On Dec 11, 12:51*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:58:11 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

wrote:

If you start with $1,000,000,000,000 and you don't pay someone to do
something for you, you will still have $1,000,000,000,000. If you then
do that "something" yourself, you will still have $1,000,000,000,000.

In both cases there was exactly $0.00 change in your net worth.

It's just numbers and you can't fool them even if you have no problem
fooling yourself.

Man. you've got a thick skull.
Your devious examples only work with suckers.
You're not talking to Lou Costello here.
I showed you how your drummed up penniless squatter scenario doesn't
work.
Besides net worth, you must think nobody can grasp debt and negative
numbers.
It's so lame.
Above you fail to give an expense to hire your "something" done.
You claim it's "just numbers," then fail to provide them.
"Something" is "nothing."
You can't use a real number because then you'd have to debit the net
worth by the expense if the work were hired out.
That reveals the difference.
You never show the difference because it fails your argument.
BobR gave the mowing expense cost to show the difference.
I showed an auto wrenching expense cost to show the difference.
Not sure why you're doing this - saying that cutting or adding
expenses doesn't affect net worth.
It's not a good comedy routine. *Just a bad cartoon.
I suspect you're just yanking chains. *Hope so for your sake.

--Vic

Vic,

I can't decide if we are dealing with two total morons or a couple of
bozos who think they are in the debate club and will win by scoring
point for totally ignorant arguments. In either case, they have
proven to be capable of endless idiot arguments that just aren't worth
wasting more time on. It would be easy to understand why neither of
them would have any net worth since they clearly can't understand that
spending money, especially when they don't need to, reduces their net
worth.