05 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe term "economic benefit" has never been applied to an organisation or corporation in my experience - the relevant term to use is either 'revenue' or 'profit'. Nor have I ever seen the term "financial benefit" (except maybe in the context of pensions) on any company balance sheet or P&L statement I've ever looked at. The only web definition for either of these terms I've found is for the former - which speaks of job creation and maintenance*.
You are just trying to pull a Coletti now. The term "economic benefit" is not equivalent to "profits" in any discipline or standard usage I am aware of. When I get paid, I "economically benefit" whether I made a profit or not. You are trying to dodge the issue in a truly pathetic manner. To restate succintly:
1) The RCC got more money because it indir ...[text shortened]... tbook that says "economic benefit = profit" (not that "profit is A economic benefit"đ.
Do you have a legal definition for either of these terms? If not, there's no point in us arguing over your non-standard usage of a term.
---
* http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/LocalPlan/glossary.htm
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI can't help that you are ignorant; that is your curse. Look up the term "economic" and/or "financial"; write the meaning down. Now look up the word "benefit" and write that meaning down. Add them together; this is often how phrases are created in the English language.
The term "economic benefit" has never been applied to an organisation or corporation in my experience - the relevant term to use is either 'revenue' or 'profit'. Nor have I ever seen the term "financial benefit" (except maybe in the context of pensions) on any company balance sheet or P&L statement I've ever looked at. The only web definition for eith ...[text shortened]... usage of a term.
---
* http://www.south-ayrshire.gov.uk/LocalPlan/glossary.htm
Drop the nitpicking, semantical BS anyway. Choose whatever word you want; I don't care. Did the RCC get more money from the indirect sale of indulgences, YES or NO?? If YES, did it put that money to uses that the people who ran the Church desired, YES or NO?? If YES, then did not the Church benefit, YES or NO??
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is rich, coming from the guy who nitpicks every time someone says "Abortion is murder" or uses other legal terms in a non-legal manner.
I can't help that you are ignorant; that is your curse. Look up the term "economic" and/or "financial"; write the meaning down. Now look up the word "benefit" and write that meaning down. Add them together; this is often how phrases are created in the English language.
Drop the nitpicking, semantical BS anyway. Choose whatever word you want; I ...[text shortened]... ran the Church desired, YES or NO?? If YES, then did not the Church benefit, YES or NO??
I'll agree the Church earned revenues from activities related to indulgences. I disagree that the Church made a profit on them. Read the term "financial benefit"/"economic benefit" into that any way you want.
05 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerMurder is a LEGAL TERM, twit. When people are discussing the LEGAL aspects of abortion, the only discussion concerning abortion I care about, then they should use legal terms correctly.
This is rich, coming from the guy who nitpicks every time someone says "Abortion is murder" or uses other legal terms in a non-legal manner.
I'll agree the Church earned revenues from activities related to indulgences. I disagree that the Church made a profit on them. Read the term "financial benefit"/"economic benefit" into that any way you want.
Your "concession" is meaningless since I never said the Church made a "profit". Would it help your nitpicking mind if I used the common legal term "pecuniary benefit"? Would the Church have less wealth in her assets if St. Peter's Basilica hadn't been built? Is the Church richer because of the indirect sale of indulgences? And wasn't Luther right about this?
05 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder'Financial benefit' is not a term I have ever encountered on the financial statements of any organisation I have ever encountered. 'Economic benefit' is a rather vague term that can mean anything from lower unemployment to lower inflation. If you mean revenue (or turnover) - use that term. If 'pecuniary benefit' means revenue - then use it if you wish.
Murder is a LEGAL TERM, twit. When people are discussing the LEGAL aspects of abortion, the only discussion concerning abortion I care about, then they should use legal terms correctly.
Your "concession" is meaningless since I never said the Church made a "profit". Would it help your nitpicking mind if I used the common legal term "pecuniary ben richer because of the indirect sale of indulgences? And wasn't Luther right about this?
As I said earlier, the Church is "richer" due to the "sale of indulgences" (which is a bit of a misnomer - most indulgences were never associated with financial donations) to the same extent that the US Government is "richer" due to taxes.
EDIT: As to whether Luther was right about this, what does he say about it in his Theses?
05 Apr 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'll use whatever term I wish; the context I used it in made it absolutely clear that I simply meant the Church "financially" - i.e. by
'Financial benefit' is not a term I have ever encountered on the financial statements of any organisation I have ever encountered. 'Economic benefit' is a rather vague term that can mean anything from lower unemployment to lower inflation. If you mean revenue (or turnover) - use that term. If 'pecuniary benefit' means revenue - then use it if you wish As to whether Luther was right about this, what does he say about it in his Theses?
money or other resource - "benefited" i.e. gained from. Your pretending to not know what I meant to drag the discussion into a tedious couple of pages of semantic nonsense is a typical trick of yours.
Since both the Church by indirect sale of indulgences and the government by taxes ARE richer (i.e. possessed of greater wealth), I'll take that as a concession that you are too stubborn and petty to plainly state.
EDIT: And I gave a specific example where the indulgences were directly linked to an alm; I notice you've failed to discuss it at all. Typical.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you're going to complain when people use legal terms imprecisely, you should be willing to take the flak for using financial terms (or non-existent terms) imprecisely. In finance, an entity is not said to "financially benefit" from a transaction where revenue equals costs. Nor does it pass the common-sense test - if I give my friend £10 to hand over to the homeless shelter down the street and he does so, no one would say he "financially benefitted"/"economically benefitted"/"financially gained"/whatever from the transaction. Your definition says he does - which is why I reject it.
I'll use whatever term I wish; the context I used it in made it absolutely clear that I simply meant the Church "financially" - i.e. by
money or other resource - "benefited" i.e. gained from. Your pretending to not know what I meant to drag the discussion into a tedious couple of pages of semantic nonsense is a typical trick of yours.
Since bo ...[text shortened]... ces were directly linked to an alm; I notice you've failed to discuss it at all. Typical.
This isn't about nitpicking - if you're going to use terms that can leave the reader with the impression that the Church made a profit from alms-related indulgences (something you clearly do not wish to do, I hope) then someone has to call you out on it and ask you to be more precise. So stop whining.
By the same token, no one would normally say a government becomes "richer" by taxation unless revenue exceeded costs; i.e. there was a fiscal surplus. You may be right that balance sheet assets grow from such activities, but government assets are understood to be held (as Scribbles understands it) in lieu of the people and for their benefit. Church assets are no different.
And, regarding specific alms-linked indulgences, I've never denied they existed. What do you want to discuss about it?
06 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerPlease re-read my actual statement, Mr. Nit picker. I said the Church "financially benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences. They did. Period. Your 3 page diversion into semantics was a waste of time. Nor is your example analogous at all; the Church would be the homeless shelter in it, not the transferring party, and thus would have financially benefited. So reject it all you want; you are being factually incorrect.
If you're going to complain when people use legal terms imprecisely, you should be willing to take the flak for using financial terms (or non-existent terms) imprecisely. In finance, an entity is not said to "financially benefit" from a transaction where revenue equals costs. Nor does it pass the common-sense test - if I give my friend £10 to hand ove indulgences, I've never denied they existed. What do you want to discuss about it?
Profit has nothing to do with it as I've patiently explained to you. But your "argument" that non-profits cannot become richer is absurd. If non-profit A has asset worth $100 and I give it $10 so that now it has assets of $110, are you seriously asserting that it has not become richer?? The concept of "richer" doesn't have a single thing to do with who is the supposed ultimate beneficiary of the holdings of the non-profit; the non-profit (or government) as an independent entity can become richer by amassing more assets. You show a serious ignorance of basic economic principles by your ridiculous assertions otherwise.
So, the Church as an entity, got richer due to the indirect sale of indulgences. Despite some half-hearted attempts by prior Popes to discourage the practice, it was heartily endorsed as a means of raising revenue to build St. Peter's Basilica. At point in time X, the Church had Y amount of money and no St. Peter's Basilica; at point in time Z the Church had Y amount of money and an asset, St. Peter's Basilica. worth an enormous amount of money. But to you, that's no "financial benefit". Amazing.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI said the Church "financially benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences. They did. Period.
Please re-read my actual statement, Mr. Nit picker. I said the Church "financially benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences. They did. Period. Your 3 page diversion into semantics was a waste of time. Nor is your example analogous at all; the Church would be the homeless shelter in it, not the transferring party, and thus would have financially b ...[text shortened]... h an enormous amount of money. But to you, that's no "financial benefit". Amazing.
Since "financial benefit" is not a technical term in finance, your statement is not true unless you define what 'financial benefit' is. You keep switching its meaning between 'revenue' and 'assets' - make up your mind.
The concept of "richer" doesn't have a single thing to do with who is the supposed ultimate beneficiary of the holdings of the non-profit
In finance, it doesn't. In common discourse, it does. If the government uses taxpayer money to build a road, the road will be an asset on the balance sheet. By your logic, the government has become "richer" on taxpayer money. While that may be technically true, a reasonable common person would not make such a statement - it is the ultimate beneficiary that matters to him/her.
You show a serious ignorance of basic economic principles by your ridiculous assertions otherwise.
This is a matter of finance, not economics. If you don't know the difference, don't call me ignorant.
06 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI work for a not-for-profit organisation; a charity called Crossroads, as a fundraiser. Now if we raised funds (ie didn't use our own money) to build a building (a church for example), once the building had been finished it would become a fixed asset and would be deemed to have increased our financial holdings. We could sell it, rent it, or keep it. Either way it would be listed as a financial asset until such time as it had been sold. If it were sold we would list the income and the loss of the asset in our accounts.
I said the Church "financially benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences. They did. Period.
Since "financial benefit" is not a technical term in finance, your statement is not true unless you define what 'financial benefit' is. You keep switching its meaning between 'revenue' and 'assets' - make up your mind.
The concept ot economics. If you don't know the difference, don't call me ignorant.
Fixed assets in NPOs are considered as increased financial holdings.
06 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerSince gaining more revenue OR gaining more assets are BOTH "financial benefits" I don't have to "make up my mind" to categorize the term as "either/or". Financial benefit isn't a technical term; it's two words with meanings in common usage put together to make a term that only the most petty nitpicker would pretend not to understand.
[b/]I said the Church "financially benefited" from the indirect sale of indulgences. They did. Period.
Since "financial benefit" is not a technical term in finance, your statement is not true unless you define what 'financial benefit' is. You keep switching its meaning between 'revenue' and 'assets' - make up your mind.
The concept ot economics. If you don't know the difference, don't call me ignorant.
Your second paragraph is nonsense. If you think that "common people" don't think the government gets richer by collecting their taxes, you're seriously mistaken. And I bet that most "common people" think of the RCC as very rich indeed. Care to wager on whether the "common person" would agree with the statement "the RCC is an organization that is extremely rich"?
Finance and economics are interwoven fields; I have been talking largely about economic principles which have been incorporated into standard financial practice. If you don't know that, you are ignorant.