Posted on 01/28/2010 10:14:06 PM PST by tlb
Eleven months after it went "anti-profit", Muddy Waters coffeeshop on SE Belmont says it will have to close its doors unless it can raise $10,000 by the end of the week.
Four co-owners/baristas took over the shop last February (more on that here), aiming to turn the sofa-laden cafe into a community center run on an "anti-profit" model that would pour any income other than their own four salaries back into good causes. In the last year, the cafe's calendar has been packed with open mic nights, movie nights and open jam sessions.
But things haven't gone according to the financial plan. Co-owner Sarah Dread says the cafe owners have been working for free since opening last February, supporting themselves with second jobs. "For the last few months, we've gotten to the point where we're losing money every day we're open. Business has been slowly declining," says Dread. The cafe has failed to claim 501(c)3 non-profit status as it originally planned.
Though Dread says Muddy Waters' landlords have been very accommodating, the building owners as well as the cafe co-owners have reached a breaking point. "It's been a long time coming. We're almost always out of at least some things because we can't afford to buy it," says Dread. The cafe is hosting fundraiser events daily through Sunday at the shop (2908 SE Belmont), including a pancake brunch this Saturday at 11 am.
Update 1/7: Muddy Waters says it will now be open 24/7 until Sunday and, as of Wednesday night, they've raised $1,800.
I don’t understand...... The business model just looked so... so... AUTHENTIC!!!
Ha! Hope for some change.....
The owners are probably Obama voters too.
Hmmmmm. Looks like they forgot that little budget item called "overhead". Things like rent, water bill, electricity, and on and on. Typical ignorant commies.
Absolutely correct. He had a bed and breakfast and went bankrupt.
All time great line from the old fool:[paraphrase] "Well I guess I never knew how restrictive all those laws I helped write in Congress were on the small businessman."
Hah, just like the "regulars". :-)
Are they still open? Article is dated 1/5/10.
They don't learn. Learning interferes with dreaming.
I have seen several of these types of enterprise come and go here in our area. Always the same. Big opening, lots of hoopla, press coverage, free concerts, etc. Then, one day a few months later you drive by there and it’s closed, or it’s become a bail bond place.
Nothing teaches a lesson like experience.
You mean dig through the dirty clothes hamper?
They just got a valuable lesson in the difference between socialism and capitalism. One is good in the ideal zone but in the real world it just doesn’t work. Kinda like Communism. I hope they really feel good about all the hours of free time they gave to this failing project. Its not even a church so they couldn’t think of earning treasures in Heaven. This story should be told in every college in the nation. Capitalism works—always has, always will. It reminds me of the opening part of Little Orphan Annie— where the Bolshevik tries to bomb Daddy Warbucks because he was living proof Capitalism works.
For sure!! Let me get this straight. First, it sounds like ‘not for profit’ is code for experimenting w/ communism. If thats the case there are any number of failed/failing enterprises to learn from. Why repeat the mistake?? Second, they’re working for free but taking second jobs at a for profit business to live. It makes no logical sense and is emblematic of the liberal mind set. That is, I’m going to goof around w/ marginal ideas but require the rest of the sane world to support me in it. The sad note in this is nothing will be learned from the failure.
While it is fun to laugh at their hippy-dippy “anti-profit” stance, their actual plan was no different from someone giving away the majority of the money they earn, keeping only enough for basic living expenses. I have no problem with their idea of giving away what they earned. I have no problem with their idea of buying local and keeping profits local. What they forgot was that to share your wealth you first need to create it. If they had been less hung up on ideology and more focused on creating a business they might have had some hope.
However, I suspect they would have failed even as a for-profit. They were young, naive, and had no business experience. The majority of small businesses fail, the rate for inexperienced, idealistic dreamers like this crew is probably higher.
They failed because apart from “anti-profit,” they had no real plan. For instance, had they gone non-profit (instead of “anti-profit”) and filed for 501(c)3 they might have had more room for maneuver. They also did not understand that the way you build strong communities is by having strong businesses. The best way to “give back” is by providing something the community needs and by providing the jobs that give stability and a “place in the world” to others.
Without idealists the world might be a crueler place, without pragmatists it would be a complete mess.
The story of the first couple of years of the Pilgrims at Plymouth is an eye opener. They were striving for a true “commonwealth” where all material things and food were shared in common. They nearly didn’t survive their second year as the lazy folks were taking more than what the workers were producing.
The despairing governor for the next spring planting decided to let folks have little parcels of their own and farm and raise animals as they saw fit as well as letting them give to the common store room and church as they would. Those “who did not work would not eat” (apostle Paul) was the new economic model and thus did the colony begin to prosper and not only prosper but there was extra for the common stores/and church for those who had or would fall into misfortune.
Thus an early foray into American socialism/communism was found to be a failure while biblically based free enter prise and capitalism flourished!
SupplySider, you must have been reading what I meant. I was too tired to be posting. This is the corrected version:
In capitalism every transaction is a win win transaction. The anti-profit bar is only conducting win-lose transactions. They mistakenly assume that for profit shops carry out win-lose transaction benefiting the shop. This process just leads to misery.
Sounds like they owe a lot of corporate taxes to me.
Bush’s fault.
They did not work for free. They paid their bills and stuff from the top.
In capitalism every transaction is a win win transaction. The anti-profit bar is only conducting win-lose transactions. They mistakenly assume that for profit shops carry out win-lose transaction benefiting the shop. This process just leads to misery.
Yes. I didn't want to mention the awkward wording, but I did divine your meaning. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.