Avri. you are looking at both organizations the way they want you to.
Vodafone, as many other companies has a foundation that helps needed people,
and I'm pretty sure that you would agree that some salaries and benefits
from Red Cross executives can touch the limit of the obscene.

When you look under the hood, you may find out that the differences are not
that significative.

Please note, I'm not against companies having foundations or profits, nor
against Red Cross paying its employees, far from that. Its just that holding
a decision position may not be compatible with some naif points of view.

And I would say that our different points of view are quite clear by now on
this issue.

Best regards,

Nuno

On 9 November 2010 14:36, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 9 Nov 2010, at 05:18, Nuno Garcia wrote:
>
> > Red Cross, for one. How can one distinguish Red Cross from, let us say,
> Vodafone? Probably the single point of distinction is that Red Cross does
> accept volunteer work (and Vodafone does not). And of course, the types of
> services they render (but this distinguishes all other organizations,
> right?). Yet, they only render services to the communities that are their
> target if and when someone funds these services.
> >
>
>
> I think that the distinction are far greater that that.
>
> On sells a commercial service and is oriented to making profits for
> investors but charging customers fees and they provide a service based on an
> agreement with customers.
>
> The other has a mission of helping people in disastrous situations and gets
> it work done by asking for donations and  provide a service based on dire
> need.
>
> I have no problem telling the difference between them.
>
> a.
>