4 ms·

> Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense. That's nit-picking. Social programs are negative revenue. If you want to maximize income, you can incre

by adekok 10y ago

> Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense. That's nit-picking. Social programs are negative revenue. If you want to maximize income, you can increase income, or decrease expenses. This is grade 5 math. > "Greater good" is a feel good (no pun intended) term that has no objective meaning. "Greater good" can be define to mean that it matches societies preference. i.e. long life, healthy life, whatever. If only the constitution defined greater good.. perhaps something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

koolba 10y ago
>> Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense. > That's nit-picking. Social programs are negative revenue. No it's not nit-picking, it's basic accounting. If you want to maximize income, you can increase income, or decrease expenses. Revenue impacts your top line gross. Expense impacts your bottom line net. Income != Revenue. To use an extreme example, if I have $1M of expense and zero revenue, no matter how much expense I cut I'm not going to turn a profit as you can't go below zero. Conversely, if I have $0 of expense and $1M of revenue, I can continue to increase income by raising revenue. > This is grade 5 math. No it's Accounting 101. > "Greater good" can be define to mean that it matches societies preference. i.e. long life, healthy life, whatever. > If only the constitution defined greater good.. perhaps something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? It's not an objective measure though.
- adekok 10y ago
  > To use an extreme example, if I have $1M of expense and zero revenue, no matter how much expense I cut I'm not going to turn a profit as you can't go below zero. Conversely, if I have $0 of expense and $1M of revenue, I can continue to increase income by raising revenue Show me a government with zero revenue, or a government with zero expenses, and I'll believe you. Until then, it's still nit-picking. At the scale of governments, expenses == -revenue

by adekok 10y ago

koolba 10y ago

>> Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense. > That's nit-picking. Social programs are negative revenue. No it's not nit-picking, it's basic accounting. If you want to maximize income, you can increase income, or decrease expenses. Revenue impacts your top line gross. Expense impacts your bottom line net. Income != Revenue. To use an extreme example, if I have $1M of expense and zero revenue, no matter how much expense I cut I'm not going to turn a profit as you can't go below zero. Conversely, if I have $0 of expense and $1M of revenue, I can continue to increase income by raising revenue. > This is grade 5 math. No it's Accounting 101. > "Greater good" can be define to mean that it matches societies preference. i.e. long life, healthy life, whatever. > If only the constitution defined greater good.. perhaps something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? It's not an objective measure though.

adekok 10y ago
> To use an extreme example, if I have $1M of expense and zero revenue, no matter how much expense I cut I'm not going to turn a profit as you can't go below zero. Conversely, if I have $0 of expense and $1M of revenue, I can continue to increase income by raising revenue Show me a government with zero revenue, or a government with zero expenses, and I'll believe you. Until then, it's still nit-picking. At the scale of governments, expenses == -revenue