Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
The Capt knocks it way out of the park again. Out-freaking-standing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe the socialogical term is "reciprocity". For example, an anti-poverty organization needs poor people, or its justification disappears. What is the percentage of non-profit money that actually gets to the destination, whatever the cause? 5%?
consider the plight of Santa Cruz, California, a town with so many tax-exempt non-profits located therein that the city can't collect enough property tax to keep the sewers working.
read: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complexone liner: Governments started funding nonprofits on a large scale around 1978 in order to control them.
This makes me think of what my wife's trainer said, as she explained to him why she didn't want to train with him any more."I'm not in it for the money"Now I do not want to work with any supplier of goods or services who is not in it for the money. If I am paying someone for a service then I want him to be "doing it for the money", because I am supplying the money so he is doing it for me.If someone is "not doing it for the money" then they are doing it for themselves, not for me.
@Robert of Ottawa:If you define poverty as relative, like for example the lowest 20% of income, then by definition you would never get rid of it. There is always someone in the lowest 20% percent.
Because we're not all foreign women who get nominated for Australian of the Year and get a bottomless credit card.Note: not only did she steal HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars, she was nominated for Australian of the Year while she was doing it!
Post a Comment