Triad City Beat Lying to their readers and Guilford County's rising seniors about Say Yes to Education

"Say Yes to Education

Half of the money to fund the endowment — $70 million — had already been raised by the time Say Yes Guilford launched in September..."

Brian Clarey, Jordan Green and Eric Ginsburg
.
.
Brian Clarey, Jordan Green and Eric Ginsburg failed to inform the public of the unsustainability of the program.

Brian Clarey, Jordan Green and Eric Ginsburg failed to tell their readers that most of the Say Yes money isn't in hand, but will be 'gifted' over a series of years, especially the biggest chunks, with no knowledge of what the money is invested in or how much the program is going to cost.

Brian Clarey, Jordan Green and Eric Ginsburg are fucking clueless 

Brian Clarey, Jordan Green and Eric Ginsburg failed to tell the public how much each student may receive in 2016, and in 2017 when the number of scholarships should double, and in 2019, when the expected number of scholarships should double again, because they don't know, as they probably haven't asked, and Say Yes isn't saying if they did, because Say Yes has already been asked, and declined to provide any information including multiple years of tax returns which are supposed to be public records.

Brian Clarey, Jordan Green and Eric Ginsburg should have the temerity to tell some truth once in a while, instead of acting as a mouthpiece for Greensboro's aristocracy while swimming in a sea of financial illiteracy.

But they didn't, don't and probably won't, as speaking truth to power would probably put them out of business, so they will likely continue to act as stenographers for our ruling class, just like Greensboro's News and Record and Roy Carroll's Rhino Times who are playing along with the ruse.

http://triad-city-beat.com/the-triad-100-what-mattered-most-in-2015/6/
.
.
"Routh won't run again for Guilford school board"; Mo Green, Nancy Routh and Amos Quick jumping the Say Yes Guilford and Say Yes to Education ship

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/12/routh-wont-run-again-for-guilford.html

Say Yes to Education, Inc. (Say Yes), and Say Yes Guilford appears to be a legal Ponzi scheme and/or a Racket

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/11/say-yes-to-education-inc-say-yes-and.html

Say Yes to Education Red Flag; Mary Vigue; She is about to be in charge of more than $25 million for a 'non-profit' after shafting City of Greensboro employees out of investment fee cuts

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/10/say-yes-to-education-red-flag-mary.html

How the Triad Business Journal got played for chumps by Say Yes to Education and Say Yes Guilford

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-triad-business-journals-reporter.html

Greensboro's News and Record doesn't mention Mo Green leaving just before this story broke; Who would have thought?

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/12/greensboros-news-and-record-doesnt.html

I crashed the Say Yes to Education and Say Yes Guilford meeting at Smith High School and passed out fliers asking the following questions;

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/11/i-crashed-say-yes-to-education-and-say.html

John Hammer on Mary Vigue and Say Yes to Education and Zack Matheny and Andy Zimmerman's play for taxpayer money; Same things only different

http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2015/11/john-hammer-on-mary-vigue-and-say-yes.html

Upon Further Review: Transparency in Non-profits

The politically framed face of the non-profit, the mantra as it were, is that being non-profit means: Warm and fuzzy ventures (vs. for-profit). To some very limited scope, that is true, such as The Salvation Army. However, the warm and fuzzy, more times than not, refers to how the non-profit internally rewards executives of the non-profit in warm and fuzzy ways.

Meaning, "non-profit" is a politically hijacked term. True do-gooders, those that have a passion to help particular groups, their idea of all contributions passing through to the afflicted group by use of a non-profit, is a commendable position. However, non-profits can clearly be used where very little passes through to the afflicted group.

In essence, the butcher, baker and candlestick maker, those evil for-profit concerns, under the microscope of public scrutiny and opinion, who produce benefits to others that was not their intention (the invisible hand of Adam Smith), might well be more warm and fuzzy than a great deal of non-profits. (1)


Non-profits that hide behind/cloak themselves behind the politically framed warm and fuzzy of "non-profit" perpetuate the idea that the microscope of public scrutiny and opinion is disallowed. Disallowed in that warm and fuzzy non-profits could only be of positive value and hence scrutiny is unneeded. That their intention is to produce benefits and hence to question their intentions is just rude.

Returning to the do-gooders and their original position of helping a particular group, their idea of all contributions passing through to the afflicted group by use of a non-profit; that idea is further morphed in the good cop/bad cop scenario by many proponents of non-profits. A stratagem to further deflect scrutiny. How so?

First one has to examine the politically framed idea of the evil for-profit concerns aka the evil corporation. That particular argument is based on decoupling the abstract corporation from the flesh and blood people that work at the corporation. That is, firms are no more than collections of owner households, management households, labor households and supplier households. To attack the people that actually make up the firm will produce backlash for the debater using the evil corporation tag line. Hence decouple and frame the abstract, the corporation, as a living breathing entity then attack the abstract as if it were real. (2)

Once the evil corporation position is established through political slight of hand, an additional argument is engaged upon that by merely being non-profit the evil corporation argument is rectified and all is put right in Mudville. Hence establish the evil and arrive as the white knight to vanquish the evil.

Self-interest is a very normal human trait. Why would self-interest be different between the organizers/power purveyors of a for-profit and the organizers/power purveyors of a non-profit? Yes, exceptions exist. But how is it, in the main, that by merely being non-profit somehow means the self-interest of organizers/power purveyors is different than the self interest of organizers/power purveyors of for-profit ventures? Stated alternatively, if self-interest is framed as greed, as in the evil for-profit, can one merely be extremely self-interested, or extremely greedy (if you like), by using a non-profit as a vehicle to deflect scrutiny?

“Maybe for-profit companies pay too much attention to stock prices. But non-profits can go on inefficiently forever, with no stockholders to complain. The whole point of a non-profit is to pursue goals other than economic efficiency.” (3)

　

Notes:



(1) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, 1776

http://www.amazon.com/Inquiry-Nature-Causes-Wealth-Nations-ebook/dp/B00847CE6O/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418002506&sr=1-3&keywords=the+wealth+of+nations


(2) From Economic Man to Economic System: Essays on Human Behavior and the Institutions of Capitalism, Harold Demsetz, 2011

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Man-System-Institutions-Capitalism/dp/1107640857/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418002693&sr=8-1&keywords=from+economic+man+to+economic+system


(3) After the ACA: Freeing the market for health care, John H. Cochrane, June, 2014, pg. 9

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/after_aca.pdf