7 ms·

No, even charities and non-profits need to make money—they need to make a profit, or break even exactly— otherwise they will cease to exist. Even if the revenue

No, even charities and non-profits need to make money—they need to make a profit, or break even exactly— otherwise they will cease to exist. Even if the revenue is all donations, that's the business model. This also applies to other corporations like cities[1]. [1]https://youtu.be/iWQRgKqWrMU?t=360 https://youtu.be/iWQRgKqWrMU?t=360

kerkeslager 3y ago
I'm confused why your comment starts with "no" as if you're disagreeing with me, and then you go on to give an example of my point that capitalism has fucked things up so badly that it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive.
- frosted-flakes 3y ago
  It has nothing to do with legal organizations or capitalism, it's basic logic.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    Given humans were organizing before the existence of money, I think it's pretty clear that money isn't a necessary component of organization. So no, it's not basic logic.
    - rizky05 3y ago
      [dead]
    - frosted-flakes 3y ago
      Not money, per se, but income. Without income, you can't produce anything. Income could be volunteer labour, or donations of physical goods, or proceeds from the sale of goods or services, but without a solid (business) plan that lays out how you're going to maintain a consistent level of income to support your activities, you probably won't be able to survive as an organization. The basic logic is that if you don't eat, you will eventually starve to death. You might get by for a while on stored fat (savings), but eventually your body will begin to consume itself (debt) and eventually die (bankruptcy).
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        I understand the metaphor you're making, and I'm saying it doesn't apply to being of service to others. Service is not calories in an organism or dollars in a corporation: the metaphor you're making is not relevant. The labor one can perform in the service of others is not bounded by some sort of conservation-of-value principle. If someone comes to me with a problem and I can solve it by taking some action, that's value produced essentially from nothing. And if other people want to do the same thing, we can produce value from nothing through labor together. Sometimes there are other inputs, which aren't as "from nothing" such as car parts or oil. But skilled labor is still a necessary component, to turning those components into a working car that is more valuable than the parts or oil. And sure, some of those "not from nothing" components are absolutely non-negotiable for survival, like people having to eat and be sheltered. But I think it's pretty clear that a skilled laborer like Henson is able to give more value from his labor than he consumes in food and board. The corporate model you're shoving everything into assumes we have to put a dollar value on everything and that dollars in versus dollars out has to line up, but forcing a service-based charity into that model is an impediment to its effectiveness. The entire point is to give as much as you can, even if that means giving more than you take. And that makes perfect sense, by itself, without having to represent it in a balance sheet. And the only way you can shoehorn it into a balance sheet is by ignoring the entire point.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - bendbro 3y ago
      If not basic logic, it is a foundation of a few common sense premises and basic logic. For an organization to output something of value to people they will generally need something of value as input. Money is the best way to convince someone to give you that input. Money is burgers, beers, drugs, and gasoline. Something you can sell for money or barter is a close second. There are other ways to get that input, but ultimately you are relying on someone being convinced into doing something for less in return than what they put in: military draft, patriotic enlistment, prison labor, slavery, volunteering, donations, taxes, robbery, inflationary money printing, non-competes, anti union laws, a nationwide campaign to convert to communism, etc.
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        Why is it so inconceivable to you that someone might just want to help others without expecting anything in return?
        jacquesm 3y ago
        I've been watching this thread and the comments in it unfold with some amazement. You make a simple and valid point and yet some people are unable to even step out of the capitalist mindset for a second to see that it is perfectly possible to add value to society without a profit motive. At some level this should probably be expected but I can't help being a bit shocked by it. Thanks for keeping up your end (and in a respectful way, no less).
        dsfyu404ed 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      Those organizations predating money - were they legally registered?
- vel0city 3y ago
  If stuff in is less than stuff out for long enough, the organism will fail. This is regardless of capitalism or communism or any other -ism.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    What you've said is vague enough to be completely meaningless. Use relevant, specific words, rather than "stuff" and "organism", and it becomes quickly clear that what you're saying is total nonsense. If someone has all their basic needs met, what mechanism would cause them to fail if they choose to produce more value (through labor) than the value required to meet their basic needs?
    - vel0city 3y ago
      It's a pretty basic concept. > If someone has all their basic needs met So, plenty of stuff in, so they can produce value through labor. Reduce stuff in to no longer have their needs met and expect them to keep up that labor. Think that'll go on forever? If an organization only gives and never receives, it'll surely run out of stuff to give, won't it?
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        If someone has all their basic needs met, what mechanism would cause them to fail if they choose to produce more value (through labor) than the value required to meet their basic needs?
        vel0city 3y ago
        If they're only getting just enough to subsist (has all their basic needs met), they probably don't have a lot of extra energy to produce more value. You need to eat to have energy to work, more so than just the bare minimum to live. They also probably won't be very effective at working if they only have the bare minimum to survive, since that doesn't include tools or places to actually work. If some people only had a few hundred calories to eat a day, a basic sleeping mat, and a simple roof over their heads their basic needs will be met and will continue living but they probably won't be very good at producing much additional value. They won't be good at forming a symphony, as they don't have any instruments. They won't be good building things, since they won't have hammers or nails or saws or wood or any other construction materials (those fall outside the "basic needs"). So you'd probably need more than just the "basic needs". And then once again, if they are expected to put out more than what they're getting in, they probably won't live very long. If you're only consuming a few hundred calories but putting out a couple thousand a day, you're not long for this world.
- aww_dang 3y ago
  Charity starts with abundance.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    If you insist that charity and abundance are both measured in dollars, then charity isn't really a good thing, because it can only start with sucking up a bunch of resources, far beyond what you need. This model of charity is a farce: having accumulated resources they have no right to, the rich get to do good when and where it's convenient for them, giving away resources that weren't theirs to give. Bill Gates accumulated billions selling the results of other people's labor during the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Rwandan Genocide, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, rising homelessness, etc., only founding the Gates foundation in 2000. We're supposed to applaud him for ignoring problems for 25 years so he can look good taking on a few politically uncontroversial problems now? No thanks. As it turns out, skilled labor is a resource that can be given charitably, without having to amass vast resources at other people's expense. Paul Farmer or Jonas Salk have changed more lives than the Gates foundation, without accumulating "abundance"--Jonas Salk even refused to patent the polio vaccine.
    - aww_dang 3y ago
      Free time is also a form of abundance. Generally this surplus is achieved by living within one's means. Producing more than one consumes is the basic form of profit. Individuals can realize this through leisure or savings. The surplus can be applied for their subjective charitable ends or reinvested into the market. Even there, I'd caution against divorcing charity from the market. Despite screeds to the contrary, charity has a market value unto itself. Gates is a problematic figure for other reasons, but the idea that all profit is theft and therefore abundance is impossible within the market is a bit absurd. The profit motive is what creates abundance. How individuals choose to spend their profits is an individual decision. Before you can act charitably, you need the requisite resources. Obsessing over the units of measure is completely besides the point. Time, skills or goods must be acquired in advance. Hard leftists have a penchant for misconstruing market incentives. Greed, uncharitable hoarding and immoral behavior is an option in the market. However it is not a predetermined outcome. The article speaks to this. The charitably minded auto-mechanic is free to deploy his resources in the way that best suits his ends. Contrast this voluntary charity with state mandated coercion. Violence is implicit. Central planners have little to no incentive to create abundance. Class based subsidies often create resentment and divide communities. As you observe, inter-class and inter-caste conflicts are often used in service of the state's largess. Voluntary market systems have no issue with voluntary charity. To the contrary, they create the conditions of abundance necessary for charity.

kerkeslager 3y ago

I'm confused why your comment starts with "no" as if you're disagreeing with me, and then you go on to give an example of my point that capitalism has fucked things up so badly that it's impossible to create legal organizations that help people without the assumption of a profit motive.

frosted-flakes 3y ago
It has nothing to do with legal organizations or capitalism, it's basic logic.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  Given humans were organizing before the existence of money, I think it's pretty clear that money isn't a necessary component of organization. So no, it's not basic logic.
  - rizky05 3y ago
    [dead]
  - frosted-flakes 3y ago
    Not money, per se, but income. Without income, you can't produce anything. Income could be volunteer labour, or donations of physical goods, or proceeds from the sale of goods or services, but without a solid (business) plan that lays out how you're going to maintain a consistent level of income to support your activities, you probably won't be able to survive as an organization. The basic logic is that if you don't eat, you will eventually starve to death. You might get by for a while on stored fat (savings), but eventually your body will begin to consume itself (debt) and eventually die (bankruptcy).
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      I understand the metaphor you're making, and I'm saying it doesn't apply to being of service to others. Service is not calories in an organism or dollars in a corporation: the metaphor you're making is not relevant. The labor one can perform in the service of others is not bounded by some sort of conservation-of-value principle. If someone comes to me with a problem and I can solve it by taking some action, that's value produced essentially from nothing. And if other people want to do the same thing, we can produce value from nothing through labor together. Sometimes there are other inputs, which aren't as "from nothing" such as car parts or oil. But skilled labor is still a necessary component, to turning those components into a working car that is more valuable than the parts or oil. And sure, some of those "not from nothing" components are absolutely non-negotiable for survival, like people having to eat and be sheltered. But I think it's pretty clear that a skilled laborer like Henson is able to give more value from his labor than he consumes in food and board. The corporate model you're shoving everything into assumes we have to put a dollar value on everything and that dollars in versus dollars out has to line up, but forcing a service-based charity into that model is an impediment to its effectiveness. The entire point is to give as much as you can, even if that means giving more than you take. And that makes perfect sense, by itself, without having to represent it in a balance sheet. And the only way you can shoehorn it into a balance sheet is by ignoring the entire point.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - bendbro 3y ago
    If not basic logic, it is a foundation of a few common sense premises and basic logic. For an organization to output something of value to people they will generally need something of value as input. Money is the best way to convince someone to give you that input. Money is burgers, beers, drugs, and gasoline. Something you can sell for money or barter is a close second. There are other ways to get that input, but ultimately you are relying on someone being convinced into doing something for less in return than what they put in: military draft, patriotic enlistment, prison labor, slavery, volunteering, donations, taxes, robbery, inflationary money printing, non-competes, anti union laws, a nationwide campaign to convert to communism, etc.
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      Why is it so inconceivable to you that someone might just want to help others without expecting anything in return?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        I've been watching this thread and the comments in it unfold with some amazement. You make a simple and valid point and yet some people are unable to even step out of the capitalist mindset for a second to see that it is perfectly possible to add value to society without a profit motive. At some level this should probably be expected but I can't help being a bit shocked by it. Thanks for keeping up your end (and in a respectful way, no less).
        dsfyu404ed 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Those organizations predating money - were they legally registered?
vel0city 3y ago
If stuff in is less than stuff out for long enough, the organism will fail. This is regardless of capitalism or communism or any other -ism.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  What you've said is vague enough to be completely meaningless. Use relevant, specific words, rather than "stuff" and "organism", and it becomes quickly clear that what you're saying is total nonsense. If someone has all their basic needs met, what mechanism would cause them to fail if they choose to produce more value (through labor) than the value required to meet their basic needs?
  - vel0city 3y ago
    It's a pretty basic concept. > If someone has all their basic needs met So, plenty of stuff in, so they can produce value through labor. Reduce stuff in to no longer have their needs met and expect them to keep up that labor. Think that'll go on forever? If an organization only gives and never receives, it'll surely run out of stuff to give, won't it?
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      If someone has all their basic needs met, what mechanism would cause them to fail if they choose to produce more value (through labor) than the value required to meet their basic needs?
      - vel0city 3y ago
        If they're only getting just enough to subsist (has all their basic needs met), they probably don't have a lot of extra energy to produce more value. You need to eat to have energy to work, more so than just the bare minimum to live. They also probably won't be very effective at working if they only have the bare minimum to survive, since that doesn't include tools or places to actually work. If some people only had a few hundred calories to eat a day, a basic sleeping mat, and a simple roof over their heads their basic needs will be met and will continue living but they probably won't be very good at producing much additional value. They won't be good at forming a symphony, as they don't have any instruments. They won't be good building things, since they won't have hammers or nails or saws or wood or any other construction materials (those fall outside the "basic needs"). So you'd probably need more than just the "basic needs". And then once again, if they are expected to put out more than what they're getting in, they probably won't live very long. If you're only consuming a few hundred calories but putting out a couple thousand a day, you're not long for this world.
aww_dang 3y ago
Charity starts with abundance.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  If you insist that charity and abundance are both measured in dollars, then charity isn't really a good thing, because it can only start with sucking up a bunch of resources, far beyond what you need. This model of charity is a farce: having accumulated resources they have no right to, the rich get to do good when and where it's convenient for them, giving away resources that weren't theirs to give. Bill Gates accumulated billions selling the results of other people's labor during the height of the AIDS epidemic, the Rwandan Genocide, the crack epidemic, the war on drugs, rising homelessness, etc., only founding the Gates foundation in 2000. We're supposed to applaud him for ignoring problems for 25 years so he can look good taking on a few politically uncontroversial problems now? No thanks. As it turns out, skilled labor is a resource that can be given charitably, without having to amass vast resources at other people's expense. Paul Farmer or Jonas Salk have changed more lives than the Gates foundation, without accumulating "abundance"--Jonas Salk even refused to patent the polio vaccine.
  - aww_dang 3y ago
    Free time is also a form of abundance. Generally this surplus is achieved by living within one's means. Producing more than one consumes is the basic form of profit. Individuals can realize this through leisure or savings. The surplus can be applied for their subjective charitable ends or reinvested into the market. Even there, I'd caution against divorcing charity from the market. Despite screeds to the contrary, charity has a market value unto itself. Gates is a problematic figure for other reasons, but the idea that all profit is theft and therefore abundance is impossible within the market is a bit absurd. The profit motive is what creates abundance. How individuals choose to spend their profits is an individual decision. Before you can act charitably, you need the requisite resources. Obsessing over the units of measure is completely besides the point. Time, skills or goods must be acquired in advance. Hard leftists have a penchant for misconstruing market incentives. Greed, uncharitable hoarding and immoral behavior is an option in the market. However it is not a predetermined outcome. The article speaks to this. The charitably minded auto-mechanic is free to deploy his resources in the way that best suits his ends. Contrast this voluntary charity with state mandated coercion. Violence is implicit. Central planners have little to no incentive to create abundance. Class based subsidies often create resentment and divide communities. As you observe, inter-class and inter-caste conflicts are often used in service of the state's largess. Voluntary market systems have no issue with voluntary charity. To the contrary, they create the conditions of abundance necessary for charity.