I don’t have an answer either way. But I’m inclined to question this idea that just because things are the way they are now means that is the way they always were and will always be. How many people would be happy to expand that “small circle of precious lives” they make better if they could, but can’t due to the fact that, modern life now is seemingly a tangle of actively contradicting incentives? And how many people would, if they knew others would provide for all their needs and wants, act as solely a parasite to the system that feeds them? And would it be a critical mass that makes the whole system untenable, or just a relatively small group of bad apples accounted for by the number of people who give more than they take?
Again, I don’t know the answer, and I do not pretend to. But I do think a blanket statement that more people are greedy than generous is more a commentary on modern politics - that maybe our current system of society forces people to behave that way - than the human condition.
I would say this one in particular is ill-posed. Paraphrasing hirundo, people are naturally generous toward a small circle of precious lives (and skeptical at best of the rest of the world). Asking about their attitude in general is meaningless.
Yes, that's a paraphrase of Hirundo's point. However, my point is that this assertion is by no means universally nor obviously a hard truth, and indeed still a large area of philosophical debate.
Or that's what an 18th century quote says. Several centuries of later evolutionary, psychological, and sociological research doesn't much agree...
Now the question I have, is it possible to create recurring revenue at a non-profit that is based of contracts with customers, or must all the revenue come from donations?
Yes definitely. The main difference from for-profits is that the revenue have to be spent towards the mission and not blindly creating more profit.
Sure. I once worked at a non-profit that provided educational material to schools on a subscription basis. There is a line somewhere, as eventually the non-profit starting providing additional services to those same schools that required them to keep a second set of books and pay taxes on those activities.
The butcher, the brewer, or the baker likely takes pride in the role he has in feeding and enriching families around him. But he's also got to feed his own. And the fact that there's money involved gets him to work on those days he'd -reaaaaally- rather not go. But money isn't enough to feel fulfilled in one's work.
And if you don't feel fulfilled in your work and your work's role in society: I'm sorry for you.
It probably just means you get outcompeted by people who put profit first and can afford to pay their employees more competitive wages, invest higher amounts in Capex and R&D, and generally best you at running a firm.
Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not. And greed is inherent to human being, which makes Capitalism the most successful economic system given that the inherently greedy efforts of an individual eventually creates prosperity for the collective (over a long enough time-horizon and with regulations aiming to prevent local maxima such a factory with 20-hour shifts)
It seems to me that we can't change greediness, and we can't change the fact that companies run on profit. What we can seem to change is customers' preferences. If we ingrain into people's mindsets that buying from companies that aim to serve the collective (seek the global maximum over local maxima), then we can nudge corporations to act on the behalf all of us rather than just its stakeholders
It's quite easy to show this is not true: if someone is selling a product or service and making $100,000 a year, and you offer them the opportunity to make $199,000 a year with the condition that half is locked away in an account they can never spend, just about nobody would take that offer.
As the blog post says, "The whole point of money is spending it to enrich your life and the lives of those around you. It’s a means to an end; it’s not the end in and of itself."
(You seem to understand this already when you suggest that customer preferences can be shifted - if it were true that we were all maximizing for profit, why on earth would someone buy, say, toothpaste for $4 from a company that claims to be doing good for the world when they could instead buy equally-functional toothpaste for $3?)
Then that's not really making $199,000 a year. They'd be making $99,500 which is less than the profit-maximizing scenario that pays $100,000
My point, and the point of the author of this blog post, is that nobody is motivated by "haha numbers go up." We're motivated by wanting to do things with our profit - our goal is not to accumulate money but to spend it (either now or in the future).
Maybe a better example is, if someone were making $100,000 now, and they had the opportunity to move to a country where they'd make $199,000 but the cost of living were twice as expensive, would they take it?
The arguments you're making are familiar to the gray-hairs in open source software. It was long predicted that our efforts would fade under competition with the Oracles and Microsofts of the world.
> Profit is the goal we're all maximizing for, like it or not.
You're not alone in your bubble, but you might want to peek outside of it once and a while.
> You're not alone in your bubble, but you might want to peek outside of it once and a while.
Nice shallow dismissal, but I'm talking about corporations, not "my bubble". By and large, they are maximizing for profit. And you're happy to have the goods and services they provide, and they provide more of those if they are profitable than if they aren't, so indirectly you are still hoping everyone profits.
Zig pleases my spartan sensibilities, and personally I'm delighted that it's forming a more durable arrangement without needless profiteering. Like the EFF and other open source foundations, there's a chance to good work, to make the world a better place, without ruthless profiteering.
Err, no. People want happiness, fulfilment, friendship, joy, meaning, safety, and a bunch of other things. Money can help obtain some (but not all) of those things, but it is instrumental in all cases.
> It seems to me that we can't change greediness, and we can't change the fact that companies run on profit.
Plenty of countries run system which are not optimised purely for profit. For example, Germany's corporations frequently act in the public good in ways that don't maximise their own profit. From my perspective, such countries seem to be doing much better than the US which is closer to being purely profit driven.
> It probably just means you get outcompeted by people who put profit first and can afford to pay their employees more competitive wages, invest higher amounts in Capex and R&D, and generally best you at running a firm.
This is a problem with our economic system, not a virtue, or even a necessary property.
> Capitalism the most successful economic system
Capitalism is only seen as successful because it has historically been competing with communism and feudalism. These are from the only possible economic systems. And given all its faults it seems far from likely that Capitalism is the best one.
However, I'd like to hear examples, which make you think German companies are any different in their greed than US ones.
Personally I think companies here are just as greedy and usually only do something non-profit oriented, if it is required by law or the publIc upset would mean bad business.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." - Adam Smith
It's great that you're motivated by helping people. Sincerely. But most people aren't built that way. We get up on Monday morning to make a small circle of precious lives better, not just anyone's. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Therefore reorganizing society around service rather than profit likely means a much smaller economy. To many people that's a feature.