Problem
I. In the 1790s, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made the State's account books open to the public where all citizens could review them and verify them with their own eyes. The State Comptroller stated in 1795 that "citizens were more likely to pay taxes, and even enjoy paying taxes, when they are 'faithfully accounted for.'" Do you agree with the Pennsylvania State Comptroller? Why or why not?
II. In the juxtaposition of Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, The Reckoning describes Morris as "a good accountant and financial manager, but he was no philosopher." Hamilton, on the other hand, was a "keen reader of the classics and such Enlightenment philosophers as Hobbes, Locke... and Hume." Hamilton's mix of accounting and philosophical interest was needed to transform America from a series of colonies into a nation. In other words, knowledge of accounting was not sufficient to ensure it was fully integrated into the foundation of the new nation.
Hamilton had to appeal to a greater vision, one that could only come from a philosophical perspective. Is that the same as today? As Accountants are we more effective if we can appeal to others with more than our accounting knowledge? If not, why not. If so, how?
III. Charles Dickens, the great 19th century British author, did not think too favorably of accountants - although his father was an accountant. For Dickens, the accountant had been reduced to a good-hearted but hapless clerk, a malicious swindler, or a nightmarish bureaucrat. There were the Scrooges of the world, and then there was the good, honest clerk like Bob Cratchit (both from A Christmas Carol).
Why did Dickens hold these views? Were they justified?
IV. "There was a great mistrust of accounting in the hands of financiers, industrialists, and politicians. Indeed, trained originally as an accountant and auditor, John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world, would be revered buy also referred to in pejorative terms as "that bloodless, Baptist bookkeeper." Gone were the great paintings of accountants as glorious patrons, dramatically fallen sinners, or smiling captains of finance and industry. Instead, dour portraits of professionals in black suits would come to define accountants until this day as serious, even dull arbiters of financial numbers."
The quote goes on to say "Their [accountants] role as ambiguous: They could aid capitalism and government or, through cooked books, impede them both."
Is this a fair characterization of accountants? Discuss.