Crypto investments

Into the Night wrote:Accounting isn't a standard.

Into the Night wrote:Yes you did.

Into the Night wrote:A book is not an authoritative source.

Into the Night wrote:Contextomy fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:Accounting isn't a standard.

Into the Night wrote:RQAA

Into the Night wrote:RQAA

Into the Night wrote:Argument of the stone fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:No, it isn't. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Into the Night wrote:You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

Into the Night wrote:No need.

Into the Night wrote:Semantics fallacy.

Into the Night wrote: Net worth does not require a currency.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You ARE pushing an agenda ...

What agenda am I pushing?

That wealth is money. RQAA.

Into the Night wrote: What you know is accounting using some kind of currency.

Into the Night wrote:It is not required to conduct accounting.

Into the Night wrote: You are also still confusing ledgers with balance sheets, and making balance sheets a singleton authority...totally AGAINST accounting principles.

Into the Night wrote:. I am not making anything up.

Into the Night wrote: You are confusing ledger with inventory control.

Into the Night wrote:RQAA

IBdaMann wrote:Your definition of wealth keeps changing.

Into the Night wrote:RQAA.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Accounting has everything to do with wealth.

No. Accounting is not wealth.

Into the Night wrote: My definition is consistent. Yours isn't.

Into the Night wrote:Symantics fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:Accounting is not a standard.

Into the Night wrote:No. False authority fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:A ledger is not a balance sheet.

Into the Night wrote:No conversion is necessary at all for either the ledger or the balance sheet.

Into the Night wrote:WRONG. He explained a transaction (ledger entry)

Into the Night wrote: He also explained a simplified balance sheet,

Into the Night wrote:... and how it does not have to use currency at all.

Into the Night wrote:And you lost two goats. Where did they go?

Into the Night wrote: No. This is not keeping track of anything going on. These are serious questions that accounting must raise, even though no currency is involved.

Into the Night wrote:Inventory control is one element of accounting.

Into the Night wrote:Net worth is not 'adjusted'. It is calculated.

Into the Night wrote: Ledgers are not concerned with 'net worth'.

Into the Night wrote:Unrelated example. Dropped. Strawman fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:Unrelated point. Dropped. Strawman fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Accounting isn't a standard.

Semantics-shifting fallacy. Mindless sloganeering fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Yes you did.

Denial of Authority fallacy. The IRS is absolutely the authority on tax law regarding bartering transactions that might occur in Wisconsin.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:A book is not an authoritative source.

Conflation-of-the-IRS-with-a-book-fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Contextomy fallacy.

Contextomy fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:Accounting isn't a standard.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:RQAA

Desperate EVASION.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:RQAA

Desperate EVASION.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Argument of the stone fallacy.

Embarrassingly desperate EVASION.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No, it isn't. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

Confusion of "Inventory" as being "Accounting." Denial of accounting rules.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

You opened the door. You brought them into the discussion as "accountants." If they are accountants then I am free to reference them as accountants. If they are not accountants then you lied.

You also pretend to speak for them by claiming that your position must be correct because you have family members that are accountants. I don't have to tell you that that's a really stupid argument.

Anyway, until you specify that you were somehow lying about your father and brother being accountants, I am entirely within my right to point out that they can confirm for you the accounting rules that you deny.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No need.

Of course not. You deny the rules of accounting that your father and brother could otherwise confirm for you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Semantics fallacy.

Gibberish fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Net worth does not require a currency.

Denial of the rules of accounting. Conflation of "Inventory" with "Accounting."
Your father and brother can confirm this for you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:You ARE pushing an agenda ...

What agenda am I pushing?

That wealth is money. RQAA.

Conflation-of-one's-definition-for-something-as-an-agenda fallacy.

Into the Night wrote: What you know is accounting using some kind of currency.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:It is not required to conduct accounting.

Total ignorance of accounting. Denial of accounting rules. Ignorance of "Net Worth." Conflation of "Inventory" with "Accounting" fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You are also still confusing ledgers with balance sheets, and making balance sheets a singleton authority...totally AGAINST accounting principles.

Assigning bogus positions fallacy. Total ignorance of accounting fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:. I am not making anything up.

Of course not. You're pulling it all out of your azz. You haven't the vaguest clue about accounting and yet you think you're a master of the topic.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You are confusing ledger with inventory control.

Assigning bogus positions fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:RQAA

Desperate EVASION.

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Your definition of wealth keeps changing.

Assigning bogus positions fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:RQAA.

Desperate EVASION now two levels deep.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Accounting has everything to do with wealth.

No. Accounting is not wealth.

Inability to read English fallacy. Most English-speaking adults can read "has everything to do with" and know that it means "relates to" and not "is." But you insist that you cannot. You have a problem.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: My definition is consistent. Yours isn't.

... yet you REFUSE to mention any characteristic of wealth that doesn't apply to money. You become consumed by dishonesty at the request. I choke on the dust cloud you kick up as you bolt in EVASION.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Symantics fallacy.

Conflation of an image with a link fallacy. Ignorance of what an image is.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy.

Denial of the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Accounting is not a standard.

Semantics-shift fallacy. Mindless sloganeering fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No. False authority fallacy.

Denial of the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:A ledger is not a balance sheet.

Assigning of bogus positions fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No conversion is necessary at all for either the ledger or the balance sheet.

Denial of the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:WRONG. He explained a transaction (ledger entry)

Contextomy fallacy. Assigning of bogus positions fallacy. Denial of the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: He also explained a simplified balance sheet,

He explained standard inventory tracking.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:... and how it does not have to use currency at all.

Inventory tracking doesn't need currency. Conflation of "Inventory" with "Accounting."

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:And you lost two goats. Where did they go?

Exactly. Inventory tracking doesn't care.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: No. This is not keeping track of anything going on. These are serious questions that accounting must raise, even though no currency is involved.

I'll avoid forcing you to EVADE yet again by not asking you how the Net Worth is modified by your inventory tracking.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Inventory control is one element of accounting.

Thank you. Exactly. One aspect of accounting is not the entirety of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Net worth is not 'adjusted'. It is calculated.

I can't believe you wrote that. What a stupid comment.

IBdaMann wrote:
State for the record that to the best of your understanding, whenever the Net Worth changes that the Net Worth value is nonetheless never adjusted. Please just state that for the record.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Ledgers are not concerned with 'net worth'.

Semantics fallacy. Ignorance of accounting theory.

IBdaMann wrote:
The credits and debits of all ledger entries must balance ... for the sake of keeping Net Worth correct. All ledger entries must follow very specific rules for precisely this reason. Your father and your brother can confirm this for you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Unrelated example. Dropped. Strawman fallacy.

Desperate EVASION. Heavy denial. Accounting cluelessness.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Unrelated point. Dropped. Strawman fallacy.

Desperate EVASION. Heavy denial. Accounting cluelessness.

IBdaMann wrote:
I have an idea. Why don't you just shelve the denial of the rules of accounting and just start a thread on how you believe accounting has become F'ed-up?

IBdaMann wrote:
That way you can express perfectly valid viewpoints without having to deny the existing rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
As it stands, nothing you have to say on the matter has any credibility.

IBdaMann wrote:
You're just wrong across the board.

IBdaMann wrote:
There's so much that you could be discussing that springboards off of the existing rules of accounting, the nature of currency and the nature of our existing government that doesn't require any sort of denial or redefinition of accounting. I would much rather be able to join in agreement with you than to roll around in the muck with you over your refusal to simply accept the reality of accounting as it is.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:I have made my points, you have made your points, and neither of us seem willing to budge on our positions regarding this matter

This is an amazingly revealing statement. It tells the reader that:

1. You have made the conscious decision to be thoroughly close-minded on the subject. From your statement above we know that this is because of overriding political considerations that you have. It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you are presented or how clearly the material is explained to you, you simply will not "budge."

2. You presume that the theory and rules of accounting are somehow an opinion of mine. Is the Pythagorean Theorem also one of my opinions? Is a 55 MPH speed limit one of my opinions? You are equating my attempts to explain accounting to you with holding steadfast on an opinion ... simply because the rules of accounting don't align with your political views. You have become an accounting denier.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:I have made my points, you have made your points, and neither of us seem willing to budge on our positions regarding this matter

This is an amazingly revealing statement. It tells the reader that:

1. You have made the conscious decision to be thoroughly close-minded on the subject. From your statement above we know that this is because of overriding political considerations that you have. It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you are presented or how clearly the material is explained to you, you simply will not "budge."

2. You presume that the theory and rules of accounting are somehow an opinion of mine. Is the Pythagorean Theorem also one of my opinions? Is a 55 MPH speed limit one of my opinions? You are equating my attempts to explain accounting to you with holding steadfast on an opinion ... simply because the rules of accounting don't align with your political views. You have become an accounting denier.

My point is that we are stuck in an "uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh" set of exchanges. This has nothing to do with politics or religion.

We are currently stuck in the following loop:

[1] IBD insists that the usage of a currency is a requirement of accounting.

[2] GFM provides a specific example of both a ledger entry and a bare bones down-to-the-essentials balance sheet, all the while never making any use of any sort of currency.

[3] IBD mistakenly labels #2 as "taking an inventory", and then reverts back to #1...


I can further detail Farmer Jim's accounting records for you if that would be of any help:

Remember that, before this transaction occurs, Farmer Jim owns 6 cows and Farmer Charlie owns 100 chickens. After the transaction occurs, Farmer Jim rushes home, pulls out his pen and paper ledger, and records the following transaction into it...

05/20/2021 - Bartered two cows for forty chickens.
Asset Account: Cows
05/20/2021: -2
Asset Account: Chickens
05/20/2021: +40

At this point, Farmer Jim could even pull out his balance sheet for you if you would like to know what his Net Worth is...

Balance Sheet: 05/20/2021
Asset Account: Cows = 4
Asset Account: Chickens = 40
Accounts Receivable: 0 cows, 0 chickens
Total Assets: 4 cows, 40 chickens

Accounts Payable: 0 cows, 0 chickens
Total Liabilities: 0 cows, 0 chickens

Net Worth: 4 cows, 40 chickens


Once again, Farmer Jim has fully accounted for his transaction with Farmer Charlie without making any use of any currency. Currency is not a requirement of accounting.

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:I have made my points, you have made your points, and neither of us seem willing to budge on our positions regarding this matter

This is an amazingly revealing statement. It tells the reader that:

1. You have made the conscious decision to be thoroughly close-minded on the subject. From your statement above we know that this is because of overriding political considerations that you have. It doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you are presented or how clearly the material is explained to you, you simply will not "budge."

2. You presume that the theory and rules of accounting are somehow an opinion of mine. Is the Pythagorean Theorem also one of my opinions? Is a 55 MPH speed limit one of my opinions? You are equating my attempts to explain accounting to you with holding steadfast on an opinion ... simply because the rules of accounting don't align with your political views. You have become an accounting denier.

My point is that we are stuck in an "uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh" set of exchanges. This has nothing to do with politics or religion.

We are currently stuck in the following loop:

[1] IBD insists that the usage of a currency is a requirement of accounting.

[2] GFM provides a specific example of both a ledger entry and a bare bones down-to-the-essentials balance sheet, all the while never making any use of any sort of currency.

[3] IBD mistakenly labels #2 as "taking an inventory", and then reverts back to #1...


I can further detail Farmer Jim's accounting records for you if that would be of any help:

Remember that, before this transaction occurs, Farmer Jim owns 6 cows and Farmer Charlie owns 100 chickens. After the transaction occurs, Farmer Jim rushes home, pulls out his pen and paper ledger, and records the following transaction into it...

05/20/2021 - Bartered two cows for forty chickens.
Asset Account: Cows
05/20/2021: -2
Asset Account: Chickens
05/20/2021: +40

At this point, Farmer Jim could even pull out his balance sheet for you if you would like to know what his Net Worth is...

Balance Sheet: 05/20/2021
Asset Account: Cows = 4
Asset Account: Chickens = 40
Accounts Receivable: 0 cows, 0 chickens
Total Assets: 4 cows, 40 chickens

Accounts Payable: 0 cows, 0 chickens
Total Liabilities: 0 cows, 0 chickens

Net Worth: 4 cows, 40 chickens


Once again, Farmer Jim has fully accounted for his transaction with Farmer Charlie without making any use of any currency. Currency is not a requirement of accounting.

The Profit and Loss statement also works:
Starting net worth: 6 cows
Liabilities outstanding: 0
Receivables outstanding: 0
Total activity:
losses: 2 cows
profit: 40 chickens
Net worth: 4 cows, 40 chickens

This corresponds to the net worth in the balance sheet. Cross check complete.

Inventory control also reports a current inventory of 4 cows, and 40 chickens. THAT cross check is complete.

This is the same information a merchant would have to report to an investor who may have provided three cows for his investment. His investment portfolio now includes 20 chickens and two cows. That's his share of the net worth.

The IRS, of course, does everything in dollars, not chickens and cows. The IRS will force a conversion to their currency at the rate they make up only to assess what they think to be a tax on farmer Jim. Farmer Jim may try to make this conversion himself when filling out his tax forms, and the IRS may or may not accept that bid. ALL of that is caused by the IRS being unable to define what 'income' means. NONE of what the IRS is doing is accounting in any way.

This sort of thing happens for real, also. If transactions and accounting makes use of yen, for example, it is the IRS that again forces conversion to dollars at the rate THEY specify, for the amount of transactions THEY figure took place under their jurisdiction, or sometimes even try to claim taxes OUTSIDE their jurisdiction. They are making shit up. There is no accounting happening here.

May 19, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. UTCUpdated May 19, 2021 at 8:15 p.m. UTC
Crypto Market Loses $460B as Ether, Altcoins Follow Bitcoin's Deep Dive

Prices for ether (ETH), the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, traded in deep red along with other alternative cryptocurrencies (altcoins), tumbling by more than bitcoin (BTC) in the biggest sell-off in digital asset markets since the "Black Thursday" of March 2020.

At press time, ether was trading at around $2,469.50, down 26.36% in the past 24 hours, according to FTX and TradingView, marking the biggest daily loss for ether since March 12, 2020.
There has also been a huge market dump in the decentralized finance sector, with DeFi-related tokens among the biggest losers, according to Messari. They included maker (MKR), yearn.finance (YFI), compound (COMP), uniswap (UNI), and chainlink (LINK).
"They are all dumping today and all correlating," said Joel Kruger, currency strategist at LMAX Digital.
Notably, the price for dogecoin (DOGE), the popular meme-centered cryptocurrency, also followed the broader market sell-off and was down by more than 20% in the past 24 hours to about $0.379, according to CoinDesk 20.
"Without significant mainstream adoption, recognition and utility, alts are, and have always been, more speculative in nature than bitcoin," said Hunain Naseer, senior editor at OKEx Insights. "This means they rise faster during bull runs and drop sharper during declines."
The correction across digital assets has caused a loss of more than $460 billion in the past 24 hours for the crypto's total market capitalization.
According to TradingView, the total market capitalization for crypto assets now stands at around $1.565 trillion, down 21.96% in the past 24 hours.

gfm7175 wrote:My point is that we are stuck in an "uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh" set of exchanges.

gfm7175 wrote:This has nothing to do with politics or religion.

gfm7175 wrote:[1] IBD insists that the usage of a currency is a requirement of accounting.

gfm7175 wrote: [2] GFM provides a specific example of both a [transaction] and an [inventory tracking] and erroneously calls them "accounting".

gfm7175 wrote:Once again, Farmer Jim has fully accounted for his transaction with Farmer Charlie and ensured his inventory is correct.

Into the Night wrote:Mockery. Denial of logic.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]Contextomy fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:No one is talking about tax law other than you.

Into the Night wrote:You are also ignoring the authority of the State of Wisconsin.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Mockery.

Into the Night wrote:Fallacy fallacy. Mockery.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]Your question has been answered. Stop asking it. RQAA.

Into the Night wrote:Contextomy fallacy. Inventory control is indeed part of accounting.

Into the Night wrote:You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

Into the Night wrote:I am not speaking for them.

Into the Night wrote:Mockery. Denial of logic.

Into the Night wrote:inventory control is part of accounting. I never said it was all of accounting. Semantics fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:So you are not saying the wealth is money?

Into the Night wrote: Mockery.

Into the Night wrote: Net worth is not the rules of accounting.

Into the Night wrote: I have already defined net worth to you,

Into the Night wrote:Inversion fallacy. Mockery.

Into the Night wrote:Your own statement is now a bogus position????

Into the Night wrote:I know enough to get around in it.

Into the Night wrote: I have already answered this question. Stop asking it. RQAA.

Into the Night wrote:I have broken no rules of accounting. Neither has gfm.

Into the Night wrote:You are STILL trying to equate ledger entries with maintaining a 'balance' of some kind.

Into the Night wrote:I have broken no rules of accounting.

Into the Night wrote:So ledgers don't keep track of transactions, eh?

Looks like some people are testing the waters, to see just what they can do, and how safe it really is to play the game. Takes a huge dive, when one or more of the big investors pull out, profitably. With the price per coin much lower, why not buy back the coins you sold, at half the price, you just sold them for... Of course the prices rises quickly, which attracts new investors to get in on certain big profits...

HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.coindesk.com/crypto-market-460b-ether-altcoins-bitcoin

May 19, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. UTCUpdated May 19, 2021 at 8:15 p.m. UTC
Crypto Market Loses $460B as Ether, Altcoins Follow Bitcoin's Deep Dive

Prices for ether (ETH), the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, traded in deep red along with other alternative cryptocurrencies (altcoins), tumbling by more than bitcoin (BTC) in the biggest sell-off in digital asset markets since the "Black Thursday" of March 2020.

At press time, ether was trading at around $2,469.50, down 26.36% in the past 24 hours, according to FTX and TradingView, marking the biggest daily loss for ether since March 12, 2020.
There has also been a huge market dump in the decentralized finance sector, with DeFi-related tokens among the biggest losers, according to Messari. They included maker (MKR), yearn.finance (YFI), compound (COMP), uniswap (UNI), and chainlink (LINK).
"They are all dumping today and all correlating," said Joel Kruger, currency strategist at LMAX Digital.
Notably, the price for dogecoin (DOGE), the popular meme-centered cryptocurrency, also followed the broader market sell-off and was down by more than 20% in the past 24 hours to about $0.379, according to CoinDesk 20.
"Without significant mainstream adoption, recognition and utility, alts are, and have always been, more speculative in nature than bitcoin," said Hunain Naseer, senior editor at OKEx Insights. "This means they rise faster during bull runs and drop sharper during declines."
The correction across digital assets has caused a loss of more than $460 billion in the past 24 hours for the crypto's total market capitalization.
According to TradingView, the total market capitalization for crypto assets now stands at around $1.565 trillion, down 21.96% in the past 24 hours.

Looks like some people are testing the waters, to see just what they can do, and how safe it really is to play the game. Takes a huge dive, when one or more of the big investors pull out, profitably. With the price per coin much lower, why not buy back the coins you sold, at half the price, you just sold them for... Of course the prices rises quickly, which attracts new investors to get in on certain big profits...

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:My point is that we are stuck in an "uh huh, nuh uh, uh huh, nuh uh" set of exchanges.

Not quite. You are stuck believing that I am somehow making up the rules of accounting and that they are purely a matter of personal taste.

IBdaMann wrote:
If I try to explain the rules of accounting to you, you simply regurgitate how you believe they are something other than what they are.

IBdaMann wrote:
I thought you had wanted to drop the subject entirely on account of this.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:This has nothing to do with politics or religion.

It has clearly become a political matter of religious devotion to you, to the extent that you honestly believe that the rules of accounting are whatever you say they are, and if you want them to simply be inventory then by God that's what they must be.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is a delusion on your part and you are certainly welcome to whatever delusions add to your quality of life.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:[1] IBD insists that the usage of a currency is a requirement of accounting.

I am simply pointing that out. I didn't make the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
I think we both know that the reason you REFUSE to independently verify this on your own is that you know that your religio-political delusion will come crashing down.

IBdaMann wrote:
You wanted to drop the subject on account of this.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: [2] GFM provides a specific example of both a [transaction] and an [inventory tracking] and erroneously calls them "accounting".

I get it. You are stuck on regurgitating this particular fantasy of yours that totally denies the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
I fully support you in your delusion.

IBdaMann wrote:
I don't know what you believe I am arguing other than agreeing that you hold the position that you hold. You believe that the rules of accounting permit Net Worth to be listed in chickens. This is comedy gold and I support you believing whatever you wish to believe.

IBdaMann wrote:
Is your objection simply that I do not deny the rules of accounting as you do?

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Once again, Farmer Jim has fully accounted for his transaction with Farmer Charlie and ensured his inventory is correct.

Yep, I get it. You believe a proper balance sheet has been crafted. I'm not arguing that you somehow believe anything else.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let me know when you have independently researched from an authoritative source that the rules of accounting allow for Net Worth to be listed in chickens. I'd like to see it myself.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Mockery. Denial of logic.

Complete accuracy in my assessment. You richly deserve a great deal of mockery.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]Contextomy fallacy.

Failure to keep up with the conversation fallacy. Go back and re-read.

Into the Night wrote:No one is talking about tax law other than you.

Invalid insistence that gfm7175 was not somehow talking about bartering that could have possibly occurred in Wisconsin. Failure to keep up with the conversation fallacy. Problems reading English. Inability to follow a simple line of logic. Inability to grasp references and analogies. Incoherent babbling and wasting of bandwidth. Incompetence posting on the internet.

Into the Night wrote:You are also ignoring the authority of the State of Wisconsin.

False claims. No one is ignoring Wisconsin. Irrelevance fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Mockery.

... also richly deserved.

Into the Night wrote:Fallacy fallacy. Mockery.

Babbling fallacy. Gibbering fallacy. Irrelevance fallacy. Bandwidth wasting.

Into the Night wrote:[quote]Your question has been answered. Stop asking it. RQAA.

My question has never been answered. EVASION fallacy. Dishonesty. Cowardice. Unbecoming desperation.

I'm still choking a bit on your dust cloud.

So, just a reminder where we stand, you can't think of any way that money is not wealth ... yet your extremist political views force you to double-down on total stupid ... over a point that is hardly worth mentioning.

Your EVASION is now unnecessary. You have already openly displayed how the rules of accounting threaten your WACKY dogma. That cat is out of the bag. Nobody needs to watch you EVADE anymore to know how no dishonesty is beneath you in your attempts to push your extremist agenda.

Enjoy.

Into the Night wrote:Contextomy fallacy. Inventory control is indeed part of accounting.

Mathematical incompetence. Ignorance of set theory. Assigning of bogus positions.

I already acknowledged that inventory is part of accounting. I'm amazed that you never learned that if A is part of B that A does not equate to B. Did you ever take a math class?

Into the Night wrote:You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

Tired sloganeering. You claimed your father and brother are accountants. You. You made this claim. Nobody else made this claim. You made this claim.

Did you lie? Are you a liar? Are they really not accountants?

I know that you are having problems lately following logic, perhaps you had a stroke recently. Try to follow along.

*IF* your father and brother are accountants *THEN* they can confirm the rules of accounting that you deny when you double-down on stupid.

*IF* your father and brother cannot confirm the rules of accounting then they are not accountants and you are a liar.

Which one is the case?

Into the Night wrote:I am not speaking for them.

You tried to. It was a really stupid attempt but you tried.

Into the Night wrote:Mockery. Denial of logic.

You are the only one denying logic. You are the one who panics and EVADES when logic is applied (or who simply punts when set theory is involved).

Now that you mention it, I should mock you a second time for your belief that inventory equates to accounting because inventory is part of accounting! Where did you not go to school?

Into the Night wrote:inventory control is part of accounting. I never said it was all of accounting. Semantics fallacy.

Semantics fallacy.

You illustrate clear examples of inventory tracking and call it "accounting."

Yes, you equate inventory with accounting. You deny the rules of accounting.

*REMINDER* Don't forget to tell me which one is the case, i.e. that your father and brother can confirm the rules of accounting that you deny or that you are a liar.

Don't let this one slip through the cracks.

[Desperate cowardice-driven EVASION imminent]

Into the Night wrote:So you are not saying the wealth is money?

Pulling a tmiddles fallacy. Inability to comprehend English. Inability to grasp that a definition is not a political agenda.

I can't help you. You're too stupid.

Into the Night wrote: Mockery.

I promise to try to work some in everywhere it is warranted.

Into the Night wrote: Net worth is not the rules of accounting.

Denial of accounting. You can check with your father and your brother. Net Worth is certainly included in the rules of accounting ... unless you are a liar, of course, and your father and brother are not accountants.

Into the Night wrote: I have already defined net worth to you,

False authority fallacy. The rules of accounting are not a matter of personal taste and neither you nor gfm7175 get to redefine accounting ... or the terms within the body of knowledge, e.g. Net Worth.

Don't misunderstand, both you and gfm7175 are free to refer to your own inventory tracking as "accounting." No one is trying to take that away from you.

You know, I was just about to take the time to explain Net Worth to you in a way that would enable you to see its relationship to the currency used, but you have made it clear that you have gone into total cognitive blackout while diverting all power into your belief that you know fuuuking everything so I won't waste my time. Learning is simply not part of your agenda.

... and all this over so trivial a point. WTF?

Into the Night wrote:Inversion fallacy. Mockery.

Babbling fallacy. Gibbering fallacy. Bandwidth wasting. EVASION. Dishonesty. Cowardice.

Into the Night wrote:Your own statement is now a bogus position????

Illiteracy. Inability to grasp basic English. Internet incompetence.

Into the Night wrote:I know enough to get around in it.

Oh yeah, I can see that.

At least you can do inventory.

Into the Night wrote: I have already answered this question. Stop asking it. RQAA.

Extreme cowardice. EVASION. Desperation. Dishonesty/Outright lying.

Again, it is unnecessary at this point. You have revealed your true colors.

Into the Night wrote:I have broken no rules of accounting. Neither has gfm.

Neither of you have engaged in accounting. As long as you stick with your inventory tracking you're fine.

... and that's all you'll be doing because no one will ever consult with you for your accounting expertise.

Into the Night wrote:You are STILL trying to equate ledger entries with maintaining a 'balance' of some kind.

Yes. All ledger entries must balance per the credits and the debits. Your father and your brother can confirm this rule of accounting for you ... unless you are a liar ... which is looking more and more to be the case.

What do you think your problem might be in being unable to distinguish between the verb "to balance" as in "all ledger entries must balance" with the term "balance sheet" which is a noun. Is this just part of your English illiteracy or have you not recovered from your stroke?

Into the Night wrote:I have broken no rules of accounting.

Correct. You refuse to engage in accounting. You remain firmly rooted in inventory tracking.

Into the Night wrote:So ledgers don't keep track of transactions, eh?

Assigning of bogus positions fallacy. Pulling a tmiddles fallacy. Desperate derailment of the operating context of discourse.

Accounting has rules that you deny. These rules include those that govern ledger entries. You deny those rules as well.

Your errors flow from your denial of accounting rules.

All of the transactions you describe are devoid of the requirements to be valid ledger entries. If you weren't totally clueless in accounting then you would have understood this days ago. Of course, if you didn't presume to know everything about accounting despite your glaring incompetence, and if you didn't presume that you simply get to reengineer accounting to suit your personal taste then you would have long-since independently researched the requirements for ledger entries yourself and we never would have even had to have this conversation. Of course, if you were telling the truth and your father and brother are actually accountants then it is more than likely that you already asked them about this and they didn't give you the answer you had hoped, which is why you are so desperate I not mention them.

So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Accounting requires balancing across Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth which are necessarily values in some currency. Your steadfast denial of the rules of accounting are as deeply rooted in mathematical incompetence as in your inability to understand basic English. It's not like the words are dodging around on the screen. Something is preventing you from comprehending the exceedingly simple.

Your posts are total wastes of bandwidth. You are spewing pure gibberish.

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

IBdaMann wrote:
Accounting requires balancing across Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

IBdaMann wrote:
which are necessarily values in some currency.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Sounds like you're claiming that the SODC government can quickly and easily increase wealth by printing ten trillion dollars...

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Sounds like you're claiming that the SODC government can quickly and easily increase wealth by printing ten trillion dollars...

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Sounds like you're claiming that the SODC government can quickly and easily increase wealth by printing ten trillion dollars...

Bingo.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Accounting requires balancing across Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

... and you have been shown this in the cow/chicken example.

gfm7175 wrote:My inventory (consisting of four cows and forty chickens)

gfm7175 wrote:Of course, you wish to see it reported like this:

gfm7175 wrote:There is no difference in what I am doing and what you are asking of me,

gfm7175 wrote: except for your arbitrary requirement that my assets be reported as a "dollar amount" (in the form of a particular currency)...

gfm7175 wrote:Accounting does not require the use of any currency.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Sounds like you're claiming that the SODC government can quickly and easily increase wealth by printing ten trillion dollars...

It sounds like you are assigning to me a bogus position. Have you run out of your own bogus positions?

gfm7175 wrote:Not a bogus position assignment... It's a logical extension of your very own statement that you just made.

gfm7175 wrote:[1] money is wealth
[2] printing money increases the amount of money
[3] increasing the amount of money, per #2, increases the amount of wealth, per #1

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Accounting requires balancing across Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

... and you have been shown this in the cow/chicken example.

You have not shown anything of the sort. Your error has been explained to you multiple times and each time you insist on remaining totally ignorant of accounting.

Totally ignorant. Let's not fool ourselves.

I thought we had determined that it would be best to just drop the subject and leave you to remain in bliss. You certainly seem much happier when you aren't being threatened by the rules of accounting. I have no plans to push any agenda. ... as you need to do ...so I don't quite understand your insistence that I continue to point out your egregious errors.

gfm7175 wrote:My inventory (consisting of four cows and forty chickens)

All you and Into the Night had was inventory sheets. Nothing more. You had no balance statement (that requires valuation under a currency). You had taken a total inventory and nothing more. Into the Night had no profit&loss statement. He detailed his "change in inventory" to which he could have included a profit&loss statement ... but that would necessarily require valuation under a currency.

This is where you insist "nuh-uh .. no currency is needed" because that's what Into the Night has instructed you to say.

I then will remind you that neither of you know anything about accounting.

You, of course, will then bulveristically insist that you are a master of accounting since you know exactly how you have declared your preferred accounting rules to be ... and because you work in "Accounts Receivables."

I will then wonder why oh why didn't gym7175 just drop the subject when he was behind, four posts back.

gfm7175 wrote:Of course, you wish to see it reported like this:

You're being a bonehead. I don't *wish* anything.

gfm7175 wrote:There is no difference in what I am doing and what you are asking of me,

I'm not asking anything of you except to acknowledge that I extended to you the courtesy of explaining the rules of accounting. You and Into the Night are the ones who have been trying to push your own invented rules of accounting onto me and assigning to me all sorts of bogus positions along the way just for having dared explain the relevant rules of accounting to you.

I will admit, however, that it really is amusing when you and Into the Night pretend to correct me. It is actually a bit of welcome comedy relief amidst your condescending bulverism and your totally dishonest butchering of my positions.

gfm7175 wrote: except for your arbitrary requirement that my assets be reported as a "dollar amount" (in the form of a particular currency)...

So you *do* think that I created the rules of accounting. Do you think this because Into the Night told you to think this? Do you believe this makes you particularly brilliant?

gfm7175 wrote:Accounting does not require the use of any currency.

Correct. Inventory (what you call "accounting) requires no currency.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Sounds like you're claiming that the SODC government can quickly and easily increase wealth by printing ten trillion dollars...

It sounds like you are assigning to me a bogus position. Have you run out of your own bogus positions?

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
So, here's where we stand.

Money is wealth. Your comical denial is as illogical as it is delusional ... and your dishonesty on the matter is totally transparent. Oh, and your extremist politics are stupid.

Sounds like you're claiming that the SODC government can quickly and easily increase wealth by printing ten trillion dollars...

Bingo.

Assigning bogus positions is all you have left.

How disappointing.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Accounting requires balancing across Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

... and you have been shown this in the cow/chicken example.

You have not shown anything of the sort. Your error has been explained to you multiple times and each time you insist on remaining totally ignorant of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
Totally ignorant. Let's not fool ourselves.

IBdaMann wrote:
I thought we had determined that it would be best to just drop the subject and leave you to remain in bliss.

IBdaMann wrote:
You certainly seem much happier when you aren't being threatened by the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
I have no plans to push any agenda.

IBdaMann wrote:
... as you need to do ...so I don't quite understand your insistence that I continue to point out your egregious errors.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:My inventory (consisting of four cows and forty chickens)

All you and Into the Night had was inventory sheets. Nothing more.

IBdaMann wrote:
You had no balance statement

IBdaMann wrote:
(that requires valuation under a currency).

IBdaMann wrote:
You had taken a total inventory and nothing more.

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night had no profit&loss statement. He detailed his "change in inventory" to which he could have included a profit&loss statement ... but that would necessarily require valuation under a currency.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is where you insist "nuh-uh .. no currency is needed" because that's what Into the Night has instructed you to say.

IBdaMann wrote:
I then will remind you that neither of you know anything about accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
You, of course, will then bulveristically insist that you are a master of accounting since you know exactly how you have declared your preferred accounting rules to be ... and because you work in "Accounts Receivables."

IBdaMann wrote:
I will then wonder why oh why didn't gym7175 just drop the subject when he was behind, four posts back.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Of course, you wish to see it reported like this:

You're being a bonehead. I don't *wish* anything.

gfm7175 wrote:There is no difference in what I am doing and what you are asking of me,

I'm not asking anything of you except to acknowledge that I extended to you the courtesy of explaining the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
You and Into the Night are the ones who have been trying to push your own invented rules of accounting onto me and assigning to me all sorts of bogus positions along the way just for having dared explain the relevant rules of accounting to you.

IBdaMann wrote:
I will admit, however, that it really is amusing when you and Into the Night pretend to correct me.

IBdaMann wrote:
It is actually a bit of welcome comedy relief amidst your condescending bulverism and your totally dishonest butchering of my positions.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: except for your arbitrary requirement that my assets be reported as a "dollar amount" (in the form of a particular currency)...

So you *do* think that I created the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you think this because Into the Night told you to think this?

IBdaMann wrote:
Do you believe this makes you particularly brilliant?

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Accounting does not require the use of any currency.

Correct. Inventory (what you call "accounting) requires no currency.

Into the Night wrote:Assumption of victory fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Not a bogus position assignment... It's a logical extension of your very own statement that you just made.

It only appears logical to someone who sucks at economics.

gfm7175 wrote:[1] money is wealth
[2] printing money increases the amount of money
[3] increasing the amount of money, per #2, increases the amount of wealth, per #1

gfm7175 Statement #1: Pizza is food
gfm7175 Statement #2: Slicing the pizza into more slices increases the amount of pizza
gfm7175 Statement #3: More pizza slices means there's more food.

Your logic sucks. Learn economics.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and could I possibly get you to stop pretending to assign me my positions.

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't have to worry, I have never had any problem telling you what my position is.

IBdaMann wrote:
You, on the other hand, have a poor track record at getting my position correct.

IBdaMann wrote:
Also, if I tell you that I do not hold a bogus position that you are assigning to me, don't try to correct me. I am the only authority on what positions I hold.

IBdaMann wrote:
Hint: You introduced the act of printing money which diminishes the value of existing money. Printing money does not increase wealth any more than increasing the number of slices of a pizza.

IBdaMann wrote:
This would be an excellent time for you to pretend to be an economics genius and attempt to "correct" me. The very thought gets me all tingly.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Accounting requires balancing across Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

... and you have been shown this in the cow/chicken example.

You have not shown anything of the sort. Your error has been explained to you multiple times and each time you insist on remaining totally ignorant of accounting.

Totally ignorant. Let's not fool ourselves.

I thought we had determined that it would be best to just drop the subject and leave you to remain in bliss. You certainly seem much happier when you aren't being threatened by the rules of accounting. I have no plans to push any agenda. ... as you need to do ...so I don't quite understand your insistence that I continue to point out your egregious errors.

gfm7175 wrote:My inventory (consisting of four cows and forty chickens)

All you and Into the Night had was inventory sheets. Nothing more. You had no balance statement (that requires valuation under a currency). You had taken a total inventory and nothing more. Into the Night had no profit&loss statement. He detailed his "change in inventory" to which he could have included a profit&loss statement ... but that would necessarily require valuation under a currency.

This is where you insist "nuh-uh .. no currency is needed" because that's what Into the Night has instructed you to say.

I then will remind you that neither of you know anything about accounting.

You, of course, will then bulveristically insist that you are a master of accounting since you know exactly how you have declared your preferred accounting rules to be ... and because you work in "Accounts Receivables."

I will then wonder why oh why didn't gym7175 just drop the subject when he was behind, four posts back.

gfm7175 wrote:Of course, you wish to see it reported like this:

You're being a bonehead. I don't *wish* anything.

gfm7175 wrote:There is no difference in what I am doing and what you are asking of me,

I'm not asking anything of you except to acknowledge that I extended to you the courtesy of explaining the rules of accounting. You and Into the Night are the ones who have been trying to push your own invented rules of accounting onto me and assigning to me all sorts of bogus positions along the way just for having dared explain the relevant rules of accounting to you.

I will admit, however, that it really is amusing when you and Into the Night pretend to correct me. It is actually a bit of welcome comedy relief amidst your condescending bulverism and your totally dishonest butchering of my positions.

gfm7175 wrote: except for your arbitrary requirement that my assets be reported as a "dollar amount" (in the form of a particular currency)...

So you *do* think that I created the rules of accounting. Do you think this because Into the Night told you to think this? Do you believe this makes you particularly brilliant?

gfm7175 wrote:Accounting does not require the use of any currency.

Correct. Inventory (what you call "accounting) requires no currency.

.

You're a very smart guy, but when it comes to this particular accounting discussion, you are dead wrong and too proud to admit it.

gfm7175 wrote:
Yes, I do AR Accounting for a living (almost nine years of real world experience now). Yes, I have had formal education in accounting (and even have a degree in it). So, meaningless-on-an-internet-forum credentials aside:

I can tell that you have read some books and or websites relating to accounting. You've made use of particular accounting lingo that tells me this. One thing that I sense that you have read up on is something called "double entry bookkeeping". Under this bookkeeping method, every entry into an account requires a corresponding entry into another account. This is where your obsession with "t-accounts" comes into play, as that is a common way to teach accounting students as to how this particular bookkeeping method works. I call it a teaching method since I have never once made any use of a t-account outside of my high school and college accounting courses. Anyway, if you draw a T, it makes for two sides (a debit side and a credit side). Under "double entry bookkeeping", each transaction will involve two such "t-accounts", and entries must be done in a way in which debits and credits equal each other, or as you say, "balance".

For instance, if Farmer Jim were to purchase a cow for $500, a 'debit' entry (or the left side of the "t-account" teaching method) for $500 would be made into an Asset account called "Cows" and a corresponding 'credit' entry (or the right side of the "t-account" teaching method) for $500 would be made into another Asset account called "Cash". Thus, 'debits' and 'credits' are now in "balance". The transaction "balances", as one asset (cows) was increased by $500 and another asset (cash) was decreased by $500. This "checks" with the accounting equation (which is not a cross check btw) and IBD is now grinning from ear to ear. $500 debit equals $500 credit... Balance balance BALANCE!!!!! BAAAAALANCEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! Mmmmmm, I sure love my t-accounts!!! They BAAAAALAANNNNNNNCEEEEEEEE with each other!!!!!!

gfm7175 wrote:
However, it is at this very point that I throw in an example that is not included inside of whatever book or website you've been using to read up on "double entry bookkeeping", and precisely where you go off the deep end because you don't understand the essence of accounting (and desperately wish for money to be wealth). What you are failing to understand is that, in my example of cows and chickens, I am performing the very exact same ledger entry process that I have just got done describing to you above.

To match with my above example, but simply choosing to make use of 100 chickens rather than $500, a 'debit' entry of 1 cow is being made into the "Cows" Asset account and a corresponding 'credit' entry of 100 chickens is being made into the "Chickens" Asset account. This is the precise moment that you become completely irate, since the number 1 does not equal the number 100 (as you read in your books/websites). OH NO!!! IT DOESN'T BALANCE!!!! 1 DOES NOT EQUAL 100!!!!!! It MUUUUUST BALLLLAAAAANCEEEEEEE!!!!!! Call the balance police!!!!

However, it DOES balance if you would actually do the comparison between the two examples in an equivalent manner... The only difference here is that I am paying for my cow with 100 chickens rather than with $500 dollars. To make the comparison easy for an accounting novice to understand:

What IBD wants to see: "$500" (aka, the dollar conversion of one cow) = $500 ... BALANCE!!!!
What I am doing instead: "100 chickens" (aka, the chicken conversion of one cow) = 100 chickens ... BALANCE!!!!

"100 chickens" equals 100 chickens just as "$500" equals $500... I am quite literally following the exact same "double entry bookkeeping" accounting procedure that I described above, doing the exact same process for my ledger entries, running the exact same financial statements and reports, doing the exact same month-end and year-end entries, yet you continue to deny all of this and continue to egregiously mislabel what I am doing as "inventory". Nowhere during any of this post have I ever logged any inventory changes nor have I ever physically done any inventory checks.
Inventory control does not log inventory changes. It simply counts inventory. This information is necessary to figure the balance sheet, but NOT the P&L.
[quote]gfm7175 wrote:
Once again, accounting does NOT require the usage of any currency. While currency may be a requirement of the IRS for their own taxation purposes, it is NOT a requirement of accounting itself.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Assumption of victory fallacy.

Lying fallacy. Assignment of bogus positions fallacy. Desperation fallacy. No argument presented.

Gibberish is all you have left. You have thrown all honesty out the window ... over my personal definition of wealth ... just because the existing rules of accounting threaten your extremist political views.

Instead of listing your complaints with accounting as it is, you decided to go after me, to malign me, lie about me and to become a general ashsole. What did I ever do to you? Did I rape your daughter?

What a moron. You couldn't have found a faster way to cause someone to lose all respect for you. You have transformed yourself into tmiddles.

Very disappointing.

gfm7175 wrote:You're a very smart guy, but when it comes to this particular accounting discussion, you are dead wrong and too proud to admit it.

gfm7175 wrote: Yes, I do AR Accounting for a living

gfm7175 wrote:Yes, I have had formal education in accounting (and even have a degree in it).

gfm7175 wrote:I can tell that you have read some books and or websites relating to accounting.

gfm7175 wrote:This is where your obsession with "t-accounts" comes into play,

gfm7175 wrote:. I call it a teaching method since I have never once made any use of a t-account outside of my high school and college accounting courses.

gfm7175 wrote:Anyway, if you draw a T, it makes for two sides (a debit side and a credit side). Under "double entry bookkeeping", ...

gfm7175 wrote:each transaction will involve two such "t-accounts", and entries must be done in a way in which debits and credits equal each other, or as you say, "balance".

gfm7175 wrote: Balance balance BALANCE!!!!! BAAAAALANCEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! Mmmmmm, I sure love my t-accounts!!! They BAAAAALAANNNNNNNCEEEEEEEE with each other!!!!!!

gfm7175 wrote: However, it is at this very point that I throw in an example that is not included inside of whatever book or website you've been using ...

gfm7175 wrote: To match with my above example, but simply choosing to make use of 100 chickens rather than $500,

gfm7175 wrote: Once again, accounting does NOT require the usage of any currency.

gfm7175 wrote: While currency may be a requirement of the IRS for their own taxation purposes, it is NOT a requirement of accounting itself.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:You're a very smart guy, but when it comes to this particular accounting discussion, you are dead wrong and too proud to admit it.

Unfortunately you have passed on all opportunities to engage in honest discussion on the matter. You have revealed yourself to be totally dishonest on this subject and one must presume that everything you write is a direct lie.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's look at your tired refrain about how I am somehow wrong. All this started because I simply extended to you the courtesy of explaining the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
You never thanked me for simply pointing you in the right direction so that you could verify it for yourself. You never thanked me because you did not appreciate the information. The rules of accounting threaten you. You can't possibly appreciate my information when it totally jeopardizes your delusion-bubble.

IBdaMann wrote:
Since you cannot effectively attack the rules of accounting,

IBdaMann wrote:
you instead opt to malign me and attempt to "discredit" me ... so you pretend that I am making some sort of affirmative argument rather than noting that I am simply pointing you to the existing rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
You can't say that the rules of accounting are somehow wrong

IBdaMann wrote:
so you try what you believe is the next best thing which is to say that I am somehow wrong.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course you hope that no one notices that you have not cited any authoritative sources on accounting indicating that balancing ledger entries across a currency is merely optional. Wouldn't that be easy to do if it were the case?

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: Yes, I do AR Accounting for a living

Perhaps you work in AR but given your intentional lying on every aspect of this topic, my presumption is that you simply answer the phone, maybe you are an administrative assistant, perhaps you do filing, ... but you don't do anything related to accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know anything about accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:
Everything you have said up to this point would be readily flagged by any first-year accounting student as being totally incorrect. All of it.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Yes, I have had formal education in accounting (and even have a degree in it).

I don't buy it for a second, but given your dishonesty on this topic, I wouldn't be surprised if you are slowly working your way up to claiming to be a CPA. I won't buy it either when you eventually get there.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:I can tell that you have read some books and or websites relating to accounting.

You are not able to "tell" anything. This little dishonest jab of yours is an attempt to claim omniscience and to pretend that you know my credentials which I have never listed.

IBdaMann wrote:
I thoroughly understand all the material I have referenced

IBdaMann wrote:
and the easiest way anyone can verify that is to note that up to this point I have merely cited the rules of accounting,

IBdaMann wrote:
any of which can be quickly verified ...

IBdaMann wrote:
presuming one doesn't have a debilitating fear of the rules of accounting due to the threat they represent to one's political agenda.

IBdaMann wrote:
I simply pointed you in the right direction and said "go verify this for yourself."

IBdaMann wrote:
I think anyone reading this thread can surmise that you have already scoured the internet desperately searching for some authoritative source indicating that I am in error

IBdaMann wrote:
... and have found none ... which is why you keep reverting back to bogus inventory examples that you insisted on mislabelling as "accounting" in an attempt to buy time

IBdaMann wrote:
... even to the extent of referring to certain inventory documents as "balance sheets" (which tell even lay people that you are clueless on accounting) and to a bartering transaction as a "Profit and Loss Statement."

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know anything about accounting. That much is clear.

IBdaMann wrote:
So the question remains "How do you, of all people, pretend to correct me about what the rules of accounting say?"

IBdaMann wrote:
It's totally absurd, yet you somehow expect that after your open display of ignorance on the subject that people will somehow view you as an authority on the matter.

IBdaMann wrote:
You went to all this trouble just to get out of saying "Thank you for the info."

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:This is where your obsession with "t-accounts" comes into play,

At this point, in order to distract attention away from your incompetence in the subject matter, you are portraying me as someone with an obsession.

IBdaMann wrote:
I made a reference to T-accounts. What error did I make?

IBdaMann wrote:
In order for me to have an obsession with T-accounts I must be insisting on something erroneous about T-accounts. What is that error?

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:. I call it a teaching method since I have never once made any use of a t-account outside of my high school and college accounting courses.

You never had a checking account? Well, that might give us a major clue as to why you aren't very literate in economics and finance.

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know what a T-account is. You don't know anything about accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Anyway, if you draw a T, it makes for two sides (a debit side and a credit side). Under "double entry bookkeeping", ...

For people such as yourself who are scrambling to Wikipedia in order to glean sufficient verbiage to sound plausible, those of us who understand accounting refer to a T-account as simply a specific account within the overarching financial picture. In your examples, Farmer Joe's chicken T-account increased and decreased per various transactions. Farmer Joe's chicken inventory was reflected in the accounting as Farmer Joe's chicken T-account, just as the BALANCE in your checking account is reflected in the bank's "gfm7175 checking" T-account.

IBdaMann wrote:
Is there any chance I can get a "thank you" for the free information?

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:each transaction will involve two such "t-accounts", and entries must be done in a way in which debits and credits equal each other, or as you say, "balance".

Yes. Now finish that thought. What is needed to make those debits and credits balance? Hint: up to this point you have been fighting tooth-and-nail to deny it.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: Balance balance BALANCE!!!!! BAAAAALANCEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! Mmmmmm, I sure love my t-accounts!!! They BAAAAALAANNNNNNNCEEEEEEEE with each other!!!!!!

Now your back to advertising that you don't know anything about accounting. T-accounts don't balance with each other. If you and I have checking accounts at the same bank, they don't somehow balance between themselves.

IBdaMann wrote:
Per my previous question, how does your checking account "balance." What would be required to make Farmer Joe's bartering transactions "balance" in this sense? Hint: The correct answer has nothing to do with verifying an accurate inventory or with verifying that you know how to count chickens.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: However, it is at this very point that I throw in an example that is not included inside of whatever book or website you've been using ...

It is at this point that you attempt to redefine the rules of accounting.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: To match with my above example, but simply choosing to make use of 100 chickens rather than $500,

In that example you had simply declared chickens as your currency. Run the same example but use yen as your currency instead of chickens and see if it still works out.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: Once again, accounting does NOT require the usage of any currency.

Incorrect. Your insistence on being incorrect is noted.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote: While currency may be a requirement of the IRS for their own taxation purposes, it is NOT a requirement of accounting itself.

The IRS follows the rules of accounting, not the other way around.

IBdaMann wrote:
US Tax law adheres to the rules of accounting, not the other way around.

IBdaMann wrote:
All the non-appointed senior decision-makers at the IRS are CPAs.

IBdaMann wrote:
In tax court, all the star witnesses that carry any weight are CPAs.

IBdaMann wrote:
You are as objectively incorrect as you can possibly be.

IBdaMann wrote:
How about a "thank you" for the free information?

Into the Night wrote:Bulverism fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:Nope. You never did. You simply stated that currency is required for accounting.

Into the Night wrote:It isn't.

Into the Night wrote: You simply stated that GL must 'balance. It doesn't.

Into the Night wrote:Paradoxes are NOT the right direction, dude.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Since you cannot effectively attack the rules of accounting,

He isn't attacking the rules of accounting.

Into the Night wrote:He is using the rules of accounting.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:You can't say that the rules of accounting are somehow wrong

He isn't.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
so you try what you believe is the next best thing which is to say that I am somehow wrong.

you are wrong.

Into the Night wrote:You are locked in numerous paradoxes.

Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy. Ledgers are not balance sheets.

Into the Night wrote:Insult fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:I believe his claim that he works in AR.

Into the Night wrote: He understands what it is and how it ties into GL.

Into the Night wrote:You don't get to speak for 1st year accounting students,

Into the Night wrote: He has shown an understanding, however, of AR, GL, IC, and balance sheets.

Into the Night wrote:He is not claiming any credentials for you.

Into the Night wrote:What you are referencing seems to be out of date,

Into the Night wrote: you do not understand the material you are referencing.

Into the Night wrote:No, you have not. I have already shown why.

Into the Night wrote:There is no need to verify your own paradoxes. You made them. Only YOU can clear them.

Into the Night wrote:He has stated no corresponding political agenda. Neither have I.

Into the Night wrote:He has already given you practical examples.

Into the Night wrote:He has not had to scour the internet for anything. Neither have I.

Into the Night wrote:He does not need to buy time. He has given good examples. Done.

Into the Night wrote:He has not referred to a barter transaction as a P&L nor as a balance sheet.

Into the Night wrote:He has shown enough authority on the matter in his examples.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:This is where your obsession with "t-accounts" comes into play,

At this point, in order to distract attention away from your incompetence in the subject matter, you are portraying me as someone with an obsession.

I would too.

Into the Night wrote: You have an obsession that money is somehow wealth, and that a currency is somehow required in accounting.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: I made a reference to T-accounts. What error did I make?

They are obsolete. GFM adjusted his example to "T" form for you.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:In order for me to have an obsession with T-accounts I must be insisting on something erroneous about T-accounts. What is that error?

RQAA

Into the Night wrote:Strawman fallacy. Checking accounts do not use "T" accounting.

Into the Night wrote:You keep a ledger, and the bank keeps a ledger. When the bank statement arrives, you compare your ledgers to 'balance' your checkbook.

Into the Night wrote:It is actually just a comparison, not a balance sheet of any kind.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:You don't know what a T-account is. You don't know anything about accounting.

He does.

Into the Night wrote:WRONG.

Into the Night wrote: Preaching and paradoxes is not information.

Into the Night wrote:Nothing. It's already done.

Into the Night wrote:RQAA.

Into the Night wrote:He is not redefining anything.

Into the Night wrote:It does, and chickens are not being used as a currency.

Into the Night wrote:The IRS does not define accounting.
False authority fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:US Tax law adheres to the rules of accounting, not the other way around.

He is not trying to make a reversal fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
In tax court, all the star witnesses that carry any weight are CPAs.

Bigotry. They are not.

IBdaMann wrote:
... all because of my personal definition of wealth. Wow.

IBdaMann wrote:
Anyway, of course you believe every claim gfm7175 makes

IBdaMann wrote:
He looks to you to find out what to claim on any given issue

IBdaMann wrote:
You might have told him to claim that he works in AR.

IBdaMann wrote:
It matters not but naturally you are going "believe" everything that he parrots. I notice that you stand poised to "agree" with him whenever he intentionally misrepresents my position, rather than jump in to correct him ... because you are part of the dishonesty, nay, you are driving it.

IBdaMann wrote:
He has shown no understanding of Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth ... and everything in accounting flows from that ... which means he doesn't know anything. All he has shown about AR, GL, IC, and balance sheets is his ability to spell those terms.

IBdaMann wrote:
I would say that you [ITN] are just gibbering at this point but I can't remember any point in this thread where you weren't.

IBdaMann wrote:
I totally get how gfm7175 has turned his thinking over to you, how you effectively control what he writes and thus how you speak for him.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is just one instance of many where you are saving time by just writing his response here in your post rather than go through the trouble of telling him what to write in his post.

I'll tell you what, when I want gfm7175's position on something, I'll ask you.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:He has shown enough authority on the matter in his examples.

That's where he has shown that he knows nothing about accounting and where you have shown that you consider knowing nothing to be authoritative.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: It is people buying coins that increase their value.

Nope.

Think about it. "People" can't buy coins without "people" selling coins. Does the selling of the coins cause the value to go down? Every transaction involves someone selling coins and someone buying coins.

All you can say is that those who are buying the coins are gambling that the value will increase (i.e. the long position) and those who are selling are gambling that the value will decrease (i.e. the short position). Beauty is in the eye of the speculator.

Well said Fred. Supply vs. demand. And now I sound like Lucifer on NetFlix.

HarveyH55 wrote:
How much crypto are the Russian hackers asking for the Colonial Pipeline? Wonder if anybody has started a GoFundMe page to help pay the ransom. Any surplus, would of course be donated to my 'favorite' charity...

If you fill a crap-sack with dung beetles, would you still need to change it?

Xadoman wrote:
I am sorry,guys, but IMO accounting book is not wealth. Also, a quite funny thing happened today. A courier phoned me to drop off some goods and since my car is broken at the moment he agreed to pick me up in the town and deliver me and my goods( a dozen of roof tiles and some roof steps) to my summer house. We started to talk about the economy and salaries and how he just bought a couple of new cheap tires for his car in order to sell the car with good price( around 4500 dollars) to get some money for investing. Of course I asked him what kind of investment he is planning and it turned out he wants to buy bitcoin. I got quite excited by this topic and asked him if he knows about Safemoon, which he did not. He said that he needs to start to learn how to buy crypto and I gave him a quick overview what must be done to start buying crypto. I also explained him that buying bitcoin is basically pointless because you can not gain much profit from it anymore. I explained him that even if it goes from 50k to 100k then it is only a 2x rise and that kind of rise will not make him rich. I told him again about Safemoon and told him that this could go 100X and throwing 1k into it could give him 100k. It was quit obvious though that this lamb was not listening much and was on the autopilot to buy bitcoin. But nevertheless, it is a great sign to me that crypto is going to be mainstream in the nearest future.

Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote][b]

Think about it. It is basically a ponzi scam. The buyers at the bottom are paid off by the sellers at the top.

gfm7175 wrote: You have no personal definition of wealth that you've consistently stuck with (or amended to and stuck with). You've chosen to define it umpteen different ways,

gfm7175 wrote:I thought that ITN was telling me precisely what to say...??

gfm7175 wrote: Him and I ...

gfm7175 wrote: ... have disagreed with each other numerous times over the years

gfm7175 wrote: I've mentioned that I work in AR numerous times in the past,, LOOOOOONG before this set of exchanges ever occurred.

gfm7175 wrote: Again, you can look through my post history

gfm7175 wrote: Why you've chosen to have a complete meltdown over this topic is beyond me... it's not like you.

IBdaMann wrote:For your recollection, I completely stayed out of this whole discussion between ITN and yourself until I was instructed to jump in and parrot for support

gfm7175 wrote: Correct, I never have. I've already gone through each and every one of those inventory trackings with you, and the favorite retort that you've had to my insults to your intelligence is to point out each and every one of them as "inventory".

gfm7175 wrote: What about the first page of this thread, before this set of exchanges ever began? You both seemed to be in complete agreement about Xadoman's gambling addiction as well as the consequences of it. I was also in agreement with that sentiment.

IBdaMann wrote:Except, I haven't. The cow/chicken example was introduced by me and it is mine and mine alone.

gfm7175 wrote:I own it. ITN simply decided to add a Profit/Loss Statement onto it

gfm7175 wrote:You are most certainly entitled to such delusions,

Spongy Iris wrote:People wouldn't buy coins from the crypt if they weren't going up.

Spongy Iris wrote: That's the only reason there's demand. If they don't go up, then there's no demand

Spongy Iris wrote: ... is basically counterfeiting money, by guessing a some randomly generated number, using computer programs.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Think about it. It is basically a ponzi scam. The buyers at the bottom are paid off by the sellers at the top.

I realize this sentence may not appear to make sense. Perhaps I should elaborate my theory.

Scammers buy lots at the bottom, and then they sell it off slowly bit by bit for higher and higher prices to speculators who are chasing the price increase.

The higher it goes, the more speculators become attracted to it..

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
Ledgers are ledgers. Ledger entries must balance.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
Hey genius, I know he's not attacking the rules of accounting. That's what I wrote. You are a total moron. I wrote that since he cannot attack the rules of accounting that he is effectively attacking me instead.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
The only ones that are wrong are gfm7175 and yourself. You are both dishonestly pushing a stupid political agenda

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
... all because of my personal definition of wealth. Wow.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
My position is that the rules of accounting say what they say.

Your position is that you get to make those rules up to suit your taste. This belief of yours leads to your misconception that you are somehow an expert on the rules of accounting ... because they are whatever you want them to be ... and you want them to be nothing more than inventory control.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults..
Hint: Whether he works in AR was not questioned. Wow.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
Anyway, of course you believe every claim gfm7175 makes. He looks to you to find out what to claim on any given issue. You might have told him to claim that he works in AR.

IBdaMann wrote:
It matters not but naturally you are going "believe" everything that he parrots. I notice that you stand poised to "agree" with him whenever he intentionally misrepresents my position, rather than jump in to correct him ... because you are part of the dishonesty, nay, you are driving it.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...
I don't get to speak for any member(s) of the class of 1st-year accounting students but I can certainly qualify the class of 1st-year accounting students as being able to flag every single one of gfm7175's errors. His mistakes are so fundamental that any 1st-year accounting student would instantly flag each and every one.

IBdaMann wrote:
Are you proposing that we verify this? If so, what are your ideas?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: He has shown an understanding, however, of AR, GL, IC, and balance sheets.

He has shown no understanding of Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth ... and everything in accounting flows from that ... which means he doesn't know anything. All he has shown about AR, GL, IC, and balance sheets is his ability to spell those terms.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...

Into the Night wrote:What you are referencing seems to be out of date,

I have to be referencing something specific for it to be "out of date."

Let's be clear, I am eager to update any understanding I have that might be out of date.

IBdaMann wrote:
What authoritative source can I use to point me in the right direction for research?

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: you do not understand the material you are referencing.

You are a liar and I am not referencing any source. You have had more than ample opportunity to specify an authoritative source that agrees with you and that contradicts me ... but you know that any such search is futile ... since I am correct. Everything that I have written in this thread is not only fundamental, it is common sense. This, of course, implies that you have no common sense.

Go learn accounting. It is not tracking inventory under a different name.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...

Into the Night wrote:He has already given you practical examples.

I realize that there are countless delusions that he can fabricate. He, like you, have had ample opportunity to cite an authoritative source indicating that balancing ledger entries is totally optional.

IBdaMann wrote:
I have only mentioned it in passing and thus far I have opted to save this point for later. I totally get how gfm7175 has turned his thinking over to you, how you effectively control what he writes and thus how you speak for him.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...

Into the Night wrote: You have an obsession that money is somehow wealth, and that a currency is somehow required in accounting.

Thank you for stating for the record that your official position holds that an accounting rule is somehow an obsession on my part.

IBdaMann wrote:
Thank you for stating for the record that your official position holds that your cowardly EVASION is somehow an obsession on my part.

IBdaMann wrote:
...deleted insults...

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: I made a reference to T-accounts. What error did I make?

They are obsolete. GFM adjusted his example to "T" form for you.

This is absurd. Only someone totally bereft of accounting acumen would make such a stupid statement.
...deleted insults...

Spongy Iris wrote:
If you define wealth as only goods and services, than you can say money is not wealth.

But Google defines wealth as an abundance of possessions or money.