On 17 May 2000 09:47:51 CDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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?
Actually, that's _rather_ good.
It puts it into the same terms as debit cards and credit cards,
which is something that it _is_ reasonable to expect people to have
_some_ feel for.
--
Babbage's Rule: "No man's cipher is worth looking at unless the
inventor has himself solved a very difficult cipher" (The Codebreakers
by Kahn, 2nd ed, pg 765)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
