It would collapse on itself, unable to carry its own weight, heating up massively. I consider superheated pudding volcanos something of a downside, personally. I cannot reasonably estimate what might happen in the centre of the world, supercritical fluid doesn’t seem enough. Perhaps nanodiamond crystallisation from the organic parts of the pudding? Also lots of hydrogen release, I’d guess.
My suggestions involves only change of the legal framework. Besides, there are non-profit companies. I’m not sure about details, but for example Velux (windows manufacturer) and Carl Zeiss (optics) are supposed to be non-profits, and Anthropic could say no to the DoD because it’s some sort of not-just-for-profit company.
Raising enough money to pay its employees and expand, but not the most you can without regard to anything else? Sonds like an interesting idea to explore. Or are you talking about super-dense pudding?
Some companies will be invisible and/or “boring” - nobody ever said: “Oh, I just love my office building’s cleaning supplies delivery contractor, I should donate them again!”
To be fair non-profit doesn’t mean you can’t charge for your services. You just can’t pay profit out as dividends so there’s no incentive to overcharge.
Yes, I understand, but with the same example - I see how people can fing it interesting/motivating building a service like signal, but if I ever opened a b2b household chemistry supply company, I doubt I would be ok if it worked as a nonprofit - what’s in it for me, except money?
Just answering the question: “Why doesn’t everybody move to nonprofit model?”
The conventional answer is that there would be much less incentive to fund new ones.
Some things need a large investment to start: power plants, cities, factories, space stations, etc. Sometimes more money than the people involved can afford, and you need to ask someone to front the money, they typically get paid with a share of the profits.
The problem is that NGOs and charities are just a way for capital to manage social stability and will never have that kind of expansiveness. It’s like trying to build socialism by starting worker cooperatives in a bourgeois democracy.
What would be the downside if all companies were non-profit? At first sight, it sounds like a great idea.
What would be the downside if the world was made of pudding
It would collapse on itself, unable to carry its own weight, heating up massively. I consider superheated pudding volcanos something of a downside, personally. I cannot reasonably estimate what might happen in the centre of the world, supercritical fluid doesn’t seem enough. Perhaps nanodiamond crystallisation from the organic parts of the pudding? Also lots of hydrogen release, I’d guess.
My suggestions involves only change of the legal framework. Besides, there are non-profit companies. I’m not sure about details, but for example Velux (windows manufacturer) and Carl Zeiss (optics) are supposed to be non-profits, and Anthropic could say no to the DoD because it’s some sort of not-just-for-profit company.
Is that good?
Raising enough money to pay its employees and expand, but not the most you can without regard to anything else? Sonds like an interesting idea to explore. Or are you talking about super-dense pudding?
Some companies will be invisible and/or “boring” - nobody ever said: “Oh, I just love my office building’s cleaning supplies delivery contractor, I should donate them again!”
To be fair non-profit doesn’t mean you can’t charge for your services. You just can’t pay profit out as dividends so there’s no incentive to overcharge.
Yes, I understand, but with the same example - I see how people can fing it interesting/motivating building a service like signal, but if I ever opened a b2b household chemistry supply company, I doubt I would be ok if it worked as a nonprofit - what’s in it for me, except money?
Just answering the question: “Why doesn’t everybody move to nonprofit model?”
The conventional answer is that there would be much less incentive to fund new ones.
Some things need a large investment to start: power plants, cities, factories, space stations, etc. Sometimes more money than the people involved can afford, and you need to ask someone to front the money, they typically get paid with a share of the profits.
Thanks, that sounds very reasonable.
The problem is that NGOs and charities are just a way for capital to manage social stability and will never have that kind of expansiveness. It’s like trying to build socialism by starting worker cooperatives in a bourgeois democracy.