Whole Foods' Co-Founder John Mackey: "Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism"

[King Kreole]

So a job invalidates exploitation? Not a very compelling argument. Edison, Jobs, and Graham bell all profited directly off of others ideas, but since they owned the patent they got the proceeds.

You said tha capitalism rewards ideas, not ownership. However these guys clearly got the lions share of rewards not for having ideas, but for owning others'. Do you have a counterpoint other than diatribes against central planning(which I don't support) and basic income(which I am undecided on)?

Starting a patent farm is an idea in itself. We see the same thing happening right now in these Silicon Valley incubators. It takes skill and ingenuity to convince someone to sell you their ideas. The people who decided to come work for Edison, Jobs and Bell weren't forced to do so by gunpoint. They all did the arithmetic and decided that whatever benefits they received from working for these men (wage, stability, safety, etc) outweighed the benefits of going solo. As long as they had the option to go on their own, I see no problem with them exercising their free choice and making a decision that they felt was best for them.

 

[Tate]

Starting a patent farm is an idea in itself. We see the same thing happening right now in these Silicon Valley incubators. It takes skill and ingenuity to convince someone to sell you their ideas. The people who decided to come work for Edison, Jobs and Bell weren't forced to do so by gunpoint. They all did the arithmetic and decided that whatever benefits they received from working for these men (wage, stability, safety, etc) outweighed the benefits of going solo. As long as they had the option to go on their own, I see no problem with them exercising their free choice and making a decision that they felt was best for them.

My point isn't that there was even coercion here. It's that capitalism isn't based around rewarding ideas, but rewarding ownership.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

My point isn't that there was even coercion here. It's that capitalism isn't based around rewarding ideas, but rewarding ownership.

You have to own an idea to capitalize on it. W/o that how could we properly assign credit? Anyone could just claim they had a hand and get the windfall. Should we make all ideas public property?

 

[Tate]

You have to own an idea to capitalize on it. W/o that how could we properly assign credit? Anyone could just claim they had a hand and get the windfall. Should we make all ideas public property?

So you agree that capitalism rewards ownership, not ideas?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

So you agree that capitalism rewards ownership, not ideas?

How can/why should we reward someone for an idea they don't own?

 

[Tate]

How can/why should we reward someone for an idea they don't own?

Now you know I asked first

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Now you know I asked first

You are trying to whittle down a complex concept to a yes or no question. Lets take the Edison thing for example. If it's "well known" that he stole the credit for the light bulb, why didn't the scientists working for him take him to court? If it was really their idea and everyone knows it that should have been an open shut case

How exactly do you propose that we give credit for ideas to the right people, if the current system doesn't work?

 

[Tate]

You are trying to whittle down a complex concept to a yes or no question. Lets take the Edison thing for example. If it's "well known" that he stole the credit for the light bulb, why didn't the scientists working for him take him to court? If it was really their idea and everyone knows it that should have been an open shut case

How exactly do you propose that we give credit for ideas to the right people, if the current system doesn't work?

So you agree and now instead of larks into criticizing welfare state morality and Stalinism or admitting so you want to step back and talk patent law?

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

So you agree and now instead of larks into criticizing welfare state morality and Stalinism or admitting so you want to step back and talk patent law?

pick one because I don't even know what the hell you guys are arguing about anymore.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

just watched the video.

"we'd like to pay him 10 cents an hour but then tom would go work for someone else..."

^ all you need to know about this guy's mentality right there. i know he was just framing an example but it goes to show you that his default state of mind is one of getting labor for as cheaply as possible. then he goes onto say that he would have to cut back on service unless his customers are willing to pay for it.

this is clearly not a man who's interested in "less profit".

and mind you as a man on his own grind, i don't think anyone should be interested in "less profit". anyone who says they want less money in life is lying. but when you are the owner of a very successful business and you become wealthy, i believe you owe it to pay back into the system and make sure that your employees aren't struggling to live.

so if having to pay someone an extra 4-5 dollars an hour means you only made 200 million dollars instead of 300 million dollars, i'm sorry you don't really have my sympathy.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

just watched the video.

"we'd like to pay him 10 cents an hour but then tom would go work for someone else..."

^ all you need to know about this guy's mentality right there. i know he was just framing an example but it goes to show you that his default state of mind is one of getting labor for as cheaply as possible. then he goes onto say that he would have to cut back on service unless his customers are willing to pay for it.

this is clearly not a man who's interested in "less profit".

and mind you as a man on his own grind, i don't think anyone should be interested in "less profit". anyone who says they want less money in life is lying. but when you are the owner of a very successful business and you become wealthy, i believe you owe it to pay back into the system and make sure that your employees aren't struggling to live.

so if having to pay someone an extra 4-5 dollars an hour means you only made 200 million dollars instead of 300 million dollars, i'm sorry you don't really have my sympathy.

BUT, and I mean this as a devil's advocate, that extra 100M means he can't invest in new shyt or maintain a competitive edge in a business like grocery thats notoriously hard to differentiate yourself in.

I'm interested in how these new off brand stores of cheaper products will work out

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You are trying to whittle down a complex concept to a yes or no question. Lets take the Edison thing for example. If it's "well known" that he stole the credit for the light bulb, why didn't the scientists working for him take him to court? If it was really their idea and everyone knows it that should have been an open shut case

How exactly do you propose that we give credit for ideas to the right people, if the current system doesn't work?

I think he was sued.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

My point isn't that there was even coercion here. It's that capitalism isn't based around rewarding ideas, but rewarding ownership.

because ideas aren't valuable unless declared via patent or owned via implementation/manifestation

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

BUT, and I mean this as a devil's advocate, that extra 100M means he can't invest in new shyt or maintain a competitive edge in a business like grocery thats notoriously hard to differentiate yourself in.

I'm interested in how these new off brand stores of cheaper products will work out

if you can't maintain a competitive edge in this country and also pay your employees a living wage, then you don't deserve to be in business imo.

there needs to be standards. the question is can the government be the ones to enforce them. one thing is for sure, if they don't... it will never get done.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Lol, this is exactly the kind of intellectual jealousy dude was talking about. This is the economic equivalent to "girls only date a$$holes.... under my system 'nice guys' would win by default"

OF COURSE capitalism values ideas. The automobile was an idea. The computer was an idea. The telephone was an idea. Using oil as an energy source was an idea. Google was an idea. Capitalism enabled the creators of these ideas to be appropriately rewarded. Socialism would NOT, and by extension would STIFLE ideas. The only idea socialism rewards is the idea that one person can't have too much more than anyone else, and that property differential is arbitrarily set by people whose ideas are not of much practical value to society.

There's definitely a lot this dude is not on the money about, but his point about intellectuals wanting to control everything is spot on. The concept of a world where the biggest activity (commerce) is decentralized frightens you. I do think there are aspects of society that should be more public/centralized that aren't.... particularly sectors where info is scarce and providers use that confusion to their advantage, like healthcare and insurance. But the simple idea that you as an intellectual can't have a say in every transaction or business relationship or paycheck is not something you are willing to accept.

Intellectuals need to stop pontificating over how to control everyone and start creating ideas that are of value to society. Thats the only way they will get the respect they feel they deserve.

I think that while I disagree with what Mackey had to say (despite what people think), that he touched a nerve on calling out the Ivory Tower and make them face that mirror and come to terms with the notion that their value is still market derived unless subsidized by the bubble of academia.

But the job of the state is to promote the arts and culture AND research so theres hopefully room for all...unless you're a struggling academic