If non-profit organizations are that succesful, then why do most
businesses suscribe to the profit-driven model? Clearly there must
be advantages that outweigh the costs of the profit driven-models.
Yes it may not be the most perfect model, and is prone to
corruption, fraud and inefficiencies, it is model that is more
efficient than non-profit ones.
I agree that conceiving the idea is more important. But how can
you justify that one is better than the other without pointing out
the pros and cons, even if it means venturing into further detail?
It is insufficient that history shows non-profit organizations can
survive, and even profit-driven ones crash and burn. There is a
need to observe the merits and demerits of the two models over a
prolong period of time. There must be a clear reason why one is
being suscribed to over the other. By quoting historical
instances, i can similarly say that a coin is
biased just because i flipped 6 heads out of 10 tries. The sample
size is very important and obviously the best testimony for the
merit of profit-driven businesses is that more businesses choose
this model over the non-profit one.
I agree with this, but the problem being the merits of running a
transport company as a non-profit organization does not outweigh
the inherent costs arising from inefficiencies. If you justify your
argument based on that ground, then shouldnt we be nationalising
and running the public utilities board, all hospitals as non profit
organisations? There are so many things like public utilities and
healthcare that are more important than transport but why aren't
they run as non-profit businesses? Simply because privatisation and
being profit-driven usually yields results that are
closest to the desired outcome. I didnt say that
yield the desired outcome, just the best proxy to it.
When Adam Smith conceived the idea of the 'invisible hand' he
noted that people in the pursue of self-interest
(in this case that would be profit motives) yielded a positive
result to society that was no part of their original intention.
Running on a profit-driven model is using this very concept of the
'invisible hand' to achieve a desired outcome for society by
'tempting' economic agents to act in a way that maximizes their own
utility but at the same time achieve the overall desired
result.
No I did not say you are right or wrong. I am just pointing out
to you that you are rejecting a notion outright and not accepting
that running public transportation using a non-profit organization
is also viable.
You also seemed confused over the issue by asking me why most
organizations choose the profit-driven model. Of course they choose
the profit-driven model, because they have private investors who
are seeking for profits, therefore the choice is obvious. But in
areas like public transportation, where public interests is
concerned, this is another story.
You cannot justify good enough as well, that a private
organization is the best choice, because whatever you tell me about
how profit-driven is the best way out, I would always return you
back to the same issue, that a public transportation network is for
a NATIONAL purpose, and NOT as a private purpose. A public
transport is for the general good of the public, correct?
Therefore, already you cannot deny the fact that a non-profit's
goal is more hitting the nail than a profit org.
Achieving affordability for public transport IS the sole motive.
Everything else, such as profit, is secondary. A country is made of
3 basic pillars - transport, health, and education. It is never
correct to outsource these 3, because they should remain as
national interests, and NOT converted into private orgs.
If the basic pillars are no longer managed by the govt, then
what is the govt for? IF you outsource everything, then again, I
would tell you we are overpaying our leadership, coz other
countries have so much more to worry about, whereas ours have
already outsourced most of their problems.
You keep going back to costs costs costs, I ask you to look at
successful non-profit orgs, who remain viable with very good
management of costs. Do not forget, that successful non-profit orgs
have a senior management that may be as good (sometimes, if not
better) than private orgs. I refer you back to the Bill Gates
Foundation. In fact, NKF was actually run better than private orgs,
until they got into the golden tap issue. I am not asking you to
flip a coin. I am telling you that they EXIST, therefore they are
viable options, and not to be rejected outright by you or the
govt.
When you bring in medical, I am also against the notion of
privatising the hospitals, even though privatising the hospitals
might be a better idea than public transportation due to the fact
that hospitals offer similar services and therefore, having
competition might be healthy. But let's not dwell into another
focus.
End of the day, as charlize said, you need to establish the
focus. Countries should consider social welfare and make a balance
between that and profit-making. It should not do everything the
profit-making way, ESPECIALLY for things like public
transporation.
