Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dare I comment, again, that a presentation of this is already there?
> Possibly not in as much gory detail as the recent discussion, but it's
> certainly there...
>
> It probably went in back in December when I did some major revisions to
> the documentation.
>
> Look for: xacc-double.html
>
> In particular, look for the phrase "Not-quite-an-aside."
Well, I had seen that, but it's not quite what I meant. I was talking
about a more elaborate, hopefully somewhat intuitive description.
Something like this, perhaps (presuming it holds water):
In the double-entry accounting model gnucash uses, when considering
the terms "debit and credit", you have to think of things from a
particular perspective; the terms must be taken as indicating what
other people's position is with respect to you.
* In the case of a debit, the've incurred a debt to you -- they owe
you.
* In the case of a credit, the've extended you credit -- you owe
them.
Now it's immediately obvious why, from your perspective, debits are
"good". They're obligations to pay you. This also makes it clear
why putting money into your savings account is, properly speaking, a
debit, not a credit.
From this perspective, it's equally obvious why you want to avoid
too many credits. They can be bad for your financial health,
especially if they're credits from high interest lenders.
Is this, roughly speaking, correct?
--
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
