level, the generalizations which emerge will have correspondingly great power as principles, predictors, or guides. The task is by no means simple, and Mattessich properly disclaims belief in the perfection of the result (p. 32). First of all, some comments on generality. Although he seeks to formulate the assumptions in the most general terms, all the illustrative and explanatory comment on the assumptions, with one or two minor exceptions, has reference to business entities. It would have been of interest to have some illustration of the counterparts of the examples given, or specific examples of the interpretation to be given to the assumptions and their component terms, in the case of service organizations and economies as wholes. One may well suspect that the absence of illustration is evidence that, after all, private accounting and national accounting may not be considered as of the same class. The generality of the statements of the assumptions is indicated in each case by the formula exists.. . or some equivalent indicative. Thus, the assumption of monetary values reads: There exists a set of additive values, expressed in a monetary unit; this set is isomorphic to the system of (positive and negative) integers plus the number zero (p. 32). And to take an example of the class of assumptions which are described as place-holders: There exists a set of hypotheses determining the value assigned to an accounting transaction (p. 42). A system built up on such pure postulates escapes many of the difficulties which arise if the postulates are to be tied to statements of function. A hypothesis is itself functional; we formulate hypotheses to serve our ends. It seems This content downloaded from 207.46.13.131 on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:11:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Certain developments inspired the Accounting Principles Board to approve the preparation of the "Inventory of Generally Accepted Accounting principles for Business Enterprises," ARS No. 7. It was long wished for an inventory of generally accepted accounting principles; for whether one wishes to adopt, to rebut, or even simply to think about these principles, it would be useful to know what they are. But the inventory is not a simple listing. A great deal of ARS No. 7 is devoted to the justification of the listed propositions and to the rebuttal of objections to them. The study presented in the article is argumentative and as such invites cross-arguments. The study is unquestionably valuable. It makes very clear the massive difficulties with which the users of financial statements have to contend. The inventory, at least by implication, makes it abundantly clear that great changes are necessary to put contemporary practices on the footing of the requirements of the statutory principle, and even greater changes to establish practice on the ethical footing which have been suggested and is ideally more solid and dependable than a statutory specification.