Journal Article A Symposium on Monetary Theory: Monetary and Value Theory: Further Comment Get access G. C. Archibald, G. C. Archibald London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar R. C. Lipsey R. C. Lipsey London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 28, Issue 1, October 1960, Pages 50–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296250 Published: 01 October 1960

Journal Article Mill and the Law of Markets: Comment Get access Laurence C. Hunter Laurence C. Hunter University of Manchester Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 74, Issue 1, February 1960, Pages 158–162, https://doi.org/10.2307/1884140 Published: 01 February 1960

Journal Article Testing Marginal Productivity Theory Get access G. C. Archibald G. C. Archibald London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 27, Issue 3, June 1960, Pages 210–213, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296084 Published: 01 June 1960

Abstract Accountants have an obligation to explore all possibilities for the most useful methods of accounting for depreciation. Accounting literature has been filled with treatises on the pros and cons of depreciation based on historical cost as opposed to depreciation adjusted by one of the many methods recommended. The present position of the U.S. Supreme Court on depreciation accounting and the historical development of its thinking provide needed background for much of the discussion that is being conducted on the important depreciation question. The Supreme Court has accepted original cost to the owner as an appropriate basis for the determination of income and for the calculation of depreciation charges. In accepting this generalization, however, diversity of opinions in dividend cases must be kept in mind. One must also recognize that the Court will not disturb the findings of the various Commissions. The Commissions are at present firmly committed to a cost basis but should they change, it appears not unlikely that the courts will approve other bases so long as they do not appear to be confiscatory.