On Dec 3, 2:08*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

news:938db78c-73b5-4a78-822d-
On Dec 1, 4:10 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

If your net worth did indeed increased by $35 after cleaning the yard,
please tell us where the money came from. There has to be a debit
someplace to offset the credit, unless you printed the money yourself

Had I paid an idiot like you to do my yard for me, then my net worth
would have been reduced by the $35.

Clear foul. *Sigh. *Derby's not an idiot and frankly, it's pretty sad to see
someone not only be dead wrong about something, but rude to people who are
simply trying to educate him.

$35 dollars saved is $35 dollars earned.

No, it's not. *Bob, I'm kind of feeling bad for you. *Have you ever taken an
economics or bookkeeping course? *It doesn't sound as if you have because
aside from Ben Franklin homilies, earning and saving are two completely
different economic activities, as people have been trying to explain to you.

When you do something like mowing the lawn yourself, you're not earning
money. *(In fact, you're spending money for gas and for the wear and tear on
the equipment and more.) *But just to make it simple, we'll say you're not
spending that money mowing your own lawn. *In fact, no money appears
anywhere in the economic event of YOU mowing the lawn.

What you are spending is your time. *If you could be making $100 an hour
consulting but instead mow the lawn for $70 an hour, are you still making
$70 or are you losing $30?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

"Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value
of the best alternative that is not chosen (that is foregone)"

If you chose to mow your lawn yourself, you can no longer use that time to
work extra hourse at work, do consulting, or break into your neighbor's
garages to steal their tools, if that's your thing.

If your time had no other possible value, then maybe you could feel that you
earned $70, but even then it wouldn't be true. *To make or "earn" money in
the first place, you have to increase your net worth, not just conserve it.

On Dec 3, 9:19*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 14:58:16 -0500, "Robert Green"





wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
news:bb9888c0-e5c5-4d21-837c-

stuff snipped

Show me where I *gained* or *acquired* anything more than I started
with by doing it myself.

OK (-:

One year when I proudly raked seventeen 39G bags of leaves in one afternoon
I *acquired* a ruptured disc that's been with me ever since. *The $35 I now
spend to have my lawn mowed or raked and my snow shoveled comes with a very
clear understanding of how much I really didn't *gain* by once doing the
work
myself.

I was about to try to explain what you just did in excruciating detail about
how even though my mother could save better than anyone else I ever knew,
without dad's weekly paycheck to save from, she would have eventually run
completely out of money. *That demonstrates clearly that saving does NOT
generate income. *Mowing your own lawn produces no new income and COSTS in
time, risks and materials. *But it's not worth the effort to patiently
explain Econ 101 since BobR used the magic word "idiot" which, as Oren so
memorably said: (paraphrasing) "means we aren't going to be friends."

Maybe once he learns to pull his horns in . . .

It's sad that someone not only has no clue as to what you are talking about
(saving money does not equal earning it) but that he's so incredibly
aggressive and insulting about being wrong.

BobR owes you an apology for calling you an idiot, Derby, but to understand
that, he would need to understand basic accounting and bookkeeping
principles. *He would also need a personality transplant to turn into a
person that understands when he's wrong and when he's been rude. *He's made
it clear, unfortunately, that he does not understand either.

BobR also appears to have missed the humor behind Mr. Austerity's
"business plan" comment. *(BobR, he was funnin' ya by showing that your
concept of earning money fails when expanded to its illogical end.) *BobR
does not understand by mowing his own lawn he makes no money. *If he did,
then mowing it ten times a day should net him $700.

If saving were earning, people who lost their jobs should be able to avoid
having their houses repossessed but of course, they can't, because you can't
"save" enough to meet the mortgage payment. *That takes an income stream. *A
*real* income stream, not just the "feeling" that you've earned money by
saving it.

You're confusing income and earnings.
Earnings = (income - expense)
And it has nothing to do "savings" unless increased earnings go there.
BobR had an established lawn work expense.
By using his own labor he cut out much of that expense.
And so increased his earnings.
You and Derby just can't understand that because....don't know why.
It's as clear as the nose on your face.
The "business plan" suggestion is likewise a red herring.
There is a limit to expense cutting, and available time/work.
Might as well say to a plumber making $1000 a week working 8 hour
days, "Gee, why don't you work 32 hour days and bring home $4000.

Technically, even foregoing cable TV/internet expenses shows up as
earnings.
Replacing somebody else's labor with yours to cut an expense should
draw no argument about earnings.
It's really kind of crazy that anyone should take issue with that.
Might show how people value labor.
Might be they don't look at personal finances in a business like
manner.
I know when I spend some hours cutting out an $1000 auto repair
expense by doing the labor myself I earned every penny of the
difference in cost.
Adds to my net worth also.
Where did the earnings come from?
Right out of a auto mechanic's pocket.
No need for the Abbott/Costello money-handling routine.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

$35 not spent/saved is equal to $35 + tax + expenses you don't have to
earn.

Your thrifty mother may have run out of cash eventually but she
negated the need to earn a whole lot more money.
She would have run out of cash a whole lot sooner without her
thriftyness.

I bet she didn't have a credit card.

If you don't have opportunity to earn, then you have to save/economise/
DIY.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is truely in cloud cuckooland and
furthermore is likely to be in a whole lot of trouble in the near
future.

On Dec 4, 3:57*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

news:01adadc8-6bba-4589-b9ab-

Wait...maybe you didn't have a specific auto mechanic that you would
have used. So how does it work then? Did 1000 mechanics have their
pocket cash decreased by $1 each? or 500 by $2? or 2000 by 50 cents?
or is there just 1 random auto mechanic out there someplace who is
$1000 poorer? Gosh, I hope not. Doesn't seem fair, does it? I mean,
why *him*?

I know I am going to regret this, but in the long view of things - the
macroeconomic view, yes, when a person does their own repairs it does effect
(ever so slightly) the aggregate income of all auto repair mechanics. *So
the magic number is not one or 100 mechanics who share in the loss of
potential income, but the entire pool of mechanics (actually not even that -
it's the aggregate income of all mechanics who were geographically likely to
have fixed the car. *Economics follows Newtonian laws to a spooky extent
because every action has a reaction, usually opposite and usually equal, but
often very hard to see. *BobR's own auto repair would be mostly invisible
and unlikely to affect the salary of the area mechanics by a dollar, if it
effected their aggregate salaries at all.

Economic forecasters spend lots of time trying to anticipate trends that
cause economic shifts because that's where money is made (and lost).
Goldman-Sachs had some very good economic forecasters on their team because
they saw the real estate bubble popping ahead of the rest of the investment
banking pack. *They made lots of money as a result.

BobR's is right to think that his doing his own work affects the economy.
It certainly conserves his assets and not spending money is usually saving
money. *There are exceptions like deferred maintenance like letting your
brakes grind to metal to save money but then needing to do a rotor job,
too). *Even things like CFL bulbs and new refrigerators come into play here.
I confess to abject stupidity in nursing my old refrigerator along for so
long. *The new one costs less than ONE THIRD what the older one cost to run.
So even "savings" are situational. *Plenty of people think they are saving
money when they're not.

When you do you own auto repairs, you don't earn $1000 by doing it. *The
economist eggheads I used to work with would probably say "what you really
did was prevent a mechanic from earning $1000 that he might have ordinarily
earned" with a wry smile on their faces. They would then qualify that by
saying if the mechanic already had his calendar filled, he might not even
have been deprived of any earnings. *Then they would point out that plenty
of people *try* doing the work themselves but then get in way over their
heads and end up going to the mechanic anyway. *Some people wreck their cars
attempting to fix them and lose real money in terms of potential resale
value of the car. *(I once watched a guy drill right into his transmission
installing a new stereo - that was a negative cash flow event).

The key to all this is still opportunity costs which my Econ 601 prof
explained very neatly. *"Why are you here paying 100's of dollars to listen
to a grad school Econ lecture when you could be making at least $30 working
in a pizzeria? You've chosen to spend your time and money in a way you hope
will maximize your future income. *You're investing in your own human
capital and hoping to create a finished product that has value to an
employer."

Actually, back then I could have made way more than $10 an hour I had chosen
to work OT instead of going to night school. *But he was right. *The best
use of my time was to make myself knowledgeable enough to command a higher
salary. *He also drilled in the value of investment and compound interest to
the entire class showing us how a few thousand invested in stocks instead of
a spending it on nice new car would pay for a Jaguar when we were having our
mid-life crises. *He was right about that too.

How did we get here? *(-:

--
Bobby G.

We got here because of the instant gratification syndrome and the
entitlement culture.

`"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:36 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:



There a big difference between not spending money and earning it. One
of them increases your net worth, the other one keeps it the same.
I'll let you figure out which one is which.

Uh, no.
One common definition of earnings is income minus expenses.
It's pretty obvious that reducing expenses increases earnings.
That's what BobR did.
You're just stuck on your definition of pay check earnings.
And I showed you the book keeping entries to prove it.
Here's what you should do
Take a booked expense and cut it out.
Let's say a cable bill of $100 a month.
All else being equal after a year your net worth will increase $1200.
Now you might not want to call that earnings, but that's the effect.
When you mow the lawn and sweat a bit to increase your net worth,
nothing wrong with calling that an earning.
Especially when it had been an established expense.
It just doesn't matter that it rubs you wrong.

The only problem with that accounting is a little thing called "opportunity
costs." When you mow the lawn, you're spending your time. You have then
lost the opportunity to perhaps earn more money doing something you're
exceptionally good at. If you *could* earn $100 a hour consulting or making
carvings to sell, then you'd be losing $30 an hour by working for $70 an
hour instead of at your maximum. The only problem with both our examples is
that you really don't lose that extra $30, you lose the opportunity to have
MADE that money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

"Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value
of the best alternative that is not chosen (that is foregone)"

If you chose to mow your lawn yourself, you can no longer use that time to
work extra hourse at work, do consulting, or break into your neighbor's
garages to steal their tools, or mug nuns on the street, if that's your
thing. G

If your time had no other possible value, then maybe you could feel that you
earned $70, but even then it wouldn't be true. To make or "earn" money in
the first place, you have to increase your net worth, not just conserve it.
Mowing the lawn yourself means you haven't spent money, but it certainly
doesn't mean you made any. That would happen only if you mowed your
neighbor's lawn, too AND they paid you for it.

Way back when Venice was the merchant capital of the world, they invented
double-entry bookkeeping, which has become the very cornerstone of modern
accounting. For every debit, there is a credit and vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-...keeping_system

This approach is also called as the American approach. Under this approach
transactions are recorded based on the accounting equation, i.e., Assets =
Liabilities + Capital

Your assets have stayed the same by mowing your own lawn. While some
apparently see that as a gain of money, your financial position has not
IMPROVED by mowing your lawn, it's simply held its own. Conservation of
assets is not the same as earning.

It's easy to understand why some believe that money they can keep in their
pocket is a net benefit, it just seems to be common sense. But consider
this. When you mow for yourself, you aren't being paid, there's no new
money coming in and you have to pay for the tools, the gas, the insurance,
the damage if you throw a rock and crack you neighbor's car window, etc.
You can't engage in any other activity during that time, and if you're a
professional earning a good rate, you could come out at a net loss. You'll
really lose money if the mower runs over your foot and cripples you. That's
a fairly large risk you previously offloaded to your groundskeeper.

The issue here is standard definitions. Earning and saving are two
different animals. Very different.

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

It's because she understands that cutting expenses increases earnings.

Cutting expenses conserves capital and usually increases efficiency. I
think we're all knee-deep is serious semantic "horsesheet" because various
terms are getting mixed up and each has a very specific meaning with their
particular contexts. It's interesting that this kind of argument occurs in
lots of AHR threads where people think they are both talking about an
identical subject, but they're not.

Earnings has a very specific legal meaning as someone previously pointed out
about taxes. Our governments (FSL) have very precisely defined what
earnings are for the purposes of taxing the hell out of anything they even
remotely consider workings for wages. The word "wage" is also precisely
defined by laws, tax codes and common usage. In discussion about lawn
mowing and car repairing sense, earnings describes how much you were paid to
perform a service and wages are the rate at which you were paid to do it.

You just KNOW the Feds would like a piece of everyone's self-made wages from
mowing their own lawn. If you make bead earrings and SELL them to anyone,
they want (and GET) a cut. But they don't tax lawn mowing and home repairs
(actually, they do, but that's another story). Why? There aren't any
earnings there. Just savings. Not having to spend money *feels* like
earning it, but earning is a process that implies dollars coming from some
other economic entity. That's just definitional.

Just like the precise terms, neutral, ground and hot wires you have to
establish common meanings to have meaningful discussions. We all have made
some similar error in the past. Kurt has a list of mine. g

You wouldn't tell someone that it's OK to pull a neutral from the ground
because they're all connected at the panel. There are very serious although
subtle differences between the words "neutral" and "ground" as there are
between "earning" and "saving." DD and I reacted to the use of the word
'earning' to mean 'savings' the way most electricians here would react to "I
needed a neutral at a timer fan switch for the bathroom but there was none
so I connected the neutral wire to the shower pipe and it works fine now."

Well, maybe that's not quite an accurate analogy, but it certainly "struck
DD and me odd" to hear the words "earning/making" and "saving" used
interchangeably. Earning is what a businessman worries about the most. It
is the influx of dollars from somewhere and without it, the machine stops
and no amount of savings will restart it.

In this case it gets back to the question: could you have made more money
working at a job that pays for your skills in the time it took you to mow
your lawn? If so, you lost money by making inefficient use of your time.

There's no doubt that people SAVE money by mowing their own lawn. But using
the terms "make" or "earn" to refer to that saved money just isn't correct.
Just like saying "ground and neutral" are the same isn't right. Earning
adds to your net worth, saving conserves net worth.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:



" But I say if you cut your own grass instead of paying somebody
else to do it, you earned the difference in net worth."

My net worth is zero.

I'm flat broke. Not a dime or possession to my name. I'm squatting on
a piece of land owned by some guy in another state who doesn't know
about me or my cardboard box.

The grass was getting pretty long. When the family down the block went
to church I snuck into their shed and borrowed their lawnmower. My
little piece of paradise looks much better.


Even setting up ridiculous scenarios that have nothing to do with the
original scenario won't help you.
You'll never run away from plus and minus signs.
What you quote above offers two choices: pay expense or do it
yourself.
So in your new scenario the squatter can become indebted $35 by
promising to pay a landscaper later, or do it himself.
If he pays, he's $35 in debt, net worth -$35.

What's my net worth now?

Since you (the squatter) mowed it yourself, your net worth is still
zero.
In other words, $35 more than if you hired it done.


All that work made me hungry. Can I go spend
my earnings on some food?

Assuming your credit limit is $35, you can now borrow $35 to buy food.
If you hired the mowing, you go hungry.
You're tapped out.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
Do you pay to have your lawn mowed, as BobR did?
Check this year's expense for that, which debits your net worth.
Fire your mower and do it yourself next year.
Then check at the end of next season for that debit.
It's gone! And you net worth increased by what's no longer debited.
You can then decide if you earned the difference, or it had nothing at
all to do with your labor, but was all caused by some wonderful good
magic you have no control over.
If you already mow your own, hire it done next year, then check how
that expense affects your net worth.
Then decide if that debit to your net worth is because you didn't mow
your lawn yourself, or because it's just some kind of black magic
happening out there that you can't control.

--Vic

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:56:19 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



Could you also figure in the benefits of mowing the lawn yourself like
getting exercise, fresh air and sun for vitamin D? The free workout so
you don't have to go to a gym or pay a personal trainer? Perhaps the act
of mowing your lawn could reveal any medical problem brought on by
exertion saving your life? Involving family members by getting children
outdoors away from TV and video games, teaching them about safety around
power equipment and the bonding experience of working together. How can
you place a value on these things? ^_^


Yep. All of that.
I enjoy doing the lawn work for the reasons you gave.
Can't say my kids ever considered it party time when I made them do
it, but they never complained.
As you say, some things can't be priced.
But I know the price to hire out my lawn mowing.
And I knew the price of a gym membership in the past.

--Vic

On Dec 10, 11:03*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03

wrote:

" But I say if you cut your own grass instead of paying somebody
else to do it, you earned the difference in net worth."

My net worth is zero.

I'm flat broke. Not a dime or possession to my name. I'm squatting on
a piece of land owned by some guy in another state who doesn't know
about me or my cardboard box.

The grass was getting pretty long. When the family down the block went
to church I snuck into their shed and borrowed their lawnmower. My
little piece of paradise looks much better.

Even setting up ridiculous scenarios that have nothing to do with the
original scenario won't help you.
You'll never run away from *plus and minus signs.
What you quote above offers two choices: pay expense or do it
yourself.
So in your new scenario the squatter can become indebted $35 by
promising to pay a landscaper later, or do it himself.
If he pays, he's $35 in debt, net worth -$35.

What's my net worth now?

Since you (the squatter) mowed it yourself, your net worth is still
zero.
In other words, $35 more than if you hired it done.

All that work made me hungry. Can I go spend
my earnings on some food?

Assuming your credit limit is $35, you can now borrow $35 to buy food.
If you hired the mowing, you go hungry.
You're tapped out.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
Do you pay to have your lawn mowed, as BobR did?
Check this year's expense for that, which debits your net worth.
Fire your mower and do it yourself next year.
Then check at the end of next season for that debit.
It's gone! *And you net worth increased by what's no longer debited.
You can then decide if you earned the difference, or it had nothing at
all to do with your labor, but was all caused by some wonderful good
magic you have no control over.
If you already mow your own, hire it done next year, then check how
that expense affects your net worth.
Then decide if that debit to your net worth is because you didn't mow
your lawn yourself, or because it's just some kind of black magic
happening out there that you can't control.

--Vic

That has got to be the stupidest financial logic I've ever heard.

I'll lay it out plain and simple one last time. If you don't get it
after this, we'll just let you go on thinking that you have
*increased* your net worth by not spending money.

The numbers just don't get any simpler than this. We don't need any
formulas, we don't need to play any semantic games. It's as simple as
this:

If you start with nothing and you don't pay someone to do something
for you, you will still have nothing. If you then do that "something"
yourself, you will still have nothing.

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.

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

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.

On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, BobR wrote:
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.

"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."

I agree. Are you and BobR total morons or a couple bozos?

On Dec 11, 1:51*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

"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."

Good gosh, man, use your brain.

Feel free to insert any offsetting dollar amount you'd like.

Here, I'll do it for you.

If you start with nothing and you don't pay someone $35 to do
something for you, you will still have nothing. If you then do that
"something" yourself, you will not suddenly have $35, you'll still
have nothing.

If you start with $1,000,000,000,000 and you don't pay someone $35 to
do something for you, you will still have $1,000,000,000,000. If you
then do that "something" yourself, you will not suddenly have
$1,000,000,000,035, you'll still have $1,000,000,000,000.

See ya, bye, done, out.

Feel free to throw any and all insults my way, I'm done wasting my
time trying to explain simple math to you two.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:57:22 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:



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.

I don't think they're morons.
They just think differently that you and me.
Aliens? (just kidding)
And you don't have to think a certain way to accumulate wealth.
If you have a high income you can spend plenty on expenses and still
build up nice net worth.
On a lower income you can cut expenses to do the same.
It's all relative, and everybody's different.
But you can't deny expenses exist.
Some people look at a $30k new car as a necessary expense.
And maybe it is for them. That's fine.
I don't even have $20K in cars in 45 years of owning cars.
Because I can choose good used cars and fix them myself.
Do I care if others want to buy a new car?
Nope.
Does it bother me not ever buying a new car?
Nope.
Has it affected my net worth?
Yep.

--Vic

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:48:46 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:



See ya, bye, done, out.


That's your best idea on this yet.

--Vic

"I think I done bought too many guns!"

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

My oldest son sure looks good in that dance recital pink dress I bought for
my daughter.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Dec 12, 1:50*pm, BobR wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:56*pm, "Robert Green"


....A most xxcellent explanation has been snipped...

Most reasonable people can recognize that there is more than one
acceptable definition but both you and DD have proven that you are not
reasonable so I don't expect you to understand the definitions on
either word.

Mr. G:

A very wise man named Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the
difference."

I suggest that you follow my lead and accept the fact that these 2
gentlemen are not going to listen to reason.

This wisdom will "earn" you some serenity. ;-)

On Dec 12, 3:22*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:50*pm, BobR wrote:

On Dec 11, 11:56*pm, "Robert Green"

...A most xxcellent explanation has been snipped...


Along with the definitions from the merriam-webster dictionary that
proved you both wrong on all accounts.

Most reasonable people can recognize that there is more than one
acceptable definition but both you and DD have proven that you are not
reasonable so I don't expect you to understand the definitions on
either word.

Mr. G:

A very wise man named Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the
difference."

I suggest that you follow my lead and accept the fact that these 2
gentlemen are not going to listen to reason.

This wisdom will "earn" you some serenity. ;-)

If you are speaking of yourself and Mr. Green that would obviously be
an accurate statement.

Andy comments:
It was a Texan who first designed a one store whorehouse....

..... it eliminated all the ****ing overhead......


Andy

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:52:17 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

Andy comments:
It was a Texan who first designed a one store whorehouse....

.... it eliminated all the ****ing overhead......


Andy

33. This rubber is too big.

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 1:50 pm, BobR wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:56 pm, "Robert Green"


....A most xxcellent explanation has been snipped...

Most reasonable people can recognize that there is more than one
acceptable definition but both you and DD have proven that you are not
reasonable so I don't expect you to understand the definitions on
either word.

Mr. G:

A very wise man named Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the
difference."

I suggest that you follow my lead and accept the fact that these 2
gentlemen are not going to listen to reason.

This wisdom will "earn" you some serenity. ;-)
================================================== ========
I remember a long time ago, when I was a "cub" reporter, an interviewee
called my editor to complain about an article I had written. I always taped
my interviews (with permission) so that I could get the quotes exactly right
and this gentlemen complained, when quoted verbatim "That's what I SAID buy
it's not what I MEANT!"

Once you encounter that kind of behavior, it's hard to be shocked any
further. All I can do is present the facts as I know them. Since I got a
780 on my GRE verbal exam, I feel pretty confident that I'm right about the
definition of accounting terms as they've been used for centuries. I'll
admit, I make plenty of mistakes, but confusing "saving money" with "earning
money" isn't one of them. I've suffered through too many economics,
bookkeeping, accounting and business process reengineering classes to
entertain redefinition of terms that are absolutely standardized in labor
law, accounting, bookkeeping and taxation.

BTW, I prefer this version: Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The
Things I Can Not Change, The Courage To Change The Things I Can, And The
Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those I Had To Kill Because They ****ed Me Off
So Damn Much.

The truth is that I just don't get peeved enough to care. I rarely engage
in more than a couple of rounds of debate because by then you've either
convinced someone they've erred or they've convinced you that "face" is so
important to them they can never admit to an error. Those types of people
often end up telling the story of their web duel to one of their
knowledgeable friends who will then tell them "ah, you were mistaken."

Now I have to sign off to write a new brochure to sell on the web:

"Mowing Your Way To Millions!"

--
Bobby G.

Since you got a 780, you probably could have found a version of the
serenity prayer that didn't Capitalize Each Word, Which Is Improper Usage.
It makes the reader think that each word is its own sentence. Makes it
dificult to read.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

Once you encounter that kind of behavior, it's hard to be shocked any
further. All I can do is present the facts as I know them. Since I got a
780 on my GRE verbal exam, I feel pretty confident that I'm right about the
definition of accounting terms as they've been used for centuries. I'll
admit, I make plenty of mistakes, but confusing "saving money" with "earning
money" isn't one of them. I've suffered through too many economics,
bookkeeping, accounting and business process reengineering classes to
entertain redefinition of terms that are absolutely standardized in labor
law, accounting, bookkeeping and taxation.

BTW, I prefer this version: Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The
Things I Can Not Change, The Courage To Change The Things I Can, And The
Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those I Had To Kill Because They ****ed Me Off
So Damn Much.

On Dec 13, 5:15*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message

...
On Dec 12, 1:50 pm, BobR wrote:

On Dec 11, 11:56 pm, "Robert Green"

...A most xxcellent explanation has been snipped...

Most reasonable people can recognize that there is more than one
acceptable definition but both you and DD have proven that you are not
reasonable so I don't expect you to understand the definitions on
either word.

Mr. G:

A very wise man named Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the
difference."

I suggest that you follow my lead and accept the fact that these 2
gentlemen are not going to listen to reason.

This wisdom will "earn" you some serenity. ;-)
================================================== ========
I remember a long time ago, when I was a "cub" reporter, an interviewee
called my editor to complain about an article I had written. *I always taped
my interviews (with permission) so that I could get the quotes exactly right
and this gentlemen complained, when quoted verbatim "That's what I SAID buy
it's not what I MEANT!"

Once you encounter that kind of behavior, it's hard to be shocked any
further. *All I can do is present the facts as I know them. *Since I got a
780 on my GRE verbal exam, I feel pretty confident that I'm right about the
definition of accounting terms as they've been used for centuries. *I'll
admit, I make plenty of mistakes, but confusing "saving money" with "earning
money" isn't one of them. *I've suffered through too many economics,
bookkeeping, accounting and business process reengineering classes to
entertain redefinition of terms that are absolutely standardized in labor
law, accounting, bookkeeping and taxation.

BTW, I prefer this version: *Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The
Things I Can Not Change, The Courage To Change The Things I Can, And The
Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those I Had To Kill Because They ****ed Me Off
So Damn Much.

The truth is that I just don't get peeved enough to care. *I rarely engage
in more than a couple of rounds of debate because by then you've either
convinced someone they've erred or they've convinced you that "face" is so
important to them they can never admit to an error. *Those types of people
often end up telling the story of their web duel to one of their
knowledgeable friends who will then tell them "ah, you were mistaken."

Now I have to sign off to write a new brochure to sell on the web:

"Mowing Your Way To Millions!"

--
Bobby G.

I bow down to your godly self belief.

On Dec 13, 7:38*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Since you got a 780, you probably could have found *a version of the
serenity prayer that didn't Capitalize Each Word, Which Is Improper Usage..
It makes the reader think that each word is its own sentence. Makes it
dificult to read.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Robert Green" wrote in message

...

Once you encounter that kind of behavior, it's hard to be shocked any
further. *All I can do is present the facts as I know them. *Since I got a
780 on my GRE verbal exam, I feel pretty confident that I'm right about the
definition of accounting terms as they've been used for centuries. *I'll
admit, I make plenty of mistakes, but confusing "saving money" with "earning
money" isn't one of them. *I've suffered through too many economics,
bookkeeping, accounting and business process reengineering classes to
entertain redefinition of terms that are absolutely standardized in labor
law, accounting, bookkeeping and taxation.

BTW, I prefer this version: *Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The
Things I Can Not Change, The Courage To Change The Things I Can, And The
Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those I Had To Kill Because They ****ed Me Off
So Damn Much.

You are not paying proper respect to the NEW self proclaimed Noah
Webster, the god of all definitions.

Oh, gracious. I've totally messed up. That's awful.

--

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"BobR" wrote in message
...

You are not paying proper respect to the NEW self proclaimed Noah
Webster, the god of all definitions.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:56:57 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:40:45 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
wrote:



Do you pay to have your lawn mowed, as BobR did?
Check this year's expense for that, which debits your net worth.
Fire your mower and do it yourself next year.
Then check at the end of next season for that debit.
It's gone! And you net worth increased by what's no longer debited.

There's the other flaw. Your net worth didn't increase. It just didn't
decrease. Very important point. You saved money you already had but you
didn't earn any new money. That's savings, not earnings. By definition.
You can argue all day that savings and earnings are the same, just as you
could argue that ground and neutral are the same. The outcome will still be
the same. They are NOT equal.


Never argued about savings/earnings definitions.
Except to say earnings = (income - expense).
Never got my panties in a wad because BobR said he made $35.
Accept the above formula or not. Doesn't matter regarding net worth.

But at least somebody finally admitted that expense decreases net
worth. Like pulling teeth here.
Now do as I said and cancel your lawn service expense, as BobR did.
If all else stays equal, and you have an income stream, as most
everybody has, what happens to your net worth in 6 months?
You don't have to reply. Everybody already knows the answer.
Except for one other person now.
You'll find no flaw in plus and minus.

BTW, I read your entire post, giving it respect, and responded to many
points you made,
But except for the above it was all irrelevant to what BobR and I said
about coming out ahead by doing some work instead of paying somebody
else.
So I just deleted it.
Even my Navy story about what we called slush funds.
The important part is above, your admission that expense decreases net
worth.
Glad at least one of you is honest enough to admit that.
Now do the exercise I gave with your lawn mowing costs to find the
increase.

Given your obvious spirit, I don't expect you to be humbled by your
admission that you've seen the light. You'll shake it off.
But to aid you in that direction I'll note here my correcting response
to your point about others only agreeing with you two.
Nobody has agreed with you two.
Nobody much gives a **** about this.
Until your admission above, everybody but two people knew that cutting
expense will increase net worth, all else equal.
One was you, and now there's only one who thinks otherwise.
So it's me, you, BobR and everybody else against the holdout.
It's your task now to convince him.
I'm a bit fatigued from taking you down.
Beware of his razzle-dazzle footwork.
Beware of him tossing lawn mowing indigents in your path.
Just be patient until he is flat-footed, then throw a left uppercut
plus, followed by a right cross minus.
He'll crumple to the mat.
Just as you did when you came off your toes above.
Unless he does this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXY9TuuwyL8&feature=fvst


--Vic

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

Since you got a 780, you probably could have found a version of the
serenity prayer that didn't Capitalize Each Word, Which Is Improper Usage.

Ask Me If I REALLY Care What A Top Poster Thinks About My Posting Choices .
.. . (-:

It makes the reader think that each word is its own sentence. Makes it
dificult to read.

It apparently makes *one* reader think each word is its own sentence. That
might not be something I would expect people to confess to as it might
reflect poorly on their reading skills and their inability to recognize
"title case."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_case

Title case: All words are capitalized except for certain subsets defined
by rules that are not universally standardized. The standardization is only
at the level of house styles and individual style manuals. (See further
explanation below at Headings and publication titles.)

I'm Surprised You Would Think These Words Are Sentences When They Are
Clearly Absent A Period Indicating The End Of A Sentence. Even. Using. A.
Period. After. Each. Word. Would. Not. Be. Really. DiFficult. To. Deal.
With! People tend to read in word groups and not single letters or words.
Some writers, like ee cummings, are known for their odd "case" work:

Buffalo Bill's
defunct
who used to
ride a watersmooth-silver
stallion
and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat
Jesus

he was a handsome man
and what i want to know is
how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/11888

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 13, 9:28*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:56:57 -0500, "Robert Green"



Given your obvious spirit, I don't expect you to be humbled by your
admission that you've seen the light. *You'll shake it off.
But to aid you in that direction I'll note here my correcting response
to your point about others only agreeing with you two.
Nobody has agreed with you two.
Nobody much gives a **** about this.
Until your admission above, everybody but two people knew that cutting
expense will increase net worth, all else equal.
One was you, and now there's only one who thinks otherwise.
So it's me, you, BobR and everybody else against the holdout.
It's your task now to convince him.
I'm a bit fatigued from taking you down.
Beware of his razzle-dazzle footwork.
Beware of him tossing lawn mowing indigents in your path.
Just be patient until he is flat-footed, then throw a left uppercut
plus, followed by a right cross minus.
He'll crumple to the mat.
Just as you did when you came off your toes above.
Unless he does this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXY9TuuwyL8&feature=fvst

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are a lot of people like him here.
Dunno how they make it from one day to the next.