[matilda] Re: non-profit

[Chris]

Hi

On Tue 08-Nov-2005 at 06:08:41AM -0800,
gavin at cyber-rights.net wrote:
> 
> If you want to call the money made over costs at the
> event 'profit,' then that's okay conversationally, but
> we know that isn't the same as when capitalists use the
> term 'profit.' When capitalists use the term, they mean
> money they keep after costs.  With the example of the
> indymedia party, as with other things, we don't keep any
> money after costs (or if we do, it's only saved for
> costs in the future). What you call 'profit' in a
> conversational sense here is passed on to cover other
> costs. There is no profit.

OK, good point :-)

> I still think it's clear. People generally know what a
> non-profit organisation is. Of course every term has
> vagaries which we can pick over endlessly, but I think
> it's fair to say that it is a more common and popular
> term than 'non-commerical activity.' It's also the one
> other organisations like ourselves have chosen to make
> themselves understood by people.

Hmm, but just because an organisation is a non-profit it
doesn't mean that it is doing good...

- "The Adam Smith Institute is Britain’s leading innovator
  of free-market economic and social policies...

  The Institute is non-profit..."

  http://www.adamsmith.org/about/

So by itself I don't think the term non-profit is so
great...

Chris

-- 
Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World