5 ms·

Wow. Ok, here goes. Friedman's answer to Mackey is brilliant and exactly as how I expected it should be. I remember reading Friedman's "The Only responsibility

by vantran 17y ago

Wow. Ok, here goes. Friedman's answer to Mackey is brilliant and exactly as how I expected it should be. I remember reading Friedman's "The Only responsibility of business is to increase its profit", which makes Mackey words here quite laughable. Mackey does not realize that Whole Food may be putting the customers first, but this is done SOLELY because it would also benefit Whole Food in the first place. It is exactly as Friedman had already stated in his article. Businesses do contribute to the community, but the motive is not (and should not) be without the consideration of the investors. Mackey keeps talking about "balancing responsibilities to stakeholders". Well, I'm sorry but that's disguising the fact that investors do and should always have higher priority. Sure, Whole Foods did well donating 5%, but imagine a scenario where Whole Foods did bad: donating 15% of its profit, and not getting many customers in return (in other words its disguised marketing fails). Do you think Whole Foods would continue donating 15% until it goes out of business? Will Mackey be able to use his Whole Foods argument anymore? 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). I really really like this sentence, because it summarized my sentiment perfectly. How could you not see that? If it works for you, great. But you wouldn't be doing it if it doesn't work. Don't even pretend. Mackey: "Making high profits is the means to the end of fulfilling Whole Foods' core business mission. We want to improve the health and well-being of everyone on the planet through higher-quality foods and better nutrition, and we can't fulfill this mission unless we are highly profitable." Let's be serious. This is what Mackey wants people to think. What Whole Foods does, is "enhance the pleasure of SHOPPING for food", which I agree. Whole Foods does this well, with all the food literature in its store. It creates a false illusion that you're buying something more than just food (thus justifying its price). I have Michael Pollan's The Omnivore Dilemma next to me. If you read chapter 9 you'd have a different perspective of what Whole Foods is about (different from the one Mackey is advocating here).

DaniFong 17y ago
How do you suppose their motives? Do you claim to have some sort of window into the minds of those working at Whole Foods? Maybe the people of Whole Foods, the entrepreneurs, the investors, the daily stakeholders, are in fact working towards the benefit of society as a whole because that's what motivates them. Many people find their happiness in the growth and happiness of other human beings. It is implied that this other-centeredness is normal only if it is confined to romantic partners, or nuclear family, but who among us isn't moved by the struggles of a population ravaged by natural disaster, war, plague or famine? It may well be that one's motivations, human creatures as we are, might be shoehorned into the rubric of self-interest (misleadingly named though it would be) by saying that other-centeredness makes us feel better. But one might as easily say that one's more self-centered actions are in fact shaped by the entire society as in the invisible hand, designed in fact to help others: your food choices are not, in fact, your own, but shaped by corporate stakeholders for their own interests. You can look at it either way. The point is that motivations are varied and complex, and cannot be summarized neatly in phrases such as 'utility' or 'self-interest' without hiding demons worth of complexity within them. I personally work for others, for the people of the world, the whole of its green mantle, the earth's future potential. In this way I extend my extended phenotype, it is true -- in some way I will exist and persist as forces and memes and influences varied and grander and grander, with time, if cloudier, muddied, dilute. But I will also be working for something that has always been and will always be greater than my own small self. There is joy in this, but it is not centered in me.
- vantran 17y ago
  No, I don't claim to have "some sort of windows" into their minds, and I don't claim to know whatever their motives are. But I do see the pretentiousness behind what he claims it is. Sure, they are working towards the benefit society. Anyone who has a job can justifiably claim so, unless they are doing something really evil/wrong. How? That is already covered by Friedman and Rodgers. When you work, you contribute to society in a particular way, and you can/should be proud of it. Let's get back to Whole Foods. What is really the motive behind a business such as Whole Foods when they do something such as donate their 5% profit? Mackey gives 1 reason himself: "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." There, so 1 reason is precisely because it benefits the business, thus it benefits the shareholders. The business gains goodwill, an intangible, not taxable asset capable of generating future profit. Nobody is advocating that you should not love your society and donate a little. What's essentially being argued is your core interest. And to pretend that the investors don't have anything to do with it, well that's really just a cloak to disguise business motives. If the core interest does not involve the shareholders, what happen if the business falls on hard time? Whole Foods may be doing well, but like I said before, what if it donated more and not getting the publicity/customers it wanted, while the business itself is failing? As a business goes through hard time, it will realize the importance of the shareholders interest, to avoid being out of business, which would serve society no good. Which is pretty much why Rodgers called Mackey's article: "How Business and Profit Making Fit Into My Overarching Philosophy of Altruism." To Mackey, what he thinks he's doing leads to profit. To Rodgers, it is profit that leads to what he did, and I agree. Mackey also claims that it'd be justifiable even if his donation program did not generate PR/profit. To which I don't agree, on what grounds would it be justifiable when you are using someone else's money for your own interest? And also the part where he claims he "hired" his investors. I think Rodgers already talk about that. He can afford to say this only because Whole Foods is doing well. The donation program happened to serve the business needs but that doesn't mean the opposite. Perhaps I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but Friedman and Rodgers do have very good points in that article that pretty much sums up everything.
  - DaniFong 17y ago

by vantran 17y ago

DaniFong 17y ago

How do you suppose their motives? Do you claim to have some sort of window into the minds of those working at Whole Foods? Maybe the people of Whole Foods, the entrepreneurs, the investors, the daily stakeholders, are in fact working towards the benefit of society as a whole because that's what motivates them. Many people find their happiness in the growth and happiness of other human beings. It is implied that this other-centeredness is normal only if it is confined to romantic partners, or nuclear family, but who among us isn't moved by the struggles of a population ravaged by natural disaster, war, plague or famine? It may well be that one's motivations, human creatures as we are, might be shoehorned into the rubric of self-interest (misleadingly named though it would be) by saying that other-centeredness makes us feel better. But one might as easily say that one's more self-centered actions are in fact shaped by the entire society as in the invisible hand, designed in fact to help others: your food choices are not, in fact, your own, but shaped by corporate stakeholders for their own interests. You can look at it either way. The point is that motivations are varied and complex, and cannot be summarized neatly in phrases such as 'utility' or 'self-interest' without hiding demons worth of complexity within them. I personally work for others, for the people of the world, the whole of its green mantle, the earth's future potential. In this way I extend my extended phenotype, it is true -- in some way I will exist and persist as forces and memes and influences varied and grander and grander, with time, if cloudier, muddied, dilute. But I will also be working for something that has always been and will always be greater than my own small self. There is joy in this, but it is not centered in me.

vantran 17y ago
No, I don't claim to have "some sort of windows" into their minds, and I don't claim to know whatever their motives are. But I do see the pretentiousness behind what he claims it is. Sure, they are working towards the benefit society. Anyone who has a job can justifiably claim so, unless they are doing something really evil/wrong. How? That is already covered by Friedman and Rodgers. When you work, you contribute to society in a particular way, and you can/should be proud of it. Let's get back to Whole Foods. What is really the motive behind a business such as Whole Foods when they do something such as donate their 5% profit? Mackey gives 1 reason himself: "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." There, so 1 reason is precisely because it benefits the business, thus it benefits the shareholders. The business gains goodwill, an intangible, not taxable asset capable of generating future profit. Nobody is advocating that you should not love your society and donate a little. What's essentially being argued is your core interest. And to pretend that the investors don't have anything to do with it, well that's really just a cloak to disguise business motives. If the core interest does not involve the shareholders, what happen if the business falls on hard time? Whole Foods may be doing well, but like I said before, what if it donated more and not getting the publicity/customers it wanted, while the business itself is failing? As a business goes through hard time, it will realize the importance of the shareholders interest, to avoid being out of business, which would serve society no good. Which is pretty much why Rodgers called Mackey's article: "How Business and Profit Making Fit Into My Overarching Philosophy of Altruism." To Mackey, what he thinks he's doing leads to profit. To Rodgers, it is profit that leads to what he did, and I agree. Mackey also claims that it'd be justifiable even if his donation program did not generate PR/profit. To which I don't agree, on what grounds would it be justifiable when you are using someone else's money for your own interest? And also the part where he claims he "hired" his investors. I think Rodgers already talk about that. He can afford to say this only because Whole Foods is doing well. The donation program happened to serve the business needs but that doesn't mean the opposite. Perhaps I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but Friedman and Rodgers do have very good points in that article that pretty much sums up everything.
- DaniFong 17y ago