Journal Article A Critical Note on the Definition of Related Goods Get access S. Ichimura S. Ichimura New York Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 3, 1950, Pages 179–183, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295977 Published: 01 September 1950

Journal Article Alternative Anti-Inflationary Fiscal Policies Get access Lawrence S. Ritter Lawrence S. Ritter Michigan Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 3, 1950, Pages 129–139, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295973 Published: 01 September 1950

Journal Article The Liquidity Preference of Banks Get access H. S. Larsen H. S. Larsen Copenhagen Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 2, 1950, Pages 123–127, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295801 Published: 01 April 1950

Journal Article Three Versions of the Φ-Surface : Some Notes for a Comparison Get access G. L. S. Shackle G. L. S. Shackle Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 2, 1950, Pages 119–122, https://doi.org/10.2307/2295800 Published: 01 April 1950

James Tobie, H. S. Houthakker; The Effects of Rationing on Demand Elasticities, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 18, Issue 3, 1 January 1950, Pages 1

JN a I948 issue of this REVIEW, Professor Ragnar Frisch detailed an ingenious plan which would, it was hoped, rescue international from the existing chaos of bilateralism and restore it to a truly multilateral basis.2 Few economists will disagree with his ultimate aim of restoring multilateralism, but it appears to the present writer that Frisch's particular policy proposals are thoroughly infected with the cardinal marginal utility heresy, and are consequently of questionable merit. By using the more orthodox notion of an ordinal welfare index, however, it seems quite feasible to attack the multilateral problem, and, at least in principle, solve it. Because of space limitations, it is hardly possible to do justice to Professor Frisch, and to reproduce his entire discussion. What follows is the barest skeleton of his remarks. He points out that the prevalent system of conducting international on an essentially bilateral basis primitive barter is a quite inefficient method of organizing the international division of labor. In place of this patchwork, some comprehensive multilateral arrangement must be set up. Apparently, Frisch envisages a condition of repressed inflation 3 within each trading country, i.e., a condition in which money prices are meaningless as transformation ratios.4 Consequently, each participating nation must group all import and export goods into perhaps ten categories (0,1,2, . . . 9), such that, within each category at the given domestic prices, the same marginal social valuation is put on a (or whatever the local currency unit may be) of one good as on a of any other good. Furthermore, a crown's worth of goods in category 3 is preferred to a crown's worth of goods in category 2, but is in turn inferior to a crown's worth of goods in category 4. Next, an international authority is to ascertain the categories into which its members place various quantities of import and export goods. It is then claimed that there will exist a unique allocation of trade, given two conditions: (i) the requirement that, in terms of any currency unit, the aggregate value of imports of any one nation from all other nations within the system must, within rather close limits, equal the aggregate value of exports of that nation to all other nations within the system; and (2) the condition that the global from trade be maximized. The crucial objection to the Frisch plan arises from the fact that the notion of global gains is not unambiguous.

Abstract In a previous article in the Accounting Review, attention was paid to the problem of what should be done when a utility shifts from retirement, or retirement reserve, accounting to depreciation accounting. Consideration was given to the formula for the rate base itself and, as well, to the procedure to follow when property was retired from service. Public service commissions are faced with still other problems. Some utilities have carried on, at least for some of their properties, a procedure which may well be referred to as replacement or betterment accounting, and which may have ramifications quite different from either retirement or depredation accounting. In following replacement accounting, assets are set up on the books at cost whenever they are acquired and are retained on the books at these figures indefinitely. Whenever replacements are made "in kind," the entire cost of the replacement, whether at higher or lower prices than at the outset, is charged to current operating expenses. Thus the investment account remains stationary unless the asset is retired and not replaced, in which case the investment account is written down. On the assumption that prices remain constant retirement accounting and replacement accounting give the same basic results. It is when prices change that the two part company. When replacements are not in kind, adjustment of the investment account is made.

Abstract What is properly labeled "retirement accounting" is a doctrine of great importance. According to this doctrine no depreciation charges, as such, are set up annually on the books and no estimate is made of the periodic depreciation accrual. The significant point of time, in the view of its advocates, is the period when the asset is withdrawn from service. At this time the original cost of the asset is charged to operating expenses. Specifically the procedure sets up asset accounts to which the cost of all property purchased or constructed is charged at the time it is acquired. These charges remain on the books until property is abandoned and then the original cost of the asset is charged to operating expenses. In effect an account like "Retirement Expense" is charged when an asset account is credited for the amount of the original cost of the asset abandoned. The scrap value realized, if the asset is sold, is charged to cash and credited to "Retirement Expense." Or if the asset is "junked" in place of being sold, the charge is made to materials and supplies account and the credit to "Retirement Expense" account for the amount of the appraised value of the asset.