Third, new concepts of value are, then, essential. In particular, the human value to innovate in the face of necessity is the real capital of society as we face this transition, but how to account for that is an almost unresolved question when the resulting intellectual property has to be shared for maximum impact, and not be restricted in use.
Ritchie intends to increase the quantity of bright ideas by reducing the value of bright ideas.
Well done there.
But there is a problem with this. It makes a balance sheet, and those who manage it, indifferent as to when a transaction take place, so long as the discount rate still makes it attractive in terms of contemplating it at all. So precisely when, for example, the transition to a sustainable economy takes place is not a matter of priority to this form of financial capitalism: if it pays eventually then provided the associated risks (and so discount rate) do not diminish its value to the point of insignificance then it remains attractive whenever it occurs. But as a society; as a race; and as businesses whose survival will also depend upon this transition happening by a point in time that indifference as to timing that financial capitalism implies is not just inappropriate but wholly conflicts with the requirement that this task be undertaken in little more than a decade.
As a result the indifference to time inherent in modern financial capitalism may be wholly inappropriate when considering the Green New Deal. But what that implies is that accounting will require a new concept of capital where the time that a transaction occurs does matter, very precisely. There can be no indifference as to progression towards a green transition in this type of reporting: that goal makes precise timing a matter of priority in itself.
The implication is very clear. First, such accounting makes clear that some assets that are now valued (e.g. oil related assets where the oil in question will have to be left in the ground) do no longer have value. It is simply not possible to presume asset life when there can be none.
Given the discount rate what is the value currently of those oil assets that we’ll not let anyone use in Year What?
He’s not even getting accounting right, is he?
The fundamental point of discounting is that that the time DOES matter.
Lefties and facts – not adjacent
Lefties and facts – not adjacent
Not even on the same planet.
the resulting intellectual property has to be shared for maximum impact, and not be restricted in use.
Add patents to the long list of stuff he wants to abolish.
As always, a hypocrite. From his 2006 CV:
“Infernet Limited (now whereonearth.com Limited)– CFO – 1997 to 1999 – Internet company developing geo-spatial data-basing techniques for search engines
Helped create the concept of whereonearth with CEO Steve Packard and joined him on the board to guide early fund raising and the purchase of critical subsidiaries to lock in the IPR that has been the basis of this company’s development before making way for full time staff.
The company was sold to Yahoo in 2005 for £28 million (most of which benefited the venture capitalists)”
Just hear that venom in the last sentence. That’s what you get when you’re just the hired help Ritchie, rather than the ideas man.
http://www.t*xresearch.org.uk/Documents/RichardMurphycvJuly2006.pdf
Dear Ritchie –
I don’t know what you’re smoking, I don’t approve of it, and I want some.
Noel – lolz. An interesting antecedent for his loathing of Capitalism and markets.
@Noel Scoper
Well done Noel! A mine of fascinating info there.
I see his CV also claims he was a director of the Trivial Pursuit company when it went public and chairman/CEO of 2 other companies which experienced massive growth. He can’t have had much equity in any of them otherwise he wouldn’t be living in Ely and hustling for cash from fake charities.
Just hear that venom in the last sentence. That’s what you get when you’re just the hired help Ritchie, rather than the ideas man.
As he said, “the resulting intellectual property has to be shared for maximum impact, and not be restricted in use.” Shared more with the CFO, to take an example almost at random.
‘the transition to a sustainable economy’
‘conflicts with the requirement that this task be undertaken in little more than a decade.’
WTF is he talking about? ‘Sustainable economy’ is undefined, yet it is REQUIRED that we get there within a decade.
He will do well to get it DEFINED in a decade.
‘some assets that are now valued (e.g. oil related assets where the oil in question will have to be left in the ground) do no longer have value’
Rilly? Man is going to stop using oil? In which century ?!?!
@gamecock – captain moron believes that oil is only used to make petrol and diesel. Obviously in all electric cars the wheels will be made of wood (no synthetic rubber) and bearings will be lubricated with butter. as for the interior fittings these will be the finest bamboo. Don’t even ask how windscreen wipers will work without rubber blades.
@Rob,
The Trivial Pursuit stuff we did him over in 2010. That was also the same Steve Packard that licensed that.
In that case:
– Richard was FD of the UK company, this licensed the Horn Abbot IP from a company in (tax haven) Barbados. Ritchie claims not to have known that.
– Richard claims to have set up the manufacturing company in Ireland, he later admitted this was to claim tax advantages. That, he says, he didn’t like and left soon after. Evil tax dodging see.
– Ritchie “left” but also claims he was an advisor for 6 years.
– Ritchie then worked with the same guy again as above.
See the comments thread here…
http://www.t*xresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/08/06/ireland-undermines-investment-in-south-africa/
Basically he’s found himself as an accountant to luvvies, sold his firm, couldn’t make it for himself in the business world but then found he could pimp himself out for free cash in the tax campaigning world writing reports to say what they wanted.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Basically he’s found himself as an accountant to luvvies,
Those luvvies that use PSCs?
Strangely, Mr S, your link is broken…
Interesting that Ritchie was CFO/CEO/Chairman/Director of all these companies while he was a partner in Murphy Deeks Nolan. Implies that he wasn’t particularly successful at either!
Replace the asterisk with a, m’lud
Assets are recorded at the lower of cost and net realisable value. If the oil has to remain in the ground, that NRV is zero.
Surely his lack of expertise cannot extend to oil and gas accounting as well?
@ aaa
Typo. surely! “cannot” for “must”.