The Humble Indie Bundle

[hallsofvallhalla]

yep very shady tactics, the non profit organizations get me. Non profit but the CEO makes $400k a year.

[Callan S.]

What exactly does non profit actually mean in that context?

I mean what does a for profit company do? It's so the CEO (the owner) gets a big paycheck.

And what does it mean for a not for profit charity to be in the same place? Sure they might not have money banked, but what about the assets used for distributing whatever they distrubute to the needy? They are aquiring assets - isn't that the company expanding?

So the charity is kind of identical to a for profit company?

There's really not much of a public accountability system in place for charities - it's still operating on a medieval level of blind trust.

[Jackolantern]

What exactly does non profit actually mean in that context?

I mean what does a for profit company do? It's so the CEO (the owner) gets a big paycheck.

And what does it mean for a not for profit charity to be in the same place? Sure they might not have money banked, but what about the assets used for distributing whatever they distrubute to the needy? They are aquiring assets - isn't that the company expanding?

So the charity is kind of identical to a for profit company?

There's really not much of a public accountability system in place for charities - it's still operating on a medieval level of blind trust.

It is extremely complex, but here are the highlights of what I understand. A corporation (including non-profits) acts as a person; an actual human being. That is how companies get corporate credit, instead of it being loaned against the owner. Say I own a non-profit company called "Boots for Dogs". I am the sole owner, except it is like two people are involved: Me and "Boots for Dogs". I can profit..a lot. To my knowledge, there is no limit to how much I can make. But Boots for Dogs has specific limits and rules regarding how it can be expanded; I am not sure what those rules are exactly, but they are very complex. If B4D was a for-profit, the company could make as much as possible, and any company profits would count towards dividends for any stakeholders. It is a common practice for non-profits to give huge year-end bonuses to executives to get rid of extra profits at the end of the year. Of course there are tons of laws regarding disclosure of donation percentages, and all kinds of other things. A major non-profit really needs to have at least one lawyer working full time for the company to ensure they are constantly staying in-step with all the laws.

It is all pretty sickening, considering how much people believe that higher-ups in non-profits care about the cause and work for next to nothing.

[Callan S.]

I've heard about this notion of treating a corporation as an 'entity' - it seems the result of intellectually and philosophically weak people. Much like a tribe seeing a white man for the first time and treating him as a god or ghost, this 'corporation is an entity' seems as much an ignorant attribution, from past decades. Its as ignorant as treating little stone idols as things of great importance - here 'the corporation' is idolised when there is just a cluster of people and entity beyond that.

Only men. We have a real habit of attributing grander things to clusters of people - 'police', for example. They are just more people, who happen to wear blue. People seem to believe, if enough people are clustered and are in choreograph with each other, there's some grander entity that exists behind them.

Just noting it, rather than seeming to give quiet acceptance. Bit off topic of me.

[PaxBritannia]

Only, its not a habit. It is hard-wired into human behaviour.

Pax.

[Jackolantern]

I've heard about this notion of treating a corporation as an 'entity' - it seems the result of intellectually and philosophically weak people. Much like a tribe seeing a white man for the first time and treating him as a god or ghost, this 'corporation is an entity' seems as much an ignorant attribution, from past decades. Its as ignorant as treating little stone idols as things of great importance - here 'the corporation' is idolised when there is just a cluster of people and entity beyond that.

Errr...not really. It is a function of the credit system, and it is one of the facets that allow companies to grow. Corporations are not considered the same as people because they are "idolized". If it didn't work this way, a company could have a hard time growing larger than the assets of the owner. It just makes more sense this way, because it lets healthy companies gain credit based on projections. Without this, it would put serious caps on business growth.