|
|
#41
07-13-2007, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Your logic is fundamentally flawed. If the majority of consumers in this market wanted the same thing you want, then the classes offered by the for-profit schools would reflect that. [/ QUOTE ] Snowball, this guy is defining what is better by what the market provides. There's no answering a tautology. Example of a superior non-profit product: Pacifica Radio, Democracy Now, provide more sophisticated,accurate,and unbiased news than commercial stations. It is much more intellectually serious radio. [/ QUOTE ] This guy is defining what is superior by his subjective personal preferences. There's no answering a tautology. [ QUOTE ] Free market dogmatists will say that's what people want, therefore it is right. But it isn't better, as judged from the standpoint of the artform. They are defining desirable results by whether they are from free, not non-commercial markets. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I get this "free market/non-profit" dichotimy. Nonprofits are PART of a free market, not an alternative to it. [/ QUOTE ] Hard to put it much better than that. 
|
|
#42
07-13-2007, 06:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It is quite possible that the world will evolve into democracy, then move to AC, then move onto communal living or whatever. None of us have a crystal ball. [/ QUOTE ] we have the crystal ball of history. Your scenario will happen when the universe begins to collapse on itself and broken bottles unfall from the table and re-form [/ QUOTE ] The real Copernicus was much more open-minded. [/ QUOTE ] Mabye the dinasours will come back and eat us again.
|
|
#43
07-13-2007, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I get this "free market/non-profit" dichotimy. Nonprofits are PART of a free market, not an alternative to it. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] On the ball... and the proof that a market isn't the arbiter of value that it is as put forward as by free marketeers adherents. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#44
07-13-2007, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
Pacifica Radio.... I dunno if we're listening to the same station or not, but like half their shows are hosted by fruit juice drinking, sandal wearing nudists [/ QUOTE ] I must qualify this. The national programing put out by Pacifica is good. The stuff from the local stations is often embarrassing. And I mean that Democracy Now is better in a technical, journalistic sense, not because its story selection is left. They go into the important points in depth, not side issues. They don't let people get away with crap unchallenged. The debate they set up between Popular Mechanics and 911 nuts was more thorough than anything on mainstream broadcast. DN allows journalists to be journalists. When Amy Goodman got done with Bill Clinton in an interview when he was pres, he said she was "Hostile, combative, and even disrespectful." Not true, I heard it. He just wasn't used to being asked real questions. It's the market forces themselves that make mainstream journalism so compromised. Democracy Now transcripts FYI, Democracy Now has been a separate entity from Pacifica for several years now, though Pacifica stations subscribe to it.
|
|
#45
07-13-2007, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
|
|
#46
07-13-2007, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I get this "free market/non-profit" dichotimy. Nonprofits are PART of a free market, not an alternative to it. [/ QUOTE ] Free marketeers regularly make a distinction between economic activity by businesses and non-businesses (governmental or non-profit). With sources of funding other than sales, non-business organizations are said to operate beyond free-market forces. So yes, they all exist in proximity, but the argument we're having is over whether not-for-profit organizations can, in some cases, produce better results than the free market outfits. And we are defining "better" in terms other than market success. Without this distinction, we could say Medicare is part of the same great big market as anything else, and its results cannot be blamed on it not being free enterprise, because it's part of the same market as everything else.
|
|
#47
07-13-2007, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, sorry if you think I'm being captain obvious here, but I mainly made this post in he hopes that some of you would share some other examples of when non-profit organizations might outperform for-profit organizations. [/ QUOTE ] I think there could easilly be a debate about "outperform", and what it actually means in this case. I'd say that many non-profit health care systems in some countries "outperforms" for-profit systems in other parts of the world, in the sense that everybody that's ill will get help no matter what the expenses is. But "outperform" could also be whats most effective compared to costs, and for that matter it could be the other way around. but no matter what field it is: i think non-profit stuff have a moral edge that for-profit stuff will never have, simply because for-profit stuff makes actions based on - yeah you guessed it - what makes profit. i consider this "moral edge" to be extremely important when it comes to police and fire departments. if there were two countries, one with for-profit of both, and the other had non-profit of both, i'd say that the non-profit sollution would outperform the other one overall. (yes, you could still argue what "outperform" actually is.) fortunately most countries have that sort of stuff tax-founded anyway. of course its more complicated than that, and i think it would be almost impossible to say that one thing outperforms another just like that. there are positive and negative sides with both systems.
|
|
#48
07-13-2007, 11:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I get this "free market/non-profit" dichotimy. Nonprofits are PART of a free market, not an alternative to it. [/ QUOTE ] Free marketeers regularly make a distinction between economic activity by businesses and non-businesses (governmental or non-profit). [/ QUOTE ] Some may do this in some contexts because a lot of non-profit groups happen to get a lot of government funding in the status quo.
|
|
#50
07-13-2007, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Your logic is fundamentally flawed. If the majority of consumers in this market wanted the same thing you want, then the classes offered by the for-profit schools would reflect that. [/ QUOTE ] Snowball, this guy is defining what is better by what the market provides. There's no answering a tautology. [/ QUOTE ] Uhm, didn't the market provide the judo?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
