Book review, Fisher model, Capital, Income

I only wish I could have been with you throughout the day and tomorrow but since our annual partners meeting is currently under way, I believe you will understand why this is not possible. However, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to be with you tonight and to touch, at least briefly, on some important matters which are and should be of concern to each of us. The subject of accounting principles has been discussed so often over the last few years there would seem to be little more to be said. But this is not the case. The accounting profession through the AICPA has always recognized that much more remains to be said and done to answer the many critics of our present structure and methods of establishing accounting principles: Today, however, we are experiencing renewed-or entirely new-thrusts from concerned bodies outside the profession. It is unfortunate that some, if not most, of these critics have been given their arena for comments as a result of past efforts of the APB or its predecessor committee. It is equally unfortunate that some outside of the profession have been able to seize on their pet areas without our having any better defenses than are currently available. I hasten to add at this point that I do not suggest that little or nothing has been attempted or accomplished by the profession or the APB. Neither do I want to leave the impression that those who have worked so diligently over the years have given less than their best efforts or that their motives have been suspect. No one could have been expected to work more diligently or tried harder to reach satisfactory conclusions than have the members of the APB. Such problems as have existed have stemmed to a large extent from the lack of unanimity of philosophy or understanding of the general objectives of corporate financial statements, despite the fact that one of the original charges given the APB upon its formation in 1959

The purpose of this paper is to extend the results of the analysis [9] on the optimal timing of messages.' The model and theorems [9] are applicable to a situation involving the of a single (or aggregated) decision-making unit's performance terms of a single (or aggregated) goal. This goal need not be constant over time. The model used [9] is a continuous-time finite horizon model whose formulation and optimization involved the use of a finite-state continuous-time Markov process and tools from continuous-time optimal theory. In the present paper, attention is restricted to a two-state process. This restriction decreases the generality of the results return for a more specific model and more specific theorems. A two-state process is typically chosen for analytical treatment because of expositional convenience or practical applicability. The two states of the process are defined by the usual general descriptions: in control or consistent with goal(s) and out of control or inconsistent with goal(s). This type of process has been analyzed using mathematical programming, quality-control, and Markov chain techniques.2

V faL-e + [p(L1 K) -e]K-e} -l/e (1) where 4 is an arbitrary function. In the particular case where 4' 4 (L11K) is constant and e--O, the production function becomes V = r1 KA L1(L1/L)X. (2) While testing the ability of the production function (2) to explain the international pattern of labor productivity and wages, Mitchell does not present all properties of that function. Indeed, one special feature of the function (2) is to be easily workable for empirical purposes, if we have statistical data on physical quantities of the inputs and output, or on relative shares. Another main feature lies in the properties of that function, concerning the partial elasticities of substitution between pairs of inputs. This note considers those two points, with emphasis laid on the second one. We show that some of these partial elasticities of substitution are not constant. Uzawa [6] has characterized the class of constant Allen elasticity of substitution production functions (CAES), and McFadden [3] the class of constant direct partial elasticity of substitution production functions (CDES) as well as the class of constant shadow partial elasticity of substitution production functions. The function (2) is neither of the CAES class, nor of the CDES class. Hence, we must calculate the partial elasticities of substitution, according to each of the two conventional definitions. We begin with the Allen partial elasticity of substitution, as reformulated by Uzawa [6, p. 293] c a2 C

Journal Article An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation Get access J. A. Mirrlees J. A. Mirrlees Nuffield College, Oxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 2, April 1971, Pages 175–208, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296779 Published: 01 April 1971

Journal Article Cournot Oligopoly and Competitive Behaviour Get access R. J. Ruffin R. J. Ruffin University of Iowa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 4, October 1971, Pages 493–502, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296692 Published: 01 October 1971

Convertible Debentures, Prediction model, APB Opinion No. 15, Share dilution