From: gerald_a_levy (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:01:53 EST
Re Tony's : Previously, in , I wrote: I take this to mean that from an accounting perspective there are decided advantages to estimation at historical cost even where (if) estimation at historical cost is a poor method for describing the real changes in the exchange value of means of production. Yet, it is the latter which has by far the more importance from the perspective of political-economic theory. Tony responded, in part: I don't want to concede entirely your latter comment, "Yet, it is the latter which has by far the more importance from the perspective of political-economic theory." Surely, it could be argued that, having more auditable numbers (historic cost) is also very important from the perspective of political economic theory. Everything turns on what we make of the latter. Jerry now responds: Granted. What I meant to suggest is that accurately describing the real changes in the exchange value of means of production following technological change is a more *basic* theoretical issue than what accounting method is chosen by firms to estimate these changes. Thus, one method might be better for auditing purposes while another method might embody a better description of the underlying economic processes. In solidarity, Jerry PS on Michael P's : I tried 'googling' (i.e. searching for your paper with the 'advanced search' function at www.google.com ) and couldn't find your 'devalorisation' paper anywhere -- although several sites had a short abstract of the paper.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 00:00:01 EST