Missing a trick here

In the discussion at yesterday’s Corporate Accountability Network launch event I was asked how we could possibly effect change in accounting standards when it takes up to seven years for any change to a standard to take place.

My answer at the time was that this pace of change is, of course, quite ridiculous. There is no reasonable reason on earth why it should take seven years to change an accounting standard.

There must, then, be good reason why it does take this long for change to take place in accountancy. I think there is.

The reason being because they hate me etc.

The trick being missed? If it takes 7 years to gain a change that’s 7 years of funding to ask for, innit?

11 thoughts on “Missing a trick here”

  1. There is no reasonable reason on earth why it should take seven years to change an accounting standard.

    Chesterton’s Fence, again. The man is a walking sack of fallacies.

  2. Richard is very keen to ensure that all records filed at Companies House are correct and accurate. After all, misrepresentation, for example, of the Directors’ professions could be used to impress potential funders as to those running that company.

    Interesting then that new directors of the Corporate Accuntability Network, John Christensen and Dr. Meesha Nehru, are both shown as having the profession of “University Professor”, when neither are as far as I can tell.

    Interesting that Ritchie has declared himself as “Chartered Accountant” again. The loss of that “Professor” badge is going to hurt. Especially when he has to explain to people he isn’t one any more as he was never a real one anyway.

  3. Good spot, Noel.

    John Christensen is a Visiting Fellow at Reading University, but I’m not aware that he’s ever been Professor anywhere. I’ve not seen that Nehru has any sort of university job.

  4. Dennis the Peasant

    What Murphy fails to understand (surprise!) is that the process is time consuming precisely because it is designed to give anyone and everyone (legitimate stakeholder or just a member of the public) a chance to comment upon the proposed change at length and in public. These comments/concerns are then addressed and dealt with, again in public, as the proposed change moves forward to adoption.

    The irony is that Murphy is complaining about the byproduct of making the rule change process as transparent and democratic as possible… which is what he’s banging on about in the first place.

  5. Dennis the Peasant

    John Christensen describes himself as a forensic auditor and an economist. He has an honors degree in agricultural economics. After reviewing his vitae I cannot find anything in his credentialing or his work history to suggest he actually is a trained forensic auditor. And as to being an economist… that’s kind of like claiming you’re a journalist: Anyone can do it, irrespective of education, training or credentials.

    He’s part of the Tax Justice Network and hangs out with people like Murphy and Prem Sikka. ‘Nuff said.

  6. The Meissen Bison

    DtP – I’m not convinced that Capt. Potato has much interest in a process being transparent and democratic when an immediate tuberous decree would always suit his purpose so much better.

  7. Dennis the Peasant

    Meesha Nehru evidently has a doctorate, but in what I cannot determine. She has published, mostly on cultural affairs, and co-authored at book: Writing Under Socialism – Studies in Post-Conflict Cultures. She worked as a researcher for the Tax Justice Network and is presently the program director for the Fair Tax Mark. I suspect she has no formal training in accounting or finance or economics.

  8. Dennis the Peasant

    TMB –

    Of course he wouldn’t actually tolerate democracy; he is, by all indications, a totalitarian at heart. What is amusing is that he is forever proclaiming the need for democracy and transparency, which is what the rule change process is actually all about.

  9. Rob

    I think if a philosophy lecturer were reading this blog, he could do worse than take a look at Tax Research UK – there he would find every conceivable logical fallacy used on numerous occasions – which is to be expected when you are dealing with the intellectual equivalent of a cromagnon man transplanted into the 21st century

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *