From: gerald_a_levy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 19:52:41 EST
Re Tony T's : Thanks for answering my previous questions, Tony. A further question -- if you don't mind: > First, remember that 'constant capital' is not a category in traditional accounting; we might 'reach' for a connection to 'Fixed Capital', but we need to be wary in doing that. In conventional accounting, the valuation rules are quite different (and somewhat diverse, but they often begin with historical cost). < Well, of course, we agree that c is not a category in traditional accounting. You suggest that in conventional accounting, the valuation of fixed capital "often begin with historical cost". OK, but do you think that in the presence of technological change that (constant) fixed capital should be valued at historical cost or at current reproduction cost? From your perspective, what would be your concerns re these alternative ways of valuing (constant) fixed capital? Do you have a position on how Marx valued (constant) fixed capital? In solidarity, Jerry PS Re: > but few would share the kind of 'bookkeeping-centric' idea of accounting that your comparisons and discussion betrays. < Well, I guess I thoiught that it was OK to address concerns about bookkeeping methods when having a discussion with a Marxist who is an accountant. I certeainly didn't intend to be 'bookkeeping-centric'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 00:00:00 EST