The Chained Consumer Price Index allows the government to show a decline in the rate of escalation of the cost of living based on consumer efforts to stretch the shrinking purchasing power of the dollar without the government changing its spending habits one iota.
http://americanpoliticalphilosophy.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label redistribution of wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label redistribution of wealth. Show all posts
Monday, June 17, 2013
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Goverenment and Industry Partnership VS the Motivation for the Non-Profit Organization
A few years ago I read two books:
The Free Agent Nation by Daniel H. Pink
The Non-Profit Economy by Burton Allen Weisbrod
The Free Agent Nation now seems like a relic from our distant past, while the principles in The Non-Profit Economy, which lays out the distinctions and roles that separate the private economy, government, and the non-profit economy, cry for public review.
While I was searching for The Nonprofit Economy, I came upon this paper, which expands upon the work of Weisbrod, published in Munich by Giovanni Cerulli
The redistributive role of non-profit organizations
ABSTRACT
By starting from the consideration that non-profit organizations cover a significant re-distributive function beside that of governmental agencies, the paper questions why government prefers to finance via transfers private entities likewise lucrative and non-lucrative entities rather than produce these goods directly.
By generalizing the Hansmann (1996) theory, we propose a “make or buy” approach in which the choice among three different ownership regimes (governmental, non-profit and for-profit) providing services in public benefit oriented sectors is affected not only by costs reduction (X-efficiency) but also by the level of transfers (degree of “redistribution”) decided at a political level.
QUOTE:
Nonetheless, as suggested by Borzaga (2001), two elements seem to be overlooked by this literature. The first relies on a scarce attention devoted to the internal structure of the non-profit institution that still remains an unexplored black box; the second refers to the fact that this literature has quite completely overlooked the evident fact that non-profit organizations also hold a relevant “redistributive function”, that is, they are set up for and operate with the explicit goal of modifying the distribution of income when the current one is considered as not consistent with social preferences (Borzaga, 2003, p. 39). This aim is particularly distinctive for non-profit organizations working within public benefit oriented sectors where, as we will see, beside the need for efficiency society considers also the need for equity. The paper aims to analyze this second issue by deepening the first one.
The Free Agent Nation by Daniel H. Pink
The Non-Profit Economy by Burton Allen Weisbrod
The Free Agent Nation now seems like a relic from our distant past, while the principles in The Non-Profit Economy, which lays out the distinctions and roles that separate the private economy, government, and the non-profit economy, cry for public review.
While I was searching for The Nonprofit Economy, I came upon this paper, which expands upon the work of Weisbrod, published in Munich by Giovanni Cerulli
The redistributive role of non-profit organizations
ABSTRACT
By starting from the consideration that non-profit organizations cover a significant re-distributive function beside that of governmental agencies, the paper questions why government prefers to finance via transfers private entities likewise lucrative and non-lucrative entities rather than produce these goods directly.
By generalizing the Hansmann (1996) theory, we propose a “make or buy” approach in which the choice among three different ownership regimes (governmental, non-profit and for-profit) providing services in public benefit oriented sectors is affected not only by costs reduction (X-efficiency) but also by the level of transfers (degree of “redistribution”) decided at a political level.
QUOTE:
Nonetheless, as suggested by Borzaga (2001), two elements seem to be overlooked by this literature. The first relies on a scarce attention devoted to the internal structure of the non-profit institution that still remains an unexplored black box; the second refers to the fact that this literature has quite completely overlooked the evident fact that non-profit organizations also hold a relevant “redistributive function”, that is, they are set up for and operate with the explicit goal of modifying the distribution of income when the current one is considered as not consistent with social preferences (Borzaga, 2003, p. 39). This aim is particularly distinctive for non-profit organizations working within public benefit oriented sectors where, as we will see, beside the need for efficiency society considers also the need for equity. The paper aims to analyze this second issue by deepening the first one.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Expansion of the "do-Gooodism" Class
When the government funds a private investment company on a yearly and ongoing basis to the tune of 10% of their investment capital, - but that 10% is not issued in stock, then that 10% is socialized risk - without any gain attached. The other 90 % - private investors in “high growth “ businesses is the privatized gain. The Maine taxpayers are giving grants to investors in high growth capitalism, even as there is a large state budget deficit.
Why do the taxpayers do this? Because the high growth capitalists are designators “do-gooders” under the government ordained “do-goodism” policy, which in it’s own language merges government and commercial enterprises.
It is my understanding the United States is founded on the Christian belief in the goodness of all men- “all men are created equal”- so why do we now have special classes of people that are designated as the “do gooders “class? Why is money being extracted from the only capitalization available to small and modest growth businesses- their self generated profits, and being used to finance high growth capitalist investors?
This law was created prior to the current administration, when our governor was an independent. Our current governor is a disciple of Richard Florida’s “creative class” – a rage that has taken over other states as well. So not only do we have a “do-gooders” class of people” but we also have a “creative class” of people, who deserve to be rewarded more than others. The “creative economy” movement is really a wealth redistribution movement. It has never directly benefited jobs for the voters of Maine, but instead aims to attract wealth to the state in the form of “the creative class’ of which one attribute is that they are a moneyed class of people.
When “do-goodism” was allocated to non-profits, the law required a publically accessible annual report. I can find not such information at the Small Business Growth Fund. I cannot find any mention of what the taxpayer gets in return for the money put into this high growth investment group. Therefore I am lead to the obvious conclusion. The people get nothing in return. The "grant" is justified solely on the basis that this group are the government-designated “do-gooders” of society- a designation that they share with non-profit organizations. What does that make those on the outside of this special class of businesses- the “do-badders”? It seems the bad reputation that high growth capitalism used to have has now been cleansed by:”do-goodism” and transferred to small and modest growth capitalism- who are under the Obama world view a group of greedy capitalists who should have their profits extracted to the benefit of the designated do-gooders society, if they make a profit of $250,0000.00 which is peanuts to “high- growth investors”.
When I went to the “Juice Confewrence” , I saw many badges that said “Art=Jobs” and I though, yea- right! How many jobs? The artists in Maine are being used as pawns in a game- It’s the age old wisdom that artist have the power to bring about the gentrification of communities- after which the communities that the artists gentrified become neighborhoods too expensive for most artists and the artist community is forced to leave. The artists are not creating a significant number of jobs, they are perceived as a lure to attract a moneyed class of people- and that is the goal of the “creative economy” movement. Small businesses are defined according to the number of jobs they provide, not by the amount of wealth they generate. So a small business employing 2 people and generating billions of dollars of wealth is still just a small business- a “high growth” small business.
Why do the taxpayers do this? Because the high growth capitalists are designators “do-gooders” under the government ordained “do-goodism” policy, which in it’s own language merges government and commercial enterprises.
It is my understanding the United States is founded on the Christian belief in the goodness of all men- “all men are created equal”- so why do we now have special classes of people that are designated as the “do gooders “class? Why is money being extracted from the only capitalization available to small and modest growth businesses- their self generated profits, and being used to finance high growth capitalist investors?
This law was created prior to the current administration, when our governor was an independent. Our current governor is a disciple of Richard Florida’s “creative class” – a rage that has taken over other states as well. So not only do we have a “do-gooders” class of people” but we also have a “creative class” of people, who deserve to be rewarded more than others. The “creative economy” movement is really a wealth redistribution movement. It has never directly benefited jobs for the voters of Maine, but instead aims to attract wealth to the state in the form of “the creative class’ of which one attribute is that they are a moneyed class of people.
When “do-goodism” was allocated to non-profits, the law required a publically accessible annual report. I can find not such information at the Small Business Growth Fund. I cannot find any mention of what the taxpayer gets in return for the money put into this high growth investment group. Therefore I am lead to the obvious conclusion. The people get nothing in return. The "grant" is justified solely on the basis that this group are the government-designated “do-gooders” of society- a designation that they share with non-profit organizations. What does that make those on the outside of this special class of businesses- the “do-badders”? It seems the bad reputation that high growth capitalism used to have has now been cleansed by:”do-goodism” and transferred to small and modest growth capitalism- who are under the Obama world view a group of greedy capitalists who should have their profits extracted to the benefit of the designated do-gooders society, if they make a profit of $250,0000.00 which is peanuts to “high- growth investors”.
When I went to the “Juice Confewrence” , I saw many badges that said “Art=Jobs” and I though, yea- right! How many jobs? The artists in Maine are being used as pawns in a game- It’s the age old wisdom that artist have the power to bring about the gentrification of communities- after which the communities that the artists gentrified become neighborhoods too expensive for most artists and the artist community is forced to leave. The artists are not creating a significant number of jobs, they are perceived as a lure to attract a moneyed class of people- and that is the goal of the “creative economy” movement. Small businesses are defined according to the number of jobs they provide, not by the amount of wealth they generate. So a small business employing 2 people and generating billions of dollars of wealth is still just a small business- a “high growth” small business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
