I happen to have tripped across this yesterday and you might find it pertinent: http://redf.org http://redf.org But I will suggest that you also reconsider yo

I happen to have tripped across this yesterday and you might find it pertinent: http://redf.org http://redf.org But I will suggest that you also reconsider your view that business is inherently evil or inherently prone to evil. Historically, some of our most civilized civilizations, like Persia and Greece, revered the honey bee. The honey bee is a metaphor or mental model for trade. The bee benefits the flowers without harming them and it also benefits from the flowers. Trade is a civilizing force. Yes, trade can be done badly and people can be exploited. But that isn't something inherent to trade per se. At its core, good business benefits both sides. That's why customers will pay you. I am a woman and former homemaker and former bleeding heart idealist who used to do a lot of volunteer work. I have thought a lot about not for profit vs for profit organizations and I do not believe not for profits are inherently better. In fact, many of them require people to first be "losers" and also self identify that way in order to get assistance. This inherently tends to go bad places. I have been homeless for over five years. I have seen how easily charity can go bad places. The longer I have been on the street, the more I have looked for market based solutions. The food at an eatery is better quality, thus healthier, than the food at a soup kitchen and there are government controls insisting on cleanliness, etc of the establishment. It is a vastly superior way to feed people. I also would rather earn an income than seek charity. It is a better experience, it gives me more agency and it has a more positive impact on my life. There are ways to do charity well and there are forms of charity that I am happy to receive and that I think are fundamentally healthy things. But a lot of charitable organizations strike me as a cancer upon society that the world would be better off without. I will also suggest you read up on Deere. I wrote about it here, but should probably update it some time: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/04/lemon-meringue-pie-is-better-than-sour.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/04/lemon-mering... The pertinent section says: So here is a bit of history of some "PR" done right. According to the history section of the John Deere site: 1933 Business is almost at a standstill. Sales plunge to $8.7 million. Though it is losing money, the company decides to carry debtor farmers as long as necessary, greatly strengthening farmer loyalty. As I understand it, John Deere was the only tractor company that made that choice during The Great Depression. Other companies repossessed the tractors when farmers could not pay. This really did them no good because there was no market for them. It really did not recoup them much, if anything, and it burned the farmers when life was at it's toughest. The mild statement above about "strengthening farmer loyalty" does not give the same impression that I got from some article elsewhere. According to the article I read, for decades after The Great Depression, if you were a salesman for another tractor company and you saw a John Deere on the property, you might as well keep driving and not bother to stop and make a sales pitch because John Deere had that family's undying loyalty for generations to come.