andrewmayne

Capitalist systems could be described as systems where the government plays a larger role in monetary policy through banking, loans, etc.

In a true free market the government wouldn't bail out bad private investments or use public funds to bet on what politicians think are good investments.

We get to hear a speaker explain how to tap into the secret behind dowsing rods to build a space drive?

Sounds...um...never mind.

I think it comes down to how you value what other people do. I value certain musicians and actually enjoy paying for what they do. It's not enough for me to say I like them. I feel it's only fair to spend money some money to reward what they've done for me.

I don't think it takes talent to make music. It takes talent to make good music. Talent is something I believe in rewarding.

Do you have some examples of where that's actually worked in a significant way? I'd love to do a follow-up post of counter examples.

I hear you, but we all have a pretty good idea how to compensate hair dressers and waiters. We also agree that there's an implicit contract that tipping is part of the transaction.

When was the last time you tipped the producers of your favorite television show?

When can I meet your polite alias?

You're right in that the Kroc grant doesn't cover them forever. That wasn't my point.

I think NPR is a very well run organization. When they received the Kroc grant they used it to expand and increased their annual budget by 20%.

Coming from the non-profit world, this is a sign of an efficient organization that is very good at raising money. When given a giant bequest, they increased their budget.

We could debate what "need" means, but a non-profit that can increase its expenditures by 20% in one year and easily cover it doesn't "need" money in the same way other charitable organizations I've worked with do.

FYI: The page you link to lists the average for all public radio stations in general. It's not a specific breakdown of NPR or NPR member stations.

In all seriousness, what does "tax deductible" mean to you?

I hope so too. I'd like to be wrong in my observation.

1.) I pulled the figure from WolframAlpha: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wikipedia+monthly+visit... Which is based on Alexa.

2.) Every charity makes it a point to spell out that donations are tax deductible. The reason is to make the donation appear cost-free.

Good point. They've done studies where just eyes draw on a tip jar get more donations.

Always the best motivator.

My post was about using this model to support blogs and podcasts. Not bona fide charitable organizations. I actually have experience in doing successful online fundraising for those kinds of groups.

Thank you for your notes.

1.) I didn't say Wikipedia has 5 billion uniques. I said it gets 5 billion visitors. In ad sales a visitor is different than a unique. I changed it to "visits" so avoid the confusion.

2.) Tax deduction makes the perception of something's cost free.

3.) If you can still get a product without paying for something (i.e. tipping) the price is either what you ask for ($5) or nothing. That's the definition of price uncertainty.

4.) I pointed out the problem in using NPR as a model. Federal grants and family endowments are not the best model for a blog...

5.) A donation accepting site can suggest scarcity, but the questions is how compelling will it be? PBS and NPR offer content in a very limited channel space. Most blogs and podcasts do not.

Best,

Andrew