TaN: In my understanding, there is more profit in social entrepreneurship than in any other form of profit-oriented human endeavor. This stems from two assumptions: (1) that I am correct in the understanding of the definition of social entrepreneurship and (2) that all things are held equal.
In the conventional way of doing business — i.e., the Western style — there are multiple layers of agents or middle-men (traders and wholesalers) who serve as links between the producer/manufacturer and the consumer, which includes the retailers. These go-betweens are expected to add or tack on their mark-up onto the purchase cost. This is expected otherwise how can they stay in business.
However, for every successive additional or consequent business entity added to those who already are, the cost increases. By the time, the product or commodity reaches the consumer, there are already several tiers of add-on cost.
Moreover, it has become a “standard” (regardless of how unethical) for the first agent/trader to try and get the lowest (purchase) price possible from the producer/manufacturer and passed the merchandise off at (not only a higher but) a much higher price. Now this would not be so bad if it were not for the reality that the first agent/trader frequently sells to another agent/trader which, in turn, sells off to another “colleague”. Therefore, with so many go-betweens in between, it is the (end-)consumer who will ultimately bear the brunt of the mark-ups of the middle-men.
It is this present system that is jacking up what should be low consumer prime commodity prices, especially food and basic needs.
For the social entrepreneur to act as the sole — or, at most, the third and last middle (agent of the producer, agent of the consumer, and the agent that brings the two agents together) — go-between between the producer/manufacturer and the end consumer in the pricing chain is one of the most significant ways of both bringing up the commodity value of the producer/manufacturer and bringing down the purchase cost (or increasing the purchasing power) of the consumer.
The (true) social entrepreneur can offer a better price for the producer/manufacturer and, at the same time, a lower cost of goods for the consumer — because the number of go-betweens are significantly diminished. Anyone who does otherwise is not a social entrepreneur but one of the many who claim to be what they are not — like the communists and communists countries who are actually socialists, fascists, and “whatever-ists” and not a communist.
Finally, social entrepreneurship reminds me of the “B” corporations that are cropping up in the United States of America for over a decade already. They practice (true) corporate social responsibility in its truest and faithful sense.
TaN: In this temporal world, everything is in motion; there is nothing that stays exactly in the same location. What is known or considered as motionless or unmoving is an illusion and is, in truth, relative motionlessness. This means that even when something appears to be immobile, the location where it is situated is moving.
To illustrate, consider that a tree is rooted to the same spot. However, the spot of land it is rooted to is part of the planet which is spinning on its axis — therefore, the tree is moving (in space, even if it is stationary relative to the spot the tree is located or rooted to). Moreover, as the planet spins (on its axis), it is simultaneously revolving around the sun, which, in turn, the solar system the planet is part of is situated on a portion of one of the arms of the Milky Way (its home galaxy) which happens to be spinning its spiral arms. Finally, the Milky Way itself is hurtling through the cosmos. In the final analysis, everything is in constant motion, regardless of whether it is actually moving or not.
Anyway, the point of all this is that the Grand Designer is not static but dynamic and He intended for all His creations to be dynamic as well. To be static, if it ever possible, is an abomination, contrary to His nature (and intentions).
TaN: In fairness to today’s (conventional allopathic) physicians, they are or should not really be expected to know anything about health because it is not their job nor field of expertise. Health is within the purview of nutritionists. Current medical school curricula barely, if at all, contains any course on health and nutrition.
To further support this argument, consider how large a percentage of physicians are themselves sick or diseased, i.e., in comparison to other professions and sectors of society. If modern pharmaceuticals are so effective and if the United States of America have the best physicians and medical facilities and medicine, how can it be explained that it has the largest population of sick, diseased, and medicated people in the world? And if modern medicine is so effective and successful, how can it explained that the #4 or even #3 medical mortality and morbidity is iatrogenic disease — a medical condition caused or due to the practice of modern medicine, such as wrong diagnosis, wrong prescription, wrong dosage, wrong procedure, wrong treatment option, or even with proper and correct prescription and (recommended) dosage.
Physicians — as what they should be properly and correctly called or addressed and not “doctors” unless they teach as they heal — are trained to diagnose our biological functions but, by tradition, not to prescribe cures and remedies. Traditionally, remedies and cures are the field of pharmacists and apothecaries. The only medical treatment physicians did on a patient are those of a non-chemical nature, like resetting of bones (for chiropractors) and surgical procedures. Any medicinal prescriptions are left to the pharmacist — because they are trained in the intricate interrelationships between the different and various biochemical processes and biological interactions in the body.
The traditional functions of a pharmacist has been hijacked by modern physicians and I suspect it was done through the able and conniving assistance of pharmaceutical companies. Small and independent pharmacies and apothecaries pose a significant threat to the income of pharmaceutical companies.
So, to be fair, conventional physicians are not totally to blame for their misguided notion of being “god” — who determine and dictate the lifespan of a patient. They have been brainwashed into thinking that they are the end-all of health and biological well being.
As a postscript, I would hazard to guess that most instances where the prescription appears to be ineffective when it should be, it is a case of mis-information in the training of the physician — where the age is being used to determine dosage instead of body mass. I remember once when a friend’s son would respond to the medication prescribed — when it should. I found out that the child was larger than the usual of his age so I recommended an increase in the dosage AND IT WORKED! The dosage was based on the child’s age.