10th May 2010, 11:54 AM
It's all smoke and mirrors anyway.
If I stole a case of delicious chicken fingers from the store and the management didn't know, the management would eat the cost. Done, he spent his money and took care of it. If it happened often, he would have a major problem and might need to drop the product, if it happened regularly but sales of the product were good, he would have to create a plan to allocate funds towards the loss by increasing the price of chicken fingers by a few cents to make up the loss of the one case of chicken fingers.
What the government is doing is creating a list of everything spent and lost, even though it had been taken care of. It would be like the store writing down every loss though faults of the delivery, stolen, power outages, expiration etc and held on to that list despite the recovery and not for insurance reasons, but to have a tally of the money gone. Now why would a store do that, hm?
It's a scare tactic because it keeps the employees from asking for more money.
If I stole a case of delicious chicken fingers from the store and the management didn't know, the management would eat the cost. Done, he spent his money and took care of it. If it happened often, he would have a major problem and might need to drop the product, if it happened regularly but sales of the product were good, he would have to create a plan to allocate funds towards the loss by increasing the price of chicken fingers by a few cents to make up the loss of the one case of chicken fingers.
What the government is doing is creating a list of everything spent and lost, even though it had been taken care of. It would be like the store writing down every loss though faults of the delivery, stolen, power outages, expiration etc and held on to that list despite the recovery and not for insurance reasons, but to have a tally of the money gone. Now why would a store do that, hm?
It's a scare tactic because it keeps the employees from asking for more money.