5 ms·

> 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

> 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
Here's the difference: I am open to thinking and looking outside the box and not be bound by definitions that limit thought. Yes, of course, the accepted definition of profit does not align with what I have presented. That much is obvious. And yet, "nonprofits" like the American Petroleum Institute, the National Rifle Association and many others exist precisely for profit in two forms. In some cases it is for the enrichment of those who run the organization. There, I used a different word. Happy? In other scenarios, they exist to generate massive profits --sometimes in the billions of dollars-- for supporters. If I remember correctly, the American Petroleum Institute generates some $250 million dollars a year in revenues. These are not $25 donations from Bernie supporters. These are massive membership fees paid for by the oil companies for which this organization works to generate billions in profits. Disagree as much as you'd like with my out-of-the norm take on the realities of how nonprofits have devolved. The difference is you are bound by the dictionary definition of a word. I am looking at the realities on the street. Seriously, it is naïve to actually believe these companies are not for profit. The mechanisms abound. A church purchasing manager gives a lucrative multi-million dollar contract to a contractor in exchange for under the table kickbacks. This crap happens all the time. The Vatican has done this kind of thing in transactions worth tens of millions of dollars while servicing as the financial arm for the buildout of television stations in Africa. The problem is you don't know what you don't know and a single-point dictionary definition of a single word is the extent of what you will look at as evidence to fight the idea that the nonprofit thing is seriously broken. But, hey, you are right, the word is defined precisely as you indicate. Good job. Some guy gets paid ten million dollars to sign over checks to feed the children and you think that's overhead. I think it is an abuse of the system that, while not currently legally defined as such, should be classified as profit. And taxed accordingly. Better yet, it should be capped and the children should get more money. Since you seem fond of little intelligent-sounding sayings, here's one that's applicable: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Nonprofits: In practice, they are not. Not all of them. BTW, I actually help run a small --real-- nonprofit. We setup a legal nonprofit organization to fund a local high school robotics team. We take-in donations and spend the money to pay for anything the kids need (usually tool, parts, etc.). Fully 100% of the money we receive (about $25K per year) is spent on what the kids need. 100%. Not a single penny goes towards anything else (OK, the occasional bank fee is another expense). Every mentor is a volunteer and most of us are actually donors as well. That's a real nonprofit, in the full sense of the word. Because nobody within the organization derives any kind of financial profit from it. There are no conflicts of interest whatsoever, no murky lines. Not sure what "nonprofits" who consume 40% of revenues should be called.

robomartin 5y ago

Here's the difference: I am open to thinking and looking outside the box and not be bound by definitions that limit thought. Yes, of course, the accepted definition of profit does not align with what I have presented. That much is obvious. And yet, "nonprofits" like the American Petroleum Institute, the National Rifle Association and many others exist precisely for profit in two forms. In some cases it is for the enrichment of those who run the organization. There, I used a different word. Happy? In other scenarios, they exist to generate massive profits --sometimes in the billions of dollars-- for supporters. If I remember correctly, the American Petroleum Institute generates some $250 million dollars a year in revenues. These are not $25 donations from Bernie supporters. These are massive membership fees paid for by the oil companies for which this organization works to generate billions in profits. Disagree as much as you'd like with my out-of-the norm take on the realities of how nonprofits have devolved. The difference is you are bound by the dictionary definition of a word. I am looking at the realities on the street. Seriously, it is naïve to actually believe these companies are not for profit. The mechanisms abound. A church purchasing manager gives a lucrative multi-million dollar contract to a contractor in exchange for under the table kickbacks. This crap happens all the time. The Vatican has done this kind of thing in transactions worth tens of millions of dollars while servicing as the financial arm for the buildout of television stations in Africa. The problem is you don't know what you don't know and a single-point dictionary definition of a single word is the extent of what you will look at as evidence to fight the idea that the nonprofit thing is seriously broken. But, hey, you are right, the word is defined precisely as you indicate. Good job. Some guy gets paid ten million dollars to sign over checks to feed the children and you think that's overhead. I think it is an abuse of the system that, while not currently legally defined as such, should be classified as profit. And taxed accordingly. Better yet, it should be capped and the children should get more money. Since you seem fond of little intelligent-sounding sayings, here's one that's applicable: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Nonprofits: In practice, they are not. Not all of them. BTW, I actually help run a small --real-- nonprofit. We setup a legal nonprofit organization to fund a local high school robotics team. We take-in donations and spend the money to pay for anything the kids need (usually tool, parts, etc.). Fully 100% of the money we receive (about $25K per year) is spent on what the kids need. 100%. Not a single penny goes towards anything else (OK, the occasional bank fee is another expense). Every mentor is a volunteer and most of us are actually donors as well. That's a real nonprofit, in the full sense of the word. Because nobody within the organization derives any kind of financial profit from it. There are no conflicts of interest whatsoever, no murky lines. Not sure what "nonprofits" who consume 40% of revenues should be called.