| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: OWNERSHIP: the "zero sum" fallacy | | Date: | Sunday, May 1, 2005 10:50:54 (EDT) | | From: | Matvox <Matvox @...com>
|
Bill,
I don't believe your analysis is entirely correct. While normally you are right, firms do record the equivalent value of an asset purchased so that there is no change in overall value to the firm and for which they now have a book value for the asset. But presumbably they bought the asset because they feel it will make a better return on capital than money sitting idle. At any rate, there are occasions when a firm might be required to reassess the value of that asset to mark it to market value rather than the historic book value. It is possible to make reasonable estimates of this without actually making a sale based on equivalent sales. For instance one doesn't need to sell one's house to have a reasonable idea of what it's worth based on what the neighbors' houses are selling for. In fact, most towns reassess home values for tax purposes periodically, regardless of whether the asset has exchanged hands. Corporations, banks included, do as well.
Matt Greco
|
Re: OWNERSHIP: the
Reply to this message