Investment analysis, both for purposes of capital expenditures and for financial investments, is based on an evaluation of cash flows. This evaluation involves the application of interest rates in order to determine whether a given option–a series of cash flows–is profitable or not. For numerous reasons, primarily that of simplicity, it has been traditional to assume that the rates of interest used to measure the worth of an investment are constant. With this assumption it is possible to equate the two familiar investment criteria when investments are independent and outlays are not subject to expenditure constraints, i.e., when capital markets are taken to be perfect in the usual sense. An investment is profitable if its net present value is positive when discounting of cash flows uses the (assumed constant) cost of capital, or if its (assumed unique) internal rate of return is greater than the cost of capital. Equivalence of these two criteria is historically most frequently identified with Irving Fisher [3, 4], and his two-period analysis, portrayed graphically, is generally utilized to establish the correctness of the equivalence of the criteria.

The boom stock market is a well known phenomenon of our time. The investor (and public) interest in the market, however, does not seem to be shared by the monetary policy makers. Certainly, if we use the 1920's as the benchmark, the Federal Reserveexhibits considerably less anxiety over the present boom market than it did then.

Executives in a wide variety of formal organizations frequently face decisions involving changes in capacity of service capabilities. Usually these changes mean increases in manpower and/or capital expenditures for new facilities, but due to seasonality, or a decline in business, a decision may also involve the determination of whether to reduce the available capacity. These decisions generally are made by comparing the cost (or savings, which is a negative cost) of changing the service capability with the corresponding costs or risks of not being able to properly meet service requirements. In this paper, the problem described is one in which services are provided, and the cost, or risk, of not being able to meet service requirements is expressed by means of a queuing equation.

During the past few years several money demand functions have been estimated for the United States. Although these functions may differ on the precise specification of the independent variables, most agree on their crude identity. Thus almost all functions include an income or wealth constraint and an interest rate price. Such functions have been applied exhaustively to data for various periods in United States history, both for the long run and for the short run. With few notable exceptions, the results differ more in degree than in substance. The quantity of money demanded is estimated to be a positive function of the constraint and a negative function of price. The studies have, however, overlooked an important body of possible collaborative evidence–that for other industrial countries. It may be reasonable to assume that the same basic forces underlie the demand for money in all industrial countries, it is of interest to contrast money demand functions for these countries with those obtained for the United States. This paper estimates demand functions for leading industrial countries and evaluates the results. No new theory is developed; rather, existing models are fitted to additional data to test their applicability to other countries.

One of the difficulties of evaluating formula plans by testing them in the light of past experience is the fact that there is no index of bond experience which simulates typical portfolio performance. Bond indices are stated in terms of yields with constant maturities, but the capital values of bonds vary according to their maturities given the same yield. Cottle and Whitman used elaborate techniques to make their bond portion of the total portfolio realistic, but were only partially successful. This writer also attempted to eliminate the problem of simulating the bond portfolio in a previous paper by assuming that the defensive portion of the portfolio was invested in a Savings and Loan account receiving the national average return. This procedure thus ignored the problem of bond maturities and variation in capital values due to changes in interest rates.

The “burden of the debt” still appears to be a matter of concern to the United States public, economic teaching notwithstanding. In the debates preceding the 1964 tax cut, such matters as the existing budgetary deficit and the swelling public debt evoked as much passion as confusion. In this paper we intend to focus on one question: will a tax cut designed to generate a full employment equilibrium necessarily increase the debt burden, as defined by Domar. In particular, we are interested in the impact of a tax reduction on the debt burden, given that a budgetary deficit exists; and under the condition that the monetary authorities have decided to tighten credit conditions. We shall assume throughout that interest rates are determined by the monetary authorities, and that their policy is dictated by balance of payments rather than aggregate demand considerations. it will also be assumed that the tax reduction takes into account any planned increase in the rate of interest. Finally, we assume that budgetary deficits are financed by borrowing from the nonbank public and not by new money.