Profits for Justice

Its the cover of "The Nation" this week. I noticed it and thought it was interesting. Libertarians are going to have a party with this one. anyone of you guys read it?



Man, those girl scouts are aggressive. anyways...



Well it is true that sources of finance have always had a say in message and method. Self-sufficiency is one way of looking at it. But what happens if the consciousness becomes one of profit. i doubt it, and I do think nowadays that should a vehicle stray, we could take our business elsewhere. The problem is starting up, and sources of information access to consumers.

A question for eveyone. i remember Torri once started a thread on if you research where you shop before purchasing goods from them. do you? would you make a point to go out of your way, or to go to internet distributers that had agendas that matched yours?



Well money is money, and the article brings up a good point that it has to come from somewhere. Can the business model actually hold off for better interests than fundraising? Maybe. I have my doubts, because fundraising often has a blank check nature to it that allows for the receiving institution to either set the platform ahead of time and then recruit support, or at least there is less in the way of follow up *proof.* Afterall, what kind of *proof* can be procurred for such things as AIDS awareness. in a sense, and also, in what way? Grants can have string attached. This is fine if the agenda is already compatable...not so if there are irreconsieable differences. As to if business model will work well, I have doubts only because it is 1. Too dependant on immediate consumption and competition. How many books stores can one have before competition is impossible to fund a programme. Not to say a book store can't make moeny, but just enough to support itself, not necessarily a larger institution. Restairants, bars, clothing...all have the same problem. So sometimes money has to come from a more stable space. I don't think its a bad idea, I just think its going to depend on people buying more and more every year, and will fall victim to the same problems for-profit businesses encounter with the market. The difference is that corporations and businesses are supposed to handle those market worries full-time, while for these new non-profit activist institutions, its only supposed to supplement what they deal with full-time. It could completely detract from the original intentions, or just occupy all the value and brain-space. Its still not a bad idea to try, I just think its going to go the route of say, casinos. They made alot of money when there were only a few of them, but now with more and more, each one sees less profit unless they branch off into other venues. while a few insitutions could make a profit now, what happens when everyone tries it? Not a moral evaluation here, just a thought that they'll need to return to fundraising and grants anyways once their entreprenurial spaces stop providing enough money for larger issues.

I find the whole idea rather misguided.

Business is business. You're in business to make money. If you're not trying to make money, then you're going to be eaten. If these people feel that being "progressive", whatever that means, is going to make them more money, then by all means, they should go ahead and adopt that attitude. Otherwise, this will not go anywhere.

More to the point, the vast majority of the people do not care where they shop. You can run "buy American", "buy blue", "buy our shit because it stinks less", whatever else campaigns, but they will fail. Most people only care about getting their money's worth.

I'll give you an example from real life. A set of dominos costs $1 at a dollar store. That same set costs $12 at a Russian gift store. Now, as much as I would like to patronize Russian-speaking businesses, there is no way in hell I'm spending $11 extra on the domino set. If it was only a dollar more expensive, then maybe. But not 11 dollars!

So, in the end, I'm glad that they'd rather use business than beg the government for money to raise funds, but as long as they're trying to make a stetment with it, rather than actually make money, this effort will not succeed on the grand scale.

You play dominos? But what if the Russian set had faberge-esque designs engraved into the backs of each piece? and had a little faux-guilding?

actually, that's what i thought when i read this. most businesses barely break even, and couldn't possibly provide the funding for something even larger. I guess one or two might be successful, and I mentioned casinos mostly because of the film festivals being started up in CT, etc. These are pretty aggressive and smart, but for everyone one of them there's 200 that won't do it. Yes, its about making money and that will ultimately be a distraction if not the bigger agenda. I couldn't have said it better myself. its too bad though, because what alternative is there then to "begging" the government? I know, fundraisers were mentioned and I posted it in from the article under the "soft money' section, but it still has an equal amount of problems if an institution is trying not to be, well, about the money. #-o

Apparently universities are the only guys that are kind of ontop of different forms.

Yes, I do play dominos, it's a pretty popular pastime where I grew up. My grandparents used to teach me and my cousings arithmetics by playing dominos.

Anywho, in my opinion, the best way out of this trap is to stop thinking of money as the root of all evil. It is not. Money is a tool that helps you take care of things. There are many opportunities to make money that are stifled by the government, and New York city is the prime example of that. Rent control, for instance, is one of the most misguided programs I've ever heard of.

Here's what it boils down. If I run a succesful business, I have two options as to what to do with my money. I can give it away to the needy. Or, I could expand my business, and hire more workers (including those "needy" that I would've given the money to). I find the second option far superior, as it a) keeps me in the black, b) creates opportunities for future expansion, c) helps the needy make money while also removing the sense of entitlement they have.

I posted an article about import tariffs on prawns from Thailand imposed by the EU and the U.S. Now, the west is providing Thailand with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Wouldn't it be much better to not have those tariffs to begin with and Thailand taking care of its own problems by spending the money they'd earned with their fishing industry not stifled by the Western countries? The same happens on local scale every day with programs like Welfare and minimum wage laws, etc.

So, to sum this all up, yes, the most succesful "progressive" companies will have to end up worrying more about the bottom line than about the donating. But it is not a bad thing by all means.