The Economics of American Farm Unrest, 1865-1900 Article - 2

The Economics of American Farm Unrest, 1865-1900 - Article Example According to the research findings, it can, therefore, be said that as for the farmers’ complaint of high-interest rates, these were logical as creditors faced a lot of risks involved in providing loans to farmers and, thus, had to be compensated via higher interest rates. However, they were right in that there was a monopolistic attitude of railroads and grain elevators whereby the real railroad rates showed an increasing trend. The real cause of the unrest, Stewart states, was the dissatisfaction of the frontier farmers due to the rising risks and uncertainties involved in US agriculture after the Civil War. Semi-arid areas of the United States were now involved in agriculture and there the farmers experienced droughts. Accustomed to plain agriculture, now the farmers faced a lot of hardship in these areas. Moreover, farm foreclosures and fluctuating crop prices agitated the frontier farmers a lot. Stewart also relates how the farm unrest caused institutional change by causi ng the federal government to engage itself in regulating the private economic sector. In the end, Stewart relays the reason for the success of the farmers with regard to cooperation in the unrest, citing membership incentives and peer pressure as the reasons thereof. James I. Stewart has earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Northwestern University, Illinois. He has also held the post of Assistant Professor at Reed College, Oregon. Keeping this in mind, it is expected that Stewart has written this article for academic purposes. Stewart has done much research for this article and, as is documented by the references, has obtained a lot of his information from published academic works of historians and economists.

Incentory Valuation Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Incentory Valuation - Case Study Example According to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAPs) there are three acceptable methods of valuation. These include average cost (AVCO) and First-in-first-out (FIFO) and last-in-first-out (LIFO). However, International Accounting Standards (IAS) 2 does not permit the use of LIFO (BPP 2009, p.205). The method that we have adopted is AVCO. GAAPs and IAS 2 also require that inventory be valued at the lower-of-cost-and-market value (LCM) (Hoyle and Skender 2010). This means that if the market value had fallen below cost after the year end then the inventory would require an adjustment to market value. We therefore need to compare our valuation at 31st May 2010 which is $120 with the current market price of $146. Since Palermo’s valuation is lower then the market value, we will maintain our current valuation of $120 per case. As soon as we start paying $80 per case, the average cost will decline as long as cost prices remain that way. This however, will not apply to 31st M ay 2010. Furthermore, if later on, we see a reduction in market value below our current average cost of $120, we will have no other choice but to reduce our valuation to market value and to write off as an expense. Otherwise, our valuation as it stands currently is in keeping with GAAPs and IASs. Sincerely, †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. Chief Financial Officer References BPP. (2009).