Carrol: >> That wasn't investment, it was personal consumption. Same as donatins to >> the Metropolitan Museum of Art or to the building fund at the University >> of Chicago.
Robert Scott Gassler wrote: > I've studied economic theories of the nonprofit sector for thirty years. I > am not aware that donations of this sort are considered consumption. What > about volunteer efforts for the Socialist Workers Party? I don't think Carrol was talking about the economist's technical (NIPA) definition of "consumption." Instead, I believe he's saying that it the rich folks were putting money into Palomar solely for their own benefit rather than for the wider benefit of society. That's likely true, but intention is not always the same as result. There can be "external effects" (beneficial externalities) because the rich can't bottle up all the benefits for themselves. (The rich guy builds a statue of himself, inadvertently providing benefits to the pigeons.) -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
