Black Holes Found in the Informational Field of the Wealth Concentration & Redistribution Industrial Complex
mackenzieandersen.substack.com
I coined the term-” Public-Private-For-Profit-Non-Profit Wealth Concentration & Distribution Industrial Complex” because the system needed a name.
But it’s too long. For short, I call it the Complex, which means the systemic wealth concentration and redistribution system, a product of the centrally managed economy by and for public-private relationships. “They”- meaning the hegemony - has figured out a wealth accumulation and redistribution superhighway system, rhetorically a system that works for the public benefit, especially for that sector of the public that is in the investor's community, not so much if you are a mere practitioner or lowly member of the workforces.
I am an independent researcher. An independent researcher is a spanner in the works of the Complex.
No! Not a spammer- a spanner!
Definition of put/throw a spanner in the works
informal
: to cause something to not go as planned. . Merriam Webster
I am sure many in the Complex would like to brand independent researchers as spammers, without relevancy or meaning, because branding does not require that. That’s the beauty of branding. It only needs to stick!
Spam·mer
a person or organization that sends irrelevant or unsolicited messages over the internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc. Oxford Lexico
The only part of the spammer definition that applies to independent research is unsolicited. No one solicits an independent researcher, We act on our own, driven only by the unknown. From the perspective of an independent researcher, the Complex is a spammer, selling its programs on false agendas of serving the public benefit, when the public benefit is only a justification for using public funds to the advantage of investors.
The story of CEI (Coastal Economic Incorporated) exemplifies the dominance of the Complex over people.
When CEI and CEDs were first founded they served local economies, small businesses, enabling practitioners, empowering low-income people, and women-owned businesses and grassroots involvement. Andersen Design could be a poster child of the early CEI practitioner- the target demographic that the early CEI and CED’s were dedicated to serving, according to the literature.
My experience of trying to find support from CEI and other community development organizations in Maine leads to the conclusion that they are nothing of the sort. It is rather a relationship wherein the practitioner must fit the program rather than the individual businesses offering community development resources as a connective interactive network. What is the grass but what grows from the ground, as Andersen Design grew in its own unique path?
For example, I have been wanting to find three people to serve as board members of a 501(3)(C) Museum of American Designer Craftsmen. I have found a pro-bono lawyer at one of the best legal firms in Maine, no small feat, but I cannot find three willing board members to join me in this endeavor. The thought has crossed my mind to approach CEI for support but I rejected it not but an instant later, based on years of experience of trying to interact with CEI, and other economic development resources in Maine, and wasting a lot of time and focus because of it, I see only futility in going down that path.
In my view, as a local practitioner, partitioner involvement means that practitioners can initiate ideas and projects and a CED would function as a responsive support system. But that is not the way of the real world. The CED is part of the hierarchical order of the grid world with its own preformatted systems in place. It only serves those who fit into its systems.
As important as global cooperation is to environmental sustainability, there is a darker side to it when it engages the Complex, which advances the wealth divide as it uses the public benefit to sell its product to the masses- the product being the superhighway of wealth concentration and distribution.
For years I have been independently studying Maine's economic development policies put into place since in the year 1976 when Maine was declared to be a centrally managed economy, by and for public-private relationships, that famous decade when the middle of the economy began its long slow incremental disintegration to make way for the wealth gap.
After 1968 new Departments of Economic and Community Development proliferated across the nation.
Maine’s DECD was first created in 1987, the same year as “Our Common Future” was issued by the World Commission, but, while the DECD findings statement made much of the global economy it did not mention sustainability.
Following is a complete quote from my research records on the DECD findings statement. It is long, but there is a purpose for quoting this much which will be revealed in what follows.
§13051. Legislative findings (Department of Economic and Community Development)
The Legislature finds that the State’s economy is linked to the national and international economies. Economic changes and disruptions around the world and in the nation have a significant impact upon the State’s economy. The rise of 3rd-world and 4th-world countries as manufacturers of commodities for mass markets and the gradual evolution of the national economy to a technological, informational, specialty product-based economy have significantly affected the State and its communities. [RR 2013, c. 2, §5 (COR).]
In order for the State’s economy to grow and gain a solid footing, it is necessary to determine the State’s assets and the economic opportunities that are or will be available to the State’s enterprise, municipalities and labor force. When these opportunities are determined or become apparent, state economic development policies and programs must be focused on facilitating the realization of these opportunities and removing barriers that impede the exploitation of these opportunities. [1987, c. 534, Pt. A, §§17, 19 (NEW).] (emphasis mine)
The Legislature finds that an economic development strategy designed to focus the State’s economic development activities and resources on economic opportunities can significantly help the State and its municipalities realize greater growth and prosperity without adversely affecting the quality of life in the State. An economic development strategy must recognize and reflect the different needs, conditions and opportunities of the several different economic regions of the State. This strategy must be flexible and periodically evaluated to make it consistent with changes in conditions and opportunities that arise during these times of dynamic change. It is necessary to involve municipalities, regional economic development organizations and the private sector in the formulation of this strategy in order to establish a well-developed and comprehensive plan that has the support of the State’s citizens and officials. [1987, c. 534, Pt. A, §§17, 19 (NEW).]
In February 2017, I posted the DECD findings statement on my blog, observing that the purpose of the DECD, according to its findings statement, is to facilitate the global economy, not the local economy and observed that the language “the State’s enterprise, municipalities, and labor force” is parsed as State ownership whereas if “Maine” were said instead of “the State” the meaning would read as a geographical location and not as corporate ownership.
In February 2019 upon searching for the DECD findings statement, I discovered that after thirty years, it had been repealed- with no date identifying when it was repealed.
PL 1987, c. 534, §§A17,A19 (NEW). PL 1987, c. 816, §P4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 622, §F5 (AMD). RR 2013, c. 2, §5 (COR). PL 2017, c. 264, §1 (RP).
There was once a time when a repealed law was published with a strike-out line over it so that the public could still read the former version. Today, the content of a repealed law must be recovered by requesting it from the Maine Legislative Library.
And so history is revised.
Any independent actor is a spanner in the works of a centrally managed system. The unspoken rule of the Complex is that everybody must have someone from above-granting permission and approval to do or say anything- even at the top as the four elements of power, the public, private, for-profit, nonprofit have a tug of war over who controls whom in a world where the rule of local law is eroding.
Anti-individualism is the glue that holds hierarchical systems together. The fact that a grassroots practitioner cannot initiate a project with a CED is a testimony to the fact that CEDs are just another subsidiary institution in the all-encompassing Economic Development Industrial Complex, an instrument of the Wealth Concentration and Redistribution Complex
As both an independent practitioner and an independent researcher, emails go unanswered even when writing to organizations that share a common concern. A hidden dimension of the exchange less exchange was revealed when I encountered a strange reaction as I asked a man on Facebook if he was the same person who works for OPEGA, a government oversight agency, nonetheless, conditioned by the total control exercised by the Complex. In the world view inside the Complex, anyone not operating under central management’s order is a spanner in the works! The convoluted message that came out of this exchange is that the man would lose his job should he publicly engage with me. My Goodness! Does my reputation precede me?
In the view from the outside, the Complex employs spammers to spread disinformation malware into the system, while erasing history from the records.
In addition to creating a wealth gap, the Complex also creates information gaps, dark corners where public knowledge cannot penetrate, inhabited by secret societies.
The points of darkness are where the sectors meet one another, where the public transforms into the private, and where the non-profit becomes a for-profit. Crossing over the threshold changes the transparency into darkness and no one inside the Complex seems to care. Why should they? Secrecy serves the Complex's benefit!
Mackenzie Andersen" The Individual vs The Empire! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Once all three sectors, public, private, and non-profit, were separate and each performed a function that the others did not. In the nineties, Burton Weisbrod wrote the Non-Profit Economy. It was a time when the three sectors were still apparently separate but Weisbrod issued a warning about accounting methods in place in which shared costs were expensed to the nonprofit subsidiary of a for-profit corporation. Those were the early days of the Complex as it was just developing models to acquire non-profit funding into its fold.
Today non-profits also have for-profit subsidiaries that merge seamlessly into the superhighway of wealth concentration and redistribution pathways and non-profit purposes have correspondingly changed.
When my Dad was still alive, Andersen Design was looking for funding to recapitalize our business for changing times and circumstances. We were working with a CEI consultant. All was going well as we were moving past preliminaries and into the nitty-gritty when suddenly the consultant was let go. My Dad described her replacement as “just like working with a banker”, and no longer saw CEI as worth the time and effort.
Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI) was founded in 1977 by Ron Phillips, a civil rights activist and recent seminary graduate, to help create income, employment and ownership opportunities, especially for people left out of the economic mainstream.
CEI was incorporated in Bath, Maine with no balance sheet and a goal of supporting community-based economic development in the midcoast Maine region stretching from Freeport to Camden — a start-up with a big need for investment capital to meet big goals.
Andersen Design could be the poster child of the early objectives of CEI, located on the Boothbay Peninsula in Midcoast Maine, Andersen Design began by teaching the women who worked in the fish packing business how to make ceramics. My Dad was a designer and systems management visionary and my mother was an artist with marketing talents. Most of our employees and family members were women.
Dad grew up on a farm during the depression, during which my father’s father gave jobs to the wandering forlorn during those difficult times. This impressed my father deeply as he relayed this history to us. Andersen Design has never been afraid to work with people on the fringes. We have been a place where misfits can find a place where they belong. People of local rural backgrounds have been among our best employees. Dad believed everyone has a talent, it just needs a chance to develop.
Point for point, Andersen Design fit the CEI rhetorical model but by the time we needed some support from a CED, CEI had moved on to become a mover and shaker in the Complex, serving the interests of the Complex, no longer focusing on the local economy and the practitioner community.
Environmental Sustainability CEI has long had concern for institutional sustainability, both our own and that of the CED movement. From the beginning, CEI approached grantsmanship with a goal of building our own assets as well as those of the individuals and businesses we served. We incorporated revolving loan funds and equity investments into our programs in order to build the internal resources of the organization. We quickly learned that our ability to bring capital to the table made us a player in Maine’s economic development arena. Today our loan and investment funds (comprised of both grants and program-related investments from the government and major foundations, as well as other sources) total more than $23 million with an $11 million fund balance. (Pg 416 of the report.)
One needs only to look at which model of fiscal sponsorship CEI chose to implement.
CEI does not offer Model B Fiscal Sponsorship, the independent contractor model which directly benefits practitioners by allowing the practitioner direct access to non-profit funding, which each practitioner must apply for on their own under the umbrella of the fiscal sponsor, but if the practitioner is successful, its debt-free capital. This is the model that I envision the Andersen Design Museum of American Designer Craftsmen offering to the designer craftsmen community. It is described on the chart as less common than Models A and C, and so if Andersen Design can succeed in bringing the Museum into being it will create a much-needed channel for the autonomous-independently minded free enterprise community, that does not want an external organization dictating the direction of their affairs -in example forbidding a company to teach how to make its products.
In Model A, it is the Fiscal Sponsor who runs the project. Model C is a more recent development. It appears to be the non-profit version of the State’s “targeted sector” where the Complex determines what fields of activity will be supported.
In Model B, the entire project is conducted not by the sponsor directly but by an independent contractor who the sponsor engages to produce results. In Model B, the sponsor retains and pays the independent contractor with donated funds, and the contractor accounts for its own income and pays for the expenses. https://fiscalsponsorship.com/the-models-summary/
When I first became aware of fiscal sponsorship, I thought that Model B was Model A, as it was the model then used by Fractured Atlas which was the only organization that I found offering what is identified today as Model B. (The field has changed a lot in the last few years. I haven't yet taken it all in)
Model B offers the most autonomy to the practitioner. The chart describes Model B as “Less common than Models A and C”. It doesn’t mention Model L. Model L only benefits the Fiscal Sponsor and its for-profit subsidiary and so does not concern the general public.
In my opinion, Model B is the best model for grassroots practitioners but it is politically inconsistent with the agenda coming from the non-profit sector that seeks to brand fiscal sponsorship as a vehicle toward becoming a non-profit, leaving the free enterprise model behind.
Andersen Design had no such intentions, We were just looking for funding to recapitalize. The small business free enterprise is taxed to subsidize large corporations that make large profits and start large foundations that distribute grants to the tax-exempt sector. That does not meet the social justice standards of fairness. We need new organizations that represent the interests of social justice.
From the point of view of the practitioner community, the demographic that CEDs were originally intended to serve, Model B is the Plan A option (pun intended), and Model L makes a decent Plan B.
Instead, CEI uses model L fiscal sponsorship, exclusively, which allows CEI to fund its own for-profit investors subsidiary with debt-free non-profit funds, and then to lend those funds at low interest to practitioners.
CEI needs local practitioners taking out loans to justify its own for-profit interests. It is because CEI’s for-profit investors subsidiary lends money at a lower interest to the original demographic that CEI was formed to serve, that allows the for-profit investors subsidiary to fall under the category of serving the non-profit purpose of CEI and to enjoy the benefits of mixing non-profit funds with for-profit funds before it calculates the lower interest that it will charge to the grassroots practitioners.
We don’t know how that merge takes place because it is hidden in the black hole in the informational field of the Complex, that point where the non-profit transits into a for-profit.
CEI Capital Management, LLC (CCML) is a for-profit subsidiary of Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI) that furthers CEI’s mission to help create economically and environmentally healthy communities in which all people, especially those with low incomes, can reach their full potential by working to help attract capital to low-income areas using the U.S. Treasury Department’s New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program.
A few years ago, I was viewing the list of people and organizations donating to CEI. It was the largest donations list I had ever come across but the 2015 annual report is the last report where CEI lists its donors. The typeface used on the donor's page is much smaller than the type on the other pages and so the donors fit on two pages.
The 2015 report is 20 pages long with reporting far more rigorous than the years that follow.
2016 is five pages long with minimal financial and other information. After 2016, the annual reports are more like marketing brochures than informational reports. The financial information fits on one page with widely spaced lines, supplemented by a page or two of charts. There is no information about donors.
If you like this post, please share the word by spreading it.
Black Holes Found in the Informational Field of the Wealth Concentration & Redistribution Industrial Complex
Black Holes Found in the Informational Field of the Wealth Concentration & Redistribution Industrial Complex
Black Holes Found in the Informational Field of the Wealth Concentration & Redistribution Industrial Complex
I coined the term-” Public-Private-For-Profit-Non-Profit Wealth Concentration & Distribution Industrial Complex” because the system needed a name.
But it’s too long. For short, I call it the Complex, which means the systemic wealth concentration and redistribution system, a product of the centrally managed economy by and for public-private relationships. “They”- meaning the hegemony - has figured out a wealth accumulation and redistribution superhighway system, rhetorically a system that works for the public benefit, especially for that sector of the public that is in the investor's community, not so much if you are a mere practitioner or lowly member of the workforces.
I am an independent researcher. An independent researcher is a spanner in the works of the Complex.
No! Not a spammer- a spanner!
I am sure many in the Complex would like to brand independent researchers as spammers, without relevancy or meaning, because branding does not require that. That’s the beauty of branding. It only needs to stick!
The only part of the spammer definition that applies to independent research is unsolicited. No one solicits an independent researcher, We act on our own, driven only by the unknown. From the perspective of an independent researcher, the Complex is a spammer, selling its programs on false agendas of serving the public benefit, when the public benefit is only a justification for using public funds to the advantage of investors.
The story of CEI (Coastal Economic Incorporated) exemplifies the dominance of the Complex over people.
In 1997, CEI was selected as the CED (Community Economic Development) poster child by Tufts University scholars who produced a report titled Sustainable Development in Practice: A Case Study Analysis of Coastal Enterprises, Inc.’s Experience by Carla Dickstein, Diane Branscom, John Piotti, and Elizabeth Sheehan.
When CEI and CEDs were first founded they served local economies, small businesses, enabling practitioners, empowering low-income people, and women-owned businesses and grassroots involvement. Andersen Design could be a poster child of the early CEI practitioner- the target demographic that the early CEI and CED’s were dedicated to serving, according to the literature.
My experience of trying to find support from CEI and other community development organizations in Maine leads to the conclusion that they are nothing of the sort. It is rather a relationship wherein the practitioner must fit the program rather than the individual businesses offering community development resources as a connective interactive network. What is the grass but what grows from the ground, as Andersen Design grew in its own unique path?
For example, I have been wanting to find three people to serve as board members of a 501(3)(C) Museum of American Designer Craftsmen. I have found a pro-bono lawyer at one of the best legal firms in Maine, no small feat, but I cannot find three willing board members to join me in this endeavor. The thought has crossed my mind to approach CEI for support but I rejected it not but an instant later, based on years of experience of trying to interact with CEI, and other economic development resources in Maine, and wasting a lot of time and focus because of it, I see only futility in going down that path.
In my view, as a local practitioner, partitioner involvement means that practitioners can initiate ideas and projects and a CED would function as a responsive support system. But that is not the way of the real world. The CED is part of the hierarchical order of the grid world with its own preformatted systems in place. It only serves those who fit into its systems.
The Tufts University analysis had a mission, which was to align community economic development with sustainable development, a term that first emerged in the 1987 Brundtland Commission’s Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future
As important as global cooperation is to environmental sustainability, there is a darker side to it when it engages the Complex, which advances the wealth divide as it uses the public benefit to sell its product to the masses- the product being the superhighway of wealth concentration and distribution.
Subscribe
For years I have been independently studying Maine's economic development policies put into place since in the year 1976 when Maine was declared to be a centrally managed economy, by and for public-private relationships, that famous decade when the middle of the economy began its long slow incremental disintegration to make way for the wealth gap.
After 1968 new Departments of Economic and Community Development proliferated across the nation.
Maine’s DECD was first created in 1987, the same year as “Our Common Future” was issued by the World Commission, but, while the DECD findings statement made much of the global economy it did not mention sustainability.
Following is a complete quote from my research records on the DECD findings statement. It is long, but there is a purpose for quoting this much which will be revealed in what follows.
In February 2017, I posted the DECD findings statement on my blog, observing that the purpose of the DECD, according to its findings statement, is to facilitate the global economy, not the local economy and observed that the language “the State’s enterprise, municipalities, and labor force” is parsed as State ownership whereas if “Maine” were said instead of “the State” the meaning would read as a geographical location and not as corporate ownership.
In February 2019 upon searching for the DECD findings statement, I discovered that after thirty years, it had been repealed- with no date identifying when it was repealed.
There was once a time when a repealed law was published with a strike-out line over it so that the public could still read the former version. Today, the content of a repealed law must be recovered by requesting it from the Maine Legislative Library.
And so history is revised.
Any independent actor is a spanner in the works of a centrally managed system. The unspoken rule of the Complex is that everybody must have someone from above-granting permission and approval to do or say anything- even at the top as the four elements of power, the public, private, for-profit, nonprofit have a tug of war over who controls whom in a world where the rule of local law is eroding.
Anti-individualism is the glue that holds hierarchical systems together. The fact that a grassroots practitioner cannot initiate a project with a CED is a testimony to the fact that CEDs are just another subsidiary institution in the all-encompassing Economic Development Industrial Complex, an instrument of the Wealth Concentration and Redistribution Complex
As both an independent practitioner and an independent researcher, emails go unanswered even when writing to organizations that share a common concern. A hidden dimension of the exchange less exchange was revealed when I encountered a strange reaction as I asked a man on Facebook if he was the same person who works for OPEGA, a government oversight agency, nonetheless, conditioned by the total control exercised by the Complex. In the world view inside the Complex, anyone not operating under central management’s order is a spanner in the works! The convoluted message that came out of this exchange is that the man would lose his job should he publicly engage with me. My Goodness! Does my reputation precede me?
In the view from the outside, the Complex employs spammers to spread disinformation malware into the system, while erasing history from the records.
In addition to creating a wealth gap, the Complex also creates information gaps, dark corners where public knowledge cannot penetrate, inhabited by secret societies.
The points of darkness are where the sectors meet one another, where the public transforms into the private, and where the non-profit becomes a for-profit. Crossing over the threshold changes the transparency into darkness and no one inside the Complex seems to care. Why should they? Secrecy serves the Complex's benefit!
Mackenzie Andersen" The Individual vs The Empire! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Once all three sectors, public, private, and non-profit, were separate and each performed a function that the others did not. In the nineties, Burton Weisbrod wrote the Non-Profit Economy. It was a time when the three sectors were still apparently separate but Weisbrod issued a warning about accounting methods in place in which shared costs were expensed to the nonprofit subsidiary of a for-profit corporation. Those were the early days of the Complex as it was just developing models to acquire non-profit funding into its fold.
Today non-profits also have for-profit subsidiaries that merge seamlessly into the superhighway of wealth concentration and redistribution pathways and non-profit purposes have correspondingly changed.
When my Dad was still alive, Andersen Design was looking for funding to recapitalize our business for changing times and circumstances. We were working with a CEI consultant. All was going well as we were moving past preliminaries and into the nitty-gritty when suddenly the consultant was let go. My Dad described her replacement as “just like working with a banker”, and no longer saw CEI as worth the time and effort.
A Case Study Analysis of Coastal Enterprises, Inc.’s Experience confirms that my Dad had got it right. Our company would have been iconically right for CEI when it originated, but times change.
FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
Andersen Design could be the poster child of the early objectives of CEI, located on the Boothbay Peninsula in Midcoast Maine, Andersen Design began by teaching the women who worked in the fish packing business how to make ceramics. My Dad was a designer and systems management visionary and my mother was an artist with marketing talents. Most of our employees and family members were women.
The Wall Fish
Dad grew up on a farm during the depression, during which my father’s father gave jobs to the wandering forlorn during those difficult times. This impressed my father deeply as he relayed this history to us. Andersen Design has never been afraid to work with people on the fringes. We have been a place where misfits can find a place where they belong. People of local rural backgrounds have been among our best employees. Dad believed everyone has a talent, it just needs a chance to develop.
Point for point, Andersen Design fit the CEI rhetorical model but by the time we needed some support from a CED, CEI had moved on to become a mover and shaker in the Complex, serving the interests of the Complex, no longer focusing on the local economy and the practitioner community.
In A Case Study Analysis of Coastal Enterprises, Inc.’s Experience, CEI tells the truth:
One needs only to look at which model of fiscal sponsorship CEI chose to implement.
Downloadable Chart of Fiscal Sponsorship Models
CEI does not offer Model B Fiscal Sponsorship, the independent contractor model which directly benefits practitioners by allowing the practitioner direct access to non-profit funding, which each practitioner must apply for on their own under the umbrella of the fiscal sponsor, but if the practitioner is successful, its debt-free capital. This is the model that I envision the Andersen Design Museum of American Designer Craftsmen offering to the designer craftsmen community. It is described on the chart as less common than Models A and C, and so if Andersen Design can succeed in bringing the Museum into being it will create a much-needed channel for the autonomous-independently minded free enterprise community, that does not want an external organization dictating the direction of their affairs -in example forbidding a company to teach how to make its products.
In Model A, it is the Fiscal Sponsor who runs the project. Model C is a more recent development. It appears to be the non-profit version of the State’s “targeted sector” where the Complex determines what fields of activity will be supported.
When I first became aware of fiscal sponsorship, I thought that Model B was Model A, as it was the model then used by Fractured Atlas which was the only organization that I found offering what is identified today as Model B. (The field has changed a lot in the last few years. I haven't yet taken it all in)
Model B offers the most autonomy to the practitioner. The chart describes Model B as “Less common than Models A and C”. It doesn’t mention Model L. Model L only benefits the Fiscal Sponsor and its for-profit subsidiary and so does not concern the general public.
In my opinion, Model B is the best model for grassroots practitioners but it is politically inconsistent with the agenda coming from the non-profit sector that seeks to brand fiscal sponsorship as a vehicle toward becoming a non-profit, leaving the free enterprise model behind.
Andersen Design had no such intentions, We were just looking for funding to recapitalize. The small business free enterprise is taxed to subsidize large corporations that make large profits and start large foundations that distribute grants to the tax-exempt sector. That does not meet the social justice standards of fairness. We need new organizations that represent the interests of social justice.
From the point of view of the practitioner community, the demographic that CEDs were originally intended to serve, Model B is the Plan A option (pun intended), and Model L makes a decent Plan B.
Instead, CEI uses model L fiscal sponsorship, exclusively, which allows CEI to fund its own for-profit investors subsidiary with debt-free non-profit funds, and then to lend those funds at low interest to practitioners.
CEI needs local practitioners taking out loans to justify its own for-profit interests. It is because CEI’s for-profit investors subsidiary lends money at a lower interest to the original demographic that CEI was formed to serve, that allows the for-profit investors subsidiary to fall under the category of serving the non-profit purpose of CEI and to enjoy the benefits of mixing non-profit funds with for-profit funds before it calculates the lower interest that it will charge to the grassroots practitioners.
We don’t know how that merge takes place because it is hidden in the black hole in the informational field of the Complex, that point where the non-profit transits into a for-profit.
A few years ago, I was viewing the list of people and organizations donating to CEI. It was the largest donations list I had ever come across but the 2015 annual report is the last report where CEI lists its donors. The typeface used on the donor's page is much smaller than the type on the other pages and so the donors fit on two pages.
The 2015 report is 20 pages long with reporting far more rigorous than the years that follow.
2016 is five pages long with minimal financial and other information. After 2016, the annual reports are more like marketing brochures than informational reports. The financial information fits on one page with widely spaced lines, supplemented by a page or two of charts. There is no information about donors.
If you like this post, please share the word by spreading it.
Share
Leave a comment