I've silently lurked throughout a number of these Israel/Hamas/Iran threads because I've found both entertainment value and some thought-provoking value in reading through the differing opinions on the topic.
This is a very wise and respectable approach. You maximize your learning, you don't trigger anyone, and you maximize the openness of your mind. Kudos.
Yes, I believe that Iran is who ultimately needs to be directly addressed in the grand scheme of things.
This is the fulcrum issue. In order to pretend that Israel is somehow the victim and is somehow justified in its ethnic cleansing, one must deny Iran as the attacker on Oct-7 and instead insist Gaza's unarmed administrators somehow caused rockets to magically appear and to launch at Israel while somehow teleporting roughly one hundred hostages to Qatar into the custody of Iranian militants. This is the only way one can plausibly claim that Israel is correct to slaughter unarnmed civilian Arab noncombatants by invading Gaza instead of exacting retribution for the attack by invading Iran.
One also has to ask the question "Once it became clear that the hostages aren't in Gaza and that Gaza's administrators (Hamas) obviously did not perpetrate the attack, why hasn't Israel ceased operations (with profuse apologies) and departed?" Why has Israel not only ramped up their rate of killing and destruction, but deliberately violated the cease-fire to which they had previously agreed, just to resume killing unarmed civilian noncombatants?
I do vaguely remember some comment of that sort. But yeah, as for myself, I typically take a "listen first, speak later" approach to matters that I know little about and/or haven't researched for myself, such as this whole Israel/Hamas/Iran thing.
You will never be punished for not saying anything. You always have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the JPP forum. Case in point, I say a lot. I do it as a service. Lurkers can remain silent and see what people say to me.
Per present-day US laws, regulations, and standards (such as GAAP)? Yes.
This really is 95% of our discussion. We are primarily in agreement. Our disagreement is really over one small point that amounts to "What do you mean by 'accounting'?" I totally get your point that people can document their assets/debts and they have the 1st Amendment right to refer to it as their "accounting." I totally grant your point; I do not disagree.
Please note that I always specified reference to "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles." I claim that your error is subtle, and reflected in your mindset. "Accounting" is not something personal, i.e. of each individual, but rather an accepted standard, so that when you and I do business, we do so on a level playing field. The purpose of accounting in society cannot be achieved if you have your own "accounting" and I have mine. We do
not have "Generally Accepted Culinary Principles" because what food you decide to eat for lunch is a personal matter for individual determination. We
do have "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" because we need for everyone to be operating under the same standards so that, for example, what you owe in taxes is a legitimate concept, and that laws regarding how you amortize you loans mean the same thing to you as it means to me. This is why there are certifications for accounting issued by accounting authorities.
... and bartering CAN be accounted for (no currency required).
It can be documented, yes.
But my assets, liabilities, and net worth aren't all in chickens.
This is an illustration of your error. The equation
Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities has only three variables. You must put only one value into each, not seven or twenty or thousands. The only way you can put a single value into each variable is to have a currency that represents the type of those variables.
BALANCE SHEET (as of 03/27/2025)
ASSETS:
1 chicken coop
12 egg-laying boxes
40 chickens
150 eggs
400lbs chicken feed
LIABILITIES:
5 chickens
50 eggs
NET WORTH:
1 chicken coop
12 egg-laying boxes
35 chickens
100 eggs
400lbs chicken feed
Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth ... Balance Sheet balances ... no currency necessary.
Another error is represented above is the idea that you can actually represent your transactions. If today you barter (with no underlying currency) one coop for a dozen eggs (and we are saying that neither eggs nor coops are a currency) ... and tomorrow you barter one coop for ten eggs. In our "accounting" we have twelve eggs equals one coop equals ten eggs, i.e. twelve eggs equals ten eggs. Your net worth of 100 eggs equals a net worth of 120 eggs and simultaneously equals a net worth of 96 eggs. You actually don't have a balance sheet, you don't have a ledger and you don't have accounting; you have an inventory sheet.
Now, if the egg is your currency, then you simply create your ledger and balance sheet in "eggs" and you develop your egg (cash) flow statements. The changing coop values are simply captured in the transaction values with respect to eggs.
However, accounting in and of itself doesn't require any sort of currency
The moment you establish accounting as a standard (to be forthwith adhered by society/multiple people), you have to have a currency to have equality under the accounting.
As long as you view accounting as your own personal documentation under your own rules under a bartering system, you simply have your own inventory sheets.