say, the choice depends on one's notions about the determinants of various components of private expenditure, production lags, and the like.) (3) It would be useful if the policy section of the budget message were to point out what the NEB exercise shows to be the estimated effect of the budget on the public share, federal and state-local, in GNP, and on the nondefense public share, and if it were to make some comparisons with prior years. (Appropriate reference would have to be made to subsidies as reflecting some degree of federal absorption of output and also to federal finance of state and local purchases). (4) The policy section of the budget message should also point out the implications of the fiscal policy plan for the investment-consumption mix in the economy as a whole. (5) The lead table on budget by function should be supplemented by a larger table in which the expenditure figure for each function is broken down into purchases of goods and services, outright subsidies, transfer payments to individuals, grants-in-aid, interest, loans, and purchases of old (6) The above seven-way split should be carried through in the detailed discussion of the Federal Program by Function. (7) I would think it a bad idea -on grounds both of concept and of strategy -for the federal government to adopt a two-budget system involving a full-fledged capital account. Such a system would almost certainly result in the enthronement of the shibboleth that it is all right to debtfinance capital but the current budget should be balanced or in surplus. Except under very strong classical assumptions, such a rule would not assure neutrality as regards the saving-consumption choice, and would lose us an important degree of freedom, making it much more difficult to achieve through and monetary measures whatever total demand, income distribution, consumptioninvestment mix, and public-private balance we might desire. (A related secondary danger is that would come to be defined as bricks and mortar or the purchase of self-liquidating assets and, in particular, that investment in education, public health, etc., would not qualify.) (8) The above does not imply that we should continue to lump together public consumption and public investment. It would be most useful to distinguish, on the expenditure side of the budget, between consumption-type expenditures, investment in tangible assets, and what Musgrave calls expenditures for future benefit not resulting in acquisition of assets. The burden of (7) above is only that we should not associate particular receipts with particular types of expenditure.

Journal Article Additive Logarithmic Preferences A Further Note Get access W. M. Gorman W. M. Gorman Oxford Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 30, Issue 1, February 1963, Pages 56–62, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296031 Published: 01 February 1963

Peer Reviewed

Recent developments in learning theory suggest an opportunity for substantial improvement in methods for teaching accounting. Since 1954, there have been significant findings in the area of educational psychology, which appear to have a bearing on how students learn accounting, and how it might better be taught. These new laws of learning differ in many respects from the old laws of learning developed prior to 1940. This article notes some of the old laws of learning and the teaching methods they support and then examine some of the new laws and their implications to accounting instruction. These old laws are not necessarily completely false, but they are in some ways false and open to reexamination. If a judgment had to be made on them, it might be that they and many others like them are more false than true. There is a need to distill out their essential truth and define the conditions where they apply and to learn also the conditions under which some other generalizations hold. Research in accounting educational methods is a great need.

The Revenue Act of 1962 provides for an "investment credit" which is generally seven per cent of the qualified investment in depreciable property acquired after December 31, 1961. The "investment credit" may be deducted directly from the amount of federal income tax otherwise payable for the year in which the asset was acquired. For any asset on which the credit is given, the basis of the asset is reduced by the amount of the allowed investment credit for the purpose of determining the amount that may be written off as depreciation over the life of the asset. The investment credit, to the extent that it is fully utilized, should be regarded as a reduction in the tax expenses. This statement is based on the fact that the credit is allowed because of provisions of the revenue act and because it can be of benefit to a company only if there is tax, resulting from taxable revenue, from which the credit can be deducted. The net result of the suggested method and its variations is that a company can take advantage of the income tax law related to the investment credit and still present financial statements which are not unduly affected by the amount or the timing of these tax benefits.

The article presents examination by the author on one aspect of the conventional accounting funds statement and the schedule of working capital, with particular regard to their value for analysts other than accountants. The central idea which the author has tried to develop is that a certain type of transaction which traditionally has been interpreted by accountants as simultaneously increasing and decreasing the total "funds" by equal amounts may properly appear in both the sources and the applied sections of the funds statement. The proposals for improving the statement do not include this principle and on the whole, it appears that the long-established forms of Exhibit. It must still be regarded as the standard practice. There does not seem to be any inevitable reason why the type of transaction in question must be interpreted in the traditional manner. A more imaginative approach would enhance the capacity of this statement to reveal significant information in a comprehensible form.

T HIS paper examines the effects of debt management on aggregate expenditure during I9 53-58. The Treasury in this period lengthened the debt in recession and allowed it to shorten somewhat in prosperity (Table i), the opposite of the anti-cyclical policy advocated by some economists. Treasury policy was defended on the grounds that it did not unduly intensify recessions and that offerings of longterm securities in prosperity provided undesirable competition with new issues of private, state, and local government securities and increased interest costs.1 Debt management for purposes of this paper