Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne <tgagne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:09:48 -0500
JXStern wrote:
<snip>That it does. RA and 600 year-old technology survives the onslaught of some buddies discussing its obsolescence over beers.
In fact, it allows one-to-many and many-to-many transactions to be
traced.
Debit $20 for sale of widget.
Debit $30 for sale of thingy.
Credit $10 to overhead.
Credit $5 to commissions.
Credit $15 to royalties.
Credit $20 to suppliers.
--
Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php> to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.
.
- References:
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: topmind
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Doc O'Leary
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- From: JXStern
- Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Prev by Date: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Next by Date: Re: use case <<include>> vs. <<generalize>>
- Previous by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Next by thread: Re: double-entry bookkeeping unneeded?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|