> Amortization makes sense for things that have some inherent value. Like a microscope or computer.

I am nitpicking but since a microscope or a computer is a tangible asset, the correct term is depreciation. Amortization applies to intangible assets.

The software that companies make is sold off in bankruptcy all the time.

I have a few friends who specialize in it with 2 ongoing contracts for splitting off pieces of software.

The value is far less than the amount being amortized for its development.

> Selling you code, lol -- code is more of a liability really :)

It's important to consider that lawmakers (who are not well informed or downright stupid) might think code has intrinsic value because of media married with a lack of real-world experience.

Lawmaker is a misleading word. The people who actually make the law and lobby for it probably know quite a bit. The representatives are law voters not makers. They don't design the laws literally. They vote because they are told to.

Continuing your observation, this presumes they read and think deeply about the bills they vote on. They do not.

I remember the day I mentioned this in my high school^ honors sociology class and the eventual valedictorian exclaimed that I was stupid to think that. The system has been broken for longer than I have been alive, but the indoctrination has been working to make up for it.

This was a Blue Ribbon School 1992-1993 yup. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/programs/nclbbrs/list-2003...

Reading all bills that reach the Senate is like reading two Bibles per year. The swing vote legislator? Maybe. But the partisan extremes?

Realistically that says more about the quality of software that we build than the concept of software as an asset

> code is more of a liability really :)

Mine DEFINITELY is!