IF economists could measure the need for reserves, they might be able to agree on the right way to reform the international monetary system. Most of the economists who propose drastic reform do so because they anticipate a shortage of reserves; some even believe that the shortage is upon us. Those who advocate more gradual change believe that reserves are adequate now and for the next several years; some even believe that reserves are excessive. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure the adequacy of reservesnot even to make historical comparisons. Scitovsky's comments illustrate several of the problems involved in appraising the global stock of reserves:

Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave n-person games - dynamic model for nonequilibrium situations

PURSUING the methods by which Leontief discovered his renowned paradox, previous empirical studies of the relationship among factors, production, and trade have computed the content of a single country's trade from the factor requirements of its production processes.' The present study introduces a somewhat different method. The assumption is made that all manufactured goods traded, not only by the United States but by other countries as well, are produced with a single set of technical coefficients, namely the combinations of labor skills observed in each industry in the United States. It is postulated that the availability of labor skills determines patterns of international location and trade for a broad group of manufactured products, those not closely tied to natural resources. It is further supposed that the relationship between trade and skills for these goods will reveal itself in American skill requirements for reproducing trade flows. The first expectation seems plausible. Direct capital requirements are not as high in manufacturing as in most other activities.2 Labor appears to be less mobile internationally than liquid capital or capital goods. Generations of industrial experience and education may be required to build a skilled labor force. Let me spell out the basic method before examining its rationale. As in Leontief's computations, production functions are assumed to involve simple linear combinations of factors. There are no scale effects, and factors are perfectly divisible. We define Si as a quantity of the ith factor, such as labor of a specified skill class; Xj is the quantity of the jth product traded, so that XI, X2, X3, . . . , Xm describes the composition of a trade flow such as Japanese exports.3 To determine the skills required to produce this trade flow with American coefficients, we multiply our m-item trade vector X by an m X n matrix A, in which the elements aij (i= 1, 2, . . . n; j=1, 2,... m) represent average United States direct requirements for labor of n skill classes to produce a unit of output of each product. The result, the vector SI, S2, S3, . . . , SX, shows United States skill requirements for producing the goods in the trade flow.

The auditing section of the May 1965 Uniform Certified Public Accountants examination was given on May 13, 1965 from 8:30 to 12:00 noon. The first section of the examination consisted of six questions, all required; the second section contained two questions of which the candidate was instructed to answer the one of his choice.

This article presents information on cash movement, which should be the foundation of periodic income measurement. It is contended that most people think that periodic business net income or loss is closely linked to certain of the movements of cash into and out of the business, and that, while a simple periodic matching of cash receipts and disbursements rarely gives a meaningful measure of net income, cash movement can be objectively measured and is a far better starting point for income determination than value, a highly subjective matter. It is further contended that even if the proposals to link value changes closely to income measurement were sound in principle and feasible, the likelihood of their gaining widespread understanding and acceptance is negligible. If these contentions are valid, it is incumbent upon accountants to stray no further than absolutely necessary from cash movement in calculating periodic business income. It is noted that problems rarely exist in cases where there is a very close correlation between cash movement and revenue and expense realization or recognition.