[kgwgk]

I understand that. But the context of this thread was

> there shouldn't be a profit motive attached to basic services like electricity

[torwayburger]

I replied to (a comment) and tried to contrast how a state owned power grid can still have profit models attached and function both technically and for it's intended customers.

[kgwgk]

Interestingly, ERCOT is a non-profit.

(Like most hospitals in the US, by the way, coming back to the original "There shouldn't be a profit motive attached to basic services like electricity, policing (private prisons), or medicine" comment.)

[torwayburger]

My understanding is that they're registered as a charitable organization, not a non-profit. These terms are often used interchangeably, but from a tax and earnings perspective they mean different things. This is often further confused with not-for-profit organizations, which is yet another thing.

[dragonwriter]

> My understanding is that they're registered as a charitable organization, not a non-profit.

That's impossible in the US; “charitable organizations”—501(c)(3)—are a subset of nonprofits—501(c).

[kgwgk]

501(c)(4)

[torwayburger]

Right, not the same as 501(c)(3), was my point exactly.

[dragonwriter]

501(c)s, including 501(c)(4)s, are nonprofits, so “not a nonprofit” was wrong.

501(c)(3)s are charitable organizations, so “as a charitable organization” was also wrong. But 501(c)(3)s are a subset of 501(c) and thus are also nonprofits, so your implication that they could be a registered charitable organization but not a nonprofit was also wrong.

As a 501(c)(4) they are a nonprofit and not a charitable org; if they were a 501(c)(3) they would be both.

[kgwgk]

Who says 501(c)(4) are not non-profits?

The 501(c)(3) are the charitable ones, by the way.