rT W. SCHULTZ and his circle have been making penetrating analysis of agricultural conditions, problems, and policies, showing unusual awareness of the whole national economy, of evolving knowledge over a wide range, and of advances in general economic thought. Their works, properly referred to frequently in Schultz' meaty one here reviewed,' deserve the respectful attention of economists, whether specialists in or not. The present stimulating contribution, evolved from a mimeographed draft that was widely circulated for comments, especially challenges discriminating examination by serious students. To a degree that I cannot adequately indicate in detail, much of its content strikes me as excellent. Many positions are well taken on broad and specific issues on which much divergence of opinion exists. Some new ground is broken, e.g., on income-elasticity of demand. Yet the book is not thorough, well matured, and authoritative. It is marred by defects of organization, excessive repetition, and various omissions and obscurities. I find puzzling the author's peculiar or inconsistent usage of terms, such as durable goods, returns, political economy, economic progress, and even There are many slips, and numerous statements to which exception should be taken. On a few important matters, moreover, Schultz seems to me either wrong or on insecure ground. To argue all these points fully is out of the question, but it seems appropriate to present a liberal sample, of course without claiming that my own position is invariably right. Agriculture in Unstable Economy is one of the research studies sponsored by the Committee for Economic Development, in a group dealing with long-term fundamental problems. The title fails to suggest that the book deals almost solely with the American economy, with only incidental references to others. In referring to the economy as unstable, 2 Schultz means merely dynamic, expanding and fluctuating. He evidently expects both expansion and sizable business fluctuations to continue: maintenance of high-level employment is a very worthy goal but one uncertain if not unlikely to be achieved (pp. 2 I9-20). In his Foreword, T. 0. Yntema calls the book an analysis of the essential conditions for a healthy, prosperous agriculture. Schultz says in his own Preface: Its main purpose is to lay the foundations for a [revised? ] national with regard to agriculture. 3 In my view, the book falls short of achieving these highly ambitious aims. When he comes to Part IV, Schultz overmodestly describes his constructive chapters as essentially a series of notes on problems in policy (p. I86). He deliberately gives only incidental attention to problems within agriculture in order to devote primary attention to between problems, to the functions of in the political [!] economy

Abstract The fact that the origin of double-entry bookkeeping remains shrouded in mystery does not detract from the merits of the valuable researches into the early history of accounting made by several scholars, as of July 1947. The search provides an interesting pursuit for the historian even if he knows that the spoor will disappear, sooner or later, in a confused tangle of speculation and conjecture, with the scent of red herring always present. The article deals with one of the possible trails to the unknown origin, or rather, a possible trail provides a tenuous central theme about which some observations are presented. It seems as if, before double-entry appeared, accounting records of proprietorships, whether single or multiple, were confined to records of dealings involving the granting or receiving of credit. The records assumed various forms and often the books of account were mere scraps of paper. Sometimes there were entries in diaries or journals, where the settlement of debts was indicated by the effective though untidy method of deletion. Sometimes the entries in the journal were reclassified into accounts, the beginnings of the modern ledger.

Abstract The article presents information regarding laws and legislation related to accounting procedures in savings and investments. In 1908, the State of New York Legislature, enacted laws which in effect and intent required savings banks and insurance companies to put bond purchases on the books at cost and thereafter to make correct entries as coupons. There was much opposition from the densely populated group in banking and accounting circles who never forget anything and never learn anything and even after the law had been in more or less successful operation for about two years a prominent Wall Street oracle, in a Bankers' Convention speech, denounced the whole scheme as "a delusion and a snare" and about the same time the "Commercial & Financial Chronicle," editorially attributed the existence of said law to the influence of "an evil genius" that had arisen. But the first important thing that happened almost immediately alter the enactment of the "Amortization Law" was a decree from the Banking & Insurance Commissioners at Albany, New York, whereby they catered to the lazy and ignorant by authorizing, if desired, the use of the "pro-rata method" instead of the correct one.

Abstract The article focuses on the group method of depreciation in accounting. The vast amount of accounting literature written on the subject of depreciation fails to include but a bare mention of the group method of depreciation. This is quite unfortunate in view of the wide use of the procedure. The writer became interested in the group method in early 1941 and found it to be widely used and accepted in the petroleum industry. The regulatory commissions seem to have pioneered in the study of the requirements of the group method of depreciation. In the early 1920's the Interstate Commerce Commission began a study of depreciation rates and methods. During this period the Commission discussed interest and straight-line methods of computing the depreciation charge and recommended the straight-line method because it thought that this method gave a more accurate statement of the profit and loss. The unit plan of depreciation seems to have been the preference of the Commission until about 1933, when it began specifying the use of the group plan.

Abstract This brief survey will serve to indicate that cost accounting is not a newly developed off- spring from its parent, the accounting process, but rather has been going through its "growing pains" for many decades. In view of its long and interesting evolution, the Committee feels that cost accounting now occupies such a prominent place in the business community that it is opportune and highly desirable for its principles and concepts to be stated in tentative form. Or, to express it differently, the Committee believes that cost accounting has now "grown up" sufficiently to warrant the serious attention which the Committee has given to its area and purposes. The present paper, therefore, will attempt to set the stage for those to follow, and show that many of the cost accounting developments which are often considered to be modern have their genesis in many past decades. It should be emphasized, however, that only the highlights of this evolutionary aspect of cost accounting can be presented in the brief time available. Elaboration on these highlights must be postponed to some future time.

Abstract The method used for calculating price and quantity variances in standard cost procedure deserves more explanation than is given it in cost accounting textbooks and current accounting literature, as of July 1947. The student in a standard-cost accounting course is likely to be perplexed by the glibness of the instructor in arriving at the amount of variation attributable to price on one hand and quantity on the other. The formula used in commercial practice demands a reasonable explanation since it is mathematically questionable. The purpose of this article is to justify the current practice, and to point out the theoretical issues that are involved. Some accountants, aware of the mathematical biases in calculating price and quantity variations, compute only the total amount of variation, and do not attempt to calculate the amounts of the individual variations attributable to price and quantity. But if the amounts of the individual variations are sufficiently significant to require administrative attention, this expedient will not, of course, prove satisfactory.

Abstract Beginning instructors are usually assigned to the elementary course in order to obtain their experience. The large volume of students is also found at this level. The intermediate course presents a somewhat similar problem, although it is less acute. Generally, the courses above the intermediate level are in the hands of experienced instructors. The writer believes that all the ability and skills an instructor can command are required at the first level. If the student fails to learn the fundamentals well, difficulties in more advanced courses may be due to the structural weakness of the introductory background rather than to the advanced course per se. The problems of the beginning instructor are increased not only by the range of interest and ability to grasp the subject but also by sheer numbers. In advanced courses, however, there is the advantage of selection. The suggestions offered here are primarily to help the beginner. They are not intended to be complete. Also they are confined to the elementary course, although they may be applied also to the more advanced classes.