non-profit stuff that is better than for-profit stuff

[pvn]

[ 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.

[owsley]

[ 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.

[MidGe]

[ 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]

[Bill Haywood]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.