SIX years ago, the author proposed that technological change be taken into account in a dynamic input-output model by making the input coefficients themselves vary with capital expenditures for growth and change-over. The proposal was rooted in the notion that the input structure of an industry at any given time was an output-weighted average of input structures characterizing technologies of different vintages. Investment in new equipment would increase the relative weight of the latest techniques in the industrial average while scrappage would decrease the relative weight of older techniques. If the technologies representing new capacity installed at various times were known, it would be possible to predict changes in the average technique from these and the time pattern of expenditures on equipment. Considerable effort during the past several years has been directed toward evaluating this approach to the explanation of technological change, that is, to seeing to what extent changes in input structure over time could be predicted from technical parameters for best practice technologies and expenditures on equipment over the period.' Direct verification of a dynamic input-output system with changing coefficients was undertaken,2 but was plagued with three major difficulties: (i) we have not had comparable coefficient matrices at two points of time; (2) available estimates of plant and equipment expenditure for individual industries have been crude, at best; and (3) the system as originally stated incorporated the hypothesis about technological change into the Leontief dynamic system, making the interpretation of its outcome await the solution of the same theoretical problems.3 In view of the obstacles to a satisfactory test in the general equilibrium context, it seemed expedient to investigate the specific question of the relation of technical change to investment more directly, and in particular, separately from the question of what determines the rate of investment itself.4 Last year certain cross-sectional material was made available by the Bureau of the Census for a pilot study in the analysis of technological change.5 On the basis of this information, we began to investigate in some detail to what extent it is possible to account for changes in the distribution of input coefficients of individual plants in a given industry in terms of the distribution of their equipment expenditure patterns. Specifically, the present study treats the question: to what extent is it possible to explain changes in the distribution of individual plants' input coefficients in terms of their respective equipment expenditure patterns and a common incremental or best practice production function. The approach will be successful to the extent that the specific characteristics of installed equipment govern quantitative inputoutput relationships and that plants in a given industry tend to purchase the same kinds of equipment at the same time. General experience tells us that neither of these conditions prevails entirely, in any industry. During the same period, some plants will be buying new process equipment and other plants new materials-handling equipment. Older plants will be limited in their alterations, while newer plants will be able to take advantage of a wider range of alternatives. Initial differences in technology, related to product quality or location, may be expected to govern additions to, or replacements of, capacity as well.

Abstract The article discusses a fallacy in accounting for spoiled goods. Spoiled goods arise as a result of imperfections in manufacturing processes. The condition of the goods is such that it would not be economically feasible to correct the imperfections. As a consequence, the goods are sold as seconds at a loss. A loss due to spoilage may be charged to the job or production order on which the loss occurred or it may be absorbed indirectly by all jobs through charging such loss to manufacturing overhead control. If spoilage loss is not normal or a loss can be easily traced to a job which may be special in character, the loss should be charged to the job on which the loss occurred. If spoilage is normal because of the nature of the manufacturing process but irregular in amount from job to job, the loss arising from spoiled goods should be absorbed by all jobs by means of a predetermined manufacturing overhead rate. An exception may be taken to the treatment found in cost accounting publications whereby spoilage loss is absorbed indirectly by all jobs through charging such loss to manufacturing overhead.

Abstract The article explores the concepts of financial position held by various groups interested in a business and attempts to determine whether or not the balance sheet as presently constituted can serve these different groups. Creditors in general view the information given in the balance sheet concerning assets, liabilities, and equity from a different point of view than that of management or owners. Therefore, a balance sheet of value to creditors must incorporate information that will allow them to judge a debtor's financial position and that will thereby, meet the creditors' concept of financial position. Within the owners' group, as within tile creditors' group, there are several concepts of financial position to be developed the relationship of the owner to the enterprise has an important bearing upon the owners' interpretation of financial data. Because of the large number of management groups, each with special interests, no uniform concept of financial position can be developed, nor can these groups be classified for this purpose under one or two simple headings. Each group will necessarily have its own concept of financial management.