of accounting, in a large degree divorced from the main roots, the general accounts. Gradually, over the years, accountants have endeavored to utilize the benefits of standard costing within the traditional debit-credit system. In the process of integrating this new tool with the methods and aims of financial and cost accounting, the attempt has been to retain the aims originally set forth for standard costing and the aims originally established for financial accounting, unchanged, on a parallel or complementary footing. The principal goal of this paper is to place standard cost accounting, its aims and methods, in proper perspective within the scheme of accounts. The attempt is to show how maximum benefits from standard costing may be achieved by a process of integration with financial accounting, an integration particularly of aims. A further goal is to indicate the usefulness of standard costing to the newly accepted objective of cost accountants, the accomplishment of special cost studies.

Reviews the book "Standardised Audit Working Papers," by Frederick Staples.

Reviews the book "Introductory Accounting," by George R. Husband and William J. Schlatter.