Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dove | Hacker News Reader

> This isn't to say that we should have companies replace nonprofits

Yes we should.

Charities I donate to are selling me a product just as much as companies I buy from. That the product is a better world--by some measure that seems reasonable to me, rather than a simple benefit for myself, matters not a whit to my decision making process.

I don't give without a very concrete understanding of what the money will be used for, any more than I buy stock without a concrete understanding of what I'm buying and for how much.

By all means, sell me peace, charity, and goodwill! Perhaps that will motivate you to learn how to produce it, and to convince me that you have done so.

View on HN

It's worth noting that "non-profit" doesn't always translate to charity. Microfinance, for instance, exists as a whole spectrum of quasi-for-profit operations. And on the strictly non-profit side you have things like ROSCAs, one of the foundations of microfinance, which are micro-level, semi-formal, non-charitable "non-profit" groups that resolve a number of different financial issues for participants, similar to tiny credit unions, and are neither charitable nor reasonably mappable to "companies."

The whole impetus behind the growth of the microfinance movement is that traditional banking simply can't serve these groups. There are also numerous non-obvious major core issues involved, such as how gender roles have a huge impact on microfinance or why group lending is so prominent.

In short, the reason it's not simply handled by companies is because it's just not that simple.

Oh, indeed, I'm well aware that there are for-profit philanthrophic ventures and questionably profitable non-profit groups. I don't mean to suggest that it is simple. Indeed, groups that adopt a hybrid, hard-to-classify approach often strike me as the healthiest. I am very fond of certain microloan groups or folks like TechnoServe.

But I do advocate approaching philanthropy as a consumer, however the group you're working with is legally classified. Be honest with yourself about what you're buying -- even if what you're buying is a warm fuzzy feeling. Perhaps especially in that case.

For-profit companies selling you goods and services often spend enormous amounts on marketing, advertising, and branding in order to convince you to part with your hard earned money. This doesn't mean their product is any better than their competitors though. It just means they've spun you into believing it is.

While I think it's a good idea to research your charity or donation to a non-profit, I definitely do not think they should operate like a for-profit business.

I think this is a great article, and there are some really pointed areas of improvement for non-profits. However, let's not turn to the free market gods for a solution please.

I think it really depends on the specific area/charitable cause - but where it comes to economic development, markets are a far better solution than charities and aid which have often done far more harm than good (e.g. food aid). In general, the potential for inefficiency and even fraud is arguably even higher given the lack of transparency and often weak governance).

Anyone who donates money to a charity should at least spend as much time researching what they're "selling" as they would a comparable product/service. The tax returns are available but some of these firms spend as much as 80% of their funds raised in administration and overhead - which is often far worse than most for profits. Yes, not for profits also "often spend enormous amounts on marketing, advertising, and branding in order to convince you to part with your hard earned money".

Fortunately at least anyone can look up any charity's IRS Form 990 that lists such things as salaries (which are sometimes as much if not higher than private market salaries). I usually start here: http://www.guidestar.org/ (using bugmenot for login/password)

Marketing, advertising, and branding is a MUCH larger part of what non-profits sell than it is of what commercial operations with an actual product sell.

What does this even mean? Right now nonprofits do things in exchange for money from wealthy people. How would "running them like a business" be any different?

can i have 17 kilos of better world please?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com