3 ms·

Your definition of "profit" doesn't seem to match anyone else's. If an organisation spends what revenue it has on its own operations, that is not profit. You mi

Your definition of "profit" doesn't seem to match anyone else's. If an organisation spends what revenue it has on its own operations, that is not profit. You might not agree with the way that money is spent, but that does not change the technical definition of a well-understood and widely agreed accounting term.

robomartin 5y ago
Rather than repeat myself, I'll refer to a comment I just posted and then ask you a couple of questions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404841 Do you think the Vatican is profitable? Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable? Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say? You see, we get lost in this legal "nonprofit" classification and fail to understand that a lot of these organizations exist for the profit (the enrichment) of either the individuals running them, associated commercial enterprises (oil companies) or both. If we refer to them as "X4132 organizations" (made-up name) we would have no emotional attachment or a mental model to go against what they actually do. When people hear "nonprofit" they think something like "feed the X" scrappy entities with idealistic workers and managers all eating ramen noodles to conserve every dime for their worthy cause. That is FAR from reality. Very far. And that's why I tend to call it "profit". Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit, but it is hard to argue that a CEO taking 5%, 10%, 30%, 40% of revenue isn't actually the profit element of the organization. I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit. We might classify it some other way, but it isn't charity.
- regularfry 5y ago
  > Do you think the Vatican is profitable? No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. > Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable? No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. > Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say? No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. > Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit, It is the opposite of profit. It is what you structure if you want to reduce your profit so you don't get taxed. > I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit. No, it isn't. It might be embezzlement, from the sounds of it. I get the point that you are trying to make, but doing so by redefining common terms and hoping anyone is going to take it seriously strikes me as remarkably unlikely to succeed. The word you are looking for is not "profit", it is "enrichment", as you say here. They are not the same. Words matter.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    > No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about. It's like someone who never built a brick wall arguing with a master mason and actually believing they understand the craft because they googled a few things. That's OK, most people are in your shoes. As my wife loves to say "A google search isn't a substitute for my medical degree". The same applies to understanding business. No worries. I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that. I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet. Anyhow, here's the good part. Ready? You don't have to agree with me. Done deal. Have a great day.
    - regularfry 5y ago
      > Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about. Incorrect. I understand perfectly what you are talking about. You do not have privileged knowledge. You just aren't saying what you think you are. Your words and your meaning are misaligned, apparently intentionally. You came into this thread with this: > You cannot have any kind of a company without profit. Period. That was your opening gambit. It was factually incorrect then, it relied on your being able to emotionally manipulate readers into taking a different understanding of "profit" than any of them likely did, and all you've done since is alienate people from your core point by talking nonsense and claiming to be better than them. Where did you expect this comment to go? > Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit. Just ten companies. If I am wrong, it should not be too hard to present such a list. > Hint: Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives. It is literally, trivially, obviously wrong, and you've said nothing prior or since to change that other than try to crowbar in irrelevancies about what you think a specific form of legal entity should be allowed to do. > I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that. And yet here we are. You may have a point. I may even agree with it. But the way that you are expressing it does not come across as good-faith in the slightest. > I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet. So what? That makes precisely zero difference to the definition of profit. It does not answer the question of whether the Vatican makes any. Is it a grasping, rapacious, self-aggrandising, amoral organisation? You probably have an answer to that. It is utterly irrelevant to the question of profit. > You don't have to agree with me. Quite. As someone once said: you are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

robomartin 5y ago

Rather than repeat myself, I'll refer to a comment I just posted and then ask you a couple of questions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404841 Do you think the Vatican is profitable? Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable? Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say? You see, we get lost in this legal "nonprofit" classification and fail to understand that a lot of these organizations exist for the profit (the enrichment) of either the individuals running them, associated commercial enterprises (oil companies) or both. If we refer to them as "X4132 organizations" (made-up name) we would have no emotional attachment or a mental model to go against what they actually do. When people hear "nonprofit" they think something like "feed the X" scrappy entities with idealistic workers and managers all eating ramen noodles to conserve every dime for their worthy cause. That is FAR from reality. Very far. And that's why I tend to call it "profit". Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit, but it is hard to argue that a CEO taking 5%, 10%, 30%, 40% of revenue isn't actually the profit element of the organization. I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit. We might classify it some other way, but it isn't charity.

regularfry 5y ago
> Do you think the Vatican is profitable? No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. > Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable? No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. > Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say? No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. > Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit, It is the opposite of profit. It is what you structure if you want to reduce your profit so you don't get taxed. > I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit. No, it isn't. It might be embezzlement, from the sounds of it. I get the point that you are trying to make, but doing so by redefining common terms and hoping anyone is going to take it seriously strikes me as remarkably unlikely to succeed. The word you are looking for is not "profit", it is "enrichment", as you say here. They are not the same. Words matter.
- robomartin 5y ago
  > No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts. Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about. It's like someone who never built a brick wall arguing with a master mason and actually believing they understand the craft because they googled a few things. That's OK, most people are in your shoes. As my wife loves to say "A google search isn't a substitute for my medical degree". The same applies to understanding business. No worries. I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that. I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet. Anyhow, here's the good part. Ready? You don't have to agree with me. Done deal. Have a great day.
  - regularfry 5y ago
    > Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about. Incorrect. I understand perfectly what you are talking about. You do not have privileged knowledge. You just aren't saying what you think you are. Your words and your meaning are misaligned, apparently intentionally. You came into this thread with this: > You cannot have any kind of a company without profit. Period. That was your opening gambit. It was factually incorrect then, it relied on your being able to emotionally manipulate readers into taking a different understanding of "profit" than any of them likely did, and all you've done since is alienate people from your core point by talking nonsense and claiming to be better than them. Where did you expect this comment to go? > Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit. Just ten companies. If I am wrong, it should not be too hard to present such a list. > Hint: Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives. It is literally, trivially, obviously wrong, and you've said nothing prior or since to change that other than try to crowbar in irrelevancies about what you think a specific form of legal entity should be allowed to do. > I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that. And yet here we are. You may have a point. I may even agree with it. But the way that you are expressing it does not come across as good-faith in the slightest. > I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet. So what? That makes precisely zero difference to the definition of profit. It does not answer the question of whether the Vatican makes any. Is it a grasping, rapacious, self-aggrandising, amoral organisation? You probably have an answer to that. It is utterly irrelevant to the question of profit. > You don't have to agree with me. Quite. As someone once said: you are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.