Talk:Accounting reform

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Business: Accounting

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Untitled[edit]

What makes it particularly difficult to write an NPOV article about this is that the existing system has literally no living defenders - everyone acknowledges at least a few flaws in current accounting standards and practices, but the inertia seems to be dragging us all in a certain direction set in 1944 at Bretton Woods.

It would nice to find even ONE coherent statement of what's OK with the current system - the lobbying efforts referred to tend to be US-centric, secretive, and difficult to decipher. They certainly don't publish defenses of "the system"...

This article needs a complete rewrite. It is possible to write an article without taking one point of view, and it is also possible to reference things. Plan B is to revert this article to a stub and start again, as that may be easier. AnthonyUK (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Topics for the Price of One[edit]

I have attempted to differentiate between the two topics being discussed in this article. I didn't want to add anything since I don't really know the details of "accounting reform." But is sure seemed obvious that two completely different subjects were being "reformed."

Perhaps the problem with finding defendings of the existing system is that the accusations are vague. It's very hard to defend against a will-o-the-wisp. Or that the accusations are saying that accounting isn't measuring something it was never meant to measure? Either way, defense is difficult.--Fredrik Coulter 03:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Why, because double entry accounting works. No business cares about ecological or social costs. People use some sort of currency to exchange goods and services. So it makes sense for a business to measure how much goods and services they are selling versus how much they are purchasing in terms of the currency used in those transactions.

Two different issues[edit]

It seems to me that the article is about two quite different things. The systems of national accounts have developed witoout much connection to accounting practices in companies. As far as I understand the proposals for reform are also different between national accounts and usual business accounting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.210.4.132 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]