il padrone wrote:twizzle wrote:Nice at the theory level, but that's not how they make the books balance in practice.
You mean the GDP formula, or the tax/transfer payments decisions??
At the macro level, it all looks simple. But when to cover off a superannuation liability they haven't funded they go and assign a book value to software that was written for a single client and cannot be monetised in its own right, there is something very wrong going on. The books are showing vast "assets" which somehow get monetised in the future to cover the scheme payments. But the reality is that it was a business expense.
Case in point - hundreds of millions spent buying software and using it to write an application, after six years they decide to dump it and write a new system from scratch. They spend vastly more money on the replacement, can't get it to scale, and are back with the old system that has been allowed to 'rust' and needs an injection of funds to get it back in shape. It's all just expenses against income, and I challenge anyone to come up with a model which can justify it being put on the "asset" register with any credibility. And because the cost of doing business has INCREASED, we have to raise the charges, and there has been no staff productivity improvement in 17 years!!!
Second case - NSW agency replaced an IT system at a cost of umpteen million dollars, auditor comes in and points out that it's very nice but it will take 35 years to recover the development costs through the operational savings. Is that system sitting on an asset register with a justifiable value?
Sent from my iThingy...