Whole Foods' John Mackey: 'I Feel Like Socialists Are Taking Over'
The 'conscious capitalism' innovator on overregulation, COVID mandates, and why he will be speaking his mind much more freely when he retires.

"My concern is that I feel like socialists are taking over," Whole Foods CEO John Mackey tells me on today's show. "They're marching through the institutions. They're…taking over education. It looks like they've taken over a lot of the corporations. It looks like they've taken over the military. And it's just continuing. You know, I'm a capitalist at heart, and I believe in liberty and capitalism. Those are my twin values. And I feel like, you know, with the way freedom of speech is today, the movement on gun control, a lot of the liberties that I've taken for granted most of my life, I think, are under threat."
If you're as old as I am (I just turned 59), you will remember how dreary food shopping was before Whole Foods exploded the concept since it came on the scene in 1978. When I was a kid, you were lucky to find two or three types of potatoes in the produce aisle, one type of eggplant, maybe a green bell pepper, and a sad jalapeno or two (jalapenos were almost always sold pickled and in cans). Even in big cities, you had to roam around all over town to find oddball spices that you can now pick up in 7-11s and gas station convenience stores.
At the end of August, Mackey, born in 1953, is retiring from Whole Foods. Throughout his career, John has developed and evangelized for what he calls "conscious capitalism," or businesses that seek to "create financial, intellectual, social, cultural, emotional, spiritual, physical, and ecological wealth for all of their stakeholders." That may sound a bit hippy-dippy to you, but John is one of the most hardcore capitalists I've ever met, yet also an incredibly spiritual and thoughtful guy who wants to help all of us live better, more interesting lives.
That comes through loud and clear in his epic 2005 debate with Nobel laureate Milton Freidman and former Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers about rethinking the social responsibility of business. "I believe that the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies," wrote John. "From an investor's perspective, the purpose of the business is to maximize profits. But that's not the purpose for other stakeholders—for customers, employees, suppliers, and the community. Each of those groups will define the purpose of the business in terms of its own needs and desires, and each perspective is valid and legitimate." In many profound ways, John's vision is now widely accepted, partly because he's speaking to a post-industrial world that is rich enough that more and more of us are starting to bump our snouts further up Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Even in the developing world, more and more of us are trying to figure out how we can flourish rather than just subsist.
I caught up with John at FreedomFest, the annual gathering in Las Vegas, and we talked about his time at Whole Foods, how his company did an exceptional job of staying open and serving people during COVID, what he thought about the government's response to the pandemic, and a whole lot more. We also, of course, talked about what he's going to do once he's retired.
In terms of business ventures, he's planning to open a series of wellness centers and cafes. Of greater interest to me, John said that he felt muzzled in his position as CEO of Whole Foods. For many reasons, he says he couldn't speak his mind on various issues, especially what he sees as a dangerous drift toward more and more control of everyday life, commerce, and speech. That all changes in September, he said, and we should expect him to be even more outspoken in his celebration of capitalism, which he considers the greatest anti-poverty program ever created, and many other issues.
Previous Reason interviews with John Mackey:
"Can 'Conscious Capitalism' Make Business a Heroic Enterprise? John Mackey Is Betting Yes: Podcast," August 14, 2018
"John Mackey's Merger Made in Heaven," July 1, 2018
"'They're More Conscious and More Awake than My Generation Was,'" March 31, 2018
"Whole Foods' John Mackey on Amazon Merger: 'A Meeting of the Souls,'" March 30, 2018
"Whole Foods' John Mackey on Veganism, Gary Johnson, and How Regulation Is Stunting Innovation," August 16, 2016
"Whole Foods' John Mackey: Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism," August 12, 2015
"John Mackey on Whole Foods, Conscious Capitalism, and Life Beyond the Profit Motive," March 21, 2013
"Whole Foods CEO John Mackey on the Moral Case for Capitalism," August 10, 2012
"Whole Foods Health Care," December 15, 2009
Today's sponsors:
- Everyday Dose is the coffee alternative that I start my days with. It's made from non-psychedelic mushrooms, collagen, and nootropics that elevate my mood, sharpen my focus, and give me an energy boost, all without the jitters, digestive issues, and focus that comes with drinking traditional coffee. It tastes great, too, and is quick and easy to make. Try risk-free, with a 60-day, money-back guarantee by going here now.
- The Reason Rundown with Peter Suderman. Free minds. Free markets. Big stories. That's The Reason Rundown, which comes out every Friday. End the week with concise, thought-provoking stories from the journalists at Reason, the magazine of logic, not legends; coherence, not contradictions. Hosted by Features Editor Peter Suderman, each episode he talks to a single Reason journalist about a single big story. Subscribe today.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He'd be cool with employees advocating a union while open carrying on the job, right?
Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!
Freedom (in the sense that libertarians mean) doesn't mean you get to set your own terms of employment. Freedom also means that an employer can fire anyone for any reason they want. Everyone has a right to try to organize a union. The don't have a right to guaranteed employment.
Paternalist libertarians crying it's no fair when the little people exercise their rights.
Is there a pea under the princess Mackey's mattress? Boo hoo.
You still trying for the first day biggest asshole award?
It's not even 'biggest asshole' just most boring, inane failing edgelord banter award.
He'd be less annoying if he had one sock say "But..." and the other sock say "Uh huh. Huh huh. You said 'butt'. Uh huh. Huh huh."
It's like Andrew Dice Clay finally ran out of places to do his act and discovered the Reason forums wouldn't kick him out.
He was funny till he wasn’t.
I am a student and I do work part time on this website to meet my needs. One who is jobless or want to earn more money for himself, (res-10) should must try this because this is really very easy and less time consuming and also advantageous without investing any amount.
.
SEE MORE:>>>> https://googlejobs0945.netlify.app/
*chef's kiss* to this comment. My goodness what a burn.
"Paternalist libertarians crying it's no fair when the little people exercise their rights."
Seems just lowering the STUPID bar is your intent.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
"...crying it's no fair when the little people..."
"little people"? Lefty piles of shit like you certainly qualify, but do you have any examples other than assholes like you?
Billions of free tax payer money (little people's money) given to the micro chip industry under the new Chip Bill, an industry that is making billions in profits and can well afford to invest their own money in new production lines. That is capitalism? How about the too big to fail, too big to jail wall street banksters who took trillions from the tax payers. When the rich steal the little people's money it is not called a crime, a scam or even socialism, instead these crimes of greed are hidden under such phrases as creating jobs and investing in the future of the US economy. You are one of those clueless guys the rich really love, you are willing to bend over for them and take it with a smile while waving a US flag made in communist China.
Word!
✔️
Totalitarian Communist shitstain makes his five-millionth sock puppet account to whine about how bullied and oppressed he is because the overwhelming majority of workers don’t want yo be bis slave under union exploitation. Wah wah wah.
"Libertarians are dickless losers"
Did you show up here to lower the "STUPID" bar to levels beyond competition? Or are you simply stupid beyond imagining,
Whole Foods became one of the worst enforcers of mask mandates in their stores, still are where CDC recommendations are illegally enforced. Masks are and always have been symbolic, never medically effective.
Epidemiologists are trained in behavioral sciences and medical sciences. Theory being they must change people's behaviors to reduce spread of infectious disease. Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) aren't medical in nature. Masks were adopted to spread fear of infectious disease, the symbolic value of them (amygdala reptilian fear response triggers), to stay away from others. A symbol of fear. Mandated.
Symbols are speech. One of the oldest forms of speech. Understood even by the illiterate. If you can mandate speech then you can prohibit it. Mackey mandated speech in his stores. Required all customers to say, "You must fear infectious disease to be shopping inside here." To not wear a mask would be to say, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That speech was censored when purely symbolic masks were required.
Thing is, social distancing is only a preventative measure at onset of a contagion in a community before it becomes widespread. By March, 2020 the contagion was already widespread. Masks made no difference. And were (are) harmful to the wearer, to society. There's even World Court rulings upholding bans on facial coverings as recently as 2019, just months before they were made mandatory, rulings that asserted civil society functions best when people see each other's faces, conflicts and aggression are reduced, our faces are necessary for the smooth social peace, health and tranquility of society. Mask mandates are all harm, no benefit.
John Mackey assisted the socialists taking over, the reduction of civil liberties and injuries to democracies by obeying and enforcing illegal mandates. With gusto at Whole Foods. Like one would expect under Jeff Bezos' CCP Chinese distribution conglomerate.
???????????????? thank you so much for your comment! I agree wholeheartedly
Those questions marks were clapping hand emojis.
Your comment is excellent
Dickless? Ok, but there is little doubt who is has no balls, or "Who is wearing of spangly* outfit and is of on use"
This was disappointing. Mackey's "feeling" generates the headline but that's it. There is no discussion of what he means by "socialism" or examples of the "takeover." It's just red meat for the faithful. In a world where there is so much heat and so little light I would prefer to see a more, ahem, reasoned discussion.
Exactly. He's a sad little man who thinks saying "... socialists are taking over..." is enough to deflect from his corporate, and personal, horridness.
Whole Foods' John Mackey: 'I Feel Like Socialists Are Taking Over'
Look no further than your customers.
The 'conscious capitalism' innovator on overregulation, COVID mandates, and why he will be speaking his mind much more freely when he retires.
Retiring allows him to look past his customers.
I beg to differ.
Mackey: "From an investor's perspective, the purpose of the business is to maximize profits. But that's not the purpose for other stakeholders—for customers, employees, suppliers, and the community. Each of those groups will define the purpose of the business in terms of its own needs and desires, and each perspective is valid and legitimate."
Mackey promotes customers, employees, suppliers and the community making decisions in the corporate office and stores. That's Socialism. Customers give feedback to management, via their purchases, not stockholder votes. Employees give feedback to management, allowing management to take that feedback in finding and keeping good employees. Suppliers should never have a say in the company management, if not, I'm happy to make them decide to purchase the product I sell (admittedly I buy my product at Walmart) and force them to sell it. They can offer their products to WholeFoods and attempt to persuade them to purchase and resell their products, but it's not their decision. As for the community having a say, that's just government picking who's allowed to engage in business, and who's not, based on the political benefits to the politician, and likely tied to campaign cash payments from those looking to be chosen the winner, while others are stopped from competing and working.
Mackey has been talking like this, because that what TPTB that control commerce, want to hear. If they don't hear it, all of a sudden the company will find itself under attack by government inspectors, regulators, and prosecutors, for lack of toeing the Democrat line.
I do agree their customers lean left, because that would be the college indoctrinated with high paying jobs (often in government) that can afford their food.
Mackey even admits, he doesn't feel free to speak, "for many reasons" which no doubt includes fear of government retaliation.
Mackey bilks SJWs out of their cash by selling them feel good stuff.
What’s not to like?
Nailed it!
Does he sell baseball bats, bike chains, bike locks, and cosplay gear for "mostly peaceful" protests?
Bravo diane! Well said
Only wealthy socialists can afford to shop at Whole Foods.
Do wealthy non-socialists have a different kind of money or something?
We're too busy buying guns and ammo to go to Whole Foods.
Try Whole Arsenal. I.e. Cabela’s:
I assumed he meant morals. All the plebs and capitalists are too corrupt and self-absorbed to be seen shopping at Whole Foods. The wealthy socialists are the ones who really afford everyone the luxury of shopping at Whole Foods.
Wealthy non-socialists shop at Walmart and online.
Or Dollar General if you're willing to pay an extra buck or two to avoid lines. Two out of three registers open ain't bad.
AKA the Democratic elite.
I shop at Whole Paycheck a few times a year. When I lived in rural colorado I shopped at the Ft Collins one more often. I would go there when I had a recipe that needed very good seafood or meat, or some other specialty exotic food (like canned truffles). Back then, Whole foods was really your best bet.
Here in California it is the same for me, except that living in an affluent asian neighborhood, the need to go to Whole Paycheck is lower. They still have a good meat-aging butcher, which is nice, but pretty much every other exotic food is available at the ranch 99 or H mart for 2/3 the price.
A meat-aging butcher? What does he do, tell the meat it's getting audited by the IRS? 😉
Daly City? Ssf? I'm your neighbor
Agree unicorn!
"They're marching through the institutions. They're…taking over education. It looks like they've taken over a lot of the corporations. It looks like they've taken over the military. And it's just continuing. You know, I'm a capitalist at heart, and I believe in liberty and capitalism.
You know, Nick, you could have just interviewed me... or half a dozen other right-wing Kultur War Hurr Durr commenters.
But, are you the ex-CEO for Reason Editors favorite, overly-priced grocery store?
No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
They like citing that debate with Friedman as if Friedman didn't completely obliterate him.
Someone needs to be on the lookout for the IRS.
Why are so many otherwise successful people garden variety fruitcakes when they wander outside of their bailiwick?
You mean yourself, I assume.
Minus the successful part Zeb.
I got yer bailiwick right here, Dickhead!
"I believe that the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies," wrote John. "From an investor's perspective, the purpose of the business is to maximize profits. But that's not the purpose for other stakeholders—for customers, employees, suppliers, and the community. Each of those groups will define the purpose of the business in terms of its own needs and desires, and each perspective is valid and legitimate."
Head mic Ted Talk Capitalism... It sounds like he's having a Michael Shellenberger moment.
Jesus, he says socialism is taking over, but then talks about the importance of stakeholders in his own industry.
That's not socialist... depending on who defines stakeholders.
If you're running a business, you can decide it is for the benefit of the investors and the employees, for example. You might reserve a portion of profits to be distributed to employees at the end of the year.
Once you are REQUIRED to have certain stakeholders, say the government wants oversight or forces you to give a union rep a seat on your board, well then you're getting socialist.
The notion of pure profit is simplistic. You can forgo maximizing profit for long term health (which means profit down the road) as an obvious example. Or you can contribute to communities in ways that don't directly produce profits because it builds loyalty and, again, that helps with longer term stability. And you certainly can define a group of people (stakeholders) as the beneficiaries of profits that is beyond just the investors.
As long as it is YOUR decision to do so.
That's all well and good. I'm a firm believer that profits aren't the whole point of running a business. Not necessarily.
But using "stakeholders" is big, big red flag.
I'm a firm believer that profits aren't the whole point of running a business. Not necessarily.
Then you still don't understand Friedman. He's all about pointing out what the "means" is and where the "ends" are.
Profit is the "ends" for the corporation, but the corporation itself is not an "end." And corporate philanthropy is not an "end," but it is a "means" for the corporation to foster welfare and expand or maintain its customer base.
And the profits gained for shareholders are simply "means" for the shareholders. They can chose to give/donate money to whomever they want, or to reinvest in the company if they like the company's philanthropy. The "ends" are whatever you choose to do with the profits.
I agree.
I think it evolved to that, though. You start with stakeholders in what is a realistic fashion and then the term gets coopted and now "stakeholders" is used by people who have no fucking business telling you how to run your business acting like they deserve something.
This dude doesn't really get it all across, though. He's spent to many years marketing to the Whole Foods crowd, and those are the people who talk like this.
But calling them stakeholders is suggesting that they have an ownership claim in the company, which they don't. You don't have to consider customers "stakeholders" to value the customer experience, that's literally something every business considers.
Whole Foods' business model is on creating a positive customer experience, and they do that through fostering employee loyalty and good training. But Wal-Mart's customer experience values the customer by trying to trim prices as much as possible. They prefer cheaper labor and cutting costs where they can while trying to provide the widest array of products in a single store. But there's plenty of other markets-my local Ingle's Market has the best selection of meat and produce in the town, in addition to a fantastic deli where you pick up a nice, fresh lunch, at the cost of being pricier.
Valuing long-term loyalty over short-term profits is NOT devaluing profits, it's just a different strategy aimed at profits. And shareholders can choose to invest money based on your strategy. Ultimately, if you're giving so much stuff away that you're losing money, you'll lose all your shareholders and won't have a business anymore, so you're still focused on profits, but the way you get to those profits is all a matter of strategy. You can do it through quality control to create brand loyalty, you can do it through quality customer service and customer experience, or you can do it through efficiently cutting every cost you can to trim prices, but they're still all strategies aimed at maximizing profits.
^ This
Mackey doesn't realize that his mushy "Stakeholder" pablum was the inspiration for the socialists and "Stakeholder Capitalism" that is pushing socialism through the corporation.
This isn't just about people being free to make decisions. It is about pointing out that there is indeed NOTHING WRONG with running a straight, profitable business- paying your bills, paying your employees, giving service to your customer and taking home a profit.
I am fine with a business that wants to be virtuous. But that doesn't make a non-virtuous business bad. They are morally neutral. And we should be absolutely ecstatic that there are morally neutral businesses all around the country that deliver us products and return money to customers (through savings), investors (through profits) and employees (through wages) that they can use to be as virtuous as they want. There is nothing about retaining the customer, investor or employee's money that makes a corporate goal any more virtuous than if the individuals got to spend it for themselves.
Mackey's flaw was not his bleeding heart corporation- it was undermining the cause of straight capitalism.
"...But calling them stakeholders is suggesting that they have an ownership claim in the company, which they don't. You don't have to consider customers "stakeholders" to value the customer experience, that's literally something every business considers..."
Precisely. None of our customers has a 'stake' in our business, other than perhaps hoping we are still in business the next time they want to purchase our products.
We appreciate that they do, and do our damndest to make sure we are, but we do so as owners with skin in the game.
What Mackey doesn't understand... or understands by half, is that he thinks that satisfying shareholders is a different thing than satisfying customers and employees. They are all, to some degree, one in the same.
A company that "only satisfied shareholders" but completely ignored its customers will, in the end, fail to satisfy its shareholders. A company that so completely alienates its own employees to the point where it can no longer function internally will, in the end, fail to satisfy its shareholders.
Mackey is perfectly find to talk about these "other stakeholders" as if they're discreet, separate parts of the business that up until now, were an unknown or ignored quotient in capitalism. But unfortunately Mackey is that brand of New Capitalist-- the Ted Talks capitalist who gets on stage with a head mic and spews forth cookie-fortune neuro-sciencey wisdom about how his brand of widgets will transform humanity.
Maybe it will in the aggregate, but if your humanity-transforming business model fails to appeal to the self interest of your customers, you won't survive.
What bugs me is that you don't have to be a genius to grasp this, but you DO need a certain type of genius to actually navigate this. Figuring out how to balance the needs to keep costs while delivering quality products and fostering a brand in a crowded market takes skill and savvy. People like Mackey who succeed and become wealthy doing it are high-functioning, intelligent, and driven people. And yet some of them don't grasp what I think is a low-level concept about how all the social, ecological, and spiritual value they provide to their employees and customers are still simply the strategies they're using in pursuit of the financial gains.
Henry Ford didn't raise wages by over 113% because he was a humanitarian. He did it because it was more cost effective to lure in and keep the best employees working for him instead of having to rehire and retrain half of his workforce every three months. Having the best employees he could get was a means toward increasing the profitability of his company.
Henry Ford isn't a good example. His factories abroad used slave labor under both the Nazi and Soviet systems. And his name is an acronym for "Found On Road Dead" or "Fixed Or Repaired Daily."
The thing that annoys me is that by constantly spouting this garbage he gave exactly the cover necessary to real, honest to god socialists and marxists.
Because what Mackey sold to the world was unprincipled. That is, once you insist that companies have a responsibility, or moral obligation, to do some virtuous things, Mackey can not articulate a principled response for the socialists who say that the corporation should do ONLY virtuous things. It shouldn't take any profit. It shouldn't buy anything that is even marginally "bad". It should give its food away free.
To put it simply, Mackey just a high priced whore, offended that he is now haggling price.
Rather than get bogged down in whether a company is morally obligated to spend its money on shareholders, or customer discounts, or employee benefits or eco-friendly charity drives, we already have a framework that works really, really well: capitalism.
And I don't just mean that capitalism is moral. I mean that it is a system of morals. That is, when an individual takes his property that he earned in free exchange with others and deploys it in a manner he sees fit, he is being moral. As are the people he exchanges with who did the same. Capitalism describes the parameters of these exchanges through property rights, contracts and agreements. And when they follow these rules, personal property owners trading freely among themselves is entirely moral. And that is before you consider the enormous quality of life that has been ushered in by this system.
One of history's greatest tragedies is that such a moral system has been labeled heartless, callous and even evil. Mackey's attempt to layer on additional moral responsibilities to capitalism is part of the reason why this reputation has stuck. Much like the people who redefine "not taking" as "Giving" and "not giving" as "theft", Mackey has helped create a moral framework where being moral is not good enough. And that is why he is seeing the socialists destroy capitalism.
No, Overt, his brand of capitalism is NOT why he is seeing socialists destroy capitalism. You are victim-blaming. The socialists (ie, govt entities and authorities) are destroying capitalism because they hate capitalism in whatever form it takes. They hate freedom, and consequently, they hate America or maybe vice versa. Who knows which they hated first!? Mackey did not provide an inroad for the socialists. Ignorant voters have done that by believing Democrat/fascist/socialist lies for the past 50 years.
It's fine that some entrepreneurs don't feel a deeper obligation to others than merely lining their own pockets. Unless they defraud their customers no guilt can be assigned for that, but it's equally fine if another entrepreneur wants to add to the value of his products with intangibles that appeal to his customers and then to his shareholders. I do agree with the concept of leaving behind better than you found. Isn't that what he has done? In favor of his customers he has taken a different road, one that amazingly his customers don't mind paying for which is to his benefit financially. (To argue that his desire to benefit his customers has a greed motivation is cynical.) To each his own. But his particular jargon that describes his business sense has NOT contributed to socialism. That's an insane conclusion. Perhaps the socialists highjacked HIS jargon!
That absolutely is socialist.
'stakeholder' is a socialist term to justify sticking their nose in to 'represent' people who are not owners, customers, or employees.
Stakeholders are the people who want to wet their beak on someone else's hard work.
FINALLY! A commenter who makes sense. This is my first podcast-listen on Reason, enticed by the headline and the guest of whom I knew nothing. I could have guessed that Whole Foods is a pricey store, have never shopped there. Have been in a Fresh Foods though and found them to be a lovely store but unreasonably expensive and walked out without buying anything. But I know people who do and don't condemn them for it. More power to them. I'm assuming Whole Foods is similar. I don't get the bashing of Mackey and his company for being libertarian and pricey, respectively. He's successfully providing products and value which his customers appreciate. His telling of an employee's story (23yrs, 6 promotions, owes everything to WF) indicates no need for a union IMO. My question: Who bashes a successful, conscientious businessman like Mackey as most here have done? Answer: someone who only knows how to destroy (presumably due to envy & ignorance) with no understanding of how to build up, that's who.
I am obviously not your average Reason reader, given my total disconnect with these comments. People dismissing what Mackey has to say (and has done) because he might be libertarian (he didn't say he was) or because he is resistant to socialism (many commenters demonstrating a total ignorance of what that is)? I don't know who/what you are but you need to change or expand your information source in order to add to the conversation. Start by listening again to the podcast with your brain engaged so hopefully you can learn from this man's vast experience at building a business with massive upsides for employees and investors alike in our, until now anyway, free capitalistic society.
Tim Pool talks like this, too, out of both sides of his mouth.
"How am I supposed to sell kale to yoga enthusiasts if the military is going gay?
Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream?"
Do you realize that fucking ignoramuses like you should fuck off and die?
“Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!“
It won't do your teeth any good if you shoot up, dickhead!
This is why the stampedes to sea salts.
"I believe that the enlightened corporation should try to create value for all of its constituencies" is the gateway for the socialists to march through corporations.
"Constituencies" being people who do not invest in the company and do not purchase its goods and services.
Milton Friedman was right. Yet again.
It is weird. He really seems to be trying to walk a fine line that doesn't really exist.
The differences between John Mackey and me regarding the social responsibility of business are for the most part rhetorical. Strip off the camouflage, and it turns out we are in essential agreement. Moreover, his company, Whole Foods Market, behaves in accordance with the principles I spelled out in my 1970 New York Times Magazine article.
With respect to his company, it could hardly be otherwise. It has done well in a highly competitive industry. Had it devoted any significant fraction of its resources to exercising a social responsibility unrelated to the bottom line, it would be out of business by now or would have been taken over.
Here is how Mackey himself describes his firm's activities:
1) "The most successful businesses put the customer first, instead of the investors" (which clearly means that this is the way to put the investors first).
2) "There can be little doubt that a certain amount of corporate philanthropy is simply good business and works for the long-term benefit of the investors."
...Note first that I refer to social responsibility, not financial, or accounting, or legal. It is social precisely to allow for the constituencies to which Mackey refers. Maximizing profits is an end from the private point of view; it is a means from the social point of view. A system based on private property and free markets is a sophisticated means of enabling people to cooperate in their economic activities without compulsion; it enables separated knowledge to assure that each resource is used for its most valued use, and is combined with other resources in the most efficient way.
Friedman dunked this motherfucker so hard. I don't know why Gillespie references that debate positively for Mackey.
Because so many modern people got capitalism confused with greed would be my guess. Poor reason writers obviously are steeped in leftism, which means this confusion of definitions emanates into the writing here.
He needs to work on his math. If he was born in 1953 he would be 69 not 59. No wonder their prices are so high, the CEO can't count.
Gillespie is referring to his own age in that sentence. It is not a quote from Mackey.
Gfy, a hole.
The interviewer is 59. Mackey is 69. They both know how old they are. Read it again.
Translation for the entire story: I WANT A TAX CUT!
If you're as old as I am (I just turned 59), you will remember how dreary food shopping was before Whole Foods exploded the concept since it came on the scene in 1978. When I was a kid, you were lucky to find two or three types of potatoes in the produce aisle, one type of eggplant, maybe a green bell pepper, and a sad jalapeno or two (jalapenos were almost always sold pickled and in cans). Even in big cities, you had to roam around all over town to find oddball spices that you can now pick up in 7-11s and gas station convenience stores.
--------
This has nothing to do with Whole Foods and everything to do with improved logistics and trade.
Yeah, for real. We've done a much better job of streamlining the process of producing more food and getting it to the store shelves.
Glad someone picked up on that stupid comment.
Likewise, the globalization of transport means we can get fresh produce out of local season, or otherwise unobtainable exotic produce, regardless of where we are.
I don't think Whole Foods invented air freight and container shipping.
Yes, I remember I was an adult the first time I ever saw a kiwi fruit.
Gillespie:
Mackey is 69, not 59. He was born in 1953. I know, nobody said there would be math.
Math is racist!
Gillespie is referring to his own age in that sentence. It is not a quote from Mackey.
Twofer!
A journalist shouldn't reminisce about his own youth and experiences when interviewing someone.
But there are no journalists at Reason, I suppose.
I shopped at the original store on Lamar in Austin cause I lived next door. His employees were jerks and thieves then and they always were, everywhere he went. He had the worst people ever.
He’s retiring, hence why he can speak up and not have to worry about Twitter rage from the woke cult, although most of them stopped shopping at Whole Foods when Mackey criticized Obamacare and the Occupiers.
lol, what? Obamacare is the republican healthcare plan. Obama care perpetuates the need for insurance companies when there is none. Obama care is the Heritage Foundation compromise to Clinton single payer.
How’d that work out for Truett Cathey at Chick Fil A
Genuine, committed socialists are of course terrible. But the thing is, these days they're mostly found in Europe and Latin America.
In the US our self-described "socialists" are just lifestyle brand social media influencers who obediently vote the way billionaires tell them to. Heck, they explicitly support billionaire-friendly policies like open borders.
#LibertariansForAOC
Wait, you're not trolling on this one. I haz a confuze.
I think XE is though.
The description of American socialists is exactly what socialists are everywhere.
It's just feudalism.
Are you talking about the Champaign socialists and limousine liberals? ie: John kerry.
When he says speech is being controlled, is he talking about mere social pressure not to be a cunt to minorities? Or is he talking about people using government to ban books and punish teachers for their speech? Because one of these is perfectly compatible with freedom.
It's always disingenuous contextualization for you, isn't it?
Does the fact that you have to purposefully frame things negatively and histrionically ever cause you to think that your tremendously awful, angry, and depressed life and ideological positioning may need to be rethought?
But they are actually banning books just for mentioning gay people.
You always lie.
If a DeSantis held a book burning and FOX News didn't report on it, did it really happen?
Neither happened.
You mean like Abigail Schrier’s?
Other they’s are indoctrinating small children about tranny’s and gays. Which is actually true, unlike what you said.
https://reason.com/2005/10/01/rethinking-the-social-responsi-2/
Seriously, just go read Friedman's words here. He nailed it. He's performing on a stage Mackey can't even get tickets to view.
Oof! That one hurts!
Happiness should be mutual in any proper relationship, but you'll have to show me someone who actually said that headline.
The exact debate I thought of when I saw this useful idiot decrying socialism.
They briefly discuss abortion at the end. Mackey basically wants to follow the polling (legal to viability), slightly more restrictive than Nick (Nick thinks "it's a fundamental right" to some point). Mackey says something to the effect of drawing the line at viability and after that its murder. So its all good until its suddenly very not good. Kind of interesting to listen to these two [ahem] great thinkers make these abortion arguments as if they are somehow logically coherent. I think they'd be better off acknowledging that their position isn't particularly logical but more reflective of a sort of abortion populism.
The capper though was when Nick tried to steer away from it by pulling out the "well we are guys so why do we even have an opinion! LOL AMIRITE John!" Very persuasive and intellectual.
"well we are guys so why do we even have an opinion! LOL AMIRITE John!"
Like there's a working coherent and bright-line definition of "guys".
In light of your post above it kinda seems like Nick's friendly parry may've landed like a solid uppercut... to the groin. I don't mean to hurt the guy's feelings, but I kinda hope it did just for the hilarity of the tone deafness. Especially in this day and age of political correctness and tiptoeing past the graveyards full of social victims sticking your foot in your mouth in such a fashion is even more hilarious.
All former fetuses are entitled to have a pro-life position ????
John Mackey is absolutely correct. Unless something happens soon, our country will fall just as Rome did.
No, it'll be worse.
Much worse.
Meh, the technology has changed so the mass surveillance and information warfare will be different, but it's still bread and circuses while the collapse happens because human nature is fundamentally the same. The horrific crimes that people will perpetrate on one another will still be the same, because the basic human desires of the bad actors haven't changed. The hard part is to figure out how to convince people to vote Libertarian and peacefully avoid it.
"The horrific crimes that people will perpetrate on one another will still be the same,"
Fighting a civil war with nuclear weapons should put an interesting twist in the horrific crimes department.
Can't help but notice the richest man in the world has not waited for retirement to speak his opinion on political issues.
We've had enough of Trump's tweets, thank you very much.
Trump's tweets were hilarious!
You need to shop in the sense-of-humor aisle.
So the godfather of woke capitalism deplores what is the logical end of woke capitalism?
It is ever thus.
“When I said we should eat the rich, I didn’t mean ME!”
For those prices, the product SHOULD be rich.
Nope.
One of the 'popular economics' books on the shelves (newspaper/ magazine columnist writers, collected columns - 'Underground Economist'?) points out (and it can easily be shown) that Mackey's insights were similar to Job's; marketing was paramount.
He pitched Whole Foods as 'high end', and positioned products (as all supermarkets do) to shelf positions; eye-height at Whole Foods (48"-to-78") got the high-end (high-price, high bragging right) goods.
Like Jobs, he sold self-importance as a product, and it worked. Wife (who likes bubbly water) buys two shelfs down at Whole Foods; cheaper than Raleys.
You are more than welcome to distain his insight and efforts as you are with Steve Job's as "worthless", and I will be on your ass in a minute; worthless? Apple is one of the most valuable businesses in the world, and if you presume to define what is 'worth' something by your opinion, please STFU.
The market (the world of consumers) defines what is worth something.
Consumers rule, make the world a better place, period.
Born in 1953 and is 59 years old? Check your facts there “journalist”
Read the article carefully, please.
Nick was told there would be no math.
"If you're as old as I am (I just turned 59), you will remember how dreary food shopping was before Whole Foods exploded the concept since it came on the scene in 1978."
The fucking fuck? Whole Foods changed supermarkets across the country in less than a decade - even places that didn't have a Whole Foods for another three decades?
It wasn't WF that did that - it was rising affluence and the big chains. Ralph's was the shit in 1980's Tucson.
It's clearly reversing the cause and effect. The same advances that allowed greater food diversity and more fresh stuff on shelves also allowed Whole Foods to grow and thrive. Whole Foods is on the effect side, not the causal side.
There's no Ralph's in Tucson.
Mackey is to grocery as Gates was to software, Jobs to computers, Musk to EV, Bezos to eCommerce and Buffett to investing. Like all humans they all have their faults but like very few humans they made the world better. Mackey is not as wealthy as this group but his efforts in grocery was an innovative and positive influence through out the food chain. I do not agree with all he or the others say but their contributions in their sectors should be respected.
And American Founding Father Charles Pinckney to slavery. Pinckney is not as well known as Washington and Jefferson but he is just as important.
Finally. All year Tony has been alone preaching for government slavery to replace chattel slavery. It's high time he had some help.
Socialism doesn't work.
It never has.
It never will.
It only works until you run out of other people's money.
"I just turned 59"... then you say he was born in 1953. Mmmm... math counts folks. Sign of my "white privilige" that i can do simple math?? BTW... raise your hand if you left hand if you missed it. :).
I is the writer. He is the capitalist/socialist.
"John said that he felt muzzled in his position as CEO of Whole Foods."
It is our capitalists who are the socialists running the show.
Mackey really did make shopping enjoyable in Austin, and his pioneering was quickly imitated by the Henry E. Butts chain. For thus reducing drudgery and increasing happiness, Mackey earned the boiling wrath of every violence-worshipping collectivist anarchist for miles in every direction fanning outward from the State House.
'...Socialists are taking over...' I guess they didn't buy his malarkey about being a capitalist either and took it the same way millions are responding to the Biden administration declaring that our borders are secure.
Read the other article (or enough to get the gist). He doesn't actually refute Friedman - he simply points out that an enlightened person will realize better profits through providing better service - an idea that dates back at least to Rand and probably to Adam Smith as well.
It is nothing but the converse of the notion that you won't build a brand reputation by mistreating your customers.
FreedomFox
August.11.2022 at 12:09 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Whole Foods became one of the worst enforcers of mask mandates in their stores, still are where CDC recommendations are illegally enforced. Masks are and always have been symbolic, never medically effective.
Epidemiologists are trained in behavioral sciences and medical sciences. Theory being they must change people's behaviors to reduce spread of infectious disease. Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) aren't medical in nature. Masks were adopted to spread fear of infectious disease, the symbolic value of them (amygdala reptilian fear response triggers), to stay away from others. A symbol of fear. Mandated.
Symbols are speech. One of the oldest forms of speech. Understood even by the illiterate. If you can mandate speech then you can prohibit it. Mackey mandated speech in his stores. Required all customers to say, "You must fear infectious disease to be shopping inside here." To not wear a mask would be to say, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That speech was censored when purely symbolic masks were required.
Thing is, social distancing is only a preventative measure at onset of a contagion in a community before it becomes widespread. By March, 2020 the contagion was already widespread. Masks made no difference. And were (are) harmful to the wearer, to society. There's even World Court rulings upholding bans on facial coverings as recently as 2019, just months before they were made mandatory, rulings that asserted civil society functions best when people see each other's faces, conflicts and aggression are reduced, our faces are necessary for the smooth social peace, health and tranquility of society. Mask mandates are all harm, no benefit.
John Mackey assisted the socialists taking over, the reduction of civil liberties and injuries to democracies by obeying and enforcing illegal mandates. With gusto at Whole Foods. Like one would expect under Jeff Bezos' CCP Chinese distribution conglomerate.
"Epidemiologists are trained in behavioral sciences and medical sciences. Theory being they must change people's behaviors to reduce spread of infectious disease."
Infectious diseases adapt themselves to exploit human behavior like eating, breathing and having sex. Pretending otherwise is unscientific.
"Masks are and always have been symbolic....And were (are) harmful to the wearer,"
Harmful symbols?
Yes, I characterized infectious disease behavior control as theory. Especially when the pathogen exists in the environment external and independent of humans, have animal reservoirs. CV (and all influenza) exists among birds, deer, lions, rodents, etc., cross species is the norm, not the exception. Exterminate all humans and CV, influenza still exists. Controlling human behavior to control this virus is impossibility. The theory is malarkey, just an excuse to control humans.
Warm, moist masks trap dangerous pathogens in them, inhaled repeatedly. Staph, strep, fungi, virus, a petri dish of danger, stressing immune systems, constantly warding off infection.
Reduced oxygen flow reduces cognitive functioning. Brain sizes actually atrophy without it (scientific evidence is now accumulating that this is indeed happening today). No, you won't die...immediately. But your higher thinking skills become impaired. And is most harmful to young, growing brains, that aren't given a chance to grow and develop properly. We need the amount of oxygen our unrestricted noses and mouths take in to be healthy, God and nature didn't give us excess lung capacity and oxygen consumption. Neither Darwin's evolutionary theory nor God's intelligent design would support such a thesis that restricting air flow is harmless.
And I already expanded up on the socialization aspects of masking. Harmful to the survival of a interpersonal species. Faces have more muscles in them than the rest of the body combined. Neither Darwin's evolutionary theory nor God's intelligent design would support such a thesis that tiny muscles found on faces are without purpose, nonverbal communication among social beings are imperative, not frivolous and nonessential.
"Controlling human behavior to control this virus is impossibility. "
I disagree. We humans control our behavior all the time. We do it every time we cover our mouths when we cough. It's not clear what point you are trying to make other than you don't like masks.
LOLOLOL!! You believe in "Germ theory!!" And criticizing others?!?! You believe cooties! Most of us got over that after elementary school. Germ theory (cooties) is the most disproven science of all. If you had normal cognition capabilities you 'd learn about your terrain. Health outcomes are entirely predicated in the state of your internal terrain, not germs. It's not an accident that the obese and diabetic had 80 of the severe infections and deaths from CV. As they do from every other illness. Called comorbidities for a reason.
You know, the fatso's in the supermarket pushing around carts full of soda and junk food yelling at the fit, healthy people with carts full of vegetables and fish to put their masks on. Cutting down on one 2-liter of soda a week would save more lives than 100,000 people in a city wearing masks indoors. Inner terrain. Personal responsibility for one's own health. Not collective misery imposed because the irresponsible can't hear the truth, that they are killing themselves.
But go ahead, blame cooties, germs. Like a good little indoctrinated collectivist who imagines themselves superior beings because a Marxist professor told them they were. You got nothing to offer humanity.
You really should cover your mouth when you cough. For the sake of others and in spite of the communistic implications. You'll find that controlling your behavior is not the onerous task you make it out to be.
You don’t learn, do you? The better response from you would be to slink away I’m shame and silence.
To reiterate, masks are symbols. They provoke fear. Masked faces trigger the same amygdala fear response as seeing snakes does. Research in National Institute of Health library explains this. It is a base, reptilian brain response. Sure, you can use logic to push through the instinctive fear, but it is still an interpretive mental effort that must first settle down the amygdala fear response to not fight, flight or freeze. A behavioral science symbol, known to evoke fear, to change perspectives by amplifying fear that our own lived experiences don't convey is present, since people were never sick or dying in numbers to matter. Were a rounding error in annual mortality figures, imperceptible. They wanted us to think illness and death were all around us in greater numbers than it is so we'd agree to give up our civil liberties.
And because it is behavioral "science" - pssst - it worked! Science! Not hard, natural medical science. Soft, social, behavioral science. Aka The Science (TM). Masks are prescribed by Doctors of Psychology usually smoking pipes with patients laying down on couches. Not by Doctors of Medicine usually wearing white coats and stethoscopes. The Doctors of Psychology put on the costume of white coats and stethoscopes, though, for unearned credibility and authority. Psyche! - is on the population.
"To reiterate, masks are symbols. They provoke fear. "
Some masks are kind of scary, I suppose, especially for little children. Ones with animal or skull designs on them. In Japan, mask wearing, even for children, is a long established practice and I don't think they provoke fear or that the parents are trying to provoke fear in those who contact their mask wearing children.
Masks are a relatively new item of clothing in the US, so it's natural for sensitive people to feel fear. Once the practice has had some time to let us get accustomed, the fear will go.
I see you're a science denier mtrueman. Your ignorance in your comments reveal you for who you are and your diminished cognitive reasoning skills. Which limits you to being a sniper of those who present knowledge without you having to reveal your diminished cognition. For the truly interested who are following this thread I offer this. Not for you, mtrueman, because it's way over your reading comprehension skills and would take too much time away from your trolling others.
Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
November 19, 2009
onlinelibrary[dot]wiley[dot]com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00784.x
I agree that some masks can be frightening, especially for small children, and snake masks may even frighten adults. The problem will go away in a few years once Americans grow accustomed to wearing masks as a matter of routine.
We don't AHole Foods up here in northern Michigan. A few natural foods stores that I no longer shop at in fear of having to be cross examined by the SJW puritans or having to declare my pronoun. So I'm left to shop at local grocery stores and Meijers. I never shop at Wally World.
Unless you like spend three time the amount for groceries, by all mean shop at that store. It is a free country after all, free at least to spend your own money but that may soon be taken away.
Our other freedoms that ain't so free anymore.
A meat-aging butcher? What does he do, tell the meat it's getting audited by the IRS? 😉
I think it's just Jews taking over. They run the universities, media, and consequently can create what gives people clout and what strivers put on their bumper stickers. It's the Jews.
No, it's the race baiting fed trolls taking over.
Izzat chu, Misek? Izzat chu, Nemo Aequalis?
If so, or if not, Fuck Off, Nazi!
John Mackey is the typical corporate market whore. His high priced "Whole Paycheck" retail schtick has been relying on leftists and libs who will spend the money on overpriced "health food".
His inflated CEO paycheck has been like a political self-censoring device. If he were being honest all these years about his politics, much of his liberal Whole Foods clientele would back off on the extravagant spending in his stores.
But NOW that his pockets are bulging and his retirement cash cow is about to kick in, ol' John decides to speak some truth. Hey, now WF's survival relies on Jeff Bezos, and we know that Bezos is full blown corporate whore.
There is a massive herd of American corporate profiteering market concubines who gladly sell their souls at the expense of their country.
That is NOT capitalism, John, that's corporate oligarchy.
Well put. Thank you
As a small business conservative, I'd like to see the Wall St billionaire class suited up and shipped off to Ukraine for some real education on how their predatory mindset effects real people.
Argh! He's either 59 years old, or he was born in 1953, but he's not both! If he was born in 1953, he is 69 years old. If he is 59 years old, he was born in 1963.
The grocery store meat cases in the U.S. are looking and smelling more and more like a Chinese wet market.
Whole foods RUINED health food industry!
There's literally an entire debate on here between Mackey and Friedman where Mackey defends corporations having a "social responsibility" besides maximizing profits. You're the fucking problem, you idiot.
You claim to be a huge fan of Any Rand, but you're literally James Taggart from Atlas Shrugged.
Milton Friedman says 'that such people are "preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades."'
So Mackey has unwittingly been supporting socialist creep in our institutions for 30 years.
Good show, John Mackey, about improving values for customers across the demographic.
Gone seem to be the days when if a person wanted to build infrasructure to accommodate customers, then it was their choice, and noncompliance by competitors may result in implicit terms of competition where a favorite wins. Now popular rule alone may purport that an implied majority gets to dictate who wins without letting those slaves determine that icky science behind how they please customers.