(author here) Thanks for raising this — I intended for that example just to illustrate the underlying concept of having balanced entries for a transaction, rather than to show how double entry is practiced today.
The focus of the post is on the underlying concepts rather than the implementation details — I didn't want to introduce the whole thing about debiting assets vs debiting expenses etc because it's a little confusing for a lay person.
Hope that makes sense. I've added a caption to the image explaining this.
I don't think this is a useful response. The concept of accounting is deeply integrated with the rules of accounting. The implementation details are the concepts, really. I'd suggest making the examples conform to the actuality of how accounting will get used.
I agree. Basic pedagogy: if you are about to introduce an example where you think you might have to choose between being truthful or confusing, you should not introduce that example. Or, if you have to, do it the confusing way.
Lying to beginners to shield them from confusion does not help them. Find a way to do what you want to do while still telling the truth.
I have to echo others' sentiments, too. You should use examples that are harmonious to both the concept and implementation detail. Otherwise you're just creating the potential for confusion for no good end.
Great article. Most people don't appreciate the value of accounting knowledge. One quibble: few businesses are actual corporations, so I learned to use the term "Owners' Equity" instead of "Shareholders' Equity".
The focus of the post is on the underlying concepts rather than the implementation details — I didn't want to introduce the whole thing about debiting assets vs debiting expenses etc because it's a little confusing for a lay person.
Hope that makes sense. I've added a caption to the image explaining this.