blind leading the blind Re: [LINK] Airport to tag passengers
foconnor at ozemail.com.au
Tue Oct 17 17:33:53 AEST 2006
At 8:20 AM +1000 on 17/10/06 you wrote:
>Adam Todd [link at todd.inoz.com] wrote:
>> >Profit is the bit left in your pocket after you have exchanged something
>> >for more than its value. That's its definition, Vic
>> Ouch! That's a nasty definition! I thought profit was a god given right?
>what comedy. I cant believe that so many supposedly intelligent people
>are in fact so economonically and politically retarted. its clearly the
>blind leading the leading the blind here.
>a business has input costs and output costs. profit is an output cost
>representing the cost of risk adjusted capital (dollar or
>human), either returned to shareholders or reinvested.
You're obfuscating here, my Bucko ...
... using the magic of double entry accounting. You're a bureaucrat
in the making aren't you, Vic?
For a company/trust or other entity profits returned to
shareholders/beneficiaries or whatever represents an output ... but
it's an output represented on the balance sheet as funds returned to
shareholders/beneficiaries or whatever on the debit side.
The profit bit, Vic? Well that stays on the incomings side of the P&L
That said ... in shareholder hands outgoings to shareholders become
And company(and any other entity) profit retained also represents
just what I said.
You really are an accounting neophyte, aren't you my ignorant Mate?
>this inconvenient truth has to be ignored by commie because commie only
>knows one correct set of values, his or her own. commie of course loves
>to inflict this set of righteous values because commie is an elitist, and
>the more intelligent commie is, the more convinced that he or she is
>correct and that everyone else needs to follow the correct set of values.
Putz. Someone disagrees with the 'great Vic' and he's a communist?
Me?... I like profit, Vic. I live on my profits - but I don't equate
them in any way, shape or form with 'value'
>the fact we have some children on this list not even understanding the
>absolute basics about economics and business makes it very hard to have
>a rational discussion about it.
Business got along quite fine without double entry accounting for
thousands of years, Vic ... and just because you choose to stray into
whatever logic and mentality that suits your purpose when it suits
your purpose does not make your disjointed illogical ramblings about
your obsessions any more logical, palatable or sensible
>rather the blind keep parading their ignorance in trully embarasing
>fashion to the other blind.
Vic ... if you're gonna delve into areas you don't understand ...
like accounting and a host of other disciplines - at least give us
the full story.
More information about the Link