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/