The HSRA may be an example of waste, but there is no documented fraud or abuse. In 11 years, zealous audits and investigations haven't found any signs of either.
Fun fact: the reason bar associations exist is because people got tired of the free market free-for-all that existed before bar associations.
Law, like medicine, isn't something you want some rando handling. The free market is not a magical panacea. Rules are created for a reason, and that reason is usually grounded in human suffering.
It's not market demand. The government is ordering the construction of solar and wind farms without regard to the market demand or to the citizens residing in the locations where the solar farms and wind farms are to be built.
That's the exact opposite of democracy and capitalism.
It's a rational way to deal with their energy needs, reduce pollution and their impact on the climate.
They have small gas and oil reserves if I remember. Unfortunately, if they were sitting on Venezuela or Russian style reserves or oil/gas the story might be different. But unlike Europe, the Chinese can see that being beholden to foreign states to keep the lights on is asking for trouble.
They seem to have avoided the ideology the big fossil fuel companies push in the west to make fossil vs green a political/class discussion, not a rational one. Rationally it makes most sense for a nation to generate their energy needs in a way they control with wind/solar/nuclear.
Unless your neighbor happens to be named Mr. Black Rock, private equity and wall street investors are indeed the #1 buyers of residential housing stock right now.
This is what European Commission has determined to be acceptable for them. One very important distinction here is, as far as I understand, that EC is not bound by ePrivacy Directive as directives bound member states and require them to include them on their national law.
The text on that website does state that some DPAs have found some first-party analytics acceptable, but that's not something that is confirmed by CJEU. And ePD does not have single-stop shop so you need to follow every DPAs directions if you are offering services to that DPA's country.
This website is absolutely nonsensical and I would not recommend it to anyone to understand how GAAP or IFRS accounting works. It might be useful for someone wanting to learn unicorn fantasy land accounting.
Double-entry accounting is basically checksum. For any transaction, the total in and out of all accounts involved in the transaction should be zero. If it's not, you have an error.
Conceptually, one of the hard parts to grasp and what many accounting students struggle with in the beginning is that in accounting financials, asset accounts have the opposite polarity as revenue accounts. This is because revenue is treated as an item that flows into Equity (in the famous equation Assets = Liabilities + Equity). The cash earned from a revenue-generating transaction is a (positive) asset, and so to balance it you need that revenue amount to be a negative somewhere in the books. This just affects the accounting financial statements (like the income statement or balance sheet; in the books both numbers would be entered as positive amounts in a transaction known as a "journal entry" in which you report the increase to one account and the offsetting decrease to another account.
Credit = money flowing out of an account or creating a new liability = decreases asset and expense accounts but increases liability and revenue accounts
Debit = money flowing into an account or reducing a liability = increases assets and expense accounts but decreases liability and revenue accounts
This website that you call nonsensical was a huge help to me when starting to learn about accounting systems. And I have spent several years of my life working on a (special purpose, non-generalist) accounting system.
The important thing is just a shift of perspective. It is just a different way of viewing the same system. The website doesn't contradict the things you write about at all.
Saying "double entry book-keeping is basically a checksum" and "a transaction of two entries is basically an edge in a graph" is just two views into the same model. Like working in real space vs Fourier domain. You can move between the representations but they represent the same underlying thing.
It seems your main gripe is the use of negative numbers instead of credit/debit.
I feel certain that if negative numbers where around when double entry book-keeping was first done then credit/debit would not have been invented.
Once you "grok" it, viewing an income account balance as a negative number and an expense account as a positive number makes so much sense.
Yes, using credit/debit instead of +/- is more normal, and if you use +/- you have to be prepared to translate at the UI later to terms more commonly used in accounting. But is is the same thing. You can just translate between them.
The article is not nonsensical at all. But perhaps it should have explained the regular use of debit/credit instead of negative numbers more explicitly.
The words used doesn't change the concepts though.
> I feel certain that if negative numbers where around when double entry book-keeping was first done
They were; one of negative numbers first documented uses in Europe after the Classical period was by Fibonacci in the specific context of financial calculations, around the turn of the 13th Century; the first evidence of the double entry bookkeeping is also in Italy, around the turn of the 14th Century.
I literally deal with accounting every day. I have used all of the major ERPs and implemented several of them, including Oracle, Netsuite, and Workday.
This website would not help a layman (i.e., non-accountant) or accounting student understand accounting, at all.
My issue with the website is not the use of credit/debit vs negative/non-negative numbers. My issue with this website is that it presents transaction flows without properly explaining the accounting logic of those transaction flows to its intended audience and even then it's way of framing transaction flows only works for the simplest transactions. The website's chosen way of explaining accounting would be actively harmful to understanding more advanced accounting issues. It would be like trying to teach someone how the internet works by framing everything in terms of plumbing.
Correct, for tax purposes corporate losses remain with the corporation. Microsoft and the other owners don't get the benefit of OpenAI's losses. At best, they get to write off their investment in OpenAI if the company dissolves, at which point their maximum tax write-off is their capital investment.
Note: other people seem to be confused because companies can write off investments in corporate subsidiaries before the subsidiary is dissolved or sold...for book purposes. This creates what is known in the accounting world as a book-tax difference. If you have a few weeks to spare, look up tax provisions...
reply