From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 17:50:41 EST
Re Tony T's [7897]: > The obvious concern is that with technological change, and inflation, historical cost is a poor proxy for reproduction values (or present value). But accounting must also accomodate other concerns. The Enron et. al debacles speak to these. Accounting measurement procedures must, in part, lead to easily verifiable figures, that cannot easily be distorted to allow looting. Anything other than the 'objectivity' of historical cost opens up greater possibilities in this regard. Historical cost might be irrelevant, but at least it is 'objective' and auditable. < 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. > As I "Read Marx Politically", I guess I would have to say that Marx today should be alert to the same concerns. It isn't good enough to simply describe these processes; we have to change them (and auditing is in the political frontline for my colleagues). < Granted. > Sorry if I was overly sensitive-- it was an act of frustration. The bookkeeping personae is a cultured misunderstanding as to 'what accounting is' that is part of its illusion of technique and objectivity. < I'm *glad* you reacted in the way you did since it allowed us to get this important point out in the open. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 00:00:00 EST