Nonprofits have cash flow and profit/loss too, they just call the profit 'surplus'.
Not-for-profit (including that as part of the qualification of a tax exempt nonprofit) has nothing to do with the entity not making surplus revenues, it has more to do with the entity not being a tool to return profits to those who control it.
Exactly. That's why I don't understand the usage of the term "investment".
Not-for-profit (including that as part of the qualification of a tax exempt nonprofit) has nothing to do with the entity not making surplus revenues, it has more to do with the entity not being a tool to return profits to those who control it.
Exactly. That's why I don't understand the usage of the term "investment".
"Investment" is often used in senses where the return being sought is a social good and not a financial return to the investors. This could be viewed as either a metaphor for financial investment or a literal investment in utilitarian terms for which financial terms are, after all, only a convenient proxy.
There is much better option in some countries if you want to change some law or government policy. For example, in the UK any British citizen or UK resident can create an online petition to be discussed in UK Parliament [1]. If a petition gets 10,000 signatures, the government will respond. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. And source code is available on GitHub [2…
can't tell if this is in jest, is "considered for debate" really a better option for bringing about change? At the end of the day influence (and by proxy money since it buys influence) is pretty much all that matters in changing policy.
The point of physical petitions is they're hard. Showing a politician a few thousand names, with verified voter-registration statuses, who wrote out their addresses, and maybe copied a single sentence expressing their support for your cause, is much stronger than a million people who clicked an Internet button. The former can be organized to the politicians benefit (or against him, to his detriment). The latter probably can't.
There is much better option in some countries if you want to change some law or government policy. For example, in the UK any British citizen or UK resident can create an online petition to be discussed in UK Parliament [1]. If a petition gets 10,000 signatures, the government will respond. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. And source code is available on GitHub [2…
can't tell if this is in jest, is "considered for debate" really a better option for bringing about change? At the end of the day influence (and by proxy money since it buys influence) is pretty much all that matters in changing policy.
I think that's easier said than done. People are inspired to up-vote a petition if it has action... but what if you're position is that we just keep doing the status quo on an issue. For example, you can imagine a petition saying: "The gender pay gap is statistically $0.72 for female workers. I propose we simply SOLVE this now. Let's tax MEN and give the proceeds to women to even up this pay disparity". Sadly, I've s…
Spot within your example, I've actually written a petition for "Men should have the same rights as women, i.e. change X and Y in sectors Z and Z2". If downvotes were allowed, it would take a single feminist organization to sweep my petition, whereas it is difficult to gather men's votes.
I much prefer that downvotes aren't possible. I can work little-by-little and find the right message until I gather enough votes to lead a better campaign.
can't tell if this is in jest, is "considered for debate" really a better option for bringing about change? At the end of the day influence (and by proxy money since it buys influence) is pretty much all that matters in changing policy.
The point of physical petitions is they're hard. Showing a politician a few thousand names, with verified voter-registration statuses, who wrote out their addresses, and maybe copied a single sentence expressing their support for your cause, is much stronger than a million people who clicked an Internet button. The former can be organized to the politicians benefit (or against him, to his detriment). The latter proba…
I would tend to take the cynical view that the point of petitions in general is that it lets people feel like they're making making their voice heard and acting as a pressure relief valve of sorts for all but the most serious of grievances. Most protests today fulfill the same purpose.
There is much better option in some countries if you want to change some law or government policy. For example, in the UK any British citizen or UK resident can create an online petition to be discussed in UK Parliament [1]. If a petition gets 10,000 signatures, the government will respond. If a petition gets 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. And source code is available on GitHub [2…
I can't recall any instance where this has had any remotely noticeable effect. Can you name an instance? EDIT#1: Just to be absolutely clear: This is an incredibly transparent distraction ploy. There's no actual intention of acting on any of this. EDIT#2: See also the recent FCC "public consultation" on Net Neutrality.
(Related to my company) I've spoken with a half dozen government officials in the US and they all said they do not consider petitions in policy making. The biggest problem they have is not knowing easily what fraction of the signers are in their constituency. Beyond this, they see petitions as a marketing ploy by organized groups and hence further discount it.