h a l f b a k e r yThe embarrassing drunkard uncle of invention.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
We had the term MNC, referring to the Multi-National Corporation, but the
today's
reality begs for a wider concept. So, what about the term: Non-National
Company, meaning what it says: a company as entity defined by a set of
ledgers
of all kinds that are not strictly properties or instruments
of countries or
nations, or with at least one non-national ledger.
Reporting on intangible assets.
https://www.accaglo...-recognition17.html
Short(-ish) ACCA article on the world of pain that is Intangible assets. [DrBob, Jan 20 2021]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
It's already reasonably straightforward to do this; just go ahead and act as a company, but don't incorporate or otherwise register. It's not popular, but it is being done. It could also be called a stateless company, or a voluntaryist company. |
|
| |
Really interesting, and likely to happen or has already happened many different way. |
|
| |
A thing called an ICO (initial coin offering)? a fancier version of bitcoin would just have published behavior rules, like an LLC, Inc or for that matter a computer program. |
|
| |
Another thing that your idea suggests: a nonsentient botnet with an annual report? There are a few varieties of this, among them "Rules Visible" and "Rules Invisible": |
|
| |
rules visible:
This means that a country charter (corporate formation papers/rules) for a corporation (etc.) makes the rules that company has to go by, visible. You know what they can and cannot do. |
|
| |
rules invisible:
But a botnet that with an intentional bitcoin ledger "trail" verifiable annual report is doing something, doing it in an orderly way, and continuing to exist, but being countryless it has no published rules (charter). |
|
| |
Being nonsentient yet financially productive on the internet the botnet is made up of rules. No charter, but still rules. There is a computer program, it does do something. The botnet's program could be public or private. |
|
| |
A countryless botnet with verifiable bitcoin earnings and an annual report that published its source code could have a game theory advantage in that the more people that duplicate it, the better the original botnet does financially. Conveniently I did not figure out how other new botnets copying its behavior makes more money. (Ok I thought f a way) ("thrash"). |
|
| |
Some other botnet might not publish their source code for duplication because it was irrelevant to earnings. |
|
| |
Your idea also is new to me ethically, because I forgot until I read about NNC, that companies fund governments. |
|
| |
Its a little new to me the way it is "up the rabbit hole" ethically. Its like a more ethical opposite to anarchism than government. If you want to invest, and you don't want 20-40% of something or other companies may or may not contribute to the government then invest in a published sourcecode botnet with a bitcoin or other cryptocurrency denominated blockchain verifiable annual report. |
|
| |
Like seriously, I have heard about ethical people who think all killing is wrong, these same people think all governments kill (who know if they are right), so an earnings form they can invest in, or simply, it being a botnet, duplicate, that shares zero of its financial resources with government could appeal to them. |
|
| |
If they were parodies:
They would be all in your face like, "did you know "Hiking equipment retailer REI's taxes taxes funded nuclear weapons research? Fab tent Nukemeister!!! Boooo!" |
|
| |
And then some people would say, "well hmmm. Perhaps I could put all my retirement funds in Botnets and NNCs,no longer for every dollar I get will I be burdened with the knowledge that 2 cents went to things I wouldn't want done to me." |
|
| |
I definitely support ethical action. If I knew what ethical action is I would describe it. |
|
| |
That it is possible to be more orderly and less harmful than government, conveniently, without effort, as a sloppy person is new to me. Nonsentient NNC are a new thing to me ethically. |
|
| |
//published behavior rules// |
|
| |
How would the rules be enforced? |
|
| |
^ This comment shows that you have no understanding of how blockchain works. The rules are 'enforced' in the same way that the rules of the code and hardware that the Halfbakery runs on are 'enforced'. They don't need to be 'enforced'. That's kind of the point. |
|
| |
The "Red Mars" novel described "transnational"
corporations and global unrest as anti-aging tech
made corporate employees immortal and everyone
else on Earth increasingly poor. (I don't recommend
that novel; too
much romance soap opera content for a supposed
"science fiction" novel. I liked "Revelation Space"
because unlike other novels in this genre it mostly
lacks the sappy frivolous romcom that often
distracts from the space engineering.) |
|
| |
Arguably Baked by companies that use "tax havens"
i.e. to take profit only in low-tax countries and
declare losses in high-tax countries. |
|
| |
"I'm going to be like 160 and I'm going to be part of this, like, class of immortal overlords." - Sean Parker |
|
| |
//companies fund governments//
Or, alternately, governments create laws to allow companies to operate as companies in exchange for a share of the profits. It's all a matter of perspective. |
|
| |
//a company as entity defined by a set of ledgers of all kinds that are not strictly properties or instruments of countries or nations//
This is pretty much how large companies were operating until fairly recently. For example, in the EU, lots of corporations had their HQ in Ireland (where tax rates were low) & reported their earnings there, even though most of their assets were deployed & activity carried out across the Union. However, governments finally got wise to what was, essentially, a tax avoidance scam (as opposed to a tax evasion scam, which is illegal) & pushed for taxing based on where economic activity was carried out rather than where profits were reported.
Consequently, & in order to avoid being taxed multiple times for the same activity, in the last few years many large multi-nationals have moved to an organisational & accounting model that clearly defines what activities are carried out in each country in order to protect themselves from the piranha-like shoal of governments that were queuing up to start chomping away at their income. So the opposite of what you are proposing. |
|
| |
//governments create laws to allow companies to operate as companies in exchange for a share of the profits// |
|
| |
Alternatively, 'non-national company' is kind of like calling zoology the study of 'non-elephant animals'. |
|
| |
'Company' is a fairly straightforward concept; it literally means bread-together, and has only recently accreted baggage related to 'government' and 'nation' and political 'laws'. |
|
| |
The laws of trade evolved organically, as people noticed what worked and what didn't; recent involvement by 'government' (more correctly, 'states') is more a process of capture than creation. |
|
| |
Non-national trading companies existed as early as (and practically defined) the bronze age; the modern concept of the nation-state is only a few hundred years old; and the elements that are often taken for granted as defining modern 'companies' have only been in place since roughly the 1930s. |
|
| |
Not to mention that in reality, 'governments' don't create anything, because they are not real things; people create things, 'governments' are just fictions. It may seem like a petty distinction, but I don't think it is. It's a sign of dangerous, cult-like thinking to treat organisational labels - D.B.A.s - as if they were as real as, or more real than, the physical world. |
|
| |
Can you provide an example of a non- national trading company
that defined the bronze age, [spidermother]? |
|
| |
I think the problem is that we use words in entirely different ways ... |
|
| |
Tin deposits were separated from copper deposits. Tin and copper were brought together to make bronze. Sea voyages were involved. Ships require, among other things, a company of sailors. People don't do these things for nothing; they do them to exchange goods and services. It's called trade. And they don't do them alone; they form groups. It's called company. An instance of this is called a company. As in, we formed a company to go and pick mushrooms. Companies formed for the purpose of trading. Trading companies. This isn't rocket science. |
|
| |
I never said anything about 'a non- national trading company that defined the bronze age'. I said 'Non-national trading companies existed as early as (and practically defined) the bronze age'. Note the plural. Stop putting words in my mouth; it practically defines you as an arsehole. |
|
| |
Just in case it isn't obvious how stupid [Pertinax]'s comment is, try this: |
|
| |
'The knapped flint arrowhead was the height of technology at the time, and practically defined the stone age.' |
|
| |
'Can you provide an example of a knapped flint arrowhead that defined the stoneage?' |
|
| |
[Pertinax], you don't have to like or accept anything I have to say; but for once, either agree to disagree, or try arguing like a man, and deal with what I do say, instead of twisting my words like a lawyer or a child-molester. |
|
| |
//'Can you provide an example of a knapped flint arrowhead that
defined the stoneage?'// |
|
| |
Yes, I can. I can go to a museum, point to a knapped flint
arrowhead, and say "there are many arrowheads like this one
and, between them, they practically defined the stoneage". |
|
| |
It's harder to do this with a non- national trading company of the
bronze age because, to do so, you have to show not only that
trade happened and that people were involved in it but also that
the companies carrying on that trade were operating
substantially outside the jurisdiction of any political entity. |
|
| |
There's evidence at least as early as the iron age of political
entities levying taxes on passing traders, and also applying laws
to them, and I would be surprised if their predecessors in the
bronze age did not behave similarly. The main difference on this
point between bronze age and iron age is there's less
contemporary written evidence of what was happening in the
bronze age. Maybe an egyptologist or an assyriologist who has
read all the clay tablets could tell us "of course, there was no
regulation of merchants back then", but I would be surprised.
Hence my question. |
|
| |
I'm not sure how this makes me like a paedophile, but maybe I'm
missing something. |
|
| |
//or a child-molester//
That's completely out of order. I suggest that you apologise & withdraw it. |
|
| |
//People don't do these things for nothing; they do them to exchange goods and services// |
|
| |
Services like "not being beaten". Slavery is massively under-recognized as a factor in early human economical output. |
|
| |
//maybe I'm missing something.// |
|
| |
Honesty, respect, principles, a clue, an argument ... |
|
| |
[pertinax], the issue I am placing on the table, for the third time, is this: |
|
| |
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH |
|
| |
Step away from the caps lock. |
|
| |
I am not putting words into your mouth. What I am doing is
asking questions and (in some cases) offering paraphrases.
Now, those paraphrases may represent a misunderstanding,
on my part, of your view. In that case, you can explain
where the paraphrase is wrong, and I can learn something.
Alternatively, it may be that my paraphrase is valid, and
points to some flaw in your view, in which case, you can
learn something. Either way, someone learns something. |
|
| |
This process is not some kind of personal violation. It's just
dialog. There's a difference. |
|
| |
I've had about five different annotations typed out and
(mercifully) discarded on this this idea, as I realised that they
were for the most part addressing annotations, rather than
the idea itself. I am pretty sure that this is because I don't
understand the idea. I have one initial question, the answer
to which will beget others question about the idea: is "ledger"
here meaning accounting records? That is, balance sheet and
P&L? I maintain that this second question is actually part of
the first question, so my statement about having a single
question remains true. |
|
| |
Good question. Ledgers are always created for an accounting purpose of some kind, although that does not necessarily have to be for financial accounting.
So, for example, a "multi-national" company operating in the UK would have a ledger set up to comply with UK accounting regulations in order to properly report its Balance Sheet & P&L for the purpose of, in the final analysis, justifying its payment or non-payment of taxes to the relevant authority & correctly reporting its current financial standing to investors, potential investors & regulatory bodies*.
It would also have a parallel ledger set up in its "home" country (i.e. where its HQ is officially registered) which would translate those same transactions to comply with their own domestic accounting regulations & currency value for compliance purposes (e.g. the USA has some particularly stringent requirements regarding balance sheet reporting** that were put in place in the wake of the Enron & WorldCorp collapses).
I've also set up & run parallel ledgers in the UK where a change in accounting regulations was scheduled to occur***. So that current year transactions could be reported in both formats, once the new regulations came into force, for purposes of on-going comparisons.
I've worked a lot with ledgers & now, finally, all those years of slogging away on sheets of analysis paper & computer spreadsheets has all paid off because I can bore you all to tears with my tremendously interesting accounting knowledge. Go on, ask me another! ;)
* For any potential investors/dis-investors, it's important to note that these figures are always reported in arrears, so it is a good idea to investigate the current situation before making an investment decision. Past results are no guide, etc. For anybody froma regulatory body reading this; yes, you are supposed to actually monitor this sort of thing.
** Sarbanes-Oxley Act for anyone interested enough to read up on it.
***For the information of fellow accountants, this was for the changeover from UK GAAP to IFRS. |
|
| |
I did very much want to leave the annotation of our
resident accountant dangling there,
tumbleweeds gathering in its windward crevices, a
reminder - a warning - to all those who bring up
UK GAAP and IFRS in otherwise polite conversation. But
then I had a couple of uppers and I'm raring
to tackle what I consider to the the issues with the idea
and with some of the annotations. |
|
| |
The first issue is - what is this idea for? It can't be to
allow the for corporate ownership of property
(used in the widest sense) in a given nation state,
because that's already allowed. In any event, even
though there are some exceptions to this general
principle (e.g. foreign ownership of a retail
business in Indonesia) but the existence of the NNC form
doesn't resolve the issue of nations
imposing such restrictions anyway. |
|
| |
So, why do you want to avoid tethering your financial
records to those of a give country? I think,
though I may be wrong, that this is an accounting version
of the Sovereign Citizen movement, a
means by which assets can be held outside the grasp of
governmental regulation or taxation. Is that
right? |
|
| |
//It's already reasonably straightforward to do this; just
go ahead and act as a company, but don't
incorporate or otherwise register. It's not popular, but it is
being done. It could also be called a
stateless company, or a voluntaryist company.//
Not incorporating is not the same as the NNC. Yes, there
is no need to file accounts, but the
principle advantage (that I have assumed) this idea is
intended to provide - specifically, that the
NNC is free from national compliance and taxation
regimes - doesn't apply here. Of course, I could
be wrong that this is the intent of the idea. If I am, what
is the intent of the idea? |
|
| |
pertinax: //How would the rules be enforced?//
spidermother: //^ This comment shows that you have no
understanding of how blockchain
works.//
I am not sure that spidermother's contention here is
correct but even if it is correct, it is not
relevant to pertinax's point. My reading of spidermother's
contention is that the "rules" need be
executed, rather than enforced. Execution and
enforcement both require interpretation. For
blockchain enabled implementations, the interpretation
is IF THEN. For enforcement outside of the
scope of the blockchain enabled implementations, the
interpretation is IF THEN HANG ON
WHATABOUT. How can you enforce transfer of possession
of a physical asset without the means to
enforce control of possession? Without, when you boil it
down, the beefhanded goons of the police
(freelance or otherwise)? |
|
| |
For incorporeal assets the implementation of blockchain
controlled ownership is theoretically
possible, I think. But it would require the encoding of an
entire system of law in a way that can be
interpreted, executed *and* enforced
automatically. Currently,
the sensible interpretation of law is beyond
the finest legal minds across the globe. I am not sure
that the comp sci grads of this world are
better placed to do this. |
|
| |
Bah! Curse you calum! I had mentally constructed an anno about tumbleweeds to post on this idea in 6 months time, confident that the mere mention of complex & tedious accounting regulations would discourage any further annotations.
And, to make it worse, you've gone & mentioned crevices, which is bound to stir up unnecessary excitment. |
|
| |
I remember that; it triggered a small up-tick in the demand for
"business intelligence" software and services, as various
organisations asked themselves "Wait - do we even *have* that
information?" |
|
| |
// So, why do you want to avoid tethering your financial records to those of a give country? I think, though I may be wrong, that this is an
accounting version of the Sovereign Citizen movement, a means by which assets can be held outside the grasp of governmental regulation or
taxation. Is that right? |
|
| |
Heh, you made me laugh with this. While this may be a good consequence ("Sovereign Citizens") as we must be, but the reason of the post was
more of a realization that everyone asks us stick with their "ropes" (currencies), but do not care about the "meter" (unit of value), where the "ropes"
are supposedly measuring value (but really they are not measures of value, instead they are somebody's products used for exchange), and "meter"
is the unit of value. When we measure something (like financial activity or distance), we ought to be using unit of measure, not the rope itself.
Howeer, the accounting system use "ropes" as basis instead of a neutral "meter". So, I've been sketching a paradigm shift, and I've actually defined
a "meter" for measuring value of currencies, and started working with it (doing accounting with the measure not the currencies), and then it clicked
to me, that what I'm having here is really something different -- like what an NNC would be. |
|
| |
Think of IAS, SFAS, GAAP and IFRS as unit systems, a bit like SI Metric system. Now imagine that SI metric system would have a parameter called
"Speed of Light", which everyone could replace with their own currency as they please, like an accounting system that would allow to choose base
currency ("Functional currency"). Do you see a problem? Why should we learn all these different accounting systems, and not have a "measurement
system" of economic activity independent of accounting systems and this way remove levels of complexity in finance? |
|
| |
// Of course, I could be wrong that this is the intent of the idea. If I am, what is the intent of the idea? |
|
| |
There were many intents, this being one of them: as a physical entity, I want to measure value for what it is, and not what you made up it to be by
defining your currency system, your credit system and your accounting system. |
|
| |
//Why should we learn all these different accounting systems, and not have a "measurement system" of economic activity independent of accounting systems//
The reason that there are so many different accounting regimes is because lots of people have a different idea about how an organisation should measure & report its activities. Globalisation of capital has fuelled the drive towards IFRS, at least in capitalist nations, so that interested parties (I refuse to use the term "Stakeholders"!) can keep track of what is going on across the globe.
It is necessarily based on financial transactions as these are (mostly) clear & can be tracked & reported under whatever accounting regime you choose without too much need for interpretation beyond translating currency values.
If you want to report on something based on more than just financial transactions then you start getting into some very murky waters indeed. In the current accounting world intangible assets like "Goodwill" provide for a world of pain because their evaluation in each case is almost totally subjective & therefore absolutely useless for assessing & valuing an organisation (linky).
Also, I think you are putting the cart before the horse a bit. Accounting 'systems' are merely a tool for measuring, tracking & correctly recording transactions. Accounting 'regimes' define what the 'correct recording' is. Whatever unit of measurement it is that you use to evaluate an organisation's transactions/worth, you will still need to have an accounting system & an accounting regime of some kind in order to ensure that things are being properly recorded & reported. Otherwise, what's the point of measuring anything?*
*Please don't answer that question. It will just make me depressed. ;) |
|
| |
[DrBob], I know that it will, but hear me out -- if you think that anything
that is outside of goals of a regime is meaningless -- you're wrong.
Imagine you're someone like Transprency International, and want
objectivity report to people of the world, not a regime, and be intelligibile
for encyclopedic purposes, wouldn't you want it be written in terms that
are as unbiased as possible? |
|
| |
True, It still would be good to have Transparency International's system around. |
|
| |
Evolution of tools is always a good thing. Ready or not. The option is then there. |
|
| |
//...anything that is outside of goals of a regime is meaningless//
I think you are mis-understanding what is meant by an accounting regime. It is merely a set of rules, regulations or processes that define how/what you are measuring. Your example needs a set of rules to determine how it is measuring what it measures, whether those rules are created by the Bank of England, Transparency International, the Gnomes of Zurich or some dark-suited octogenarian from Sicily. The credibility of your rating relies on you being able to justify* why you are rating, say, Company A as better than Company B, even though Company B clearly has all the best Boogie Woogie Bugle Boys.
//written in terms that are as unbiased as possible?//
When anyone measures things, it is never un-biased. It is (generally) done for a specific purpose & when we decide to measure Thing No.1 instead of Thing No.2 we are making a decision based on our own requirements & bias. It might be that we share that bias with loads of other people but it is important to recognise that, although the process of measuring might be transparent & relatively uncontroversial, there is no such thing as an un-biased measurement. Why? Because we always need to ask why we are making that measurement in the first place.
* Unless you are a self-deluding, blonde, golf-course owner. |
|
| |
Comparing stuff is the fundamental of what measurement is there to do. A system has a bias and can inform inwardly and outwardly but Transparency International has science. |
|
| |
//Comparing stuff is the fundamental of what measurement is there to do// But you presume that the problem of identifying and classifying stuff has been solved. We are not yet at that stage in our scientific understanding of how things are. |
|
| |
//Transparency International has science.//
Science is just a catch-all term for using a methodical approach to problem solving. Science is no more 'Truth' than is 'Beauty'. It doesn't eliminate bias. You have to take account of who is directing, funding or carrying out any 'science' that is being done, what their agenda & motives are & what methodology they are using. Why is Thing A being 'scienced' rather than Thing B? And why do it this way rather than that way? Also, what pocmloc said.
I am not anti-Science. I think it's a splendid thing. But calling out "...but Science!" does not eliminate bias. For me, critical thinking is just as important. But then I am a systems & process accountant who loves finding all the flaws in other people's hard work. The ideal career for a miserable, old naysayer like me! ;)
:) |
|
| |
//But you presume that the problem of identifying and
classifying stuff has been solved.// |
|
| |
:::::::::::: applause :::::::::::: |
|
| |