Crypto investments

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Crypto investments > Page 3

Page 3 of 10

13-05-2021 20:58
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: I very clearly expressed that bartering does not involve money; I did say that the accounting assigns a dollar value to the value of the wealth involved in every transaction because every transaction must balance I've been following along with this whole exchange and have been quite intrigued by it. I obviously won't bother getting into each and every specific position that I agree and disagree with, but this particular position about accounting has been sticking out to me. I am in agreement that bartering does not involve money. Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Let's say that my current wealth consists of six cows and that your current wealth consists of a hundred chickens. Let's say that you and I have agreed to exchange two of my cows for forty of your chickens. When I account for that transaction, I will record that I now only have four cows, but that I now also have forty chickens. You will likewise record that you now only have sixty chickens, but that you now also have two cows. This is, of course,, different from taking an inventory, which would consist of me going into my barn and verifying that I do in fact still have four cows and forty chickens. I'm not understanding how the above transaction doesn't balance (as one asset has been decreased and another asset has been increased) or why assigning a dollar value would be necessary in order to account for it. The transaction has already been accounted for without any dollar value ever being assigned.
13-05-2021 21:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	gfm7175 wrote: Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Great question. Assumptions: 1. There is a currency 2. Accounting is being performed (under this currency). Since there is accounting, you have a ledger and you are maintaining a balance sheet that is tracking your overall Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth All will have values under the currency per the accounting. Now let's say that I have a horse that you really need and I really need the two cows that you have. We swap and we each enter the transaction into our respective ledgers. When you do your accounting, you have to subtract two cattle from your livestock T-account. How are you going to make your balance sheet balance? How will your Net Worth be adjusted? You cannot pretend that no transaction occurred. You cannot simply subtract two cattle and not balance out your Net Worth. You cannot simply add one horse and not balance out your Net Worth. Either you or your accountant will find out the market value of your two cattle, which you can do because there is a currency (per our assumption), and will find the market value of my horse in the same manner and those values will be promulgated through the accounting resulting in a proper new Net Worth. Let me know if you need any additional clarification.
13-05-2021 22:57
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Great question. Assumptions: 1. There is a currency 2. Accounting is being performed (under this currency). Since there is accounting, you have a ledger and you are maintaining a balance sheet that is tracking your overall Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth All will have values under the currency per the accounting. Now let's say that I have a horse that you really need and I really need the two cows that you have. We swap and we each enter the transaction into our respective ledgers. When you do your accounting, you have to subtract two cattle from your livestock T-account. How are you going to make your balance sheet balance? How will your Net Worth be adjusted? You cannot pretend that no transaction occurred. You cannot simply subtract two cattle and not balance out your Net Worth. You cannot simply add one horse and not balance out your Net Worth. Either you or your accountant will find out the market value of your two cattle, which you can do because there is a currency (per our assumption), and will find the market value of my horse in the same manner and those values will be promulgated through the accounting resulting in a proper new Net Worth. Let me know if you need any additional clarification. Thanks. I was in the process of editing my comment to note that I now understand what you were getting at, and it turns out that I was right. Yes, under those assumptions, horses and cows will hold a certain dollar value, and if a horse was traded for two cows, then that transaction would be accounted for in a manner that involves the currency that the accounting books are being kept under (e.g. dollars, yen, euros, etc).
13-05-2021 23:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	gfm7175 wrote: Yes, under those assumptions, horses and cows will hold a certain dollar value, Keep in mind that you get to determine how you decide what those dollar values (or yen values or drachma values, etc..) are ... your constraint is that everything balance. When you and I swap my horse for your two cows, our ledger entries will be identical (actually they will mirror) only up to the point of me losing (and you gaining) one particular horse from my inventory and you losing (and me gaining) two particular cattle from your inventory. If they carry brands or serial numbers or MAC addresses, those will be included in the entry so that inventory remains accurate. Beyond that, I will assign currency values per my methodology which will differ from the currency values that you determine per your methodology. The only thing that is certain is that both of our balance sheets will ... balance. Now you brought up differing currencies. Great point. You might be a cattle farmer in Japan who does his accounting in yen and who exports his cows to the US where his customers do their accounting in dollars. The two underlying currencies are totally different. Nonetheless, it matters not. The transactions will mirror as far as the specific horse and cattle that are bartered and you will balance your books in yen while I balance my books in dollars. Everything ends up getting a value ... because accounting is being performed and there is a currency being utilized. Great points.
14-05-2021 01:53
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	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. Edited on 14-05-2021 02:49

14-05-2021 02:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Xadoman wrote:I am sorry,guys, but IMO accounting book is not wealth. Yes, Accounting Book is $49.95 of wealth
14-05-2021 02:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You seem mighty confused. You now have three paradoxes that you MUST resolve or continue to be irrational: A1) Wealth need not be bought or sold to be wealth. A2) Wealth needs to be bought or sold to be wealth. B1) Example of barter of gum sticks is not a transaction. B2) Example of barter of gum sticks is a transaction. C1) Barter does not use dollars. C2) Barter uses dollars. You are assigning to me bogus positions that I do not hold. Normally I don't do this, but because of who you are, I must go back and remind your of your own statements that you are now denying. We will take each of your claims one at a time. IBdaMann wrote: I did not claim A2, Past tense ignored. I will assume you do not claim A2. Very well, then the statements: "You are correct that wealth need not be traded to be wealth, but if it is, then it is wealth. Bartering is an exchange of wealth. Buying is an exchange of wealth.", "Correct. If it is exchanged then it is wealth. ", "If it's not wealth then the Supply-Demand curve does not apply. If the Supply-Demand curve applies then it is wealth. ", "That's the definition of wealth. All wealth is a medium of exchange."; are utterly rejected and withdrawn. You can no longer use them or anything like them. IBdaMann wrote: B1, You said, "Nope. An exchange of goods is not a transition of any goods. If I have a stick of spearmint gum and you have a piece of Juicy Fruit, and we agree to swap, neither stick of gum transitions in any way. ". The gum sticks is a transaction. They are transitioning from one owner to another. The gum sticks themselves have not changed, but their ownership has. To say there is no transition is also to say there is no transaction. At this point I can resolve this is no longer a paradox, but instead is a symantics fallacy. This applies to this example only. I am perfectly willing to safely drop this portion from the conversation. In the end it is of little consequence. IBdaMann wrote: or C2. Therefore, the statements: "If I trade you one horse for two cows, the Net Worth value will have to be computed in the currency in question. The dollar values of the horse and of the cows will be assessed and the resulting difference will be used to modify the Net Worth ... in the currency in question. ", "You have to go by the accounting. Money is wealth in its liquid form under a given currency. Money is an asset and it is not an account receivable. ", " I did say that the accounting assigns a dollar value to the value of the wealth involved in every transaction because every transaction must balance."; or similar statements are utterly rejected and cannot be used again. I will therefore ignore the one in this post. IBdaMann wrote: I said that if something is bought or sold that it holds value and is wealth, not that wealth must be bought/sold. You said wealth must be bought and sold. See the above quotes and your previous posts. IBdaMann wrote: I very clearly expressed exchanging sticks of gum as a transaction Which also involves a transition of ownership. See the above quotes and your previous posts. Let's drop this example. It is getting into needless symantics fallacy and is not important to the topic. IBdaMann wrote: I very clearly expressed that bartering does not involve money; I did say that the accounting assigns a dollar value to the value of the wealth involved in every transaction because every transaction must balance. You seem to be denying accounting like an extreme Libertarian. All transactions must balance. They absolutely must. Ignored. Argument A2. You can no longer use this argument. You have utterly rejected it. I have already described accounting with no currency or money of any kind. Accounting does not require a currency. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Not quite right. Libertarians will often buy into the notion that fiat money is somehow useless as an exchange medium. This is the mantra of the extreme Libertarians, yes. We agree here. Warm fuzzy feelings. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:They do not deny accounting. Regular Libertarians thoroughly live by accounting. The extreme Libertarians, however, are clueless about currency and propagate really stupid mistakes. They also discard the supply-demand curve and the rule of law in favor of lawless "might makes right." I have had way too many discussions with extreme Libertarians to think that they can ever be turned from the dark side of the Force. They always start out fine but they veer off the path of economics and into a religious anti-government dogma. I totally get the distrust of government part but seeking to disband the government and usher in anarchy is well over the line for me. That's not economics. That's just lawlessness. It differs not from ANTIFA. Okay...this is no longer about economics at all here. It is about anti-government dogma and arguing for anarchy. We both realize the ridiculousness of this argument and why. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Wealth is goods and services. Let me ask you this. How would you classify a strong feeling of satisfaction or peace of mind? Without price. Not tradable. Not wealth either. These are emotions. IBdaMann wrote: Can someone find value in those things? Can there be demand for them? That depends on the individual, I suppose. Some people are satisfied with pain. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Money is neither. That's what is being debated. True. My statement is a conclusion to predicates I have already presented. IBdaMann wrote: You haven't produced a characteristic that applies to wealth that does not apply to money. RQAA. I will say it again: Wealth is goods and services. Money is not goods or a service. Money is a medium of exchange of goods and services. Do not ask this question again. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Money is backed by trust. Nothing else. A currency is backed by trust. Money is just a certain amount of wealth under a given currency. Symantics fallacy. Money is all currencies. All currencies are involved. Money is backed by trust, nothing else. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Accounting works with barter or with money as the medium of exchange for barter. You are simply creating a term "medium of exchange" and applying it to money as though that somehow changes money from the wealth that it is to something else. Money is not wealth. IBdaMann wrote: Again, your error is your definition of wealth. You have not articulated any substantive difference that applies to wealth that does not apply to money ... IBdaMann wrote: and the reason for that is that money is wealth. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot argue that money is wealth because money is wealth. IBdaMann wrote: Liquid wealth alleviates the need for barter. Liquid wealth does not require money. I have already covered this as well. IBdaMann wrote: Money can stand in place of any other form of wealth No, it cannot. Money has little to no inherent wealth. IBdaMann wrote: ... because it is totally liquid (its purpose). Most money is not a liquid. Liquidity is any wealth ready for easy trade, whether a medium of exchange (money) is used or not (barter). IBdaMann wrote: Again, you can exchange your liquid wealth for non-liquid wealth while noting that people will not accept non-wealth (trash, dirt, leaves, etc) in exchange for wealth, Trash, dirt, leaves, have wealth. See the prices at your local materials supplier (i.e. gravel pits, beauty bark, etc). Gravel pits create wealth by digging out rocks and crunching them up in to various sizes, then sorting them by size, and either delivering them, or loading them into your own vehicle (usually by a rather skilled articulating loader operator). IBdaMann wrote: showing quite clearly that money is wealth and is not non-wealth. No. You are quite clearly that you do not understand the difference between money and wealth. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:I already have. RQAA. Nope. You have not. I'm still waiting on this one. I have already repeated myself in this post. I will not do so again. Stop asking the question. RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: If money is not wealth then there must be some substantive difference ... I have already described it. RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: but the truth is that any characteristic that you can specify for "wealth" also applies to money, exactly as if money is a proper subset of wealth ... which it is. Argument of the stone fallacy. You need to pay better attention. IBdaMann wrote: Ergo, any attempts to produce some sort of difference are doomed to be futile. Assumption of victory fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again. Because I enjoy your posts I typically read them multiple times. This is also one of my favorite topics. So the good news is that I have gone back and re-read your post several times. Good stuff. Thank you. I wish you would pay better attention to them though. IBdaMann wrote: We can summarize this subthread to this: 1) You claim that money is not wealth, and you are mistaken because money is wealth in liquid form. Referring to money as a "medium of exchange" or a "value in an account" does not alter the underlying reality of what it is. Money is not wealth. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You can't define money as wealth because money is wealth. IBdaMann wrote: 2) You can verify this to your own satisfaction by noting that money is a proper subset of wealth and that anything that applies to "wealth" applies to money. Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: 3) You can verify this by noting that all accounting transactions must balance and to accomplish this the value that all wealth has is assigned a value under the currency and balanced. Since money is a proper subset of wealth this applies to money as well. Non-sequitur fallacy. Argument A2, which you have already rejected. You can no longer use this argument. IBdaMann wrote: 4) Another thing to consider is that abstract art, rare baseball cards, and other speculative or sentimental objects can have value without utility, are classified as wealth and can be exchanged for goods and/or services in exactly the same way money can. Who classified them? You? IBdaMann wrote: If they are wealth then money has to be wealth as well, and they are wealth. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). IBdaMann wrote: Did I forget anything? Plenty. I have answered your question (again). I have defined the difference between wealth and money. I have explained why money is not wealth. I have pointed out your paradoxes and yet you still try to argue both sides of them (certainly paradox A in this post). This is irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Into the Night wrote:He has a great big pile of paper. Securities are paper. Money is cloth (US money is specifically cotton). Federal Reserve Notes are 75% cotton, 25% linen. These are felted, not woven. Included in the felting are colored hairs of red and blue (an anti-counterfeit device). The printing is by the intaglio method, using a two color process on one side and a single color process on the other. Later edition bills also have incorporated an ident strip offset from the center of the felting. The black ink on the face (using the two color process) has a permeability, allowing it to be briefly magnetized. All notes are the same process, differing only in their denomination and artwork. Most dollars are just bits. The paper money that is used is a small portion of the total dollar currency. There is no inherent wealth in any of it (other than the value of the 'paper'). IBdaMann wrote: If you run securities and money through your washing machine, only the money will survive like nothing happened. Depends on the currency! Dollars go through the wash pretty well. They won't take it a 2nd or 3rd time, however. IBdaMann wrote: Lesson: Don't run your bearer bonds through the washing machine. Sound financial advice! IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:You are locked in another paradox. Which is it, dude? Either the swap took place or not. Which is it? The swap is a transition. I have a stick of spearmint and you have a stick of Juicy Fruit. Gum sticks have moved across a transaction. It appears that you confused the word "transition" for "transaction." I am dropping this example, and the paradox it created since it is not important. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The only accounting required is... I did not say that any accounting is required, You said, "We have to go back to the accounting. All transactions must balance in wealth and transactions involving money are no exception. ". Yes you did. IBdaMann wrote: only that if you were to perform accounting on the transaction that it would have to be under some currency (unit of measure of value) and that all wealth will therefore be assessed a value under that currency to ensure the transaction balances. Paradox C. Argument C2, which you rejected. You can no longer use this argument. IBdaMann wrote: All transactions must balance. Feel free to verify this. The only scenario in which the transaction does not need to balance is when no accounting is occurring. If there is accounting occurring, however, all transactions must balance. Therefore all wealth must be assigned a value under the currency. I must assume that you are NOT rejecting argument C2 as you have stated, and are therefore continuing to be irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Net worth is simply the difference between what you owe someone else and what you collected from someone else or created yourself. Colloquially, yes. Regardless of the words used or the language employed, Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth Into the Night wrote: You keep shifting the definition of 'wealth'. My definition of wealth has not changed. "Money is wealth, in fact it is a specific amount of wealth under a specific currency.". Here you state that 'wealth is by a specific currency'. " All transactions must balance in wealth and transactions involving money are no exception.". Here you define 'wealth' as accounting. "That's the definition of wealth. All wealth is a medium of exchange.". Here you define wealth as a 'medium of exchange'. " If it is exchanged then it is wealth. ". Here you define wealth as an 'exchange', not as a 'medium of exchange'. "If the Supply-Demand curve applies then it is wealth. ". Here you define wealth as a 'supply-demand curve'. "wealth is otherwise not liquid and one cannot eat one's house or car, one cannot use one's CD collection to get to work". Here you define wealth as various goods and services. You keep redefining wealth. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: I have already given a single definition and I have never changed it. Yes you have, i.e. non-liquid goods and services, arbitrarily contrived to exclude money ... and that is an error. I never define money as wealth. I have to call a lie here. Into the Night wrote:Argument A of your 1st paradox. Which is it, dude? There is no contradiction. The supply-demand curve necessarily involves price realization. Price ... under some currency. It pertains to transactions. It pertains to wealth. [/quote] Now you are defining 'wealth' as a price. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Argument B of your first paradox. Which is it, dude? Help me out. You cited two internally consistent statements as somehow being contradictory. Could you specify your issue here? Already have. RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: That makes it wealth ... very liquid wealth. Money is not wealth. I had just finished explaining how it was. You explanation is inconsistent, riddled with paradox, and fallacies. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Liquidity is simply the readiness that wealth can be transacted to someone else, Yes. Exactly. Wealth's liquidity is its readiness (and flexibility) to be transacted. I totally agree. I have to disagree that you agree. You have already defined 'liquidity' only as 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Yes...that means liquidity can exist in barter as well. Sure. It's just that liquidity of wealth in bartering is so low whereas money is completely liquid, i.e. its purpose. Now you are changing it again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 02:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I very clearly expressed that bartering does not involve money; I did say that the accounting assigns a dollar value to the value of the wealth involved in every transaction because every transaction must balance I've been following along with this whole exchange and have been quite intrigued by it. I obviously won't bother getting into each and every specific position that I agree and disagree with, but this particular position about accounting has been sticking out to me. I am in agreement that bartering does not involve money. Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Let's say that my current wealth consists of six cows and that your current wealth consists of a hundred chickens. Let's say that you and I have agreed to exchange two of my cows for forty of your chickens. When I account for that transaction, I will record that I now only have four cows, but that I now also have forty chickens. You will likewise record that you now only have sixty chickens, but that you now also have two cows. This is, of course,, different from taking an inventory, which would consist of me going into my barn and verifying that I do in fact still have four cows and forty chickens. I'm not understanding how the above transaction doesn't balance (as one asset has been decreased and another asset has been increased) or why assigning a dollar value would be necessary in order to account for it. The transaction has already been accounted for without any dollar value ever being assigned. The problem here is that IBD is fixated on a 'balance of accounts'. Accounting is a logging and cross checking system. That is all it is. Calculating a balance sheet is nothing more than a cross checking technique. The profit and loss statement and the balance need to match. That is the cross check. A transaction in and of itself is not accounting 'balance'. It is simply a log entry. You are describing a perfectly pair of log entries on two different accounting systems, one gains chickens and loses cows, the other gains cows and loses chickens. No dollar amount needed! No currency of any kind needed! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 02:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Great question. Assumptions: 1. There is a currency 2. Accounting is being performed (under this currency). Since there is accounting, you have a ledger and you are maintaining a balance sheet that is tracking your overall Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth All will have values under the currency per the accounting. Now let's say that I have a horse that you really need and I really need the two cows that you have. We swap and we each enter the transaction into our respective ledgers. When you do your accounting, you have to subtract two cattle from your livestock T-account. How are you going to make your balance sheet balance? How will your Net Worth be adjusted? You cannot pretend that no transaction occurred. You cannot simply subtract two cattle and not balance out your Net Worth. You cannot simply add one horse and not balance out your Net Worth. Either you or your accountant will find out the market value of your two cattle, which you can do because there is a currency (per our assumption), and will find the market value of my horse in the same manner and those values will be promulgated through the accounting resulting in a proper new Net Worth. Let me know if you need any additional clarification. He never mentioned any currency. He didn't need to. YOU did. YOU are the one that brought it up at all and tried to attach it as a requirement of accounting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 02:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Great question. Assumptions: 1. There is a currency 2. Accounting is being performed (under this currency). Since there is accounting, you have a ledger and you are maintaining a balance sheet that is tracking your overall Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth All will have values under the currency per the accounting. Now let's say that I have a horse that you really need and I really need the two cows that you have. We swap and we each enter the transaction into our respective ledgers. When you do your accounting, you have to subtract two cattle from your livestock T-account. How are you going to make your balance sheet balance? How will your Net Worth be adjusted? You cannot pretend that no transaction occurred. You cannot simply subtract two cattle and not balance out your Net Worth. You cannot simply add one horse and not balance out your Net Worth. Either you or your accountant will find out the market value of your two cattle, which you can do because there is a currency (per our assumption), and will find the market value of my horse in the same manner and those values will be promulgated through the accounting resulting in a proper new Net Worth. Let me know if you need any additional clarification. Thanks. I was in the process of editing my comment to note that I now understand what you were getting at, and it turns out that I was right. Yes, under those assumptions, horses and cows will hold a certain dollar value, and if a horse was traded for two cows, then that transaction would be accounted for in a manner that involves the currency that the accounting books are being kept under (e.g. dollars, yen, euros, etc). Not correct. No currency is required to account for trading cows and chickens. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 03:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	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. There is no such thing as a 'mainstream' currency. If you want to use Bitcoin as a currency, fine. You, however, are gambling with it. You are speculating. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 04:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Into the Night wrote:The problem here is that IBD is fixated on a 'balance of accounts'. I did say that my definition of wealth is tied to accounting and the supply-demand curve. Yours is tied to utility/benefit which I claim is a mistake. In accounting, all transactions must balance and the overall accounting balance sheet must balance, hence the name "balance sheet." Into the Night wrote:Accounting is a logging and cross checking system. Accounting is formal presentation of wealth to aid in management decisions. Into the Night wrote: Calculating a balance sheet is nothing more than a cross checking technique. Balance sheets are not "calculated" so much as they are verification/evidence that the accounting is correct and that everything balances, thus affording confidence that the accounting is an accurate picture of the wealth in question. If something does not balance then that is how the accounting points out that there is an error in the overall wealth picture and that the source of the error needs to be discovered and corrected. Into the Night wrote: The profit and loss statement and the balance need to match. That is the cross check. Every transaction entered into the ledger must balance. Any transaction that does not balance will result in the balance sheet not balancing. That is not allowed. Into the Night wrote:A transaction in and of itself is not accounting 'balance'. It is simply a log entry. You are addressing inventory and nothing more. You are not addressing accounting. In accounting all transactions must balance. I know your father and brother will tell you that. The format for a ledger entry reveals a glaring error if the entry does not balance. Again, any transaction that does not balance forces the balance sheet out of balance. Into the Night wrote: You are describing a perfectly pair of log entries on two different accounting systems, one gains chickens and loses cows, the other gains cows and loses chickens. No dollar amount needed! No currency amount is needed if you don't want to have accounting. Everyone is free to choose to not have accounting. However, if you want to have accurate accounting and you want a balance sheet (which most people do) then you have to ensure that the transactions balance under the currency in question. Let me know if there is any part that requires additional clarification.
14-05-2021 05:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Into the Night wrote:Not correct. No currency is required to account for trading cows and chickens. What you are saying is correct for inventory. For accounting, however, you need a balance sheet, one that always remains in balance, and that requires all transactions to balance under the currency in question. I promise.
14-05-2021 11:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The problem here is that IBD is fixated on a 'balance of accounts'. I did say that my definition of wealth is tied to accounting and the supply-demand curve. Yours is tied to utility/benefit which I claim is a mistake. Not a mistake. I already explained why. IBdaMann wrote: In accounting, all transactions must balance and the overall accounting balance sheet must balance, hence the name "balance sheet." Not the purpose of a balance sheet. Balance sheets do not record transactions. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Accounting is a logging and cross checking system. Accounting is formal presentation of wealth to aid in management decisions. Nope. It's a logging and cross checking system. It does help in some management decisions. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Calculating a balance sheet is nothing more than a cross checking technique. Balance sheets are not "calculated" Yes they are. IBdaMann wrote: so much as they are verification/evidence that the accounting is correct and that everything balances, WRONG. They are calculated. By themselves balance sheets do NOT verify that everything is correct. IBdaMann wrote: thus affording confidence that the accounting is an accurate picture of the wealth in question. Balance sheets do not show that either. They are calculated. They are only one part of the cross check. IBdaMann wrote: If something does not balance then that is how the accounting points out that there is an error in the overall wealth picture and that the source of the error needs to be discovered and corrected. No. A balance sheet has no such capability by itself. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: The profit and loss statement and the balance need to match. That is the cross check. Every transaction entered into the ledger must balance. The ledger is not a balance sheet. It's a log. IBdaMann wrote: Any transaction that does not balance will result in the balance sheet not balancing. That is not allowed. WRONG. A ledger is not a balance sheet. A balance sheet is not a ledger. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:A transaction in and of itself is not accounting 'balance'. It is simply a log entry. You are addressing inventory and nothing more. You are not addressing accounting. I am addressing accounting. Inventory control is ALSO part of accounting. So is MRP, payroll, and of course AP, AR, GL, and the calculated summaries, known as the balance sheet and the profit and loss statements. IBdaMann wrote: In accounting all transactions must balance. WRONG. A ledger is not a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: I know your father and brother will tell you that. No, they won't. IBdaMann wrote: The format for a ledger entry reveals a glaring error if the entry does not balance. A ledger is not a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Again, any transaction that does not balance forces the balance sheet out of balance. A ledger is not a balance sheet. A balance sheet is not a ledger. Transactions do not 'balance'. They are simply log entries in the ledger. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are describing a perfectly pair of log entries on two different accounting systems, one gains chickens and loses cows, the other gains cows and loses chickens. No dollar amount needed! No currency amount is needed if you don't want to have accounting. Everyone is free to choose to not have accounting. Accounting does not require a currency or money at all. IBdaMann wrote: However, if you want to have accurate accounting and you want a balance sheet (which most people do) then you have to ensure that the transactions balance under the currency in question. A ledger is not a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Let me know if there is any part that requires additional clarification. It is quite clear that you are attempting to redefine what a ledger is, what a balance sheet is, what a profit and loss statement is, have changing definitions of what wealth is, and are still attempting to equate money with wealth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 11:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Not correct. No currency is required to account for trading cows and chickens. What you are saying is correct for inventory. No. It's accounting. It's a ledger entry like any other. You do not need money for accounting. IBdaMann wrote: For accounting, however, you need a balance sheet, one that always remains in balance, and that requires all transactions to balance under the currency in question. A ledger is not a balance sheet. Money is not required in accounting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 14-05-2021 11:52

14-05-2021 18:21
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Into the Night wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Great question. Assumptions: 1. There is a currency 2. Accounting is being performed (under this currency). Since there is accounting, you have a ledger and you are maintaining a balance sheet that is tracking your overall Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth All will have values under the currency per the accounting. Now let's say that I have a horse that you really need and I really need the two cows that you have. We swap and we each enter the transaction into our respective ledgers. When you do your accounting, you have to subtract two cattle from your livestock T-account. How are you going to make your balance sheet balance? How will your Net Worth be adjusted? You cannot pretend that no transaction occurred. You cannot simply subtract two cattle and not balance out your Net Worth. You cannot simply add one horse and not balance out your Net Worth. Either you or your accountant will find out the market value of your two cattle, which you can do because there is a currency (per our assumption), and will find the market value of my horse in the same manner and those values will be promulgated through the accounting resulting in a proper new Net Worth. Let me know if you need any additional clarification. Thanks. I was in the process of editing my comment to note that I now understand what you were getting at, and it turns out that I was right. Yes, under those assumptions, horses and cows will hold a certain dollar value, and if a horse was traded for two cows, then that transaction would be accounted for in a manner that involves the currency that the accounting books are being kept under (e.g. dollars, yen, euros, etc). Not correct. No currency is required to account for trading cows and chickens. We're in agreement that currency is not a requirement in order for such accounting to occur. In fact, my cow and chicken example made that point quite clear, as it didn't involve any currency of any kind. It seems to me that IBD, in that specific response anyway, is operating under the assumption that currency is being involved (even though currency doesn't have to be involved). IOW, while the transaction could easily be logged like this: [BEFORE] 6 cows [TRANSACTION] -2 cows, +40 chickens [AFTER] 4 cows, 40 chickens it could also be logged like this: {BEFORE} $600 (cows) {TRANSACTION} -$200 (cows), +$200 (chickens) {AFTER} $600 ($400 cows, $200 chickens)
14-05-2021 18:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Into the Night wrote:No. It's accounting. Nope, you are engaging in inventory alone. Subtract two chickens. Add one cow. Subtract three bottles of vodka and two bottles of scotch. Add four cases of Yuengling. Subtract four boxes of Marlboro and six boxes of Lucky Strike. We remain out of Kools because the shipment didn't come in today. Into the Night wrote: It's a ledger entry like any other. Nope. Check with your father and your brother. Inventory annotations do not tie into Net Worth and do not need to balance (in fact, they never balance). Inventory annotations allow one to just subtract items, or to just add items. A ledger entry requires one to annotate the currency value decrease in Net Worth when some other item of wealth is subtracted due to loss from within the accounting, and similarly to increase the currency value in Net Worth when there is a gain or profit. Ledger entries and inventory annotations are completely different. Into the Night wrote: You do not need money for accounting. Correct. You need a currency. Currency is not money. A currency is a normalization of wealth (units of measure). This is needed to ensure transactions balance as well as the overall accounting as a whole. Money is a specific amount of wealth under a given currency, in completely liquid form, of course. Into the Night wrote: A ledger is not a balance sheet. Correct. The ledger is a ledger and the balance sheet is a balance sheet. Into the Night wrote: Money is not required in accounting. Correct. Currency is required. Let me know if anything is unclear.
14-05-2021 19:43
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The problem here is that IBD is fixated on a 'balance of accounts'. I did say that my definition of wealth is tied to accounting and the supply-demand curve. Yours is tied to utility/benefit which I claim is a mistake. I must admit, as I've followed along with these exchanges, that I am rather confused as to what your specific and unambiguous definition of 'wealth' is. IOW, 'wealth' is _____________. As far as I have seen, ITN has consistently said that "wealth is goods and services". That definition is clear to me. As of right now, I'm not understanding what yours is nor how to logically apply it to the dialogue that's been occurring. IBdaMann wrote: In accounting, all transactions must balance and the overall accounting balance sheet must balance, hence the name "balance sheet." I'm also not understanding why you have been stressing this particular point. I understand that you are operating under the assumption that a given logging of transactions is occurring with reference to a specific currency (e.g. dollars). I also understand that a "dollar value" for cows/chickens/horses/etc needs to be known in order to both log and cross check with reference to dollars. Yet, I also understand ITN's position that accounting need not involve any reference to any currency at all. The same transaction can be both logged and cross checked without any use of any currency. Thus, I'm not understanding the importance of this point being made. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Accounting is a logging and cross checking system. Accounting is formal presentation of wealth to aid in management decisions. I like ITN's definition more. Your definition, to me, seems to actually be describing various reports/summaries that are associated with accounting rather than describing accounting itself. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are describing a perfectly pair of log entries on two different accounting systems, one gains chickens and loses cows, the other gains cows and loses chickens. No dollar amount needed! No currency amount is needed if you don't want to have accounting. Everyone is free to choose to not have accounting. However, if you want to have accurate accounting and you want a balance sheet (which most people do) then you have to ensure that the transactions balance under the currency in question. Accounting does not require any use of any currency. My cow/chicken example is a perfect example of how accounting occurs without any use of any currency.
14-05-2021 20:05
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No. It's accounting. Nope, you are engaging in inventory alone. Subtract two chickens. Add one cow. Subtract three bottles of vodka and two bottles of scotch. Add four cases of Yuengling. Subtract four boxes of Marlboro and six boxes of Lucky Strike. We remain out of Kools because the shipment didn't come in today. Taking an inventory is not the same thing as logging a transaction. Transactions can be logged without any use of any currency. Inventories can likewise be taken without any use of any currency. A transaction can be logged by recording that two chickens were sold and one cow was obtained. In order to take an inventory, one must physically go where the cows and chickens are being stored, count them, and make sure that there are indeed one cow and two chickens present.
14-05-2021 20:07
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I must admit following those exchanges that I completely understand why accountants in some goverment agencies can steal years after years without somebody noticing. Eventually many of them to get caught but I wonder how many are there who do not get caught.
14-05-2021 21:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	gfm7175 wrote:Transactions can be logged without any use of any currency. Of course, if you aren't doing any accounting. If, on the other hand, you intend to perform accounting, how do you believe that a ledger entry can be made that ensures the books balance ... without currency? gfm7175 wrote: Inventories can likewise be taken without any use of any currency. Correct. It's just inventory. It's counting. gfm7175 wrote: A transaction can be logged by recording that two chickens were sold and one cow was obtained. Yes, and what of the Net Worth? You expect your accountant to ensure your books are accurate and always adhere to Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities. What do you tell him when he comes asking about your transaction? What is your answer when he asks you if he no longer needs to keep the balance sheet balanced? gfm7175 wrote: In order to take an inventory, one must physically go where the cows and chickens are being stored, count them, and make sure that there are indeed one cow and two chickens present. You shifted semantics here. You used the words "take an inventory" which necessarily requires a review of the entire inventory. When you update your inventory because you just gave away three goats to your neighbor Jeremiah, you simply subtract three goats from your goats T-account. You do not have to "take an inventory" just to update your inventory list.
14-05-2021 22:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	gfm7175 wrote: Into the Night wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Where I get lost is your notion that a dollar value must be assigned to the bartered wealth in order to account for such transactions. Great question. Assumptions: 1. There is a currency 2. Accounting is being performed (under this currency). Since there is accounting, you have a ledger and you are maintaining a balance sheet that is tracking your overall Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth All will have values under the currency per the accounting. Now let's say that I have a horse that you really need and I really need the two cows that you have. We swap and we each enter the transaction into our respective ledgers. When you do your accounting, you have to subtract two cattle from your livestock T-account. How are you going to make your balance sheet balance? How will your Net Worth be adjusted? You cannot pretend that no transaction occurred. You cannot simply subtract two cattle and not balance out your Net Worth. You cannot simply add one horse and not balance out your Net Worth. Either you or your accountant will find out the market value of your two cattle, which you can do because there is a currency (per our assumption), and will find the market value of my horse in the same manner and those values will be promulgated through the accounting resulting in a proper new Net Worth. Let me know if you need any additional clarification. Thanks. I was in the process of editing my comment to note that I now understand what you were getting at, and it turns out that I was right. Yes, under those assumptions, horses and cows will hold a certain dollar value, and if a horse was traded for two cows, then that transaction would be accounted for in a manner that involves the currency that the accounting books are being kept under (e.g. dollars, yen, euros, etc). Not correct. No currency is required to account for trading cows and chickens. We're in agreement that currency is not a requirement in order for such accounting to occur. In fact, my cow and chicken example made that point quite clear, as it didn't involve any currency of any kind. It seems to me that IBD, in that specific response anyway, is operating under the assumption that currency is being involved (even though currency doesn't have to be involved). IOW, while the transaction could easily be logged like this: [BEFORE] 6 cows [TRANSACTION] -2 cows, +40 chickens [AFTER] 4 cows, 40 chickens it could also be logged like this: {BEFORE} $600 (cows) {TRANSACTION} -$200 (cows), +$200 (chickens) {AFTER} $600 ($400 cows, $200 chickens) Quite right. Accounting can occur without a currency or money of any kind. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 22:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No. It's accounting. Nope, you are engaging in inventory alone. Subtract two chickens. Add one cow. Subtract three bottles of vodka and two bottles of scotch. Add four cases of Yuengling. Subtract four boxes of Marlboro and six boxes of Lucky Strike. We remain out of Kools because the shipment didn't come in today. Nope. Not inventory at all. Inventory is determining what you have at the moment. No transactions are recorded in inventory accounting. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: It's a ledger entry like any other. Nope. Check with your father and your brother. You don't get to speak for them. You only get to speak for you. IBdaMann wrote: Inventory annotations do not tie into Net Worth Inventory is part of your net worth. It is an asset. IBdaMann wrote: and do not need to balance (in fact, they never balance). Inventory annotations allow one to just subtract items, or to just add items. Inventory accounting has no transactions recorded. Transactions are recorded in the ledger. That's what the ledger is for. It is a log of transactions. IBdaMann wrote: A ledger entry requires one to annotate the currency value decrease in Net Worth when some other item of wealth is subtracted due to loss from within the accounting, and similarly to increase the currency value in Net Worth when there is a gain or profit. Ledger entries and inventory annotations are completely different. No currency needed. No money needed. Inventory is not ledger. Neither is a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You do not need money for accounting. Correct. You need a currency. Currency is not money. You do not need currency nor money. Money is simply all currencies. IBdaMann wrote: A currency is a normalization of wealth (units of measure). This is needed to ensure transactions balance as well as the overall accounting as a whole. Currency is not normalization of anything. Money is all currencies. Neither money nor currency is need to do accounting. IBdaMann wrote: Money is a specific amount of wealth under a given currency, in completely liquid form, of course. IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: A ledger is not a balance sheet. Correct. The ledger is a ledger and the balance sheet is a balance sheet. But you keep trying to use a ledger as a balance sheet AND as a cross check. It is neither. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Money is not required in accounting. Correct. Currency is required. No. No currency is required for accounting purposes. No money is required for accounting purposes. The use of accounting does not require money or any currency. A ledger is not a balance sheet. Inventory accounting has no transactions recorded there. They are recorded in the ledger. That's what the ledger is for. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 22:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Xadoman wrote: I must admit following those exchanges that I completely understand why accountants in some goverment agencies can steal years after years without somebody noticing. Eventually many of them to get caught but I wonder how many are there who do not get caught. Like any crime, you only need to get caught once. You might recall what happened to Arthur Andersen. That businesses with Enron pretty well destroyed their reputation. The used to be one of the largest accounting firms in the country. No more. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-05-2021 22:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Transactions can be logged without any use of any currency. Of course, if you aren't doing any accounting. gfm has already provided a clear example of accounting without money or any currency. IBdaMann wrote: If, on the other hand, you intend to perform accounting, how do you believe that a ledger entry can be made that ensures the books balance ... without currency? He demonstrated that already. So have I. RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Inventories can likewise be taken without any use of any currency. Correct. It's just inventory. It's counting. Inventory accounting does not log transactions. Inventory accounting is not the ledger. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: A transaction can be logged by recording that two chickens were sold and one cow was obtained. Yes, and what of the Net Worth? Two chickens and a cow. These are assets. You are asking a void question, since no other assets are mentioned and no liabilities. IBdaMann wrote: You expect your accountant to ensure your books are accurate and always adhere to Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities. What do you tell him when he comes asking about your transaction? What is your answer when he asks you if he no longer needs to keep the balance sheet balanced? IBdaMann wrote: [quote]gfm7175 wrote: In order to take an inventory, one must physically go where the cows and chickens are being stored, count them, and make sure that there are indeed one cow and two chickens present. You shifted semantics here. Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacies. IBdaMann wrote: You used the words "take an inventory" which necessarily requires a review of the entire inventory. That's what inventory accounting is. Most places do it once a year, I have seen it done as often as once a month. IBdaMann wrote: When you update your inventory because you just gave away three goats to your neighbor Jeremiah, you simply subtract three goats from your goats T-account. You do not have to "take an inventory" just to update your inventory list. That is a transaction. That goes in the ledger. Neither inventory accounting nor the ledge is a balance sheet. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2021 09:48
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Harvey and James, setting up a metamask wallet is very easy. No need to verify youself. Then you can ask a friend , a relative or somebody else you know who is in the crypto to send there some amount of bnb. Then you can buy safemoon or some other coin and just hold it. If the coin finally moons then you can set up an account on binance to cash out the coins you have in the metamask wallet. Also, safemoon soon releases its own wallet. They are probably going to make things as easy as possible to the users to buy the coin. It is still very early to jump on the wagon. Big gains are ahead.
17-05-2021 02:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Xadoman wrote: Harvey and James, setting up a metamask wallet is very easy. No need to verify youself. Then you can ask a friend , a relative or somebody else you know who is in the crypto to send there some amount of bnb. Then you can buy safemoon or some other coin and just hold it. If the coin finally moons then you can set up an account on binance to cash out the coins you have in the metamask wallet. Also, safemoon soon releases its own wallet. They are probably going to make things as easy as possible to the users to buy the coin. It is still very early to jump on the wagon. Big gains are ahead. Nothing wrong with hobbies, I've got quite a few. Very little time to enjoy most of them these days. Crypto, would be just another thing, which I'd have to be actively monitoring every day. I don't think it a buy-it, forget about it, investment any more. There are a lot of coins, and more created every day. There is no guaranty, that coins can never fail, or won't fall below what I put in, with nothing left, but to cash out what's left, since nobody bothers accepting them anymore. The exchange rate, is always based on the current value. If that value is falling, most people would be crazy to accept them as payment. Would you sell your house, for coins, that are falling in value? Could easily be losing thousands of dollars, between receiving payment, and where you could swap them for a more stable coin. Of course, if you pick the wrong coin to convert to, you could stand to lose even more. It's really only attractive, when the coins are on the rise. It something you have to watch closely, because people bouncing around, chasing quick riches, are going to influence the value. Not a lot of people are going to ride it out, if they see falling numbers. I tend to believe the game will slow down considerably, when the first coin fails, and some people lose it all. I'm not really a gambling man. My 401k, is about as close as I get. My employer matches, dollar-for-dollar, up to 4%, which is what I contribute. Could put in as much as I want. I know that I'll at least get that, every year. The 401k investments, win and lose, mostly there are gains though. At retirement, I pretty sure, I'll have more, than mine, and the company's contributions, but have no higher expectations. The government will tax the hell out of it...
18-05-2021 10:09
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Crypto, would be just another thing, which I'd have to be actively monitoring every day. I don't think it a buy-it, forget about it, investment any more. If you buy Safemoon then there is no need to actively monitor it. It is not a coin for day trading or smth. It is for long term hold. The tokenomics is ticking in you favour as time go by. It would be better to not to monitor it because you might want to sell too early. I honestly belive that it goes 1000x at one point in the future or even more . So in overall buy some Safemoon, sit back , relax, occasionally read a reddit Safemoon subsection( for example a daily whale watching report) and imagine the life you are going to live when the Safemoon finally moons. It gives hope to people. People like me who have almost no possibility to get rich in some other way. I do not possess the ability of creating a company out of nothing and starting to make millions with entrepreneurship. I do not have a skill which could make me a lot of money through wageslaving. I am not some megamind who goes into the casino, counts some cards and leaves with millions. I do not have enough money to invest into some shares to get a meaningful amount of dividends. As you can see there are not many thing which I coud do to make some serious money. I have stopped buying lottery tickets for a long time ago because the chances to hit a jackpot are next to nothing. That leaves me only with crypto. With crypto it is all about hype and being among the firsts who jump on the wagon. Also, take a look at that video( great visualization using pennies) about hype and controlling the herd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd4GFaCXAKc&t=26s&ab_channel=IvorCummins Edited on 18-05-2021 10:15
18-05-2021 19:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Transactions can be logged without any use of any currency. Of course, if you aren't doing any accounting. If, on the other hand, you intend to perform accounting, how do you believe that a ledger entry can be made that ensures the books balance ... without currency? RQAA, but I'll go through it one final time. [BEFORE] 6 cows [TRANSACTION] -2 cows, +40 chickens [AFTER] 4 cows, 40 chickens Before this particular transaction occurred, Farmer Jim had six cows on his farm. Farmer Jim loves his cows very much, but dealing with cows and only cows day after day was starting to grow a bit monotonous to Jim, so he decided that he wanted to start expanding his farm beyond solely cows (beef and milk). He happened to be friends with Farmer Charlie who happened to be a chicken farmer. Farmer Jim thus saw an opportunity to add chickens to his farm (which would get him eggs as well as a different type of meat). Farmer Charlie likewise saw an equal opportunity to expand his farm beyond just chickens (which would get him beef and milk). It was at this point that Jim and Charlie conducted a transaction, exchanging two of Jim's cows for forty of Charlie's chickens. Farmer Jim then went home, pulled out his favorite pen, pulled out his paper ledger (he's "old school"), and recorded the transaction. He recorded that he sold two cows, reducing his 'cows' account from six cows down to four cows, and then he created a new 'chickens' account and recorded that forty chickens had been received. Farmer Jim has now properly accounted for his transaction with Farmer Charlie. He has now made a ledger entry and he did not make use of any money or currency when making that entry. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: A transaction can be logged by recording that two chickens were sold and one cow was obtained. Yes, and what of the Net Worth? Two chickens and a cow. IBdaMann wrote: You expect your accountant to ensure your books are accurate and always adhere to Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities. My books can be checked for accuracy. Were two chickens sold? Was one cow obtained? If yes and yes, then my books are accurate and adhere to the accounting equation. IBdaMann wrote: What do you tell him when he comes asking about your transaction? What is your answer when he asks you if he no longer needs to keep the balance sheet balanced? I'd ask him if he no longer needs to keep receiving payment for his services. Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities 4 cows and 40 chickens = 4 cows and 40 chickens Both sides of the equation are the same. I'm not seeing any "balance" issues. No money or currency has been involved with any of this. Edited on 18-05-2021 19:28
18-05-2021 20:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	gfm7175 wrote:RQAA, but I'll go through it one final time. Before you attempt to correct me on the standards of accounting, you should first perform your due diligence and independently research those standards. I won't insult your intelligence by posting holy links. You are quite capable of looking these things up on your own. With regards to accounting you are incorrect and I am simply offering to teach you something on the subject. If this is something you would rather not learn then I'm just as happy to drop the subject as well. I'm not selling anything, I'm not pushing any agenda and I already know the material. The only issue here that is open for debate is the definition of wealth, not any principles of accounting (on which I happen to base my definition). Into the Night has what I see as a contrived definition and I believe it is a mistake, but he is certainly welcome to his personal definition, as are you. gfm7175 wrote: [BEFORE] 6 cows [TRANSACTION] -2 cows, +40 chickens [AFTER] 4 cows, 40 chickens RQAA. Yes this is a transaction. Accounting is not occurring. Yes, you have explained the current inventory and no, you have not touched upon the subject of accounting. Go visit your local bar. Find out which bartender performs the transactions with the customers and performs the liquor inventory ... and then explain to me how he is an accountant. Let me jump to your other comment: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: A transaction can be logged by recording that two chickens were sold and one cow was obtained. Yes, and what of the Net Worth? Two chickens and a cow. Net Worth is a currency value. If you are going to perform accounting then you have to have a currency and then you have to convert ledger-entry transactions to currency values to ensure all transactions and the balance sheet balance under that currency. Again, this is not up for debate. Yours is the responsibility to independently research this and verify to your own level of satisfaction. If you have any questions I will be more than happy to answer them. Next, I would point out to you that "barter transactions" occur all around the world every day. If I have a popular Climate website and you provide car-washing services, I might let you advertise your services on my site for some free car washes. That would be an example of a bartering agreement and each time I took advantage of a free car wash or every day that you advertise on my site, those would represent bartering transactions under our bartering agreement. If we are each performing accounting then we must convert our individual services to values under whatever currency we each use. In the US, the IRS requires this to be reported in this manner. It's the law. gfm7175 wrote:My books can be checked for accuracy. Wrong word. "Accuracy" is not at issue. There is no accounting under the currency to verify that they balance. The IRS would have something to say about your lack of accounting and lack of reporting if that were to occur in Wisconsin. The issue is not whether your inventory is accurate.

18-05-2021 22:36
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Fascinating discussion. Let me see if I have this in a nutshell... GFM says ''hey, it's a free country damnit, and I can balance my books any way I want to as long as I show all my activity". IBdM says, "not so fast there turbo. It's not so much a free country and for tax purposes everything must be assigned a currency value". Who is right? I have no clue!!! Edited on 18-05-2021 22:37
18-05-2021 22:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:RQAA, but I'll go through it one final time. Before you attempt to correct me on the standards of accounting, you should first perform your due diligence and independently research those standards. Accounting isn't a standard. IBdaMann wrote: I won't insult your intelligence by posting holy links. Yet you posted holy links. WTF, dude? IBdaMann wrote: You are quite capable of looking these things up on your own. Looking up what things? IBdaMann wrote: With regards to accounting you are incorrect and I am simply offering to teach you something on the subject. He is absolutely correct. It is YOU in error. IBdaMann wrote: If this is something you would rather not learn then I'm just as happy to drop the subject as well. I'm not selling anything, I'm not pushing any agenda and I already know the material. You ARE pushing an agenda and you do NOT know the material. IBdaMann wrote: The only issue here that is open for debate is the definition of wealth, I have already given that definition. It is consistent. It has not changed. RQAA. You keep changing your definition of wealth. IBdaMann wrote: not any principles of accounting (on which I happen to base my definition). Non-sequitur fallacy. Wealth has nothing to do with accounting. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night has what I see as a contrived definition and I believe it is a mistake, but he is certainly welcome to his personal definition, as are you. Not my definition. IBdaMann wrote: A Holy Link. This book does NOT define 'accounting'. Accounting is not a standard. False authority fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [BEFORE] 6 cows [TRANSACTION] -2 cows, +40 chickens [AFTER] 4 cows, 40 chickens RQAA. Yes this is a transaction. Accounting is not occurring. Accounting is occurring. He already has described it twice now, and you still don't seem to get it. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, you have explained the current inventory and no, you have not touched upon the subject of accounting. Yes he has. He touched on GL and Inventory accounting. IBdaMann wrote: Go visit your local bar. Find out which bartender performs the transactions with the customers and performs the liquor inventory ... and then explain to me how he is an accountant. Anyone using the till must account for the money going in and out of the till. That's pretty much a standard practice in any business (that wants to stay in business!). Cash registers today automatically keep it's portion of the ledger within them. The money in the till must match what happened in the ledger. That's the cross check. You are making a false equivalence again. Bars generally use a currency. Cherry picking fallacy. Not everything requires the use of a currency. IBdaMann wrote: Let me jump to your other comment: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: A transaction can be logged by recording that two chickens were sold and one cow was obtained. Yes, and what of the Net Worth? Two chickens and a cow. Net Worth is a currency value. No, it isn't. IBdaMann wrote: If you are going to perform accounting then you have to have a currency No, you don't. IBdaMann wrote: and then you have to convert ledger-entry transactions to currency values No, you don't. You can keep a perfectly usable ledger in cows and chickens. Neither of them are a currency. They are the actual wealth being transferred. They do not represent anything other than cows and chickens. IBdaMann wrote: to ensure all transactions and the balance sheet balance under that currency. Ledgers are not balance sheets. No currency is required. IBdaMann wrote: Again, this is not up for debate. You do not get to declare yourself the 'winner' here. Assumption of victory fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Yours is the responsibility to independently research this and verify to your own level of satisfaction. If you have any questions I will be more than happy to answer them. Research what? IBdaMann wrote: Next, I would point out to you that "barter transactions" occur all around the world every day. If I have a popular Climate website and you provide car-washing services, I might let you advertise your services on my site for some free car washes. That would be an example of a bartering agreement and each time I took advantage of a free car wash or every day that you advertise on my site, those would represent bartering transactions under our bartering agreement. If we are each performing accounting You are. IBdaMann wrote: then we must convert our individual services to values under whatever currency we each use. No, you do not. No currency needed. IBdaMann wrote: In the US, the IRS requires this to be reported in this manner. ...deleted Holy Link... The IRS is not accounting. Accounting is not the IRS. The IRS is a **ed up government agency that can't even define what the word 'income' is. As far as reporting to the IRS is concerned, it is THEY that are imposing dollar values where no currency is used. It is the IRS that makes this shit up. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:My books can be checked for accuracy. Wrong word. "Accuracy" is not at issue. There is no accounting under the currency to verify that they balance. The IRS would have something to say about your lack of accounting and lack of reporting if that were to occur in Wisconsin. The issue is not whether your inventory is accurate. The issue IS whether the inventory is accurate. That's the cross check. That's part of the balance sheet, which you seem to think is a ledger of some kind. It isn't. The balance sheet by itself doesn't cross check anything, nor ever come 'out of balance'. It is cross checked against the profit and loss statement. A ledger is not a balance sheet and it doesn't have to 'balance' anything. It is a logging system. That's all. P&L and balance sheets are summary reports. No currency is required for ANY OF IT, except for fantasy 'values' imposed by the IRS, using their own hallucinations to do it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan**
19-05-2021 01:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	GasGuzzler wrote: Fascinating discussion. Let me see if I have this in a nutshell... GFM says ''hey, it's a free country damnit, and I can balance my books any way I want to as long as I show all my activity". IBdM says, "not so fast there turbo. It's not so much a free country and for tax purposes everything must be assigned a currency value". Who is right? I have no clue!!! Neither is discussing whether it's a free country or not. Neither am I. GFM is quite capable of balancing his books with the use of any currency. He has already demonstrated how it can be done (twice now). IBD insists that books cannot be balanced unless you use a currency. It has already been demonstrated why this statement is erroneous. The big errors that IBD is making is: 1. wealth must be represented in a currency. This is wrong, and is so well demonstrated by GFM. I have also described why numerous times. 2. a ledger must balance. This is wrong. Ledgers do not balance...ever. They are a log keeping system. There is no 'balance' to maintain. Ledgers are not a balance sheet. 3. accounting is a standard. This is wrong. Accounting is a set of procedures to track transactions, inventory, wealth, and labor. It has nothing to do with the IRS. The IRS does not define accounting. It is a wacky government agency that can't even define what the word 'income' even means (in any consistent way, at least). Any currency value it imposes on anything is purely up to it's own imagination, using those that DO use currency in their transactions for similar items as a guide. In other words, they are 'assigning' a price on a commodity in a given currency, even though that currency was not used by two individuals trading wealth directly (barter). 4. wealth is currency. This is wrong. Wealth has nothing to do with currency. Price discovery in a marketplace does set a conversion rate between wealth and a currency, but only where barter is not used. Further, IBD has also stated that wealth is NOT a currency. He is arguing both sides of a paradox, which is irrational. Several examples of accounting systems have been presented, but not nearly all of them. So far mentioned are: GL, or General Ledger. A log of transactions conducted over a period of time, possibly with 'account' groups to assign a transaction to. It does not require the use of a currency, and it never 'balances'. It's a log. Nothing more. AP and AR are not being used here. These are debts (either a record of payments to be made by you, or a record of payments to be received by you). These two systems, are, however, often part of the 'basic four' systems in a business...the fourth being Payroll (an ugly bit accounting involving different pay rates and schemes, taxes, 'equality' reporting to some government moron, and of course 'income' reporting to other government morons.). At the end of a period, two summary reports are generated. These are the Balance Sheet and the Profit and Loss statement. These need not be in any currency either. A balance sheet is a summary of all assets (wealth, including any inventory you have on hand), and any liabilities (such as debts, stock that you issued that others own, etc.). This sheet 'balances' by using a 'net worth', which is all assets minus all liabilities. A Profit and Loss statement is a summary stemming from a previous 'net worth', all the transactions that occurred over the period, all the payments (in whatever form) made, summed together to produce a profit or loss, which must match the net worth on the balance sheet. This is the cross check of the summaries. If the check fails, there is a math error somewhere. None of this requires a currency of any kind. It can all literally be done with cows and chickens, directly traded as wealth (barter). The P&L statement still works, and the Balance sheet still works. The entire system can be done literally with just the cows and chickens, directly. Indeed, it makes it a bit simpler, since no conversion to a currency need take place at all. That conversion changes over the time of that period. In a currency based accounting system, that changing conversion rate will also have to be accounted for (primarily done in the GL). There are many accounting systems, including MRP, predictive analysis (lately using AI techniques), reliability tracking (otherwise known as quality control accounting), transport tracking (otherwise known as shipping accounting, which also handles returns), and distribution accounting (keeping warehouses stocked with the right items in the right place at the right time, and limiting overstock). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2021 06:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Into the Night wrote:Accounting isn't a standard. Accounting has standards. Into the Night wrote:Yet you posted holy links. WTF, dude? I posted no Holy links. I posted only authoritative sources. The IRS is an authoritative source on the US tax law of bartering transactions. Into the Night wrote:Looking up what things? Standards of accounting. Into the Night wrote:He is absolutely correct. It is YOU in error. You might have a little more credibility on this if you could: 1. identify something that I stated that is incorrect 2. identify some characteristic that applies to wealth that does not apply to money 3. answer questions posed to you instead of claiming you did when you didn't gfm7175 is absolutely in error on the specific matters of accounting he mentioned. "Net Worth" is a currency value. If your father and brother actually are accountants then they can confirm this for you. You can also look this up as well. Mere inventory does not involve "Net Worth" which is an accounting term, not an inventory term. Into the Night wrote:You ARE pushing an agenda and you do NOT know the material. You had to know what my next question would be: What agenda am I pushing? I am simply explaining accounting and yes, I do know the material. You apparently do not and you believe that claiming that your father and brother are accountants somehow allows you to make up stuff that simply is not proper accounting. You operate under the misconception that inventory is accounting. The rest of your errors flow from that. Into the Night wrote: You keep changing your definition of wealth. Explain. My definition of wealth includes money as a proper subset. You won't give an example of any characteristic that applies to wealth that somehow does not apply to money, and to avoid doing so you simply claim that you have already done so. Into the Night wrote:Non-sequitur fallacy. Wealth has nothing to do with accounting. Accounting has everything to do with wealth. Into the Night wrote:Not my definition. Your definition absolutely is your definition. You own it. I also understand why you have that definition and I believe it is a mistake. That's all. Into the Night wrote:A Holy Link. It's an image, not a link. Into the Night wrote: This book does NOT define 'accounting'. This book is an example of a source by which you could perform research and get up to speed on accounting. Into the Night wrote: Accounting is not a standard. Accounting has standards. Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy. Excellent authority recommendation. Into the Night wrote:Accounting is occurring. Nope. If you were to brush up on your accounting you'd be able to confirm this yourself. All transactions must balance and that necessarily means making ledger entries in proper format, which necessarily involves conversions to currency values. Inventory tracking does not amount to accounting ledger entries. Check with your father and your brother, and perhaps get an authoritative book on the matter. This one should be too easy for you to confirm. Into the Night wrote: He already has described it twice now, He has explained inventory tracking. When your inventory of 30 chickens increases by four chickens, your chicken inventory tallies at 34 chickens. When your inventory of 28 goats decreases by two goats, your goat inventory is 26. I get it, you think this is accounting. You are mistaken. It is tracking inventory. Into the Night wrote:Yes he has. No, he has not. He never adjusted Net Worth and instead confused it with his inventory. Into the Night wrote:Anyone using the till must account for the money going in and out of the till. Yes. That is the cash account. No bartender or bar manager makes accounting ledger entries and no bartender/manager touches Net Worth on the balance sheet. The bartender/manager simply keeps track of the cash ... and of the liquor inventory ... and perhaps some supplier accounts. The accountant takes care of the accounting. Into the Night wrote:Cash registers today automatically keep it's portion of the ledger within them. Today, more and more owners are using software to perform real-time accounting during business hours so the accountant will have a much easier job (and with fewer errors) when he comes in at night to adjust the books. The bartender/manager isn't doing any accounting; the accounting software is doing that. The bartender/manager simply keeps track of the cash in the till (inventory) to ensure what's in the till matches what the accounting software claims should be in the till. Into the Night wrote: Not everything requires the use of a currency. Semantic-shift fallacy. Nobody is required to use a currency ... unless he wants to do accounting. Accounting requires a currency. Bartering and inventory do not. Accounting does. IBdaMann wrote: Let me jump to your other comment: gfm7175 wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Net Worth is a currency value. No, it isn't. Yes it is. Check with your father and your brother. You should be able to have this one confirmed within the next five minutes. Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:If you are going to perform accounting then you have to have a currency No, you don't. Yes, you absolutely do. Your error, as is/was gfm7175's, is not understanding that Net Worth is a currency value. Once you get that straightened out everything else should become pretty clear. Into the Night wrote:No, you don't. You can keep a perfectly usable ledger in cows and chickens. Nope. You are simply confusing accounting with inventory. Ledger entries must reflect currency values so Net Worth, i.e. a currency value, and the balance sheet always remains balanced. Into the Night wrote:They are the actual wealth being transferred. Yes, I get it. In the process, you want to ensure inventory is updated. I get it. You engage in transactions, you transfer wealth and you ensure the inventory is accurate. Good on you. You aren't performing accounting. You aren't tracking Net Worth; instead, you are confusing it with inventory. Into the Night wrote:Ledgers are not balance sheets. Correct. You did get this right. Into the Night wrote:No currency is required. No currency is required to barter. Currency is required to do accounting. Into the Night wrote:You do not get to declare yourself the 'winner' here. I didn't declare myself to be "the winner." That's silly. I declared you to be in error on the aforementioned accounting concepts because accounting is established and you are in error on those points. I don't win anything by you being in error. I will continue to offer to clarify any points that confuse you, but accounting is simply not up for debate. You don't get to change it. Into the Night wrote:The IRS is not accounting. You got this correct as well. Into the Night wrote: The IRS is a **ed up government agency that can't even define what the word 'income' is. As far as reporting to the IRS is concerned, it is THEY that are imposing dollar values where no currency is used. It is the IRS that makes this shit up. ... and between the lines in this segment of text one can glean your political motivations for making the claims you make. I totally understand your distrust of the government (I share it) and I understand why you consider currency to be a liability, I just don't agree with you. This is your agenda. I have no agenda. Into the Night wrote:The issue IS whether the inventory is accurate. That's the cross check. Nope. Taking an inventory and ensuring it is accurate simply guarantees the inventory is accurate. In accounting, the "cross-check" is the balance sheet which is simply an overall "Assets - Liability = Net Worth" and those are necessarily currency values that must balance. Into the Night wrote:The balance sheet by itself doesn't cross check anything, nor ever come 'out of balance'. Totally incorrect. The balance sheet is the "cross-check." That's its purpose. The balance sheet is out of balance every time Assets - Liabilities <> Net Worth. The balance sheet is out of balance the moment there is a ledger entry that does not balance. If you make an improper ledger entry that simply affects your inventory of chickens and goats ... and doesn't adjust Net Worth ... then the balance sheet will not balance. Into the Night wrote: A ledger is not a balance sheet and it doesn't have to 'balance' anything. Every ledger entry must balance. You need to brush up on accounting fundamentals. Into the Night wrote: It is a logging system. That's all. Nope. It is an accounting system, not a logging system. Into the Night wrote:**No currency is required for ANY OF IT, Currency is required for ALL OF IT. You are trying to argue things that are really not debatable. In the time it took you to write your post you could have easily verified that you are mistaken. However, I understand your political position and I support you in that regard ... but you can't change accounting. It is what it is.
19-05-2021 23:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Accounting isn't a standard. Accounting has standards. Accounting isn't a standard. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Yet you posted holy links. WTF, dude? I posted no Holy links. Yes you did. IBdaMann wrote: I posted only authoritative sources. A book is not an authoritative source. It does not define 'accounting'. IBdaMann wrote: The IRS is an authoritative source on the US tax law of bartering transactions. You are not discussing US tax law. False authority fallacies. Pivot fallacy. Contextomy fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Looking up what things? Standards of accounting. Accounting isn't a standard. Redefinition fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:He is absolutely correct. It is YOU in error. You might have a little more credibility on this if you could: 1. identify something that I stated that is incorrect RQAA IBdaMann wrote: 2. identify some characteristic that applies to wealth that does not apply to money RQAA IBdaMann wrote: 3. answer questions posed to you instead of claiming you did when you didn't Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 is absolutely in error on the specific matters of accounting he mentioned. No, he is not. IBdaMann wrote: "Net Worth" is a currency value. No, it isn't. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. IBdaMann wrote: If your father and brother actually are accountants then they can confirm this for you. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. IBdaMann wrote: You can also look this up as well. No need. IBdaMann wrote: Mere inventory does not involve "Net Worth" which is an accounting term, not an inventory term. Semantics fallacy. Contextomy fallacy. Net worth does not require a currency. It is not an inventory term either, and I never said it was. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:You ARE pushing an agenda and you do NOT know the material. You had to know what my next question would be: What agenda am I pushing? That wealth is money. RQAA. IBdaMann wrote: I am simply explaining accounting and yes, I do know the material. No, you do not. What you know is accounting using some kind of currency. It is not required to conduct accounting. You are also still confusing ledgers with balance sheets, and making balance sheets a singleton authority...totally AGAINST accounting principles. IBdaMann wrote: You apparently do not and you believe that claiming that your father and brother are accountants somehow allows you to make up stuff that simply is not proper accounting. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. I am not making anything up. IBdaMann wrote: You operate under the misconception that inventory is accounting. Inventory tracking is one element of accounting. You are confusing ledger with inventory control. IBdaMann wrote: The rest of your errors flow from that. Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You keep changing your definition of wealth. Explain. RQAA IBdaMann wrote: My definition of wealth includes money as a proper subset. Your definition of wealth keeps changing. Paradox A. You must clear your paradox. You are still arguing both sides of that paradox. It is irrational. IBdaMann wrote: You won't give an example of any characteristic that applies to wealth that somehow does not apply to money, and to avoid doing so you simply claim that you have already done so. RQAA. Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Non-sequitur fallacy. Wealth has nothing to do with accounting. Accounting has everything to do with wealth. No. Accounting is not wealth. Wealth is not accounting. Redefinition fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Not my definition. Your definition absolutely is your definition. You own it. I also understand why you have that definition and I believe it is a mistake. That's all. My definition is consistent. Yours isn't. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:A Holy Link. It's an image, not a link. Symantics fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: This book does NOT define 'accounting'. This book is an example of a source by which you could perform research and get up to speed on accounting. False authority fallacy. This book does not define 'accounting'. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Accounting is not a standard. Accounting has standards. Accounting is not a standard. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy. Excellent authority recommendation. No. False authority fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Accounting is occurring. Nope. If you were to brush up on your accounting you'd be able to confirm this yourself. All transactions must balance and that necessarily means making ledger entries in proper format, which necessarily involves conversions to currency values. A ledger is not a balance sheet. No conversion is necessary at all for either the ledger or the balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Inventory tracking does not amount to accounting ledger entries. Never said it did. Strawman fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Check with your father and your brother, and perhaps get an authoritative book on the matter. This one should be too easy for you to confirm. You don't get to speak for anyone else but you. False authority fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: He already has described it twice now, He has explained inventory tracking. When your inventory of 30 chickens increases by four chickens, your chicken inventory tallies at 34 chickens. WRONG. He explained a transaction (ledger entry) and how a ledger does not have to use currency at all. He also explained a simplified balance sheet, and how it does not have to use currency at all. Inventory is an asset. It is part of the balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: When your inventory of 28 goats decreases by two goats, your goat inventory is 26. And you lost two goats. Where did they go? Did they die? Were they sold for chickens? If so, why were the chickens not listed in the current inventory? Are chickens promised but not yet delivered? Have you promised anyone any goats that you have not yet delivered? IBdaMann wrote: I get it, you think this is accounting. No. This is not keeping track of anything going on. These are serious questions that accounting must raise, even though no currency is involved. IBdaMann wrote: You are mistaken. It is tracking inventory. Inventory control is one element of accounting. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Yes he has. No, he has not. He never adjusted Net Worth Net worth is not 'adjusted'. It is calculated. It is part of the summary of both the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement. Ledgers are not concerned with 'net worth'. Neither is inventory control. IBdaMann wrote: and instead confused it with his inventory. No. YOU are confusing it. Inversion fallacy. Strawman fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Anyone using the till must account for the money going in and out of the till. Yes. That is the cash account. No bartender or bar manager makes accounting ledger entries and no bartender/manager touches Net Worth on the balance sheet. The bartender/manager simply keeps track of the cash ... and of the liquor inventory ... and perhaps some supplier accounts. The accountant takes care of the accounting. Unrelated example. Dropped. Strawman fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Cash registers today automatically keep it's portion of the ledger within them. Today, more and more owners are using software to perform real-time accounting during business hours so the accountant will have a much easier job (and with fewer errors) when he comes in at night to adjust the books. The bartender/manager isn't doing any accounting; the accounting software is doing that. The bartender/manager simply keeps track of the cash in the till (inventory) to ensure what's in the till matches what the accounting software claims should be in the till. Unrelated point. Dropped. Strawman fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Not everything requires the use of a currency. Semantic-shift fallacy. Nobody is required to use a currency ... unless he wants to do accounting. Accounting requires a currency. Bartering and inventory do not. Accounting does. Accounting does not require currency. IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Let me jump to your other comment: gfm7175 wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Net Worth is a currency value. No, it isn't. Yes it is. Net worth is not required to be a currency value. It has already been demonstrated to you why. Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Check with your father and your brother. You don't get to speak for anyone but you. False authority fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: You should be able to have this one confirmed within the next five minutes. I do not need to 'confirm' anything. I have explained why currency is not required for accounting, and gfm has been kind enough to provide an example of accounting without the use of currency in action. Assumption of victory fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:If you are going to perform accounting then you have to have a currency No, you don't. Yes, you absolutely do. No, you don't. Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Your error, as is/was gfm7175's, is not understanding that Net Worth is a currency value. It does not need to be. You have already been shown why. Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Once you get that straightened out everything else should become pretty clear. Inversion fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No, you don't. You can keep a perfectly usable ledger in cows and chickens. Nope. You are simply confusing accounting with inventory. A ledger, which is what was described, is not inventory control. Neither is a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Ledger entries must reflect currency values Nope. No currency is required for ledger entries. IBdaMann wrote: so Net Worth, i.e. a currency value, Net worth does not require a currency. IBdaMann wrote: and the balance sheet always remains balanced. The balance sheet is a summary report over a period. A ledger is not a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:They are the actual wealth being transferred. Yes, I get it. In the process, you want to ensure inventory is updated. I get it. You engage in transactions, you transfer wealth and you ensure the inventory is accurate. Good on you. You aren't performing accounting. You aren't tracking Net Worth; instead, you are confusing it with inventory. He is performing accounting. Ledgers are not inventory. You are trying to equivocate it to knock down the argument. Strawman fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Ledgers are not balance sheets. Correct. You did get this right. But you don't. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:No currency is required. No currency is required to barter. Currency is required to do accounting. Currency is not required for accounting. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:You do not get to declare yourself the 'winner' here. I didn't declare myself to be "the winner." That's silly. Yet you keep trying to do exactly this. Lie. IBdaMann wrote: I declared you to be in error on the aforementioned accounting concepts because accounting is established and you are in error on those points. I don't win anything by you being in error. I will continue to offer to clarify any points that confuse you, but accounting is simply not up for debate. You don't get to change it. I am not changing anything. Inversion fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The IRS is not accounting. You got this correct as well. Then why did you say it was accounting??? IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: The IRS is a **ed up government agency that can't even define what the word 'income' is. As far as reporting to the IRS is concerned, it is THEY that are imposing dollar values where no currency is used. It is the IRS that makes this shit up. ... and between the lines in this segment of text one can glean your political motivations for making the claims you make. I totally understand your distrust of the government (I share it) and I understand why you consider currency to be a liability, I just don't agree with you. Cash is a liability on the Federal Reserve accounting. It is an asset when listed on business accounting. It is not required for accounting, however. You are pivoting away from your original claim, that the IRS defines accounting. It doesn't. IBdaMann wrote: This is your agenda. I have no agenda. Lie. Your agenda is to declare money wealth. It isn't. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The issue IS whether the inventory is accurate. That's the cross check. Nope. Taking an inventory and ensuring it is accurate simply guarantees the inventory is accurate. Contextomy fallacy. He demonstrated more than 'taking inventory'. IBdaMann wrote: In accounting, the "cross-check" is the balance sheet which is simply an overall "Assets - Liability = Net Worth" and those are necessarily currency values that must balance. The balance sheet by itself is NOT a cross check. DEAD WRONG. Ledgers are not a balance sheet and do not need to 'balance' anything. The cross check mentioned does not even mention balance sheets. Contextomy fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:The balance sheet by itself doesn't cross check anything, nor ever come 'out of balance'. Totally incorrect. The balance sheet by itself is NOT a cross check. Ledgers are not a balance sheet. Ledgers do not 'balance' anything. IBdaMann wrote: The balance sheet is the "cross-check." That's its purpose. It does not have that capability. The balance sheet by itself is NOT a cross check. IBdaMann wrote: The balance sheet is out of balance every time Assets - Liabilities <> Net Worth. Net worth is calculated by the balance sheet. It is not an input. It is an output. IBdaMann wrote: The balance sheet is out of balance the moment there is a ledger entry that does not balance. Ledgers are not a balance sheet. Ledgers do not 'balance' anything. It is a log keeping system. Neither ledgers nor balance sheets require the use of any currency. Balance sheets do not track the ledger nor are a summary of it. That's in the profit and loss statement. IBdaMann wrote: If you make an improper ledger entry that simply affects your inventory of chickens and goats ... and doesn't adjust Net Worth ... then the balance sheet will not balance. IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: A ledger is not a balance sheet and it doesn't have to 'balance' anything. Every ledger entry must balance. You need to brush up on accounting fundamentals. A ledger is not a balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: It is a logging system. That's all. Nope. It is an accounting system, not a logging system. IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote:No currency is required for ANY OF IT, Currency is required for ALL OF IT. No. It has already been described to you why, and several examples have already been discussed. You dismissed each one of them as somehow 'not accounting', even though they each involved ledger entries, inventory control, and even a rudimentary balance sheet. IBdaMann wrote: You are trying to argue things that are really not debatable. You are trying to debate: 1. the meaning of wealth. 2. the meaning of accounting. You are attempting to declare victory. Assumption of victory fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: In the time it took you to write your post you could have easily verified that you are mistaken. Argument of the stone fallacy. IBdaMann wrote: However, I understand your political position and I support you in that regard ... but you can't change accounting. It is what it is. Argument of the stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by circular argument (circular argument fallacy, or fundamentalism). You are attempting to limit 'accounting' to currency. This is wrong. Accounting covers many things, very little of which even require currency at all. GL does not require currency. Transactions can be logged as direct barter transactions in chickens, cows, goats, or whatever. AP does not require currency. Debts can be tracked as chickens, cows, goats, or whatever. AR does not require currency. What is owed to you may be tracked as chickens, cows, goats, or whatever. IC (inventory control) does not use currency. It counts chickens, cows, goats, or whatever. MRP does not use currency. It tracks inventory required and labor required to produce a finished product (including any subassemblies along the way). It may or may not make use of IC to automate part of this process. PR (payroll) does usually use currency, but it doesn't have to. A person can be paid in cows chickens, goats, or whatever. Balance sheets are not part of any of these systems. They are separate. Profit and loss statements are not part of any of these systems. They are separate. Neither the balance sheet nor the profit and loss statement by themselves cross anything. They cross check each other. Balance sheets do not summarize GL. Profit and Loss statements do. Profit and Loss statements do not summarize inventory (except as starting inventory, a historical number). Balance sheets do. Net Worth is not calculated by GL, AR, AP, or PR. It is a calculated value on both the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement. They must match. That's the cross check. Failure to match means a math error somewhere. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY INVALIDATE ANY LEDGER ENTRY. NONE of it requires the use of any currency. ALL of it can be done simply as direct barter transactions in chickens, cows, goats, or whatever. Currency is NOT wealth. It is a medium of exchange. It can represent wealth, but it is not wealth in and of itself. In other words, it can represent value. It is also a unit of account. You can put a number on a price with it. Dollars are mostly just bits...like Bitcoin in that way, even though it doesn't use a block chain. Bits have no inherent value by themselves. They are not wealth. Paper dollars are a small part of the total dollars 'in the field', so to speak. These have little inherent value (the value of the paper as paper). They are otherwise not wealth. Coined dollars are another form of the dollar. These are today copper with silver cold welded onto either side, forming a 'sandwich'. This material is then coined into dollars, half dollars, quarters, and dimes. There is some inherent wealth in these (the value of the metal), but it is far less than the value represented by these coins. The penny is copper plated zinc (kind of like a discharged battery in that way!). The inherent wealth of these metals is actually greater than the value represented by the coin (they cost more than they are worth!). There is talk if discontinuing them altogether for this reason, or converting to them to just zinc (no plating), which would come close to parity for this coin. The nickle too is close to parity with the metal used in that coin. Nickle is also quite soft and rubs off on your hands more easily than other metals used in our coins. Handling nickles will leave your hands looking quite dirty. Wash them before eating. There IS talk of converting nickles to something like our present penny. It would improve handling, and it would improve the difference against parity. Bitcoin is a currency. It is just bits, using a block chain scheme to track transactions. It has no inherent wealth. It is like the dollar. Gold has an inherent wealth. It is useful in industry. This wealth is created by mining and refining this metal. It is used in everything from electronics to jewelry, and of course, coins. It is impractical to use as a currency for day to day transactions, due to it's rarity. Silver has an inherent wealth. Like gold, this wealth is created by mining and refining this metal. It too has important uses in industry, including photographic applications (yes, we still use them), electronics, jewelry, home construction (plumbing and electrical work), eating utensils (flatware, plates, goblets; though they generally require a plastic covering to eliminate the 'metallic' taste), automobiles, etc. It is also, of course, used for coins. Copper has an inherent wealth. Like the other metals, that wealth is created by mining and refining it. Like other metals, copper has many important industrial uses. It is also, of course, used in coins. Lead has an inherent wealth. It is used in electronics, home construction, automotive uses (and is also used as a moderator in fuels), heavy equipment, paints, and, of course, coins (in some nations). Pigs have an inherent wealth. It is created by pig sex, and raising them on ranches. Their uses of course include ham, bacon, pigskin, and many other products...even some glues. No one is using pigs to make a coin, to my knowledge. Wealth is goods and services. Money is neither. It is a medium of exchange only. It is NOT wealth in and of itself, but it may be made of something that has inherent wealth (like copper or zinc). The only value that money has is through faith, which is the willingness to accept it to conduct transactions. It doesn't matter if it's bitcoin, dollars, yen, drachma, marks, francs, or euros. If people lose faith in a currency, it's value (ability to represent wealth) goes down...a lot. It may even go to zero or close to it. This can happen to Bitcoin, yen, marks, francs, euros, dollars, or any other currency. It has already happened to some of them. NONE of these currencies have an inherent wealth simply because they are money. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan** Edited on 19-05-2021 23:40
19-05-2021 23:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	A couple of questions to everyone: They are related. If a government prints a lot of dollars, is it increasing wealth? If minors dig up more gold than ever before so that gold becomes more commonplace and it's market price (converting to dollars) drops, is that increasing wealth? My answers: no, and yes.
20-05-2021 00:15
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	I'll keep this series of responses as short as possible, and will cut out parts where I would end up saying essentially the same things that ITN has already said in his series of responses... IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:RQAA, but I'll go through it one final time. Before you attempt to correct me on the standards of accounting, you should first perform your due diligence and independently research those standards. I won't insult your intelligence by posting holy links. You are quite capable of looking these things up on your own. With regards to accounting you are incorrect and I am simply offering to teach you something on the subject. If this is something you would rather not learn then I'm just as happy to drop the subject as well. I'm not selling anything, I'm not pushing any agenda and I already know the material. All that I'll add to this (I am aware that credentials are meaningless on an internet forum) is that my career of almost nine years (nine years at the end of this summer) directly involves particular aspects of accounting, most notable of them being accounts receivable (AR)... For instance, I am quite aware of what a ledger is and how it works; I personally keep track of all the company's receivables of whom I work for (which involves recording customer transactions, such as what my chicken & cow example illustrates). I also witness my coworker performing other aspects of accounting that I don't personally perform (such as AR and payroll), so I am, at the very least, fairly familiar with those aspects of accounting as well. As for dropping the subject, I would be perfectly fine with that. I have made my points, you have made your points, and neither of us seem willing to budge on our positions regarding this matter (and are now just largely repeating what we have already said). IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [BEFORE] 6 cows [TRANSACTION] -2 cows, +40 chickens [AFTER] 4 cows, 40 chickens RQAA. Yes this is a transaction. Accounting is not occurring. Yes, you have explained the current inventory and no, you have not touched upon the subject of accounting. No, I am explaining the differences between inventory accounting, the execution of a transaction, and the logging of that same transaction into the general ledger. Accounting has occurred in my example. No currency was used to do so. In the end, I'm okay with dropping the subject if you are, as it seems that we are stuck in disagreement on it.
20-05-2021 00:27
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 is absolutely in error on the specific matters of accounting he mentioned. "Net Worth" is a currency value. If your father and brother actually are accountants then they can confirm this for you. You can also look this up as well. I think part of where you are erring is that you are too focused on the various government agencies (and their reporting requirements) that you are missing out on the essence of accounting.
20-05-2021 00:52
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Into the Night wrote: A couple of questions to everyone: They are related. If a government prints a lot of dollars, is it increasing wealth? No. Into the Night wrote: If minors dig up more gold than ever before so that gold becomes more commonplace and it's market price (converting to dollars) drops, is that increasing wealth? Yes. Into the Night wrote: My answers: no, and yes. I agree with you.
20-05-2021 03:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	gfm7175 wrote:I think part of where you are erring is that you are too focused on the various government agencies Where you are erring is in your attempt to redefine accounting. gfm7175 wrote: I'll [...] cut out parts where I would end up saying essentially the same things that ITN has already said in his series of responses... Good. You should never regurgitate someone else's fallacies. gfm7175 wrote:For instance, I am quite aware of what a ledger is and how it works; Awesome ... then you will recall that you have never seen any accounting ledger entry whose credits and debits did not balance as currency values. This leads to the question as to what compelled you to insist that they somehow don't need to balance. ... and then we realize that at this point it is purely political. You are required to toe some political party line, one that requires you to deny the principles of accounting and insist they are somehow different than they are. Well OK then. gfm7175 wrote: I personally keep track of all the company's receivables of whom I work for (which involves recording customer transactions, such as what my chicken & cow example illustrates). I also witness my coworker performing other aspects of accounting that I don't personally perform (such as AR and payroll), so I am, at the very least, fairly familiar with those aspects of accounting as well. I'm sure you do an admirable job. What is the correct answer on any CPA exam? Would you like a hint? 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:As for dropping the subject, I would be perfectly fine with that. Great. Consider it dropped. Please acknowledge that I extended to you the courtesy of explaining the relevant subject matter. That's all I ask.

Page 3 of 10

Join the debate Crypto investments:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Crypto-Climate Watch List	540	09-09-2023 02:41
Tom Brady lost $30 million after FTX crypto collapse. Too bad	3	07-09-2023 15:54
$740M in crypto assets recovered in FTX bankruptcy so far	0	24-11-2022 11:07
Crypto exchanges disintegrating as you read this, FTX is gone bitcoin is down 65% this year	4	17-11-2022 16:19
Everybody Can Obtain The New Trillion Dollar Crypto Coin whitepapers To Become Millionaire Easily	4	06-11-2021 03:55