----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [MD] growth and sustainability
> [prior Mel] > Not for profit operations often operate less efficiently > and squander any chance of surplus and returns less > if anything to community. > > [Krimel] > This is not only wrong it is down right offensive. Non-profits tend to be > mission driven. Unlike for profits they have a purpose for existing beyond > the mundane profit motive. They have Values. Some non-profits like the > Salvation Army, the Red Cross or even the Catholic Church have assets and > annual budgets in the billions of dollars. Others like small business are > run by well meaning people with high ideals and little administrative > ability. Like entrepreneurs these too can fail. mel First, the 5th word was 'often.' The statement is an observation and not an indictment, that should make a difference to you . You have equivocated or pivoted on the "not for profit" and you've read that as non-proft. This is not the direction of my thinking. While it would be ridiculous to expect a charity to operate at a profit, it is since you've brought it up, interesting to see the variance in efficiency the various organizations have in meeting their mission. "Good works," while laudible would seem to carry an implied duty to operate at maximum conversion or delivery rate. What I DID have in mind was the business entities that operate as not-for-profit in the same or roughly similar market-space as for profit operations. Electrical generation, gas distribution, health insurance, unemployment insurance, worker's comp. are all examples of this. Over the last four dacades there have been numerous studies of this operational difference in the for-profit, not-for-profit: competitive vs semi-monopolies. Most often the provision of service was all but identical with either category as likely to be best. Both were effective most of the time. It was markedly different for operational efficiency, however. Billing or the combination of billing and subsidy were higher for the not-for-profit entities than for operations that made a deliberate effort to find efficency (i.e profit. motive) K > I have personally worked with a number of non-profits over the years. Their > staff members tend to be dedicated and underpaid relative to the private > sector. But many people find it satisfying when their work means something, > when it helps others and advances Values other than profit. m Bless you and them...good job...keep it up. K > You talk about squandered surplus. Where does that come from? One of the > problems I have seen in non-profits is that they have been slow to adopt > technologies, that could improve efficiency, because they don't have surplus > cash to invest in the technology or the support staff to maintain it. m This points to something that I've seen, public-private partnerships with expertise donated. K > Many services provided by non-profits are the kinds of services that the > private sector either can't or won't touch or when they do they botch the > job. Homeless services for example are often provided by faith based > non-profits in part because there is so little money available for this > purpose that only the call of God can motivate people to tackle such tasks. m Ah, yes the road paved with good intentions, alas. K > You say, they return less, if anything to the community? My God man, please > go to your local United Way office and ask about the services provided by > their member organizations. Ask about the budget allocation process. Ask > about the number served and the unmet need in your community. m Good point & charities are needed. K > In fact or at least in theory the only difference between a private and > non-profit organization is what happens to the "profits". In the private > sector profits are dumped into the pockets of owners and investors. In > non-profits surplus funds are reinvested into the mission of the > organization. > m That is indeed a key question. Who is it who will hold the surplus? Do we trust the individual to hold the profit agianst lean times? Do we trust the corporate entity to hold the profit against lean times? Or do we trust a central planning/government to do so? That is the nature of the difference in political philosophy. >From old style conservatism, the first two are desireable. Employees (individuals)who receive bonuses and choose to put savings in the bank, stockholders (individuals) who share profit and re-invest or capitalize other business, and the corporation that reinvests it's share of the pforits all have a better, clearer idea of how to cope with their own rhythm of economic cycles. (This would seem an intellectual choice of relative DQ on the part of the agencies involved.) Old style liberalism assumed the worker would spend the bonus on beer and hookers, the stockholders would buy yachts, and the company would act against everyone's interest in some zero-sum game. (This would seem to assume that the likely behavior of the individuals will be for the worst or SQ biological.) However, The aggressive new style liberals, both the post-classical liberals who push a strange social agenda that is largely informed by a voting block of evangelical associated values, and the so-called progressive liberals, who act in a strangely non-intellectual way that betrays the tradition of liberal problem solving efforts by replacing it with a sloganering faith. Republican is the label worn by the post-classical liberals. Democrat is the label worn by the faux progressive liberals. Both act in a way that exacerbates the debt. Both push a social agenda. Neither is interested in real political change, just in who controls the social agenda. (This seems to indicate that both parties now would be acting in their own view of SQ Social interest i.e. against both biological and intellectual.) In the history of governments it is more common to shift resources with little or no thought to anything but the immediate fire that needs to be put out. One example, the raiding of Social Security, it never was funded as intended, the pool of funds meant for the future was "robbed blind" it was too tempting for legislators to grab the cash and run, effectively using it to buy favor of constituents. (I see little evidence of any intellectual level behaviour, seems all Biological-on the part of the legislators individually and Social on tha part of the body writ large in its effects.) K > One might be so crass as to say the difference between the two is that > non-profits are driven by and support a host of different human values. For > profits value cash, often at the expense of every other human value. m I don't see that for-profit causes the elimination of support for other human values, and I don't see that not-for-profit causes support for other human values. (Of course we haven't elucidated which levels of what values in MOQ terms are likely supported.) It could be argued that management of a for-profit company makes an intellectual choice to bank surplus as a DQ move favoring all three of the legs of stability, the worker, the investor (often also the worker) and the enterprise itself. An instance where biological and social and intellectual levels can temporarily align in the rapid dynamism of economic behavior. ( I am thinking of small business here < 300 people.) thanks--mel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
