Melki Hassa's Blog

Every transactions or journals could be looked at from the glasses of transformative potential. For example you exchanged a chair for a table. A chair has transformative potential of $50, $50 could be transformed to 5 trays of Pizzas, so a chair has the transformative potential of $50 because the ownership of it could be expended / transformed into the ownership of 5 trays of Pizzas.  Now a table could become 10 trays of pizza, so exchanging a chair and a table gives you $50 profit, which from the point of view of transformative potential means you got $50 extra in transformative potentials.  So that's profit and loss... you could say that the shift from historical accounting to fair value accounting is objective because of this. Just because you bought an asset for $100 doesn't mean that currently the asset still has $100 worth of transformative potential, could be more could be less.  --------------------------- There are many directions to take from here but let's shift

The expansion of the definition of negligence is depressing, say The management was responsible for negligence if they let a slippery floor without warning or unattended. Ok... Should then the management still be responsible for not warning the people that the warning sign still was relevant even after it had been displayed since yesterday? The government was responsible for negligence by not specifying whether the company's portion of insurance was a part or was not a part of fixed allowance included in minimum wage, alas the minimum wage payments were reduced for not only insurance but also tax gross ups. Should the government paid back everything that they had been accused of? Or the Government only should update the law? Or actually the law already works well and it's just a part of the grand scheme of things, without anyone noticing it... Some artists were mad that their music containing samples of other musicians' tunes, were used without permission. They didn't s

I often see parents love their children so much they give access to their children to all kinds of things that they could afford at maximum. I'm not a psychologist nor I'm a parent, as someone who is just an enthusiast on many different things like accounting, business, psychology, art, etc... I conclude based on the materials I've observed that this way is better: Parents are responsible for the life of their children, they must always make sure that the children is not depressed for the rest of their lives (by depressed I mean the person helplessly kept on wanting to die). The parents are the one who's responsible for that other than the child himself/herself.  Providing just enough is better. If the kids wanted more, they had to "buy" it from their parents or their uncles/aunts or other people. However some people outside offered dangerous materials, obviously it's risky but all families would have or should have their own way of facing this.  Coming fr

Let's say for an extreme example, there were a parent couple who gave their daughters "everything" and then they kind of expected that their daughter would not criticize them, gave them whatever they asked, and obeyed them all the time, and revered to them on top of that.  Then they said my daughter is not living up to her potential, kind of indirectly ungrateful, secretly disrespectful, etc.  Well to me, judging only from this simple point of view, this is to be expected because they weren't giving their daughter "everything", "everything" was a debt. She had little to none to own, and then little to none to offer.  The feeling of inadequacy and poor quality out of their daughter came from the lack of quality of property she has, and she couldn't offer them a decent quality "services" or even "products".  So the solution is you got to give people property, you just have to. The wisdom of the infrastructures that we are livi