From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 19:50:54 -0400

Somewhat related to the current discussion about for-profits vs non-profits:
I recommend reading Kent Anderson's Scholarly Kitchen posting:

"It’s common to assume that the charitable purpose or higher goal of a
non-profit will lead to slightly better and more admirable behaviors.
There are many examples in this regard. Most non-profits do tremendous
things for society. At the same time, some are ruses at best, corrupt
at worst. Some non-profits have been accused of funneling money to
terrorist groups, facilitating self-dealing schemes, and more. It’s in
these instances we’re reminded that “non-profit” is a tax status and a
set of constraints (not always honored) about what can happen to the
assets of the organization. Being a non-profit is not a guarantee of
good behavior or more benevolent or wiser business practices.

"There are non-profits that are large and powerful, generating
hundreds of millions in revenues on high margins. There are also
commercial for-profits that are small with slim margins. Yet, the
market is portrayed as if we assume “non-profit” means “small and
quaint” while “for-profit” means “big and bad.”

See:  https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/08/false-equivalency-are-non-profits-inherently-superior-to-for-profits/