As a side note: it’s interesting for me to see people combining charity and entrepreneurship like this. While I think the only way to make money is to help people, the goals of a non profit and a for profit company are not always in alignment. I wonder if by combining the two you just end up with something that’s not very good at making profit and not very good at charity. I’d say make your money in a for profit company and then pursue a charity as a separate project, like Bill Gates. What do you think?
The company in the video is donating 10% of profits to charity. I can’t really see how donating to charity in any capacity could be seen as being “not very good at charity”.
Stewart
Side note: 110% of the profits from my web site are donated to an Australian environmental charity: http://www.bushheritage.com.au/
What if the 10% profit was the difference in cash flow that could have helped you stay afloat in a down turn, or reinvest in a new product line to grow the company. What if you had to decide between donating the 10% to charity or giving your employees raises to retain good talent?
My point is just that there is a conflict of interest to both want to donate and make money at the same time.
If you are capable of MAKING money (as opposed to TAKING) by inventing a better product or providing a better service you are already doing humanity a huge service.
I’m not concerened with helping others in the first place, but if you feel compelled at least look at logically. You always talk of how businesses scale, and the same holds for charity. If you are a “great person” and nurse thousands of people thats fine. If you are an “asshole” and invent a product that helps every single person in the world for your own profit, regardless of what anybody thinks about you, you are in reality a much better person than the first. Henry Ford was a better person than Mother Teresa etc etc.
Thats true Nick, many have argued (and I tend to agree) that capitalism often does far more good than any charity could…in terms of providing jobs, giving people wealth, propelling technological breakthroughs in medicine, etc.
John Stossel had an interesting piece where he argued that Michael Milken (the guy who invested junk bonds) actually did far more good for the world than Mother Teresa, primarily because of the jobs he created and wealth that he built.
Breaking Free is a blog for people who'd like to quit their 9-to-5, start their own business, and achieve financial freedom. It's written by web-entrepreneur Brian Armstrong. You can read more here »
Stewart Macdonald
July 13th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“…not very good at charity.”
The company in the video is donating 10% of profits to charity. I can’t really see how donating to charity in any capacity could be seen as being “not very good at charity”.
Stewart
Side note: 110% of the profits from my web site are donated to an Australian environmental charity: http://www.bushheritage.com.au/
Brian Armstrong
July 15th, 2008 at 2:19 am
What if the 10% profit was the difference in cash flow that could have helped you stay afloat in a down turn, or reinvest in a new product line to grow the company. What if you had to decide between donating the 10% to charity or giving your employees raises to retain good talent?
My point is just that there is a conflict of interest to both want to donate and make money at the same time.
Nick
July 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
If you are capable of MAKING money (as opposed to TAKING) by inventing a better product or providing a better service you are already doing humanity a huge service.
I’m not concerened with helping others in the first place, but if you feel compelled at least look at logically. You always talk of how businesses scale, and the same holds for charity. If you are a “great person” and nurse thousands of people thats fine. If you are an “asshole” and invent a product that helps every single person in the world for your own profit, regardless of what anybody thinks about you, you are in reality a much better person than the first. Henry Ford was a better person than Mother Teresa etc etc.
Brian Armstrong
July 15th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Thats true Nick, many have argued (and I tend to agree) that capitalism often does far more good than any charity could…in terms of providing jobs, giving people wealth, propelling technological breakthroughs in medicine, etc.
John Stossel had an interesting piece where he argued that Michael Milken (the guy who invested junk bonds) actually did far more good for the world than Mother Teresa, primarily because of the jobs he created and wealth that he built.
Here is a great talk of his:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1876894381231272307&q=john+stossel&ei=XkN8SICBNZ6sqgOD_5CeCw