This appears to be the next article.
bob
They appear to be a “challenge to corporate power”, only in the sense that corporations are a challenge to each others power, it is called “competition”. The question should be whether they compete on an equal playing field or whether they are tax or regulatory advantaged, like the subsidized wind power example.
When I last contributed blood, I took a good hard look at the “non-profit” United Blood Services annual report. It turns out that they were clearing about $25 per donation, which is about what the for profit companies paid for donations. They were charging hospitals about $225 per unit. The difference appeared to be that instead of benefitting the donors, UBS was building huge new corporate offices and funding blood related research. The salaries they paid were not disclosed. They had retained “earnings” that the board got to play with, and was apparently answerable to no one. Frankly, I felt exploited. I really would rather contribute to a coop organized more like Recreational Equipment Inc., which would distribute the profits back to the donors. The worries about the quality of the blood from those who donate for payment could be addressed by only returning the profits once a year or quarter. If a charitable motivation wanted to be maintained, an option to direct the profits to charities selected by the individual could be provided. For instance, I might prefer that the profits from my donation go to Alzheimers researcher rather than blood research.
“Community” and “non-profit” ownership can be co-opted for short time horizon or private interests as easily as private enterprises can. Just look at how the public school system serves the interests of the teachers more than that of the parents or students, or how public employee unions have coopted Mexico’s oil wealth.
Martin L
···
On 5/24/12 10:25 AM, “Bob Hintz” bob.hintz@GMAIL.COM wrote:
This appears to be the next article.
bob