9 ms·

money in has to exceed money out no matter what format the organization takes

by vmception 5y ago

cik 5y ago
Sounds like someone has never heard of government
- bongoman37 5y ago
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  Govt works exactly the same way. You think they spend more than they take in by ignoring the excess is lent to them by investors - even the govt is taking in more than it spends. If you're considering the Fed, it too is a lender, and has a zero net asset sheet.
  - adolph 5y ago
    Yep, here’s the November 2021 balance sheet—clear as day, assets equal liabilities. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/balance_sheet_developments_report_202111.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/balance_...
adrian_mrd 5y ago
What about money in = money out? If an organization pays its expenses - including the wages of its staff - well, why does there ‘need’ to be some cream leftover at the top? What I am trying to better understand is why there is a preference (morally, legally, societally) for for-profit organizations. Is it because (most) people are inherently profit-focused, or, that it is just the way things are? Amongst many other possible options.
- vmception 5y ago
  non profit institutions are bound by the same constraints sustainable ones do not move all of it to expenses or purpose the answer of why is that the buffer allows them to continue existing. if there is any disruption in money coming in, then they cease to exist. I understand you are wanting a different discussion that I didn't offer, based on wanting a reason that has nothing to do with moral legal or societal. There are more for profit organizations because it is easier to set one up, it is "permissionless" whereas a non-profit requires approval. for profit and non profit are bound to the same fundamental constraints and I think that is misunderstood by many. both types of organizations have the capability of having none left over. both types of organizations have the risk of having a disruption in their ability to exist. both types can keep more for themselves. this is not a moral issue.

money in has to exceed money out no matter what format the organization takes

cik 5y ago

Sounds like someone has never heard of government

bongoman37 5y ago
ChrisLomont 5y ago
Govt works exactly the same way. You think they spend more than they take in by ignoring the excess is lent to them by investors - even the govt is taking in more than it spends. If you're considering the Fed, it too is a lender, and has a zero net asset sheet.
- adolph 5y ago
  Yep, here’s the November 2021 balance sheet—clear as day, assets equal liabilities. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/balance_sheet_developments_report_202111.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/balance_...

adrian_mrd 5y ago

What about money in = money out? If an organization pays its expenses - including the wages of its staff - well, why does there ‘need’ to be some cream leftover at the top? What I am trying to better understand is why there is a preference (morally, legally, societally) for for-profit organizations. Is it because (most) people are inherently profit-focused, or, that it is just the way things are? Amongst many other possible options.

vmception 5y ago
non profit institutions are bound by the same constraints sustainable ones do not move all of it to expenses or purpose the answer of why is that the buffer allows them to continue existing. if there is any disruption in money coming in, then they cease to exist. I understand you are wanting a different discussion that I didn't offer, based on wanting a reason that has nothing to do with moral legal or societal. There are more for profit organizations because it is easier to set one up, it is "permissionless" whereas a non-profit requires approval. for profit and non profit are bound to the same fundamental constraints and I think that is misunderstood by many. both types of organizations have the capability of having none left over. both types of organizations have the risk of having a disruption in their ability to exist. both types can keep more for themselves. this is not a moral issue.