Help
Sign In
competative market
October 2008 
What is 'conscious capitalism'?
Posted on Jul 12th, 2007
by 
Skeye
Skeye
[I may be updating with more soon, but for now this will do.]
I find the new revelations into the practices of John Mackey and at Whole
Foods Inc. worth questioning. And no, the statement: "the views expressed
by Mr. Mackey do not reflect those of Whole foods" does not ring true here.
Whole Foods CEO Attacked Rival Online
Thursday July 12, 3:45 am ET
Whole Foods CEO Made Anonymous Online Attacks Against Rival Before Offering
to Buy It
DALLAS (AP) -- The chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. wrote anonymous
online attacks against a smaller rival and questioned why anyone would buy its
stock, before Whole Foods announced an offer to buy the other company this
year.
The postings on Internet financial forums, made under the name "rahodeb,"
said Wild Oats Markets Inc. stock was overpriced. The statements predicted
the company would fall into bankruptcy and then be sold after its stock fell
below $5 per share.
In February, Whole Foods announced it would buy Wild Oats for about $565
million, or $18.50 per share.
The company acknowledged that the postings by "rahodeb" were written by CEO
John Mackey.
They were made public this week as part of a lawsuit by the Federal Trade
Commission to block Whole Foods from buying Wild Oats on antitrust grounds.
Regulators say the sale would combine the two largest organic and natural
foods retailers and raise prices for consumers by concentrating too much
power in one company.
Austin-based Whole Foods defended Mackey's postings, saying they were being
taken out of context years later.
"Mr. Mackey made those postings from 1999 to 2006 under an alias to avoid
having his comments associated with the company and to avoid others placing
too much emphasis on his remarks," Whole Foods said.
The company added that many of Mackey's opinions in the postings "now have
far less relevance than when they were written. In addition, like most people, Mr.
Mackey's opinion about some things has changed over time."
Whole Foods concluded by saying the comments were Mackey's, not those of the
company.
One posting, from January 2005, questioned why anyone would buy shares of
Wild Oats at their price then of about $8 each, The Wall Street Journal
reported.
"Would Whole Foods buy (Wild Oats)? Almost surely not at current prices,"
rahodeb wrote. "What would they gain? (Their) locations are too small."
Rahodeb also said Boulder, Colo.-based Wild Oats' management "clearly doesn't
know what it is doing." The company, he wrote, "has no value and no future."
Mackey has led an unusually public countercharge to the FTC's attempt to
block his company's purchase of Wild Oats. He has said both companies
compete in a much larger market because many traditional grocers now sell
organic and natural foods.
Mackey used the blog on his company's Web site recently to bash the FTC. He
ridiculed the FTC's reasoning that it needed to stop Whole Foods from
eliminating a competitor. If that were the case, he said, the FTC should
never permit any mergers because they necessarily remove a rival from the
marketplace.
[Hmmm, this is a really questionable statement. Is Mr. Mackey saying that
there is no reason to question 'how' a merger comes about? That a merger
is always good for business? - Skeye]
The blog broadside by Mackey came after the FTC moved to release sealed
documents which quoted the CEO telling Whole Foods directors that buying Wild
Oats would help the company "avoid nasty price wars" and block a bigger
retailer from building a national natural-foods chain.
The FTC lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Washington.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whole Foods CEO Launched Anonymous Web Attacks on Rival Company
John Mackey Panned Wild Oats in Posts
By Peter Kaplan
Jul 11, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. posted
messages on a Yahoo! chat forum under an alias for years, talking up his own
company while predicting a bleak future for Wild Oats Markets Inc. , the
rival it has since sought to acquire.
Company CEO John Mackey posted messages on a Yahoo! financial forum under
the user name "rahodeb," according to a court document filed by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission and postings on Yahoo!
Mackey's messages painted a bright future for Whole Foods, the largest U.S.
natural and organic grocer, and downplayed the threat posed by competitors.
"The writing is on the wall. The end game is now underway for (Wild Oats) ....
Whole Foods is systematically destroying their viability as a business --
market by market, city by city," Mackey wrote in a March 28, 2006 posting.
[this 'aggressive' language and practice is 'concious'? This is 'healthy
competetion'? - Skeye]
It was cited by the FTC as part of a lawsuit aimed at blocking Whole Foods'
planned $565 million acquisition of Wild Oats on grounds the deal would
hobble competition and increase prices to consumers.
"Bankruptcy remains a distinct possibility (for Wild Oats) IMO if the
business isn't sold within the next few years," rahodeb said in another
March 29, 2006 posting on Yahoo!
Whole Foods confirmed Mackey had made the "rahodeb" postings between 1999 and
2006. It said references to those comments were among millions of documents
the company provided to the FTC as part of the agency's antitrust lawsuit.
In a statement, the company said Mackey posted comments under an alias "to
avoid having his comments associated with the company and to avoid others
placing too much emphasis on his remarks."
"The 'rahodeb' postings are the personal postings of Mr. Mackey and not those
of the company," Whole Foods said.
In separate comments posted on Whole Foods' Web site, Mackey said he "posted
on Yahoo! under a pseudonym because I had fun doing it. Many people post on
bulletin boards using pseudonyms."
"The views articulated by rahodeb sometimes represent what I actually
believed and sometimes they didn't. Sometimes I simply played 'devil's
advocate' for the sheer fun of arguing," Mackey said on the company Web site.
"All of rahodeb's postings also need to be understood in the context of the
time that they were written. Because the competitive market has evolved so
much in the last 5 years, older postings mean far less today than they did
when they were written," Mackey wrote.
Whole Foods announced plans to buy Wild Oats in February. The companies have
said the merger should be allowed to proceed in light of fierce competition
in the overall grocery business.
But in some postings, rahodeb downplayed other supermarkets as potential
competitors that could hurt Whole Foods.
"If you are waiting for Trader Joe's or Wegmans to slow down the Whole Foods
express train you're going to be waiting the rest of your life. It ain't
(going to) happen," rahodeb said in a September 28, 2005 posting in
response to another participant.
"You say that competition is increasing against Whole Foods, but continue to
ignore the fact that your so-called competition isn't hurting them," rahodeb
wrote in an October 3 2005 posting.
The FTC's complaint was filed June 6, but portions were initially kept under
seal. The FTC released the document late Tuesday.
On his personal blog, Mackey has accused the FTC of distorting his private
statements in order to portray him as excessively aggressive and bent on
eliminating healthy competition.
~~~~~~~~~~
I include both these articles because they offer extended perspective on Mr.
Mackey's supposed actions and perspective. For Mr. Mackey to refer to Whole
Foods as an 'express train' is somewhat revealing I feel, or at least
questionable.
And this,
"In a statement, the company said Mackey posted comments under an alias "to
avoid having his comments associated with the company and to avoid others
placing too much emphasis on his remarks."
...has a ring of untruth to it. Yet his remarks, those that we have seen so
far, have been to 'de-emphasize' the competition. Is it not questionable for
Mr. Mackey to accept the acclaim for being the mastermind behind Whole Foods,
and then when it is unfavorable to 'detach' from it?
I am also including links to previous posts that I have offered in regards to
economic growth, conscious(spiritual) capitalism, sustainablity and offer
them again in light of these new developments.
What is 'conscious capitalism'? What is 'sustainable'? What is 'integrity'?
And what is the true intention of Mr. Mackey and Whole Foods?
I am not saying that these articles hold the whole truth, but Mr. Mackey's
comments and responses to this news are cause enough for asking these
questions.
And if you do not feel so, then why not? Really, I'd like to know.
The Field of Zaadz, capitalism and the questioning of intention
More perspective on 'commercialized spirituality'
Let's talk 'sustainability'
And here is a long and thorough comment (takes a few momments to load) on
Brian's 'Business Model' blog post, which never really got a response but is
relevant to the new developments at Whole Foods.
Thanks for listening...peace, Skeye
Access: PublicTagged with: Whole Foods, conscious capitalism, questioning, integrity, competative market, monopoly, growth
Hi Skeye,
Thanks for your thoughts. I also have a lot of questions and concerns about Mackey's behavior and responses. You can see them over at c4chaos's blog on this matter. I'm also getting the sense, though I know next to nothing about Integral Philosophy, that some adherents tend to use its frameworks to sidestep the obvious: the Mackey screwed up big-time. Who in their right minds could argue that the CEO of a publicly traded company is doing something wise and good in going to a popular financial message board to praise himself (and his haircut!?!) and his company and trash his competitors? One can love the person and still take issue with their actions and comments. But what is problematic for me about all this is how it undermines all of Mackey's other public statements regarding his intention for Whole Foods and how it will serve the planet as a 'conscious' corporation. I hate to compare Mackey to George Bush, but, like Bush, he seems unwilling or unable to admit that he has ever done anything wrong or questionable. That, to me, is a very scary trait in anyone – environmentalist or spiritual guru or businessman.
Hey, Skeye.
Some of my thoughts on this very same subject, from an earlier post:
http://littleskybear.zaadz.com/blog/2007/7/conscious_capitalism_and_capital_consciousness_some_thoughts
Capital-ism.
Capitalism fails the child in Memphis tied to a mailbox while his mother goes through a garbage can to find their breakfast. They are not empowered. They eat the consciousness of our scraps. They are surviving, not thriving.
The poor are always with us?
All -isms fail this child and his mother. Consciousness requires a capital change of perspective, unless we see that garbage as their capital. In that case, they are freelance refuse managers, and not sad and lonely castaways of a culture that does not see them, and cares just long enough for the cut to commercial, or the page to refresh, or the blog to post.
Consciously capitalizing.
As to larger issues, many will prosper, and are prospering now, in this “new age” of enlightened entrepreneurs, a global mafia of linguistically gifted, intellectually underpowered neospiritualists all grabbing at the same proverbial teat, acknowledging the knowledge, and missing the rope that links child to can.
Consider the cult of integrality, and the impress of inspiraling discourses. Even Ken appreciates the difference between acolytes and atrophy. Messages and messengers, McLuhan was right. And so was Orwell. And so is Ken, when he reminds the flock not to be a flock.
But it's so easy to flock. Capital may support consciousness, but it can also diminish it. Unless diminishing returns are, in and of themselves, the whole point. If it's all relative, then why does it matter?
Mother Child Mailbox Garbage Can Breakfast
But we've seen it all before, in recent times and in ages past. Why should it be any different in the new Babylon, the transnational marketplace of ideas, and people. WallStreet meets Darfur, and everybody makes money, except the poorest of the poor. Perhaps they are the capital for the new age.
Conscious capitalism would pull its own plug, in the name of the greater good, taking unconscious, madrugadic, just now waking, wiping the sleep from its eyes, and awakened- capitalism with it, if it had self-sacrifice in its mantra-box. But like all systems, it values its own survival, transmutation, and propagation above all else.
One day, when the lights go out, everywhere at the same time, we'll see consciousness in action. Until then, healthy debate and good food won't hurt any of us.
Now these are comments that help the flow of discourse and communion…are informative and sharing of perspective, offering more reflection. Thank you both! :)
Thelama: Yes, the unwillingness to remain open to questioning a 'leader' of 'concious capitalism' has been suspect to me. As John points out: “All -isms fail this child and his mother.” and the solidifying of a belief around 'who is doing what and why' can obscure one to being aware of patterns of behavior that exist within themselves. As if identifying with someone that is supposedly an example/image of 'goodness' negates thier own 'badness' and that that 'ideal person' is not capable of being or doing 'wrong'.
To be truly conscious one must remain open and acknopwledge the reality of the fullness of human complexities. Things are often not what they seem on the surface, but it is a common impulse to identify/label something to have a 'known', to not be in the 'unknown' or in ambiguity…but ambiguity is necessary for the freshness of Now. We can only 'know' something 'now', which is ever present and that which flows in 'now' is ever changing. So we cannot assume that anything is what it was 'then'…it is what it is…until it proves otherwise.
Thelama: “I also have a lot of questions and concerns about Mackey's behavior and responses. You can see them over at c4chaos's blog on this matter.”
Not finding which blog post it is in, can you point me to it? :)