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.
[Krimel] OK, I don't know what "often" is supposed to mean or what difference it makes. Private enterprise is "often" inefficient as well. Human beings in all of their activities are "often" inefficient. I am not at all convinced the "efficiency" is as desirable as many claim it is. I think much creativity and growth arises from inefficiency. In fact in many organizations I suspect that inefficiency is a source of dynamic quality. To my knowledge there is no meaningful distinction between the terms "not for profit" and "non-profit." As a devotee of Strunk and White I prefer the later term. Both refer to 501C status with the IRS. [mel] 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. [Krimel] There a variety of ways that government, private enterprise and non-profits interact. In a great many instances government grants to provide certain services require that applicants be non-profits. In other instances where the government is awarding a monopoly it can either contract with private enterprise to provide a service or heavily regulate the entities that compete to provide services. An example of the first kind would be municipalities awarding cable operators with a contract to provide cable services in the community. The second type would include the insurance industry which is a private enterprise regulated by states. Or utility companies like telephone and electric companies whose rates and profit margins may be set by regulatory bodies. [mel] 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) [Krimel] I am not sure what you are getting at but I would be interested in seeing such studies. > [Krimel] > 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. [mel] 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. [Krimel] Yes but non-profits are an integral part of the capitalist system and have a long history within it. Churches have been around since before there was capitalism. [mel] >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. [Krimel] Capitalism is very good at redistributing wealth and goods and services that are in short supply. It allows for efficiency and responsiveness under dynamic conditions. It is less effective when it is called upon to handle good that are not in short supply and in fact in the modern age it seeks to create scarcity through artificial means and through the force of government power. Examples would be satellite communications and "intellectual property". [mel] 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. [Krimel] First I would say that politicians should push some kind of agenda. That is what they do. But I don't think it is true that both parties act to run up debt in the way you describe at least not judging by recent history. Reagan came into office preaching fiscal responsibility, ran up more public debt that all of his predecessors combined and called it a victory for the "free market". Clinton, by the time he left office had balanced the federal budget and was running surpluses. Bush, another free marketeer started with a surplus and has managed to double the national debt. It would seem the real difference is between "tax and spend" liberals and "charge it to the grandkids" conservatives. At least the liberals can balance the budget. [mel] (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.) [Krimel] The purpose of our form of governments is to be a static latch. It is to act as a buffer or moderating force in the face of change. That is what checks and balances are all about. Their function is to prevent rapid and radical changes in public policy. It is to prevent one form of power from dominating the others. From on MoQ perspective it is the static quality of public policy that allows dynamic opportunity for individuals. The government sets the rules and people play by them. It is no fun to play a game where the rules are always changing. [mel] 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. [Krimel] Isn't "raiding of Social Security" just borrowing from it? It is not as though the money just gets spent with no accounting. [Krimel] > 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. [mel] 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.) [Krimel] Private enterprise does not necessarily eliminate or interfere with other Values. It is simply that they are irrelevant to it. Private enterprise Values profit. All others considerations are not only secondary but are calculated in terms of profit. Witness Ford's assessment of the cost or fixing the design of Pinto gas tanks as opposed to defending suits by crash victims. In the private sectors Values are means to the end of profit. Non-profits on the other hand are mission driven. They state what their mission is in their applications for 501C status and for them money is a means to an end. 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/
