profit motive

[MtnBiker]

Government is non profit. It is also one of the most bloated, ineffiecent and self serving industries we have.

 

[flaja]

1. if i can not make a profit as any one of these three why would i open this business?

How is a non-profit/not-for-profit co-op or organization a business? Why must all commerce be profit driven? Like I said before, libertarians don’t believe such a thing as society exists; they see no reason to engage in any activity that does not personally benefit themselves. I’ve yet to encounter a libertarian that would engage in any kind of commerce for anything other than personal profit.

self insured.....my company does that, we just charge more because we need the profit to fund our insurance and pay for the attorneys to defend us when someone makes a bogus claim.

And your company's prices would not otherwise be based on how much you'd have to pay in premiums to a for-profit insurance company? Your argument doesn't hold water. You have to pay for whatever insurance you need regardless. The only question is whether or not you are willing to let an insurance company profit in the process.

all three of these co-ops exist, their lower prices have not run the for profit competition out of business yet

Are all of these co-ops universally available? There used to be a time when credit unions were not available to the general public. You'd had to meet certain requirements to be accepted for membership. Fortunately the laws have recently been changed and credit unions are pretty much open to everyone. I am a member of a firefighters' credit union, but when I joined I either had to be a firefighter or have a firefighter in my family (which my late uncle was). Now I could join just about any credit union in town.

The reason why things like credit unions have not (yet) driven for-profit banks out of the market is restrictive laws. For-profit entities had a legal advantage that insulated them from competition from non-profits. Insurance is still protected to some extent. By law you cannot own a car in Florida if you don't have a minimum amount of liability insurance- and you cannot be self-insured; you must get insurance from a for-profit insurance company in order for your insurance to be recognized by state law (to my knowledge insurance co-ops don't exist in Florida).

 

[flaja]

Government is non profit. It is also one of the most bloated, ineffiecent and self serving industries we have.

The only thing this proves is that a non-profit should not be too large, lest its management loose sight of the people the non-profit is supposed to serve.

 

[manu1959]

How is a non-profit/not-for-profit co-op or organization a business? Why must all commerce be profit driven? Like I said before, libertarians don’t believe such a thing as society exists; they see no reason to engage in any activity that does not personally benefit themselves. I’ve yet to encounter a libertarian that would engage in any kind of commerce for anything other than personal profit.

And your company's prices would not otherwise be based on how much you'd have to pay in premiums to a for-profit insurance company? Your argument doesn't hold water. You have to pay for whatever insurance you need regardless. The only question is whether or not you are willing to let an insurance company profit in the process.

Are all of these co-ops universally available? There used to be a time when credit unions were not available to the general public. You'd had to meet certain requirements to be accepted for membership. Fortunately the laws have recently been changed and credit unions are pretty much open to everyone. I am a member of a firefighters' credit union, but when I joined I either had to be a firefighter or have a firefighter in my family (which my late uncle was). Now I could join just about any credit union in town.

The reason why things like credit unions have not (yet) driven for-profit banks out of the market is restrictive laws. For-profit entities had a legal advantage that insulated them from competition from non-profits. Insurance is still protected to some extent. By law you cannot own a car in Florida if you don't have a minimum amount of liability insurance- and you cannot be self-insured; you must get insurance from a for-profit insurance company in order for your insurance to be recognized by state law (to my knowledge insurance co-ops don't exist in Florida).

do you not work for profit? is not your reason to have for profits convert to non or not for profits so things you buy will be cheaper so you can keep more of your profit so you can buy more stuff?

again tell me why i would start a non or not for profit? do i not want to make a living? where is my reward for the risk i take?

 

[red states rule]

The only thing this proves is that a non-profit should not be too large, lest its management loose sight of the people the non-profit is supposed to serve.

The liberal way of running a business.............


CNN Reporter: Helpful Democrats Will Give You More Time Off Work!
Posted by Scott Whitlock on December 11, 2006 - 12:21.
Monday’s edition of "American Morning" featured a decidedly one sided segment that advocated for Democratic legislation, generously highlighted Ted Kennedy and promoted San Francisco as the wave of the future. Correspondent Alina Cho used the piece to boost a bill that would require employers with more than 15 workers to give seven sick days a year. Disparaging America’s primitive stance on the issue, she noted that "139 countries provide paid sick leave for workers. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not pay." Cho almost entirely ignored opposition to this plan. Her segment also highlighted a supposed victim of this problem who is actually on the board of directors of a group that lobbies for similar laws. (Somehow, this didn't come up.) The entire story sounded like something taken straight from a DNC press release:

Alina Cho: "...For many Americans, taking a sick day is not a big deal. You take it for granted. But by most estimates, more than half of all Americans who work in the private sector do not get a single day of paid sick leave. Not a single day. Well, all of that could change now that the Democrats are about to take control of Congress. And for some families, it could make all the difference. Rachel Sobel, mother of two, quit her job last December when she was forced to make a choice: her job or her son. Leo had broken his arm and needed her care."

Well, who is Rachel Sobel? She’s on the board of directors for ParentsWork, an Illinois based organization that, according to their website, has the following goals:

"By connecting parents with information and tools to take action, our hope is that ParentsWork can give us the strength in numbers that we need to get business leaders and elected officials to listen to our concerns and do something about them. So, join us and become part of a growing movement of Illinois parents who want to create a better future for our children and grandchildren."

CNN and Ms. Cho apparently couldn’t find the time to mention this salient point. Later in the piece, which aired at 7:16am, the reporter simply stated that Sobel "now has a part-time job which affords her more time with her kids but less money." The viewer is left with the impression that this is just a regular, ordinary mother with no particular agenda.

"American Morning" hosts Soledad O’Brien and Miles O’Brien both promoted the legislation earlier in the program. In a 7AM tease, Ms. O’Brien helpfully added the following insight:

Soledad O’Brien: "This morning, how the power shift in Washington could make it easier for you to call in sick and still get paid."

A few minutes later, Miles O’Brien introduced Cho and continued the "helpful Democrats" theme:

Miles O’Brien: "Well, I wonder how you feel this morning? You might wish you could just call in sick and roll over, but you can't because you'd lose a day's pay. Well, You may be getting some relief soon. Some members of Congress have the prescription for new legislation that could give you a break."

In her segment, Cho cited a city and a person in order to promote the legislation: San Francisco and Ted Kennedy. Somehow, the word "liberal" wasn’t applied to either:

Cho: "Next month, Senator Ted Kennedy will reintroduce a bill that would require companies with 15 or more employees to provide full-time workers seven days of paid sick leave a year."

Ted Kennedy: "It’s good enough for the members of Congress, good enough for the Senate, the House of Representatives. It's good enough for hard-working people."

Cho: "It’s already good enough for San Francisco. The city recently approved a similar measure, the first in the nation to do so. Kennedy says it should be federal policy."

The CNN correspondent mostly ignored or downplayed the economic impact this bill would have. The report, almost four minutes in length, included only a five second clip of opposition to the legislation, and note that it included a plea for more taxes:

Cho: "Business leaders say if paid sick leave is that important, Congress should raise taxes to pay for it."

Randel Johnson (U.S. Chamber of Commerce): "People get sick, need time off, why should the employer necessarily have to pay for that burden?"

After that, Cho shifted right back into enthusiastic cheerleader mode, bashing America for not living up to other, more enlightened countries:

Cho: "Now, business leaders who are against paid sick leave say employers simply can't afford to pay for it. But people like Rachel Sopel say in the long run, and this makes sense, if the person goes into work sick and gets everyone else sick, it will hurt businesses, especially productivity, even more. Interesting to note, 139 countries provide paid sick leave for workers. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not pay. And Miles, Senator Kennedy says next to minimum wage, paid sick leave is the most important issue facing American workers here."

Advocating that America embrace the policies of socialist countries isn’t a new angle. On October 5, 2005, Brent Baker noted that both ABC and NBC were promoting an embrace of European legislation:

"ABC and NBC turned a study, on how children are better off cared for by mothers at home instead of in daycare, into a chance to promote European socialistic paid leave benefits."

Katie Couric, then a host of "Today," made her feelings clear. She wondered, "This country is pretty far behind in providing really superior childcare for working parents, right?" Now that the Democrats are writing bills, America can probably expect more "independent" experts and profiles of all sorts of exciting new legislation.

A transcript of the December 11 "American Morning" report follows:

7:00

Soledad O’Brien: "This morning, how the power shift in Washington could make it easier for you to call in sick and still get paid."

7:16

Miles O’Brien: "Well, I wonder how you feel this morning? You might wish you could just call in sick and roll over, but you can't because you'd lose a day's pay. Well, You may be getting some relief soon. Some members of Congress have the prescription for new legislation that could give you a break. ‘American Morning’s’ Alina Cho is feeling well, I hope."

Alina Cho: "I am. Miles, good morning to you."

O’Brien: "Good to have you."

Cho: "Thank you. You know, for many Americans, taking a sick day is not a big deal. You take it for granted. But by most estimates, more than half of all Americans who work in the private sector do not get a single day of paid sick leave. Not a single day. Well, all of that could change now that the Democrats are about to take control of Congress. And for some families, it could make all the difference. Rachel Sobel, mother of two, quit her job last December when she was forced to make a choice: her job or her son. Leo had broken his arm and needed her care."

Rachel Sobel: " I had to be home with him."

Cho: "But she couldn’t. She already used her payed time off, which included only two sick days, so she quit to care for her son. It's a dilemma lots of Americans face. Nearly half of all workers in the private sector don't get any paid sick time. And lower-wage workers are the hardest hit. With Democrats about to take control of Congress, they're vowing to fight for a change."

Ted Kennedy: "I, quite frankly, am tired of playing defense. I think it's time that we played offense."

Cho: "Next month, Senator Ted Kennedy will reintroduce a bill that would require companies with 15 or more employees to provide full-time workers seven days of paid sick leave a year."

Kennedy: "It’s good enough for the members of Congress, good enough for the Senate, the House of Representatives, it's good enough for hard-working people."

Cho: "It’s already good enough for San Francisco. The city recently approved a similar measure, the first in the nation to do so. Kennedy says it should be federal policy. Business leaders say if paid sick leave is that important, Congress should raise taxes to pay for it."

Randel Johnson (U.S. Chamber of Commerce): "People get sick, need time off, why should the employer necessarily have to pay for that burden?"

Cho: "Rachel now has a part-time job which affords her more time with her kids but less money. What she really wants is a full time job that allows her enough time off to take care of her kids when they’re sick and get paid at the same time."

Sobel: "It's really all-American workers who deserve this."

Cho: "Now, business leaders who are against paid sick leave say employers simply can't afford to pay for it. But people like Rachel Sopel say in the long run, and this makes sense, if the person goes into work sick and gets everyone else sick, it will hurt businesses, especially productivity, even more. Interesting to note, 139 countries provide paid sick leave for workers. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not pay. And Miles, Senator Kennedy says next to minimum wage, paid sick leave is the most important issue facing American workers here."

Miles O’Brien: "Now, the system we have here, we really don’t have sick days. We have PTO, paid time off."

Cho: "Right."

Miles O’Brien: "It all kind of gets lumped into vacation."

Cho: "That's right. So, you might get 30 days total for the year, vacation, personal days, sick days. And it's a trend. A lot more companies are doing things this way. And proponents of this policy say it's a good idea because, listen, if you have a family and you need to take sick days, you can take sick days. Work if you don't and you want to take more vacation, you can do that. And they say it actually discourages people from taking sick days, unless they’re absolutely sick and need to take a sick day. And it's a trend that's caught on."

O’Brien: "Of course, it might cause them to come in sick and get everyone sick, which is--"

Cho: "Right. That’s the other side of it."

Soledad O’Brien: "But that woman, her son broke her arm. She just wasn’t going to spread germs, she just wanted to be able to help him."

Cho: "That’s right. And she had to quit as a result."
http://newsbusters.org/node/9587

 

[Huckleburry]

I think we should just let all out free market mele run our system. Military protection should go to the lowest bidder. No Government subsidization of any industry, no public money for roads, schools, infastructure of any kind. No worker protection. Intellectual property rights are for the weak slow and stupid.

Inheratence is easier than working...vote republican

 

[red states rule]

I think we should just let all out free market mele run our system. Military protection should go to the lowest bidder. No Government subsidization of any industry, no public money for roads, schools, infastructure of any kind. No worker protection. Intellectual property rights are for the weak slow and stupid.

Inheratence is easier than working...vote republican

If we left it to libs the top tax rate would be about 90% and the economy would be in the tank

Look at France. It is a perfect model for what libs can do to devestate an economy

 

[Annie]

If we left it to libs the top tax rate would be about 90% and the economy would be in the tank

Look at France. It is a perfect model for what libs can do to devestate an economy

Doncha just lover China, Iraq, Saudis, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Turkey, UA$, Etc. Why do YOU find illuminating?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

How is a non-profit/not-for-profit co-op or organization a business? Why must all commerce be profit driven? Like I said before, libertarians don’t believe such a thing as society exists; they see no reason to engage in any activity that does not personally benefit themselves. I’ve yet to encounter a libertarian that would engage in any kind of commerce for anything other than personal profit.

You're making a classic mistake: "If someone doesn't want The State to provide a certain good or service, then they are against that good or service." ie, if you want to get the state out of the business of providing for the indigent, then you are against aid to the poor altogether. If you want to abolish and auction off the state-owned oil company, then you are against oil production. It's not true.

Are all of these co-ops universally available? There used to be a time when credit unions were not available to the general public. You'd had to meet certain requirements to be accepted for membership. Fortunately the laws have recently been changed and credit unions are pretty much open to everyone. I am a member of a firefighters' credit union, but when I joined I either had to be a firefighter or have a firefighter in my family (which my late uncle was). Now I could join just about any credit union in town.

The reason why things like credit unions have not (yet) driven for-profit banks out of the market is restrictive laws. For-profit entities had a legal advantage that insulated them from competition from non-profits. Insurance is still protected to some extent. By law you cannot own a car in Florida if you don't have a minimum amount of liability insurance- and you cannot be self-insured; you must get insurance from a for-profit insurance company in order for your insurance to be recognized by state law (to my knowledge insurance co-ops don't exist in Florida).

If there are laws which exclude non-profits from competing, then that is a problem with government, and those laws need to be abolished. And anyone who even has libertarian leanings would support their abolishment.

Basically, people who support "capitalism" don't necessarily support capitalism or profits or big business, per se. They support economic freedom. If you want to buy products from a giant for-profit company, you can do that. If you want to buy locally-produced goods from a co-op, you can do that too. If you want to get together with several friends, form a commune (commune-ism?), live mostly cashless, with each giving according to his ability and taking according to his needs, then you can do that as well. You should be able to live as you please, so long as you don't violate another person's property.

 

[KarlMarx]

Businesses that would be more effective (at least from the consumer’s standpoint) by operating without a profit motive:

1. Insurance. An insurance customer pays thousands of dollars in premiums and then when they need to make a claim the insurance company makes them jump through hoops before it pays anything out. The less the insurance company has to pay out in claims the more profit it makes. Thus the insurance company has an incentive to not pay claims. And in the process, when major disasters such as hurricanes happen (at least in Florida) insurance companies can simply leave the market and leave the government to pick up the tab.

An alternative to a for-profit insurance company would be either self-insurance or insurance cooperatives whereby all of the money that comes investing the premiums is returned to the co-op’s members through claims or lower premiums.

2. Banking/finance services. Again non-profit credit unions are certainly a better option for consumers of banking/financial services.

3. Groceries. Farmers and to some extent food processors need a profit motive to insure a steady and sufficient supply of food, but a grocery co-op and community supported agriculture and pick-your-own farms eliminate the retail middleman, thus providing food to the consumer at a lower cost.

Has it occurred to you that when you work and get paid that you're making a profit? You're selling (well, actually renting) a service, i.e. your talents, your muscle, what ever it is that you use to do your job.

Unless you do nothing but volunteer work, you are working for a profit.

If you put money in a bank, do you realize that you are also making a profit? The interest they pay on your savings doesn't magically appear. It comes from the fact that you are supplying capital for others to borrow, then charging them interest for the privilege of letting them.

So, all this talk about the sins of others making a profit is somewhat misdirected.

I have a proposal. Call your bank and tell them to stop paying interest on your CDs, savings accounts, and anything else you have. Then, call your employer and tell them that you've decided that profit is a bad thing and that the world would be a better place if you worked for free. Plus.... if you own any stocks or mutual funds, you are going to mail those nasty uncashed dividend checks right back to the company with a letter explaining how evil profit is.

If you were to actually do such a thing you'll find that, within a few days, your new situation is going to cause problems. For one thing, what are you going to use to buy groceries, gasoline, clothing and what are you going to tell the landlord or the bank at the end of the month? Not to mention other things like the phone company, the light company and most importantly, your Internet Service Provider!

Oh, that's right, you'll live off of your savings. OK, well that will give you some time, but eventually, that will run out.... then what?

I make this proposal to illustrate a point. If you can't survive without making a profit, how do you expect others to? Profit is what helps businesses survive. Whatever extra they make, they either use to pay bills, invest or save for a rainy day.... just like you do!

 

[red states rule]

Here is what libs want from the US government. Be more like France!

CBS Plugs France's 3-Year Paid Maternity Leave, Subsidized Child Care Entitlements
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on December 10, 2006 - 10:00.
Saturday's CBS Evening News featured a story, filed by correspondent Sheila MacVicar, which highlighted the French government's policy of entitling all mothers to three years of paid maternity leave and subsidized child care as a way to increase the birth rate and thus provide more young taxpayers to pay for the pensions of the elderly. MacVicar pointed out that in America, "federal law entitles some working mothers to twelve weeks unpaid leave," before cautioning that "the rest get nothing."

MacVicar relayed that French women enjoy more benefits than their American counterparts: "Take a look at what all French families, regardless of income, are entitled to: Up to three years paid maternity leave with a guarantee that mom's job will be there for her when she returns. There's subsidized child care, a whole host of tax credits, and for baby number three brings twice the government allowance of baby number two." (Transcript follows)

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the December 9 CBS Evening News:

Thalia Assuras: "Working mothers in America often find they have too much to do and not enough help to do it. Those are a couple of the reasons why American families are getting smaller and the population older. In France, that's not happening. From Paris, here's Sheila MacVicar."

Sheila MacVicar: "It's a busy household -- three kids, different schedules, working parents, a very familiar tale. But because this is France, lawyer Anne Horn and her family get help from the French government's very family friendly policies."

Anne Horn, French lawyer: "Maybe we won't have any more desperate housewives in France. No, no, it's changing a lot."

MacVicar: "One hundred sixty-three countries around the globe offer at least some subsidy to new mothers. In America, federal law entitles some working mothers to twelve weeks unpaid leave. The rest get nothing. Take a look at what all French families, regardless of income, are entitled to: Up to three years paid maternity leave with a guarantee that mom's job will be there for her when she returns. There's subsidized child care, a whole host of tax credits, and for baby number three brings twice the government allowance of baby number two.

Horn: "For the third child, I was able to take a long maternity leave, and I think it's a great opportunity because I was sure to find my job after this."

MacVicar: "Most of Europe is going gray and worries about a future where the number of people on pensions outnumbers younger workers funding those pensions through taxes. That kind of imbalance could be a disaster. That's not the case in France, where fertility rates are up. France's booming birth rate is now the second highest in Europe -- such a resounding success that officials from Germany, Thailand, even Japan, all fearful of their own aging populations, are studying the French model. In a policy borne out of 100-year-old fears that a declining French population would be vulnerable to military attack, the government now subsidizes family life in France to the tune of $40 billion a year. The goal now to help women work -- 80 percent of French women do -- and have babies."

Vincent Mahe, Ministry for Benefits and Family Affairs: "We really focus now on reconciling babies and bosses, and that means we put more and more emphasis on child care facilities."

MacVicar: "And that may be the key, say the French, not only take care of working mothers but convince families that their children will be well cared for from a very young age, and they'll have more babies, and maybe a little less guilt. Sheila MacVicar, CBS News, Paris."
http://newsbusters.org/node/9576

 

[flaja]

do you not work for profit?

No, and what difference would it make?

[/quote]is not your reason to have for profits convert to non or not for profits so things you buy will be cheaper so you can keep more of your profit so you can buy more stuff?[/quote]

Not necessarily. The more an organization is driven by profit the more efficiently it wants to produce and market its goods and the more likely it is it to misuse natural resources and restrict consumer choice. Consider industrialized farming. Farmers who care about nothing but profits want crops that can be easily planted, easily cared for in the field, easily harvested and easily shipped long distances to market. Any crop that cannot meet all of these requirements is removed from large scale commercial production. This restricts consumer choice. And in the process these farmers are heavily dependent on large inputs of energy, water, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

Also, a non-profit alternative can help combat the undue economic power and political influence of large corporations.

again tell me why i would start a non or not for profit?

For the common good or the betterment of society.

 

[flaja]

Unless you do nothing but volunteer work, you are working for a profit.

And of course volunteering is anathema to a libertarians.

If you put money in a bank, do you realize that you are also making a profit?

Not as much as the bank is making off of your money, and if you borrow from that bank you are making even less because the bank will always charge more to loan you its money that it will pay you to loan it your money.

 

[flaja]

Here is what libs want from the US government. Be more like France!

CBS Plugs France's 3-Year Paid Maternity Leave, Subsidized Child Care Entitlements

What has this to do with the subject of the non-profit sector?

 

[KarlMarx]

And of course volunteering is anathema to a libertarians.



Not as much as the bank is making off of your money, and if you borrow from that bank you are making even less because the bank will always charge more to loan you its money that it will pay you to loan it your money.

so, what is your point?

 

[MtnBiker]

3. Groceries. Farmers and to some extent food processors need a profit motive to insure a steady and sufficient supply of food, but a grocery co-op and community supported agriculture and pick-your-own farms eliminate the retail middleman, thus providing food to the consumer at a lower cost.

How would produce be delivered to the consumer? Many areas of the country do not have locally grown produce available for the entire calendar year.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Not necessarily. The more an organization is driven by profit the more efficiently it wants to produce and market its goods and the more likely it is it to misuse natural resources and restrict consumer choice.

Economic freedom expands consumer choice. If you don't like what you're getting, you shop elsewhere.

Consider industrialized farming. Farmers who care about nothing but profits want crops that can be easily planted, easily cared for in the field, easily harvested and easily shipped long distances to market. Any crop that cannot meet all of these requirements is removed from large scale commercial production. This restricts consumer choice. And in the process these farmers are heavily dependent on large inputs of energy, water, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.

You can get all sorts of obscure crops at large grocers, but if they don't have what you seek, you can always look for alternatives, like Whole Foods. Or some of the larger farmers' co-op's, ethnic groceries, and online stores. Isn't economic freedom great? It provides you with a bewildering array of choices (unlike state-run industries, where you get perhaps a handful of choices). If you want cheap basic food, you can get it. If you want expensive exotic food, you can get that too.

And of course volunteering is anathema to a libertarians.

No, in fact libertarians extoll the virtues of volunteering like a broken record. In fact it's one of the primary reasons why they support dismantling so much of the state. When you earn more, you can give more. Volunteerism used to be a much more prominent aspect of american life until state and federal governments decided that it was time to take over charity functions.