Daniel Lurie, et al, are merely feeding at the trough of public funds. There is an old saying from free market economics: Bad money drives out good money.
Public (government) money is bad money as no one is responsible for earning it, it’s not profit, therefore there is no connection to reality, i.e., how and by whom that money was created or earned. If it’s not spent well or wisely, no one goes broke. As long as one can continue to convince the donor to donate, or rope in the taxpayer, the money keeps coming.
Private money is good money as someone owns it, someone is responsible for earning it, knows where it came from, knows how the wealth was created. If private money is not spent well or wisely, someone goes broke. The money stops. This is reality asserting itself that whatever is being done with the money, it’s not working, it’s not creating more wealth and/or what you’re doing is not feasible.
NGO’s who do charity work are inherently corrupt because their intentions are based on an inaccurate view of humans. They assume certain individuals are unable to cut it in life, that they need a hand up or constant underpinning. This view is based on an incorrect assumption about what most people are capable of doing with their lives, and in some ways, it’s designed to end the private marketplace. There’s a very, very small number of people who cannot make it in life due to a disability or illness. Those people need and would get private charity. (As for the drug addicted, you and others have written about the solutions that are possible to help people off of drugs and how SF eschews those solutions at the behest of some NGO’s who profit from the problem.)
Freedom is what is needed in the economy to allow all sorts of businesses who, in turn, would need all sorts of people and their talents to function. I had friends in previous decades, in the arts, who never had full time jobs. They would pick up jobs when they needed money immediately by joining an employment agency. There was a demand for labor that never ended. The more money is taxed away for “good purposes” the less money there is to start up small, independent businesses that allow individuals from making wealth on their own, no strings attached, thankful to no one but themselves (and their employer or their banker) for improving their lives.
People are empowered and independent when they make it on their own, instead of from a handout, no matter how sincere or strings-free the hand-out is. That knowledge that we are actually self-supporting, actually making the grade, is something NGO money cannot buy.
Daniel Lurie, et al, are merely feeding at the trough of public funds. There is an old saying from free market economics: Bad money drives out good money.
Public (government) money is bad money as no one is responsible for earning it, it’s not profit, therefore there is no connection to reality, i.e., how and by whom that money was created or earned. If it’s not spent well or wisely, no one goes broke. As long as one can continue to convince the donor to donate, or rope in the taxpayer, the money keeps coming.
Private money is good money as someone owns it, someone is responsible for earning it, knows where it came from, knows how the wealth was created. If private money is not spent well or wisely, someone goes broke. The money stops. This is reality asserting itself that whatever is being done with the money, it’s not working, it’s not creating more wealth and/or what you’re doing is not feasible.
NGO’s who do charity work are inherently corrupt because their intentions are based on an inaccurate view of humans. They assume certain individuals are unable to cut it in life, that they need a hand up or constant underpinning. This view is based on an incorrect assumption about what most people are capable of doing with their lives, and in some ways, it’s designed to end the private marketplace. There’s a very, very small number of people who cannot make it in life due to a disability or illness. Those people need and would get private charity. (As for the drug addicted, you and others have written about the solutions that are possible to help people off of drugs and how SF eschews those solutions at the behest of some NGO’s who profit from the problem.)
Freedom is what is needed in the economy to allow all sorts of businesses who, in turn, would need all sorts of people and their talents to function. I had friends in previous decades, in the arts, who never had full time jobs. They would pick up jobs when they needed money immediately by joining an employment agency. There was a demand for labor that never ended. The more money is taxed away for “good purposes” the less money there is to start up small, independent businesses that allow individuals from making wealth on their own, no strings attached, thankful to no one but themselves (and their employer or their banker) for improving their lives.
People are empowered and independent when they make it on their own, instead of from a handout, no matter how sincere or strings-free the hand-out is. That knowledge that we are actually self-supporting, actually making the grade, is something NGO money cannot buy.