I didn't mention ROR, but if it could be measured that would be fine. Usually it can't. Obviously reporting it, and gearing policy to maximizing profits are two different things. It is widely recognized that accounts should distinguish between investment and expense, but the budget rules make no such distinction and (non-defense) investment is slighted as a result. for instance, under the budget caps an investment is scored as its total up-front cost, not as a business would treat it in reporting income and expenses. mbs > Max, Michael, > > What's this about a return on investment for a government agency? It's long > been recognized that govt accounts should distinguish between investment and > curreent expenses, as you say, Max, by including depreciation as a current > expense (not the full value of an asset). But a return? When did profits > become the object of govt agencies? > > Max B. Sawicky wrote: > > > > I am looking at the annual report of the patent office. It reads like a > > > corporate report detailing its assets and liabilities, as well as its > > > return on investment. > > > > > > Do all government agencies to this now? > > > Michael Perelman > > > > I doubt it, but they should. The General Accounting Office > > and Office of Management and Budget do balance sheet reports > > for the Federal government as a whole. > > > > The rules of the budget process are biased against investment. > > The "official" deficit is a simple cash-flow calculation, terribly > > reductionist and uninformative, and on the whole discouraging > > to policy activism and initiative. > > > > mbs > >
