exactly. nature is healing.
ergo. concordantly. vis-à-vis.
I’m not entirely sure that you are wrong, but I am entirely sure the most moral path is to act *as if* you are wrong.
have faith in every human soul - “faith” being an especially sneaky word choice here …
no context needed, friendo
not to make everything about bitcoin but pretty sure the rich stay rich because they can recycle their surplus into endlessly monetising assets rather than needing to create any real value …
pretty bearish on humanity here, Mike …
what if we did lightning … ON LIGHTNING?!?
anybody else think it’s weird that Sardinia is in Italy but Corsica is in France?
Corsica should obviously be in Italy. if I were Italy I’d just take it back as sneakily as possible and see if anybody even complains …
taxes only ever go on the balance sheet if they are deferred, in which case they have created a funding need. this is literally what ties the entire concept of a balance sheet and accruals accounting together.
EVERY liability represents the matching of funding to allocation. that it is an obligation to somebody is only ever a coincidence.
taxes is actually an excellent one to debunk this: you “owe” all future taxes, yet they are not liabilities. a deferred tax is a liability because it represents a counterfactual funding: you would otherwise have had to take cash down or debt up to pay it.
“funding” doesn’t need to mean an investment contract. it can mean the financial equivalent of providing or receiving such a contract. accounts payable is a nice example too: that is your supplier giving you credit, which otherwise you would have needed to borrow to cover.
as I said elsewhere, consider accrued interest, goodwill impairment, and negative equity if you want to force the idea to its nonsense conclusions.
oh, lol, duelling blade away.
the naive understanding of what liabilities (on a balance sheet, in an accounting sense) mean is that it’s a list of “what you owe”. this has some superficial plausibility and in many cases it is literally correct, but it is false as a definition.
the correct understanding is that it lists your sources of funding so as to match them with how they have been allocated (“balance”).
the confusion comes from (I think?): i) that many sources of funding are counterfactual - accounts payable, for example, is your supplier extending you credit, meaning you have a funding need that could have been met with financing, but was actually met in a more intangible manner, and ii) that funding almost always implies a return, hence when you take funding you owe something in return.
nonetheless, there are many examples that show the equivalence (liabilities=what you owe) to be demonstrably silly, which was what my hell thread on the bird app was going to be about. rather than spell them out here, if you are curious, I encourage you to ponder the cases of accrued interest, goodwill impairments, and negative equity.
thank you for coming to my TED talk.
please elaborate, good sir, while I sharpen my duelling blade.
nostr:note1efyr3drqp95cm336qfxsm88ae45zqlzvt0wrsurzh593865kv7cqh4r97xwould we still cut down trees if we could hear them scream?
probably, if they screamed a lot for no good reason.
guys, I literally had an entire thread of maxed out tweets dunking on Cullen Roche’s misunderstanding of accounting lined up and ready to go, was just doing the final edits and the browser glitched and I lost everything.
I don’t have the willpower to do it again, but just know this: liabilities are sources of funding, not “what you owe”.
if you argue with me, you will give me the motivation to destroy you here instead. and it won’t even need to be a “thread” - it can be an offensively long note instead 😂
no, do it, overthrow your government.
(not legal or financial advice)