Whole Foods CEO John Mackey on ending poverty, being libertarian, and more (full video)

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey on ending poverty, being libertarian, and more (full video)

Show Video

Of, course there's the old saying, I, forget who said it but I think it was true in my life which. Is if. At the age of twenty-one you you're. Not a socialist, then you don't have any any. Heart and, if by the age thirty you. Still are and then you don't have any brains, so. That. Was kind of my experience I started, out young and idealistic and. Social. Justice and. Fair. Distribution of resources and. And. We were I didn't understand where everybody couldn't be equally, prosperous. And. Starting. My own business. Was, kind of a wake-up call in a number of different ways I had. To I had to meet a payroll every week and we. Had to satisfy customers. And we, had competitors, that that. We had to. Compete. With in order to have those customers come into our stores and we. Had to compete with other employers, for our, for. Our employees. We had to the, wages, were under competitive pressures, so there was all this competition. On us that, that. Of course made. Them operating, the business successfully, difficult, and. It's. Kind of like having to meet a payroll and, having to meet the demands of our customers is a, great. Destroyer. Of utopian. Fantasies. And utopian utopian, ideologies. You you're, in the real world and you have to you. Have to meet the market test every, day and, every week and I just, found that the belief system that I had, going into, operating. That business was was, inadequate, to explain the. Experiences. That I was having in business and I began. To. Look. Around and, read, other books and, other philosophies. To try to make sense out of out. Of my life, and out of my business experience, and it, was really through encountering, the the. Free. Market capitalist. Philosophies. Of. A Milton, Friedman and and. Friedrich. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and. And. And many other. Free-market. Philosophers. That I came to realize that this. Explanation. Made. A lot more sense in, my business experience and, made more sense in terms of how the world really operated, and, so, that's, when my. Worldview, began to shift and I began to let go of being a. Sort. Of a Democratic, Socialist. Any. Type of political ideology is, going to have a lot of different. Variants. Of it a lot of different. Libertarians. Are. Constantly. Arguing, with each other, who's. The most pure libertarian and. Who's, most, ideologically. Pure I, have. No real interest in those type of discussions, or arguments, and. What. I resist, in one. Of the strains, of libertarianism. And I reject I reject the idea that. That. Humankind, is essentially, selfish, that. Not. Only as an observation that we frequently are selfish, but there's a strain of belief, particularly. In the in the, on Rand. Part. Of the movement that, believes. People ought to be selfish that, that. That's a virtue that, humans. Are always self-interested. And and. Altruism. Is evil, and and love, is, is. Something that makes, us weak and so, I reject, that aspect, of loot, libertarianism. I'm I'm, I'm. A caring compassionate person, and, I. Believe. That. Free. Markets, and free minds leads, to the greatest human flourishing so. I really want humans to flourish, and I believe. Liberty. And market, economies, and and capitalism. And the best strategies, for full, human flourishing, so. I don't. Identify with that strain of libertarianism. That. Is. Sort. Of uncaring. And. Kind. Of a. Social. Darwinian. Variant. Of it I'm. Very uncomfortable with, that I'm, not that way myself. I do. Believe that many libertarians are animated, by human. Flourishing they-they-they. We. Sincerely believe that human. Flourishing that. We need to be free and that, we need to be creative, and that, through. Human, freedom. Entrepreneurship. That. Humans. Are creative, they create.

New. Ways of of. Creating, value for each other that expresses, the self through the economic system and leads. To greater, prosperity not, for a few but for for. Most people and eventually all people so. There. Is a strain. Of deep. Idealism. In the. Libertarian, movement it's, again, sometimes, masked over by that. That. Ideology, of selfishness, but. The. Human flourishing element. Is, definitely. A big aspect, of I. Think, of the. Motivational. Structure of many many. Libertarians certainly it is for me. I think. The zero-sum. Worldview. Is the predominant, one I, think, it's it's, something we've we've. Evolved, with or. This idea that there's a limited. Fixed PI and. We. Have to. Distribute. That PI in an equal fair way that no one should get, unfair. Large pieces of that pie and, if. Someone, is getting a bigger piece. Necessarily. Someone else may be getting a smaller piece since there's a finite, amount of pie to go around I also. Think it comes from our our, competitive, sports and that, in. Competitive, sports there's. There's. A winner and there's a loser and. So, we. Play, games we play sports all our lives so we come to believe that that. In. The, zero-sum, world view that some. Are winners and some are losers and in, it and then, we can, adjust society. That there, should be no losers, there should be so. We need to, to. To, limit the. Pieces. Of the pie anyone gets so that everyone can have a fair and just piece of the pie and, I. So I reject, that I don't think there, is a. Necessarily. A fixed pie the beauty, of capitalism. And the beauty of conscious, capitalism is, the. Realization. That the pie can grow that. That. Through. Voluntary, exchange. And through the. Value creation that happens when the stakeholders. Voluntarily. Cooperate and, voluntary exchange with, each other is that that the pie grows larger, and so. There. Is more to distribute, and that, distribution takes place through, the market through. The market. Processes, through the exchange process as each as, each of the traders, of course wants to get a bigger. Piece from themselves and. Competition. Sort of ultimately, determines, the the. Percentages. That each of the different, constituencies. Or stakeholders, gets in the exchanges, but, that's a growing pie and, it's. A win win win, in game, and that. Turns. Me on, I'm very, fired up and excited about that because, it means human flourishing, isn't. Trapped in some type of. Limited. Set. Of constraints it means we can innovate and, create our, ways out, of any of these traps, any of these. Sort. Of I can't. Remember or think of the phrase right now I'm trying to I'm trying to recall, but. This, idea that we're in some type of trap. Of limited, resources, and. The. Only limitations. We have in the limitations, of human creativity. Human. Imagination, and. Intellectual. Capital that's been accumulated as, we continue to gain. An intellectual, capital. And as. Human, creativity, is Unleashed and human. Entrepreneurship, is Unleashed then. The. New the. New innovations, the new creativity, that expresses, itself through the marketplace, through capitalism. Allows. Us to solve problems that previously, were thought to be unsolvable, and, human, humans. Continue. On the upward spiral I mean, a great example of this is is. People. Are very focused oftentimes, on the fact that there's still a billion, people on this planet that, say live on less than a dollar a day and that's a and, that certainly is a terrible tragedy but if, you put that in historical, context. That's, about. 15%, of the people 15. 16 17 less. Than 20% of the people alive on the planet live on less than a dollar a day whereas. 200 years ago. 85%, of the people alive on the planet earth lived on less than a dollar a day and thus in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation so. Poverty. Has always been, the default condition of the human race what's. Unprecedented. Is not poverty, what's, unprecedented. Is wealth, wealth. For not a few, but, prosperity. For, literally. Billions of people, every. Every, year now we see hundreds of millions of people escape, from poverty, just, in two countries China, and India it, is the greatest.

Revolution. In, human. Prosperity in all of human, history it's, all occurred in the last 20 years and. It's a it's. A fact that you almost never see reported. In the media instead. We tend to focus still, on there on the, remaining people, that are pas that are either too poor and we're. Back on our zero-sum, game that somehow or another that's. Because, other people are greedy and selfish, and they're keeping. These poor people down rather. Than seeing, poverty. Lesson, through. Capitalism. And through free-market. Expansion. We. Tend to condemn the, very thing that's allowing, people to escape from poverty, as the, cause of the poverty and it's. Ridiculous. It's the. Capitalism, in and, free markets or what's going to allow us to escape from poverty, Muhammad. Yunus likes to say that that. By the end of the 21st century. Poverty. Will be something that we only see in museums, that. It'll. Be something people look back on and say gosh we used to have poor people. How. Is that even possible and I. Do think, that's the future of humanity if we don't totally mess it up that. We, are going to continue to learn we're going to have our intellectual, capital spread, we're. Gonna unleash, the human, creativity. Because. I do believe humans, have limitless creativity and, we're. Going to solve a lot of these problems that are holding us back now and humanity, is going to continue to its upward spiral and then, we were going to eliminate poverty I think, there are people alive today I, perhaps. Will not live to see the end of it but there are pyeong people alive today that will probably. See the. Virtual end of poverty in the human race in the 21st century. From, a macro, perspective. As capitalism, is. Becoming, conscious of the. Framework. That. Capitalism. Has to exist and in order to in order to be successful in order to flourish there's certain key principles. That that, have to be in place and. We. Have to nurture those principles, or we won't have a capitalistic, order, it's, not something, that automatically, exists, and has to be it. Has to have principles, that's to be grounded. In those principles and some of those principles include. Property. Rights we, have to have the, right for people to be able to own property. At. The same time there needs to be the freedom to exchange property. We need to be able to trade it we need to be able to create something, and then, trade it or sell it to someone else we. Need. We. Need a rule of law there, needs to be laws. That, are. Just. And laws, that are predictable, and laws, that apply to everyone, in the society including the government, a rule of law is essentially, you cannot have a a, capitalistic. Order, without, the, rule of law and. Whenever. That comes into doubt or, if they're not stable property, rights you don't really have the the basis, for the capitalistic, order and finally, you need a. Freedom. To trade. Usually. The, greater, the. The. Fewer restrictions on, the freedom to trade across the. Between. People, but also between people. In different states, people in different countries the. The, greater, value. Creation that occurs so anytime you see a society that's beginning to. Restrict. The ability to trade you. See a society, that is going to lessen its prosperity, it. Tends. To happen when people get preoccupied, with loss of jobs not. Understanding. That you. May lose some jobs to, a. Foreign, country, if. You allow freedom to trade but you're gaining jobs, became.

Time You're gain more net jobs because. The, people won't give you their goods for free they want to trade with you as well and so those jobs. And goods that they want to trade for the good and services, they want that, will create greater employment at. Home but that's, very hard for the average person, to understand, and. So. But. Anyway conscious, capitalism, is understanding. These these, basic, core. Economic, values. And becoming more conscious of them now. Conscious. Business. Is is. There. Are certain principles behind that and one, principle, is that business has a potential, for higher, purpose, that. Maximizing. Profits, if, you ask people what the purpose of business is they usually say, if you go to a cocktail party and ask that question they'll generally say well everybody knows that the purpose of business. Is to maximize, profits. It's to maximize shareholder value, and, it's. But that's a very odd answer, because, that's not the answer we would give if you asked what the purpose of a doctor is need. To heal the sick or what the purpose of a teacher is to educate, people. Or what, the purpose of lawyer is or what the purpose of an architect, is or what the purpose of an engineer is so so, why is it that we would come to this odd, answer, that the purpose of business is to maximize, profits, when. I have known literally. Hundreds of entrepreneurs in my life and with very few exceptions very few. Of them actually created. Their businesses, to try to maximize profits. Of, course they need to make money, but. That's I need. To eat in order to live I need to breathe in order to live I need my I need to create red blood cells in order to live but that's not the purpose of my life to eat to, breathe to, create red blood cells I, have, a much more transcendent, purpose in my life that gives my life meaning and, value to, it business, is no different a, business. Has the potential for a higher and deeper purpose, and that's, the first principle of conscious business second. Principle is is that there's, a variety of stakeholders, that are interdependent, that are connected together, customers. Employees. Plyers. Investors. Communities. Both local, and larger, communities, and then. The larger environment that were part of those are the most, important, stakeholders, there are other stakeholders that are unlike an informal, wider circle, such is the. Government labor. Unions, the, media. Activists. Of various, cons but the, idea being that, these. Stakeholders. Are interdependent, on one another and that the, conscious, business. Attempts. To create value, simultaneously, for. All of these interdependent. Stakeholders, that it seeks the win-win-win. Business, strategy, that, may, be a way. To explain that in a simple model. Version as a retail, business though which Whole Foods is is that. Management's. Job is to help our is to. Hire. Good people, train. Them well and. Help. Them to be happy and fulfilled in their workplace and their work and their jobs and then. The team members job is to satisfy. Our customers help, the customers, to be happy in their, exchanges, with the business, so. Happy, team members, leads to happy customers, and happy customers do, more business with the with. The company and that leads to happy investors, so. You, have a virtuous, circle of happy. Team. Members happy customers, happy investors. That. Reflects. And a simplified version this idea of the. Interdependent, nature of the stakeholders, and why, you can't, just focus on creating value for the investors, alone because. You must create value, for the. Team members, who. Then create value for the customers, who then, create value for the investors, so. The. Conscious, business is recognized. As this is conscious, of it and works. To, optimize value. For all of the key. Independent. Or dependent stakeholders. Third. Principle, of the conscious business is what. We call conscious, leadership or, you. Might also think of a servant leadership that, that, the leaders of the organization, they're. Not there to line their pockets and. Try to maximize their own personal, gain. Instead. Their, job is to fulfill, the higher purpose of the business. Recognize. And fulfill the interdependent, stakeholder, model and in, a sense to serve the organization.

To. Sublimate. Their own ego. And their own ambitions. For the good of the organization and. Again it's not self, sacrificial. Or, I'm not talking about altruism, I'm talking. About recognizing. That in the long term they will also gain the most through. The flourishing, of the business and through flourishing, of all the stakeholders they, too will, flourish that, their identity, is linked. And their, own. Their. Own gain. Is linked to the gain of all these other stakeholders, and, then the fourth principle is is that, to realize these first three principles, you have to create a culture a conscious, culture that. Has strategies. Structures. And processes, that. Create. A culture, that. Optimizes. The stakeholder. Model fills. The purpose, and allows the conscious leadership, to. Do their jobs so the. Culture, provides. That, background. And, the. Processes. And structures that the conscious business needs in order to, to. Achieve its highest potential so. When you add those four principles together, you have a conscious, business when. You add the, conscious business, with, the key, principles, of the. Conscious. Of the conscious, capitalism, you truly, have the, larger. Ecosystem. Of. The conscious. Capitalistic. Society. One, with conscious businesses, that. Are exchanging, in a consciously. Capitalistic. Way. You've. Just articulated what. I call the trade-off myth. The. Belief that all, this sounds very good very idealistic, but, it, won't compete well in the marketplace and, when it runs up against a a business, that's not handicapped. With. This. Idealism. Then it'll be in trouble, nothing. Could be further from the truth it's the exact opposite. That in fact the conscious, business, has. Competitive, advantage, when, you work. From a higher purpose, you. You. Unleash. Greater degrees, of commitment. Greater. Degrees of loyalty. And greater. Creativity, in the workplace and that, gives competitive, advantage, when, you work from the stakeholder, model. You. Understand, you're trying to optimize the entire system. You're. Able to do that in such a way as when you optimize the entire system, you also, optimize, the the. Value. That you also you're, creating for the investors, as well the, business tends to flourish, at a higher level so. In fact, the. Conscious, business will. Win. In most. Instances, all other things being equal it will win in competition. Against less conscious, businesses, and, that's why I'm confident, that over the long term a conscious. Capitalism they're going to triumph it will I believe it will become the new paradigm in, the 21st century, not. Because it's it's. More, idealistic, or, sounds, better it'll become the dominant paradigm simply, because it will win it. Will win in the marketplace and. Nothing. Succeeds in capitalism. More, than success itself so, good, ideas that work spread. And. The. Competitive. Nature. Of the marketplace, is going to lead to these competitions, between conscious, businesses and less conscious businesses, and. The. Conscious businesses, all other things being equal are going to win most of those battles, and so, fairly, quickly meaning. When, I say quickly I mean, 25. 30, 35 years we're. Going to see more and more and more conscious businesses, and we'll make this shift towards conscious cap ballistic society. My. First instinct, is to tell you I do think retail is one of the first areas to shift. Possibly. Because they are dealing with their customers, on. A day-to-day basis, and they've, got their more labor-intensive, as, well they tend to hire and, employ more, people like. Whole Foods Market, employs 57,000. People so. We're and. We. Have millions of customers so, in. A sense, and. We're in an extremely, competitive marketplace, food retailing and we don't have any patents we.

Don't Have any in the, government's not protecting. Us in some way from competition so and we have formally, competitors. Are much larger than and then I so like Walmart, Kroger. Safeway. Companies. Like that so. Retail. Is. One, of the first areas to ship some many of the conscious businesses that I know tend. To be either, retailers, or service businesses, companies like The Container Store or. Costco, or, Starbucks. Or. The Southwest, Airlines. The. These are. Our. Businesses, that Trader. Joe's these are businesses, that, our. Retailers, are service oriented so I do think maybe the conscious. Conscious. Business. Revolution and conscious capitalism. Revolution. Will see that take. Hold in a more large-scale way, in the, retail and service first I can predict also possibly, what will be last, I predict. Possibly, wall street will be last, or. The, pure. Financial, part. Of our economy which. To. A greater extent, its. Stake it doesn't have as much of a stakeholder, model it does tend to be dominated, by the the. Profit. For. Profit. Maximization, model. And shareholder return model, to, a greater, degree than. Other. Segments, of our society so I suspect, retail. And services, will be first the. Financial, sector will be last. I do, think that. The. Economy is, going to continue to evolve towards. More. Service. The. Human beings are doing more things to. Serve one another in terms of services. But. There. New things are if, you think about the whole technology area. So. Much of that didn't even exist. 10-15, years ago that there was no Facebook there was no Google, there. Was no iPods, there, were no iPhones. Really. BlackBerry's didn't even exist 15, years ago so so. Many different things changed. So rapidly. And. New, industries. And whole industries can be created, fairly fairly quickly, I. Think. It's safe. To say that we're going to see greater innovations. In education. That. Here's, an area that needs radical. Innovation, that, we don't allow competition. We, don't allow we. Haven't unleashed human creativity so education, potentially, if we could. Unmanned. Applies education, and truly allow entrepreneurs to. Get going, on that I. Can't, think of hardly health, care and. Education. Are the two most regulated areas. In our society, and they're, also the ones that are most or. Least satisfactory. To people those, are areas that we need to. 2d. Monopolize, and allow, more competition, to occur so. Those are two huge areas. Education. And. Health, care are both service, areas so that those are growth industries, I also think all types of leisure. Travel. Is, a is, a as a society, becomes more, affluent. Its its, desire, to travel increases. And to explore that the, younger generation today, people. That are in their 20s for example, they, have travelled so much more than my generation had, I mean, for me a big deal when I was in my 20s and going down to Mexico and, that.

Was Like the foreign country or maybe you get up to Canada but today. People haven't, just gone to Europe. But, they've gone all over the world by, the time they're 30 years old if they're young and well-educated they. World. Travel is going to be continued, to be. Its. Goal in particular as globalization, continues to occur we're going to continue to explore also think. Huge. Huge, possibilities. In entertainment, I mean look how much entertainment, has evolved, and shifted. In. A. Sense something. Like big think it's. Education. It's entertainment. It's. And, it's a synthesis, of those two and it's probably got lots of other things in it as well that I haven't just picked up yet. I, do. See lots more creativity, lots, more innovations, lots more entrepreneurship. Around. Around. Entertainment. And. Humans. Educating. One another entertaining, one another serving. One another. New. Ways for humans to, enjoy. Life. New. Ways for humans to learn and grow. We. Are going, to continually, try. To figure out ways to serve, ourselves better and. It's. It's. Amazing how even think, about something like Pilates. We, didn't exist in. Any kind of scale 25 years ago yoga. Existed, but hardly anybody did it now. You see those are our activities, that are also leading to greater human flourishing through. Helping. Humans to be. More. Fit and, stronger. More. Flexible. So. It's, fascinating. Watching, the world and watching. Humans. Evolve. And watching our society, evolve it's I. Love. It I'm so, glad to be part of it and to have contributed a little bit to it myself. You.

2018-02-11 08:25

Show Video


I don’t think this guy knows what socialism or libertarian is.

salli mitenand

I strongly disagree with him but it's nice to see different opinions on this channel as it can be a bit of an echo chamber. Tbh I think hard line libertarian-ism and socialism are equally idealistic and flawed. I think both ideologies try to claim moral purity but I think both are wrong. I can't really respond to a 28 minute video with a youtube comment but I thought I may as well make my opinion heard.

Oh look, a rich person who believes that they worked harder than thousands of their workers combined and so they are worthy of all that wealth.... What a rare sight indeed. Call this just a hunch, but i get a feeling that rest of us are being squeezed dry by the governments is because most if not all rich people and companies use variety of methods to evade or reduce paying taxes, while they continue to rely on government infastructure and government subsidizing to run their businesses. Government even educates, provides healthcare and funds science to invent suff and prepares new workers for them for free... (well not for free, but rich are not paying for it)

Libertarianism. The delusion that monopolies and instability aren't necessarily inevitable under capitalism. A worldview usually held by the rich and those who desire riches.

Privatizing education would mean the downfall of society.

If you are a libertarian at 16 you have no heart and if you're still a libertarian at age 17 you're probably a sociopath. Either that or you like the idea of failed state status.

Alarmingly optimistic, one may even term it sanguine. Now, I want to take on board what are ideas most foreign, this is however made more difficult by Mackey's thesis perhaps not one as concessive as the quintessential contrarian might like it to be. Interesting stuff.

I know this has been said a million times but, why not be a libertarian socialist :) ?

He's still okay running the anti-science marketing firm called Whole Foods that's causing so much starvation and misery in the developing world. (And I, too, am a Libertarian.)

You definitely can't expect to end poverty if you embrace a system that requires some form of hierarchy. Not everyone can be the CEO John. Someone has to be the bottom of the rung employee or the job that is only going to pay them enough to live paycheck to paycheck.

quagmire444 some people can only function on bottom rung.

How John Mackey went from socialist to libertarian: "I got rich and stopped giving a shit about everybody else"

If there’s so much pie, then why are you so keen on holding onto your pieces?

That's the main point progressives just don't get, conservative arguments are based on long term consequences rather than immediate consequences. You get older your worldview grows more long term, you get more conservative. Conservatives may grow old but their ideas don't die off because progressives grow old and become the new conservatives.

tl;dr - I got mine, so fuck you.

That's easy to say when you don't live In a third world country. Like I do. Brazil. Imagine that your country mostly sells grains. No transformation. And the politicians are all land owners. The oposite from the population Interest is low socialist politics. And the first world Interest, and politititians interests is exploration. Low salaries, no infrastructure, fucking miserable human development. How is libertarianism going to help a third world country?

what a fucking Bullshit man.

There should be a restaurant where they serve you shit, and it could be called 'Hole Foods'.

Big think should have titled this video "I Got Mine, So Fuck Y'all."

He should open Church of Conscious Business lol

This genius need to call-in to Majority Report ( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOC5u3ZE5KnULSO292d3LrtIi5FPOmTgL ) and debate with Sam... maybe after that he will understand that he still doesn't have any brains, even in his 60s...

The number of "likes" versus "dislikes" for this video will tell you how close this country is to the end.

Looking through the comments, I can tell nobody listened to the whole thing. Or even half. Just virtually vomited

There's a HUGE difference between profit and plunder...and considering the abusive way Amazon treats it's employees I consider Amazon to be a company that plunders.

Libertarianism is astrology for men.

socialism is a fairy tale for men

Translation: "When I had to work for a living I believed that we should help everyone. Now that I am rich, I just want more and screw everyone else"

What capitalist is going to stay socialist when they’re making money off of their workers? Extortion and greed is very convincing.

So.... he abandoned his principles, because he started a business in a Capitalist-centric market and had to abide by the rules of that market?

"How I went from libertarian to socialist: I inherited a business, but the public stopped using it for some reason and I failed to turn a profit until it went bankrupt. So I decided to work for the state where mediocrity is the rule, men with guns make sure the money comes in, failing to spend all the money results in less money next year and wasting all the money in six months ensures you get more money."

I apreciate the conscious capitalism and want to study it more. I also understand that there is less poor people in the world today and free market capitalism isn’t evil. I’ve been studying Robert Reich and how he describes free capitalism..... how do you feel by this and thank you for posting on big think so I can hear and see what you think.

Finally! This channel has been too left lately. More libertarian/conservative speakers please.

if be the age of 30 you are an idiot if you are a socialist, Albert Einstein was a life long socialist, so fuck of.

This guy doesn´t know what libertarianism is.

This guy sold out to Amazon. His stuff was over priced, no poor person could afford it.

"Lets end poverty by providing high cost healthy food to upper class white people."

Testimony My ex left me because i was infected with HIV aids but I'm very grateful to the truthful Spell Caster who helped me cure my HIV aids and bring back my ex lover within 24 hours. we are now living together joyfully with good health and peace . If you need any help contact Him through. drpaulspellcaster@yahoo.com phone line +2347013291233. I am grateful.

How the System Made Me Wealthy, the autobiography of a former decent human being.

Libertarians are anarchist retards. I'm usually on big think's side, but I refuse to listen to a second of this shit.

Good talk, but what it all boils down to is not alturism, or any other -ism at all. It´s about what we are, and what we actually do. in the long run, political beliefs, morals, ideas, will all be replaced again and again. So being a believer, rather than a sceptical thinker, will by your own standards break down on its own. As you just admitted yourself. It turns out that greed is the ultimate incentive for us humans to speak and behave as we do. That said, we also seek alliances, which will make us stronger, and is a key factor of what we are. Strong!

In 2018 'poor people' in America can afford to be overweight. Let that sink in.

Libertarianism: simplistic answers for simpleminded people. But Libertarianism works too. We’ll just kill him and take his money for ourselves.

I'm still waiting for John Mackey to end poverty with libertarianism. Nearly 20 years of Reagan-style Randian economic policy, and folks are poorer than ever.

Gee, I wonder why. It's almost like reaganomics is proven bullshit.

Friedman economics without social programs and wage increases destroys nations. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/03/chile-earthquake Milton Friedman did not save Chile Naomi Klein To say the late economist deserves credit for the country's building codes shows a lack of knowledge of pre-coup Chile Ever since deregulation caused a worldwide economic meltdown in September '08 and everyone became a Keynesian again, it hasn't been easy to be a fanatical follower of the late economist Milton Friedman. So widely discredited is his brand of free-market fundamentalism that his admirers have become increasingly desperate to claim ideological victories, however far fetched.

Chile many decades ago and what John Mackeys guru taught. In Chile the trickle down lovers and starve govt loving theories first approach to the situation was gradual; only after a year of relative confusion did they decide to implement without major modification the theoretical model they had been taught at Chicago. The occasion merited a visit to Chile by Mr. Friedman himself who, along with his associate, Professor Harberger, made a series of well-publicized appearances to promote a “shock treatment” for the Chilean economy—something that Friedman emphatically described as “the only medicine. Absolutely. There is no other. There is no other long-term solution.” These are the basic principles of the economic model offered by Friedman and his followers and adopted by the Chilean junta: that the only possible framework for economic development is one within which the private sector can freely operate; that private enterprise is the most efficient form of economic organization and that, therefore, the private sector should be the predominant factor in the economy. Prices should fluctuate freely in accordance with the laws of competition. Inflation, the worst enemy of economic progress, is the direct result of monetary expansion and can be eliminated only by a drastic reduction of government spending.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe, It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere." While this may seem like an obvious point now, Marx wrote those words in 1848, when globalization was over a century away. And he wasn't just right about what ended up happening in the late 20th century – he was right about why it happened: The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding. What will be the solution to unsustainable life for us and others caught up in this economic race to the bottom?” Inside Job: A Critique of Capitalism... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-job-critique-capitalism-martin-screeton

See Chile and Friedman economics. Trickle Down is a scam if wages do not rise- FACT See America post Reagan It is curious that the man who wrote a book, Capitalism and Freedom, to drive home the argument that only classical economic liberalism can support political democracy can now so easily disentangle economics from politics when the economic theories he advocates coincide with an absolute restriction of every type of democratic freedom. One would logically expect that if those who curtail private enterprise are held responsible for the effects of their measures in the political sphere, those who impose unrestrained “economic freedom” would also be held responsible when the imposition of this policy is inevitably accompanied by massive repression, hunger, unemployment and the permanence of a brutal police state.

Socialism = death

And if you think any one system has all of the answers you don't have a very firm grasp on reality.    This country is a fascist republic/oligarchy, and there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT as long as its properly organized.  Lets examine the three systems of economic organization: • *_Free Enterprise,_* AKA *_Capitalism,_* AKA *_Libertarianism,_* where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by private owners, • *_Fascism,_* where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by the state, • *_Socialism,_* where capital goods are owned by the state and controlled by the state. These three systems are separate constructs from the four forms of government: • *_Anarchy_* (rule by no one,) (Examples of this are called Failed States) • *_Dictatorship_* or *_Monarchy_* (rule by one person,)  • *_Oligarchy_* (rule by a few persons, like we currently have here,) We call it a Republic, a Constitutional Monarchy, a Confederation or a Federation.  *_Sortition_* is a sub-class of *_oligarchy_* in that representatives are selected *at random* from the general population and *forced* to serve for a single term.  • *_Democracy_* (rule by the majority, aka "tyranny of the masses") We call this doing things by _Plebiscite_. It quickly becomes unwieldy unless you have an intelligent and educated populace (not on this planet.) None of these socio-economic systems are mutually exclusive in the larger context of a political system. In fact, it is necessary to *_combine_* the three because there are features of each which complement and fill in the *_blind spots_* in each. A successful country is one where the systems are successfully blended. An unsuccessful country is one where there is an unnecessary bias towards one or another. For example, that is why we have a unified power grid but each utility/corporation *cooperates* in maintaining the unified power grid while trying to minimize the costs, possibly to maximize their profitability. This cooperative feature is arrived at regardless of the economic system or political system. Our economic problems arise from a misunderstanding of what a politicians jobs were by our oligarchies (the people some, not all but merely some of us, held our noses and elected.)

How I decided to throw away altruism and thoughtfulness to prey on a market of consumers using deceptive advertising and selling worse, less sustainable food for higher prices. Eat farts

"how I went from socialist to libertarian: turns out I had no morals and once I got money, I said 'fuck everyone else!'"

Libertarianism itself is fundamentally fascistic. The foundational idea of libertarianism is that the strongest thrive and the weakest don’t. I know, I know: most internet libertarians will tell you it is all about the non-aggression principle (NAP). It isn’t, of course.  What it comes down to is Social Darwinism. You probably remember the Ron Paul fans applauding and cheering the idea that society should just let a 30 year old die because he acted stupidly and didn’t have health insurance when it turned out he needed it. Regardless of what utopia any given libertarian may have in mind, ultimately, it is “personal rights and personal responsibility.” And that is just a nice way of describing law of the jungle. Now some people may push back on this and claim that libertarians don’t think that people should be able to kill other people. Except they do. We ultimately get back to the NAP. And in the libertarian utopia, if you decide some plot of land is yours and another person insists upon camping on it, you have the right to do what must be done to “protect” your property. So what you get in the libertarian utopia is not any kind of equality, but the powerful getting more powerful and weak getting weaker. This is considered a good thing. And if you scratch this concept just the slightest, you end up with eugenics.The libertarian movement itself is quite racist. Of course, it doesn’t come off as blatantly as it does with fascists, for example. And there are libertarians who fight against it. But there really isn’t much difference between a libertarian and a neo-confederate. The best spin you can provide is that libertarians tend to say (in public anyway) that they think if the government just got out of the way the races would be equal. Now like I said: I know that most of them don’t believe this. There are basically three reasons people have for being a libertarian: (1) they don’t want to be taxed; (2) they want to use prohibited substances; (3) they are racists. I would say the percentages are about 15, 5, and 80. But even if you accept that libertarians just want to let people compete, they are still in favor of eugenics — just not one based on “race” — which is at best a slippery concept anyway.

"If you aren't a socialist at 21, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you haven't sold out to enrich yourself at the cost of your fellow human." I fixed that quote for you.

Thanks Big Think for allows the ideas of liberty.

Libertarian is just some convoluted term for a non existent political ideology. When I hear someone identify themselves as libertarian I hear “I’m a moderate that believes in a failed economic theory and poor understanding of political philosophy.”

Yes, let the white-leech tell you exactly how to further yourself when his company engages in underpaying wages and benefits to its employees and lying about their products on a regular basis. Never shopped at Whole Foods and never will.

Must be nice to make enough money to stop having to care about other people - but I guess trying to affect change politically, socially, or from any vantage other than business, indicates a lack of "brains." What a load of crock. Your stores are too expensive for me to shop at, but also please don't build one in my neighborhood, there's a lot of good people here who would be forced out by such gentrification.

Be whole foods, sell 10$ bottles of water with a stick in in.. calll it stick water... poverty solved.

John McKay came to the realization that his "socialist" viewpoint was naive because it didn't provide him with a means for success in business. This isn't a critique against socialism, it only serves as a self justification for his choice to embrace capitalism as a businessman.

I was a socialist until I started working.

is John McKay in this video?

The comment section needs a free helicopter ride

One of the most frustrating things about hard-core Libertarians is the conflation of Political systems with Economic systems. 'Capitalism' is not a political framework, its an Economic one. Governments cannot be 'Capitalist', nations/countries can have Capitalist economic structures, but that is not a system of political or social power. Democracy MUST temper the single-minded pursuit of profit at all costs, to the exclusion of all else, that defines Capitalism... The Governmental structure must balance the economic concerns with moral, cultural and Societal concerns. His point that the huge wealth disparity in the world is poor people's fault, is insulting, harmful and demonstrably untrue.

If you’re still a socialist by age 35 then you actually have a back bone and you’re actually smart. The “real world”! Who the hell steps up the “real world”?? We do! Right we do. You gave up, you got selfish. You didn’t want to risk it all to save others. Don’t try and lie and justify it. Stop.

This guy is an idiot. Capitalism won’t end poverty. Everyone thinks this is a “one or the other” argument. Some things should be socialized, e.g. healthcare, state college, military, law enforcement, prison systems, etc. (things that improve the community and those that would give certain individuals incentives for screwing over others), and other things are more appropriate in the free market, e.g. cars, sneakers, etc.(markets where competition fuels innovation). Make no mistake! There are some people who are trying to bring markets into the private sector, that have business being there!

Love how hardcore liberals are so close-minded but they claim they are the most progressive. They don’t even realize that they are almost as bad as the Bible thumping, hard right conservatives.

Liberals previous millennium: _FOR FREEDOM!_ Liberals this millennium: _FORGET FREEDOM!_

Horseshoe theory, It has some undeniable merit.

Great video, thanks for sharing I've been a libertarian for about 10 years and recognize a lot of things that you're saying in my own development. Libertarianism =freedom=prosperity

Thank you for a longer format video. I definitely prefer real interviews. As for the content of the interview...I agree with most of the comments section. Whole Foods is specifically built for upper middle class so they don't have the misfortune of being seen in such places as Target and Walmart. 7 dollar Asparagus water won't save you...Amazon will.

I stopped when I heard: "...the realisation that the pie can grow...". Is this a political or a science fiction talk? You are implying that the optimization caused by competence increases the number of end products, completely forgetting that those products are made from finite resources. No, you can't make the pie grow. You talk about "added value", not real food, water and air which keep us alive. You can create money, wealth, futuristic services, whatever; but there are still limits. We can discuss about politics but let's not forget about science please. As far as we know yet, energy can't be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Einstein taught us that you could convert energy into matter... so yeah we could make the Earth's resources grow by absorving the sun's energy but then again we find another finite resource. We have a limited space with limited resources. And we should squeeze it as much as we can, but there will always be the same amount of energy/matter. We can now grow food quicker than we did years ago, but that doesn't mean we get more than there is. We are just transforming the same finite amount of resources in some way. Actually, I could even argue that the pie shrinks. The fact that we are able to optimize anything means that there's no perfect system where some matter or energy gets lost. You can't discuss the fact that we are consuming resources quicker than the environment can recycle the chemicals to be able to reuse them. So even though the total resources stay the same we have less that we can use, sort of. For any such closed system to survive it has to efficiently transform and reuse the available resources without loosing any bit. And this my friends is very complicated, we are not even close to that. If there were 10 apples and 10 people... Capitalism: 1 gets 10, the rest die. Eventually, the rich one dies alone. Communism: 1 has 10, the rest have faith that he will share. Technocracy: This seems like an easy maths task... Natural Evolution: There's too many people, let's kill them all and save the rest of the living species. There's no limit to human ingenuity and ignorance. Like mine, to start with. What was I thinking when I started commenting on YouTube?

David, you seemingly argue against the idea of the "pie can grow larger" by pointing out that it can only grow so much. I think you missed the point. It is clear the pie grows in what ways and to what degree is hard to predict. The pie demonstrably grows. You are arguing against a strawman. I don't know but I would speculate the speaker would agree that we need some conservation of the materials that make the pie. Some are more limited than others. Something you seem to overlook is that the materials that make the pie change and ever less materials are needed to make one unit of pie. So we do need to restrict the growth of the pie in some ways to ensure all will get a chance at some pie especially down the road But that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to an equal share of pie at every given moment which is the point. That is the "science" of it. Your characterizations of the economics systems is childish and simple minded.

Ok let me rephrase what I meant with that. I was exclusively referring to the use of the sun to provide us enough energy to transform it into matter, if we could. Due to E=mc^2, if we would want to download our 3D-printed food from the sun, we would need a lot of it. I only mentioned about space because I understand the limit can range a lot, from your house to the whole universe, but our reach still depends on the current technology... Which brings me to your second and very interesting point. We are obviously using up resources much more efficiently every day thanks to technology, but I can't completely agree with your point. You can't keep splitting oil further than the molecular level, or it looses it's element properties and stops being oil at all. We are just using some of our past waste, which is fine but not enough for the long term. Specially since we are not only producing waste but also many dangerously toxines. I think life has sort of reached the point in the planet where it regulates itself. I understand life's biochemistry like a very complex machinery, where each species consumes something and produces something else that then gets reused by a third and so on. But the important thing is the last step. There has to be a retroactive link to the beginning or otherwise the material, nutrients, atoms, or energy would stay unused and thus reduce the total amount of resources available. We have bacteria, fungae, lots of life around that helps with that, but we are changing things too quickly and genetical evolution won't probably keep our pace, or will turn against us. And thank for the nice reply :) Your mention about fusion power gives me some hope as well. That would buy us lots of time to research how to not destroy the planet before we get to leave it.

David Castilla your point about finite resources doesn't make sense... to think solar power is finite in any perspective relative to human activity is insanity the amount of energy per day that hot the earth from the sun is gargantuan meetings if we actually managed to harness fusion. When Rockefeller made his fortune kerosene was the main if not only use for crude oil now half of the things you see around you are in part made from it. One resource in a very narrow scope may seem finite but until we can say we've actualized the potential of everything (spoiler never going to happen) it's hard to say concretely things are finite finite, even resources.

Before Amazon bought it out Whole foods was one of the best places to work. They paid higher than their competitors, had better benefits, and had a positive work environment. Just because there are shitty companies out there does not mean corporations are evil. Just like government, non for profits, etc. in this world there is good and bad companies. For those socialists complaining below, whole foods was a glowing example of how to do capitalism correctly. Try checking your biases at the door, even socialism has flaws. No system will ever be perfect.

You still need regulations. Between company A, which abides by ethics and company B, which doesn't, company B will always have an advantage and is more likely to survive. On the long term it is a race to the bottom if the government is not looking out for the people by imposing rules. Having an healthy & educated workforce, that can get to work on time (infrastucture), spend money (more demand, more profits) and take care of itself in its old days (retirement) ain't bad either for businesses.

You got rich by being lucky as hell, and you lost your empathy for other people. This isn’t a “think piece” this is how someone loses their connection to everyday people while being insulated by wealth. Shameful video. You used to sell 9.00 “asparagus water”.... you’re an ass, and based on listening to this entire video, a facist. I don’t use that word lightly.

I doubt anyone is pushing a vanguard approach to socialism. But as time passes it will be necessary. Automation comes to mind. On another note take a look at the coal Industry. Outdated and outmoded. We should be moving towards solar. But it would cause many people to go homeless. Capitalism in this sense can be seen as holding progress hostage. When a company needs to trim to become more efficient it should be able to do so without having the consequences be a bunch of people end up homeless. We can either become slaves to wealth and it can be a burden on our fate as a species or we can use it to advance our civilization to new heights. It’s how I view religion and politics. If we rely on the ideas from 2000 years ago to hold morality hostage we won’t progress morally. If we allow capitalism to hold economics hostage then we can’t learn newer different ways to work together and economically our progress will slow down. Take a look at trade pacts I think they rock but they have unintended consequences like homelessness and job loss. those who benefit from the status quo fear change. Change is inevitable. It’s why Bernie Sanders was so widely accepted. Communism failed fast. Capitalism got us farther. But it’s not perfect. Eventually socialism has to be viewed as being the means for progress to occur. I mean take a look at cops or roads. We already use some socialist policies. The extremes of capitalism or the extremes of communism just won’t work. You hire a bunch of people they do a good job their job is obsolete and then they need to be retrained. Their humans not robots they get pissed and don’t want to be retrained when it’s going to cost them a shit bunch of money after just losing their job. A universal basic income is a great way to deal with the issue in my opinion. Oh and another problem with capitalism is things like the opioid epidemic or things like citizens united where we sold our liberties to the highest bidder. I mean we have a businessman in office right now and it’s not looking good for that type of mentality. He might be winning but he is screwing over American rights in order to do so.

How you were socialist and then infiltrated the libertarian party to make it socialist lite. It's called rebranding and usually companies do it when they mess things up. So naturally leftists are notorious for this.

I honestly clicked on this video clip with an open mind...hoping may be this one libertarian would make a little bit of sense. I was wrong.

What a jerk.

Lol he says retail will develop to be conscious first, gain more job positions. Whole foods was just bought by Amazon who's experimenting with entirely self serve grocers....

I haven't heard expression of such a lazy mind since I left Texas. Mackey has helped me understand how libertarians can be always fundamentally wrong about everything. Good interview!

Civil Savant literally everything

unbalanced BS

basically he's saying: I had dreams of social justice, but then I wanted to make money and had to fuck over my employees, so now I believe they should be fucked over forever.

You got rich and lost perspective

There is no perfect system! ➕➖✖➗✅®™

If John Mackey is committed to ending poverty, then why doesn't he pay his employees a living wage? I worked at Whole Foods making $11/hr, I couldn't even afford to shop at Whole Foods on this wage. He is a hypocrite until he addresses this issue and ensures that of his employees, from cashiers and custodians to people working in the regional offices, a living wage of at least $15/hr.

spongebobluvr82 well said

You literally don't even have to watch the video to know what happened here. The title says it all. Guy gets rich, no longer believes in paying higher taxes to help those less fortunate.

Yummy, this is some good whitewashing. Jeff Bezsos is working fast I see.

Do humans have limitless creativity? Only if you can continue to generalize things and have those generalized schema accuratly predict their recombination. If we have to understand all the fundamentals to make reasonable conjecture then human creativity will eventually fizzle out and just be re-runs, computers will be the only things capable of thinking of anything new. I don't know which it is.

Anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Rand is close to being a sociopath. Her positions are a kneejerk response to the horrors she saw under the Soviets.

Holy shit a big think video that isnt just preaching the points of the far left? Diverse Opinions on BigThink? Color me surprised.

G u I l l o t I n e

Yep make all that money and of course you become a libertarian. What astounds me is young, broke people that are libertarians. And of course Mackey made even more when he sold out to Amazon.

Sure, because why would the young want More freedom and less government

"How I went from socialist to libertarian". The word 'CEO' explains everything by itself.

Same old "I did it so anyone can" bullshit. "There's room at the top, they are telling you still."

Socialism doesn't mean no competition in the marketplace. You can still be competitive and meet the needs of your customers and pay a fair wage to your employees. If your workers have to work two jobs to survive, your not getting the best out of them. You're just a selfish tool.

Socialism is not a disease of the youth. Look at Western Europe. This guy is an idiot.

I just read a report about how whole food employees are getting more stressed with the meticulous procedures they have to do. Almost like amazon was running the show.... anyways the hypocrisy here has left a foul stench.

Rich dude decides that he wants to pay less tax and small wages to increase his profits and believes that this is a philosophy lol

A snake, he is a libertarian because it serve his ( corporate ) interests ! He didn't end poverty...Sugar coating BS


Youtube needs to add a feature that bars viewers from commenting before they've watched the whole video.

Is this the same Whole Foods that made money off of underpaid prison inmates?

John Mackey... Chinese and Indian poverty stricken people are getting out of poverty because YOU and They have stolen Our Money... so this is not progress... it's a shifting of Incomes from rich countries to 3rd world countries...(for exploitation purpose which you call; 'Providing Value') Our country, the USA, currently houses a 3rd world... of 170 million people...and that figure is growing... “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe, It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere." - Karl Marx, 1848---> The relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the incessant demand for more natural resources, are beasts that demand constant feeding. What will be the solution to unsustainable life for us and others caught up in this economic race to the bottom?

Inside Job: A Critique of Capitalism... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-job-critique-capitalism-martin-screeton/

"Conscious capitalism" is the same thing as saying "delicate murder"

Any other option? Socialism that caused at least 100 million deaths in the 20th century? That fantasy is incompatible with humanity, but you're probably one to confuse socialism with social democracy.

Complete fairy tale.

Wealth envious poor people are the biggest hypocrites in America. Whoever pulls the race card on their circumstances; immigrants are 4 times more likely to CHOOSE to become millionaires in America and you probably work for one. YOURE the problem, nothing more nothing less.

HANG YOU FUCK. I'm shocked that that whole foods is a Texas chain. No shock however that it's based in Austin. This ass fuck only cares about rich liberals. He's no more a libertarian than I am Asian.

Libertarianism tends to attract a higher proportion than the average of people with egotistic, narcissistic and/or psychopathic traits. It fails to deal with the reality that many people are being left behind in a world where it is increasingly hard to keep pace with rapid social, economic and technological change. It also fails to acknowledge the considerable extent to which the wealthy owe their good fortune to luck, whether it's being born in the right location or into the right family.


I find the question captions troublesome. Rather than watch the whole video, I'll often listen to the video while I'm doing other things, and then every so often, there's a silent pause, and I realize a new question has been asked, and now I have to back up the video to see what I missed. Is there any way we can get a voice-over for those parts?

Libertarians are just greedy scum that want the benefits of society but don't want to pay for the upkeep of that society. Their entire worldview can be broke with a single question: How do we decide who owns what property?.

A pig masquerading as a socialist revealed himself to be a pig. Nothing to see here. Or alternatively, a pig made a half-assed attempt to become a socialist, only to find that the lure of greed was too strong.

How can the pie keep getting bigger, if the Earth has limited space and resources? We cannot all live like kings, the planet is already fucked by our industrial revolutions and some people are trying to salvage it, while the rest keep talking about exponential growth.

Whole Foods is more expensive than any other major chain. Ending poverty? This is comical.

Ended his personal poverty

I'm guessing it was when you thought putting three sticks of asparagus into a jar of water and charging $8 a liter for it was "value product options for your customers". Get out of here Whole Paychecks noone can afford to shop at your price gouging stores.

253 people don't like the reality. They like socialist's fairytales not understanding that the socialism>communism is actually the ultimate form of tyranny of very tiny group puppeteers behind the scenes...

Libertairan free market is a utopian dream.. it provides no answer to monopolization.

Brian Josephs Of course, I agree with you; however, is it not possible to stipulate that a monopolist could hold prices down below marginal cost until any new competition was driven out, only to increase prices and restrict output afterwards? I believe it is, at least, conceivable, but I just don't think there are many historical cases to point to.

Of course it provides an answer. In a free market competition is unrestricted, so if an entity achieved total market share they cannot maintain that share AND leverage it to the detriment of their customers because there exist no barriers to entry into that market by a new competitor(s). If a monopoly were created and sustained it would be because it was still delivering satisfactorily and, therefore, not a problem. you see this at work every day of your life.

KungFuChess Economists have been cognizant of the problem of monopoly for a very long time and few, if any, have thought or do think it poses a serious problem to the working of the market economy because (a) there exists very little empirical evidence that monopolies have been able to successfully maintain exclusive control over a market for any significant amount of time and (b), even if a serious monopoly were to form, it's regulatable.

Libertarianism is corporate fascism thinly veiled as freedom.

Tax are thief. Some people are just full of greed and are out to take other people money. Socialism is the embodiment of that idea. Take stuffs from those who work hard/clever/successful to those who dont have thoss stuffs.

You can't become successful without the proper infrastructure. The state has been subsidizing the lives of each employee and customer of his since birth. It inevitably pays for the failures as well as the successes because no one knows how the future. So if you do become successful, you can't say "I did it all myself and deserve all the profit" because you didn't pay to educate your workforce, or build the infrastructure they use or provide the security or resources which makes your business possible. Taxes are a recognition of the state as a silent partner in every business. If you don't believe that then go to Somalia or Yemen and try to open a whole foods.

Its not because some people can get rich that people are poor, there are more viarables in play ...

It's hilarious how intellectually insecure socialist and statist are. Just look at the dislikes and comments on any video with the word libertarian in it. These people reflexively lose their shit and go crazy. You can tell they don't even watch the video. Could you imagine if these morons were in charge? We'd all be sent to the gulag if we questioned them.

Regarding the anti-trust laws, I actually wouldn't be surprised if they were more about finding some justification for interfering with the market and less about actually making markets more efficient. Often, economists will debate a theoretical possibility, such as effective monopoly and non-pseudo-idle resources, that doesn't really have much of a basis in the real world, and then politicians will take it and run to try and further their agenda.

The common charge of corporatism against libertarianism is commonly met with the common reply "that's crony capitalism." There's​ no need to beat a dead horse. Nobody wants corporatism. Most libertarians are against limited liability. That the gov and corps are in bed together is one of the main reasons libertarians are against the state. Nearly all of those corps you mentioned were the result of intellectual property or subsides. Most libertarians are against both. It's important to remember that naturally occurring monopolies are not inherently bad. If one company happens to be able to make a way cheaper or better product, then why shouldn't they be a monopoly? The problem of monopoly is that there is a theoretical possibility that if a company gains a monopoly of supply and demand is inelastic, then the resulting conditions could be sub-optimal. However, monopolies don't hurt anybody; they offer a product and create jobs that wouldn't have otherwise existed. It's merely possible that they won't serve the public in the best possible way like competitive markets do.

Richard Strum The US government's activities in the economy cannot be understood in isolation with its corporate body. You libertarians seem to have been sold the lie that the government acts in opposition to corporate interests, but that is almost backwards. There are numerous examples of monopolistic business activities by United States corporations. Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Intel, Facebook, Amazon, Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, Illumina, Sirius XM Holdings, Waste Management, and Broadridge Financial Services all enjoy near monopoly domination. Your telecommunications companies operate a cabal providing consumers with one choice of provider in their area. There's a simple rule in capitalism. Grow or die. If the market is saturated the only way to grow is to absorb your competitors. Regulators have to step in at that point to prevent monopolies forming, though they do so to make all the major shareholders happier by establishing an oligarchy. I mean, what do you think Teddy Roosevelt's Anti-Trust laws were all about? For shits and giggles? Monopolies are inevitable and if we take off the reigns on the stallion we can only expect one outcome. However, if we put a jockey on the bolter, we can make it do whatever we want. And by we I mean we the people.

There is very little empirical evidence suggesting that monopolies have been able to maintain exclusive control of markets in the relatively capitalist 19th and 20th century American economies. The monopolies that have formed have usually been the result of government interference such as patents, subsides, price controls, etc. Of course, if monopolies do form completely freely, that doesn't preclude them from being regulated. I only say this to inform you that there is a very long line of scholarship on the subject and the problem of monopoly has been addressed over and over, and, consequently, these days monopoly is not generally recognized as a serious threat to the free market. As for instability, it is still extremely controversial as to whether business cycles are caused by the free market or government interference. In my experience, American business people aren't particularly interested in economics and political philosophy any more than the average Joe. Supporters of capitalism are more often found in the ranks of those familiar with the workings of the market economy, that is, professional economists.

Maximilian Roszko I believe 19th century American literacy was quite high compared to its current rate. For me, public education seems intuitively dangerous since the state will likely push its own agenda with distorted information. Once the state teaches anything more than reading, writing, arithmetic, etc., the students will receive state-informed history, economics, literature, etc. I would be glad to hear your charge against private education if you care to oblige.

Jeffrey Bailey We are talking not about how he got rich, but what it gave to him as a person, this is the premise of the question...

Igor Dvorzhak I am not sure what he got out of the deal, but 87,000 people got a job in over 450 stores with a market capitalization of $475B. When people grow up, they generally give up the pipe dream of socialism...good in theory, sucks in practice.

What good did he being richer than me get him?

Igor Dvorzhak but he is rich and you are broke. What good did you being more intelligent than him get you.

I see you are just a kid so I'll forgive you for this thoughtless ignorance. Someday you may have a family to support and then I'll consider your opinion on this subject.

Say what you will, but we must remember that nobody is forced to work for Amazon. If their working conditions become so bad that nobody will agree to work for them, then they must face the consequences. If their employees continue to work, then it's obvious that the employees consider the satisfaction derived from their wage to overcome the pain caused by the working conditions.

Nick Adamski It hasn't been too left, it has been rational & near the truth.

The ignorance of your words is unfortunate.

Brian Josephs Libertarianism (and Conservatiism) murder people all the time. You want a world where only the ones who fight survive, you’re going to get it. And guess what? None of your friends are going to lift a finger.

John K do you honestly think that Libertarianism leaves room for murder? Or that Libertarianism supports theft? Rule of law is central to a free society, not mutually exclusive with freedom.

Felipe Galante actually in America socialism aka social security has staved off DEATH for over a hundred million elderly that previously would step out of a lifetime of labor straight into destitute poverty. Facts prove your shit analogy false.

Kew Gardens Station that’s a lot of unsubstantiated gibberish. Consider the dozens of racist, eugenics pursuing, fascist, and communist catastrophes in the last hundred years and you will find exclusively big-government, anti-liberty movements driven by both social conservatives and liberals - not libertarians. Also, Darwinism is not the same thing as eugenics so please stop conflating the two. You can challenge Libertarianism on the subject of Darwinism but to try and recast it in that way is lazy.

Although, to be perfectly frank, I don't consider your objections to NAP libertarianism of a very high caliber, libertarians who embrace the NAP are indeed engaged in fallacy; however, these types don't represent the classical liberal tradition from Hume and Smith to Mises and Hayek. These liberals were not concerned with the long refuted metaphysical notions of rights, equality, justice, etc.; to them, there was only one question: what policies will attain the ends of the public? It is they who you must confront if you wish to prove capitalism unfit as a socio-economic system.

Evan Sounds much better

Capitalism does not seek to create anything. It is not a thinking, acting entity. The social function of the profit and loss system is to provide consumers with the best products by employing factors of production with the lowest opportunity costs, that is, to get the most bang for society's bucks (scarce resources), so to speak. Entrepreneurs, by aiming at making the most money, inadvertently "care" for the public by trying to satisfy consumer demand with the fewest and least valuable resources possible. There is not anything inherent in democracy that creates a prosperous society. The function of democracy is to allow the public to uproot a government that it finds sub-optimal by peaceful means in order to avoid such bloody revolutions like that of the French. To use some rather imprecise language, democracy and the government is not in itself responsible for our now fantastic standard of living; for this we owe wholly to the profit seeking entrepreneurs; they put technology and society's savings to work by creating valuable products. To put this rather differently, public goods such as public healthcare, interstates, education, etc. are not the cause of our healthy and educated citizenry, but their availability was only made possible after society became richer. These public goods did not make a wealthy society but were funded by funds expropriated and redistributed from an increasingly wealthy citizenry. The government can only change the rules and redistribute things already made; it cannot itself create. Free markets do not make anyone poorer; they only make some richer. Entrepreneurs provide products and jobs that were not previously available. The only conceivable way people could be harmed by capitalism is by being put out of a job such as in the case of the tailor being outcompeted by the textile factories, but if one has the majority's interest at heart, then one must not interfere because the textile plant, in supplanting the tailor, has now created new jobs and provided the consumer with apparently better or cheaper clothing. Under capitalism there does not exist any tendency for classes to form. Capitalism uprooted the feudalism left behind by the Roman Empire. The early entrepreneurs were not aristocrats. The early entrepreneurs did not produce products for the aristocrats but for the peasants. The majority of today's capitalists, that is, those who risk their money by lending it to entrepreneurs, are not rich investors; they are the middle class.

"Moloth The characteristic feature of capitalism is that it deproletarianizes the public. " this is specious. You're describing an *outcome* of Capitalism as it exists WITHIN the structure of a Democracy in which taxes are levied from capitalist ventures in order to improve the common good of the citizenry. The ONLY "characteristic feature" of Capitalism is that of the pursuit of profit. If there are any OTHER outcomes, it is because another force has influenced it. Rampant, unchecked and 'pure' Capitalism cares not the 'proletariat' or the 'peasantry', in fact, it seeks to create such classes... look at the current trend of wealth disparity: the rich get richer and ALL OTHERS get poorer. thats a fine outcome for an Economic theory, but NOT for a nation or a culture.

Moloth The characteristic feature of capitalism is that it deproletarianizes the public. The peasantry becomes the middle class. The masses are no longer required to toil in the fields the day long to merely subsist. They now have the time, energy, and resources to pursue more humane activities. One wonders if the distinction between the economic and the other aspects of human life is even tenable. After all, an educated majority only exists because of the mass production of the items necessary to fulfill their basic needs. Only then can people enjoy education and the rest of these "higher" pleasures.

"...Libertarianism is the best political system because it will cater to the needs of capitalism. " Interesting. well said. yes, i suppose that's my main issue; its the idea that Governmental (especially Democratic, people-self-governing for the common good ) priorities should somehow be beholden to PURELY economic ones. that line of reasoning, i claim, is incorrect and actually harmful. Its the same reason i roll my eyes when people think that a successful business person would make a good President. Why?? A nation is not a profit-seeking entity. given incentive, stability and opportunity, the 'profits' will come in the form of a happy, healthy, educated, and productive populace, who dont have to live as 'customers/commodities', but as 'citizens'.

For those who justify libertarianism on deontological grounds, capitalism happens to be the economic system that results the application of their ethical precepts, but for utilitarians who argue that capitalism is the most appropriate economic system to satisfy the wants of the public, libertarianism is the best political system because it will cater to the needs of capitalism. That is to say, for the utilitarians, the point of law in the first place is to maintain capitalism and the average standard of living. For one who's familiar with the social function of profit and loss, profit is synonymous with the satisfaction of consumer wants. Profit results when the sum of the prices of factors of production is less than the product's total revenue. The prices of factors of production are determined by the bidding of entrepreneurs with alternative uses for the factors, and a product's revenue results from a consumer's belief in the product's capacity to improve his or her life. In this way, entrepreneurs with the most valuable use for factors of production are the ones who purchase the factors and employ them in the production of products that consumers demand most urgently. Seen in this light, without being too sensational, profit is actually the foundation of modern civilization. Any government obstruction of profit necessarily results in a restricted level of output and lower standard of living. Profit is indeed the cause of wealth disparity, but only by increasing the wealth of some, not taking the wealth from others. Profit is actually the sign that one has served his fellow man by creating value and providing a useful product. Those who charge capitalism with creating absolute poverty can no longer be taken seriously by practical people. Today, the reason for the existence of poor countries has little, if anything, to do with resources, intelligence, technology, etc., and more to do with these countries' and their leaders' failures to embrace capitalistic policies.

Several hundred years ago 99% of the relatively tiny population of the time was below the poverty line. Today, the population has grown by leaps and bounds, yet that percentage has largely shrunk. I don't really see any other explanation for this other than the industrial revolution and capitalism. At this point in history, I don't see how anyone could deny the expediency of capitalism for the alleviation of poverty and the improvement of the standard of living. Also, what is your rationalization for socializing certain industries? I don't see why most of those couldn't be privatized very successfully. Judging by the expense and quality of American education, healthcare, and prisons, socialization hasn't as great as some would have you believe.

If you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks like calling someone ignorant, you don't have a good argument. Come back when you've got something better and maybe people might take what you have to say seriously.

Doesn't make it any less true.

Nice ad-hominem man, I'm sure you persuaded a lot of people with your comment right now.

RezznT your ignorance is dangerous

"if socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists"

You mean you want SOME people to flourish

How I went from a socialist to a libertarian - or how I started my romance with money and what mental gymnastics I had to do, to try to rationalize it to myself.

The thing that I don’t understand about the whole free market philosophy is how in the hell a fair minimum wage is opposing it. How the fuck am I socialist crazy lefty everytime I ask for fucking fair money to everyone? If you believe in the virtue of working hard to achieve something the way free market philosophists claim to do isn’t exploitation something you should be opposing? if you can’t afford to pay your employees a wage that makes a living in 40 hrs a week you are a lousy businessman, you can’t afford to have employees, please try again. Obviously not every work is worth the same money but that doesn’t justify the huuuuge wage gaps we still have in many companys between the lowest and highest in hoerachy, which are all equally necessary to keep the wagon going. I somewhat agree with this guy, don’t agree with too much of socialism, i just really don’t see how good worker protection laws, a fair minimum wage and decent healthcare oppose the idea of a free market that fuels economic growth and the advancement of human kind.

ITT: Idiot legion collectively hating the guy because they cannot comprehend that trade is not a zero sum game.

Hire a sound mixer

I'm all for capitalism, but I don't have much faith the 'free market' will remain the 'free market' if it isn't regulated properly. Which is why I don't think I'll be advocating for libertarianism anytime soon.

didn't even watch due to obnoxious advertisement

Libertarian has throughout history, since the enlightenment, always meant anarchist. Only in bizarro america in the last few decades has the word "libertarian" meant supporter of total tyranny. Which is what believing in fucking bullshit ideas of the "free market" is. Power in private hands. Unaccountable private hands. Top down decision making. Tyranny. And spare the fucking bullshit comments about the power of the consumer to "regulate the free market". A fucking childish fantasy that can never solve the problem of greed, collusion, and corruption that even the slightest excess of wealth over another will bring. Just like american "liberals" aren't liberals, and american "conservatives" are not conservatives, you are not a libertarian. None of you who believe any of the bullshit myths about the free market are libertarian. You're authoritarians.

Shut the fuck up whole foods CEO! You need the whole pay check to afford buy at the "The whole foods" !you M.F. never socialistic at the beginning! Pure capitalist is what you are! Yeah you do want to end the poverty by starving the poor to death ! Stop twisting your B.S. !

My comment mentions nothing of libertarians. And yes, you are extremely dumb and prove my point once again by mentioning something I hadn't originally mentioned.

PaiNExoTiC let me get this straight, I’m dumb and you’re here speaking for the “libertarians aren’t selfish” team?

He would actually be nearly a billionaire if he chose to be more selfish with his company's profits lol. Goddamn you people have no grasp on how business works. Fucking idiots. $100M is nothing compared to what he could have made had he not given more to his employees OR had he chose to take company salary and stock benefits.

piperpipe201 there will always be people that think that socialism might work this time.

I'd argue the opposite. Goes to show the world will never fall towards one ideology, which obviously will never sustain itself. It also gives a good indication that there are still a lot more conversations to be had because upbringing defines perspective.

Thank you! These comments are extremely cancer and obviously have insecurity with anything that has to do with business. It's pretty sad and it ironically proves john's point! John's point is that business has a bad name and that because of this we need to reform business and capitalism. He's spreading a good message to get rid of crony-capitalism and bad business in support of businesses that are actually there for the people yet retards like this jump against it without looking into it.

I'm glad to see you can read and write. It's impressive. It, however, fails to address that fact that we have outlawed both slavery and abuse. While Amazon can choose to push the limits of those laws there's no reason I have to use their services while they continue to do that. Nor is there any reason why I cannot inform others of their harsh practices and encourage others to also not use Amazon's services. You can drum up all sorts of philosophical rhetoric but, like the philosophers themselves, it and they are irrelevant bullshit. What's real are the people who are members of our society and the kinds of lives we live and the kinds of lives we make possible for each other.

The doctrines of moral philosophers have long been definitively refuted by David Hume and others. Concepts of objective ethics and justice no longer have any place in social philosophy. Consideration of the personal ends of the public and the policies that will attain them is now our only normative concern. There is no right to support a family, nor a right to life, healthcare, or an education painted in the stars. These "rights" have been granted by purely human institutions and can likewise be taken away. A common characteristic of socialist rhetoric is to dismiss an argument not on account of its logical force but on grounds of the argument's exponent. If one aims at refuting a claim, then one ought to address the claim itself, not appeal to an arbitrary emotional response. If one cannot evaluate a claim cooly and judicially, then perhaps one should not comment on economic matters. If one is to instead take a scientific view, and simply inquire into the causal effects of a certain policy, the following come into consideration: It's an obvious fact that for a company to improve its working conditions it must spend money. If it could improve them for free, then it would have already have done so, as there would be no reason not to. Since the improvement costs money, it would employ scarce factors of production into a line which it wouldn't have otherwise been. Thus, if a company is forced to improve its working conditions, then at least one factor of production will be employed into a sub-optimal line of production. From another angle, since the improvement necessarily costs money, either wages, benefits, product quality, or profits must fall or prices rise. The effects on the standard of living are obvious except perhaps those of the smaller profits. If profits fall, then fewer companies will enter the industry than otherwise would have, and some companies already in the industry will have fewer reinvestment funds and may even be forced out of business; both effects are sub-optimal. Forcing a company to improve working conditions is akin to benefitting workers at the expense of the company, its customers, and, in many cases, the rest of society.

capitalism is patriarchy for women

In order to broaden their own general power bureaucracy tend to prepare left-wing ideological soil. The final combat between government and business is going to start soon

Conservatorism is for retards who refuse to adapt. They should all go extinct.

Good fix.

No the real quote is this: "If you aren't a socialist at 21, you have no heart. If you're still a socialist at 30, you have no income security despite giving your best and are mad as hell." ;)

Wow you are truly wise and one of a kind... Your armchair wisdom is enthroned in empirical evidence, like the the success stories of socialist paradises like the great Soviet Union, or Venezuela, or Cuba! Truly miracles of human society. /s

piperpipe201 No, selling out is not starting a business; business has a robust purpose in socialist states. To define selling out for you, in the context I used it, it is the act of putting your own wants and enrichment above the basic, life-supporting needs of your fellow humans.

"you haven't sold out to enrich yourself at the cost of your fellow human" Does selling out mean making a business? If thats the case, are you saying making a business is bad? If so, why?

yeah it was always a stupid fucking quote.

Colonel Tiblesworth The young socialists won't know what that means (which is why they are young socialists)

His experience is a cliche—just listen to the first thirty seconds.

https://youtu.be/2fgEK-Ksis4 Joe Rogan’s rebuttal

I would argue that Mr. Mackey has simply been adapted to capitalism, by capitalism.

Great video. 9:30. 200 years ago, 85% of the people lived in poverty. Today, it’s down to less than 20%. That’s a fact. With capitalism the quality of life has risen tremendously. Common sense.

Socialism works!! Just ask anyone from Venezuela. (sarcasm) The free market has set more people 'free' than socialism.

Dear libertarians, there is no way one political system will run smoothly just as a utopia can never be real. Hence, what other systems would you incorporate with libertarian ideals?

A CEO tells people that the best way to build a business in a capitalist system, is libertarianism

Yeah right, capitalism solves poverty! This is one of those big lies, they point to the fact that people who've moved out of poverty officially now get a whopping $2 a day due to the wonders of globalization... wow, they've doubled the avg income!... whereas the relevant NGOs say that the poverty level is more like $10 a day or less. Just look it up. So double a pittance is still a pittance and still 20% of what they need, on average.

tl;dw version: man claims to care, gets greedy, stops caring and thinks selfishly.

And love how he's for basically privatizing healthcare... neglects to mention that there's no boycott power for the people who need healthcare.. it's an extortion racket then, no free market or competition.

also, funny how he claims that the model he has would work better long term, but the reality says otherwise


Corporations ONLY exist to maximize profits, in fact if the don't they break the law. Ethics in Capitalism is ONLY A LIE AND TO CONVINCE YOU TO LET THEM CONTINUE.

"team members" are just a nice way of saying "wage slaves" you can re-brand exploitation, but exploitation still continues.

The thing the other countries may want to trade are natural resources that are controlled and benefiting just a tiny number of people John so you know shit about economics, when those jobs go there may be nothing to replace them.

Until left wing people start shooting the rich like this asshole people will continue to die on the streets, people die of treatable health conditions because they don't have the right healthcare.

The only limitations are the inherited wealth that prevent people getting themselves out of poverty John you moron.

If you think NECESSARILY HAVING UNEMPLOYMENT and POVERTY increases productivity then you are a Capitalist, if you reject that you are a Socialist.

I believe that taking the profit of my employees and giving it to my investors who inherited their wealth is the best system, because that is Capitalism.

"In the real world" - In the existing Capitalist system in which we live and cannot imagine changing since it worked for me.

I got rich and decided fascism was great so I call myself libertarian! What a piece of shit, but then whole foods is a piece of shit. Time to go vegan, and stop letting ourselves be exploited by these middlemen. www.provegan.info

Oh good the sane Island in the sea of the comment section.

The 'study' of economics 1) has a lot of theories out there only a few of which are currently commonly taught and 2) many of these theories do not play out in the much more complicated real world. Nor does a perspective that is narrowly defined by one field of study capable of answering the real questions of our times. The first question you should ask yourself is why anyone would work for anyone? To what purpose? And what does the employer gain? Is that not a two way bargain? Cannot a win-win answer be had? And, if not, why should I not condemn the purveyor of hardship who refuses the better bargain?

You may dismiss the teachings of economics as "irrelevant," but, in doing so, you reduce yourself to the level of the so-called flat earthers. Economics is not "philosophical rhetoric." In fact, with the advent of economics came the definitive refutation of the "philosophical rhetoric" that had previously informed mankind's social paradigm. Economics employs precise language and talks about real things. Economic policy concerns itself with only one question: which policies will result in the satisfaction of the public's wants? Nobody said you have to or even should use Amazon's services. A fundamental characteristic of capitalism is the freedom of the consumer to buy or abstain from buying any product on the market. One could say with great accuracy that, in capitalist countries, the consumers are the directors of all economic activity; all production undertaken by business is done for the consumers' sake. The only successful business are the ones that succeed in supplying desired products. The better entrepreneurs are at satisfying consumer wants, the higher their profits. If entrepreneurs supply bad products, and this can include making products in a manner that is not approved of by the consumers, they will fail. I encourage you to exercise your power as a consumer to buy according to your personal values. Any attempt to characterise Amazon's employees as slaves is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between slavery and voluntary contracts: the slave can't quit without facing punishment from his or her "employer." In the public's interest, slavery has been rightly abolished and replaced by equality under the law. The word "abusive" is highly ambiguous, but, if we assume a colloquial understanding, insofar as all individuals are granted a legally enforced right of disassociation, there can be no legal action against abusive relationships. In a liberal society, Amazon may treat its employees however it wishes, but, if it treats them relatively badly, it has no way to prevent them from quitting or from discriminating buyers, such as yourself, from shunning their products.

I think ideology of selfishness he talks about is very misunderstood. It is not ideology of social Darwinism. It is the ideology that by focusing on the self interests you can benefit everyone more then by focusing on their interests. If you try to be the best you can be and try to fix yourself you will cause greater changes then if you try to implement changes that benefit people. If you give away all your money you will not benefit society as much as if you invest all your money into your interest and build an empire that will give people products like iphones etc. That is the idea behind it and the idea holds true. If you truly focus on self development and doing what is best for you you are helping others more then if you just tried to help others. In fact the whole idea behind free markets means that if you try to get wealthy there is no way of you doing that without making others wealthy as well. And you cannot do that without helping everyone including the poorest. It might seem counter-intuitive if you do not understand the markets. As soon as you understand the markets it is extremely clear to see that this holds extremely true.

I had hoped he would have something truly insightful to share....this is total BS. He truly believes that capitalism is going to solve the problems of our Planet. Maybe this was recorded before tRump took office and gave Billions of dollars to his rich cronies....

not to mention... drugs are baaayd.

I think it will be interesting to see how the younger generations(millenial and younger) develop in their perspective in regards to being socialist and libertarian. Especially as it has become anecdotally evident that today's youth have much fewer favorable economic conditions than John Mackey's generation knew(Boomer generation) . As he describes it himself "if at the age of 21 and you're not a socialist then you dont have heart, and if by the age of 30 you still are then you dont have any brains." Thats a drastic shift in values to make in just under a decade. But as younger generations(like millenials) are strapped to pay for an evidently unsustainable social security system, are continously faced with much fewer lucrative job offering, higher student loan debts, rising home prices, all bunched together with an overarching theme of a global workforce now that forever favors cheap labor above all, it follows that younger people today will likely stay poorer for longer and perhaps retain their "fairness for all is the way to go" mindframe because they are still fighting for some things they may never have. It very well may take younger generations much longer than a decade to make this shift from socialism to libertarianism because they will be victims of their circumstances for much longer, and some of whom will never escape. But the future will tell how long this circumstance remains. Its important to take Mackey's advice in context of the opportunities available to him in his generation. The conditions of the current state of American economy are not what they were back in his day. p.s. As a millenial born in 1990, I came of age in 2008, right around the time one major economic event came to its fruition.

A caste system incorporates people into its system so they can be exploited. This guy thinks he operates in a free market. lol

Just who I want schooling me on how to end poverty, the guy who sold Whole Foods to Amazon. Next I want you to interview Amazon warehouse workers who try to live on $13/hour, with their every move electronically monitored, continuously pushed to be more and more productive, right up until they're replaced by robots. And then I want to you interview a Chinese factory worker who assembled the crap that people buy on Amazon. How they were forced from their village at gunpoint by the government, into the city, into the iphone factory to work 14 hour days. How so many workers were throwing themselves from the windows of these factories than they now have external suicide nets to catch jumpers, and put them back to work. But who cares about that, I'm a rich CEO and I got mine. Rest of humanity can fuck off.

You can see he is not a specialist in what he is saying. Just a rich man our society treats as a god and thinks he's got a good point

This thing they call Libertarianism is to feudalism what tadpoles are to frogs. I don’t buy he was ever a socialist nor any notion of where his motivation lies except on a big pile of

"Nothing succeeds more in capitalism than success itself; good ideas that work spread". The contradiction in his statement right here is Pharmaceutical companies are making a killing in antidepressant's by buying the doctors off to prescribe them as kickbacks. For some reason this is a common practice for capitalism at the expense of the consumer known as the cost of doing business.

Nathan Pen Hence, does it not make sense to combine the two socialism and libertarianism?

I use to be a libertarian, and I agree with many libertarian points, however there is 1 point that I cannot agree with, it is the neglect of those at the bottom in need of help. Socialism is the past, and it will be the future again, as it is the default of our Evolution.

All the salty commies in the comments. Probably all have Iphones, go to starbucks, and own $300 shoes.

>dislike >sips soylent

Wew, lots of commies in the comments here, I should find the keys to my Huey...

Remember muh comrades, #liberalsgetthebullettoo Revolution when?? :DD

Why don't you make your own fucking pie, filth?

How is it white only?

Are you implying that upper class black people prefer to eat unhealthy food? That's pretty racist tbh

CEO of a company now suddenly loves capitalism. Cool story bro...

John Mackey is a parasitic sellout bourgeois scumbag, along with all his little shareholders too. Being socialist and libertarian are not mutually exclusive ways of thinking.

For utilitarian libertarians, such as Mises and Hayek, the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom. They merely don't think that stealing from the rich is a good way to help the poor because, among other reasons, wealth redistribution disincentivizes mass production, which means even less food, clothing, houses, etc. that is available to the poor. Obviously, in a prosperous society most people want some sort of way to help unfortunate people get back on their feet; Mises thought private charity could handle this while Hayek, at least in his later days, called for a social safety net. I tend to agree with Mises.

The alleged dichotomy between economic theory and the "complicated real world" is false. Regardless of how complicated a social system is, people will always buy the same or less amount of a good, but not a larger amount, as the price of a good rises; entrepreneurs will never pay a wage higher than marginal revenue product; entrepreneurs will always choose shorter production processes over longer ones; people will always choose a higher wage over a lower one, other things being equal. "Economics" no longer refers to mere "economic" activity, which is the subject matter of price, capital, and monetary theory. Years ago it would have been appropriate to call economics a subfield of sociology; however, contemporary sociology has had a fundamental change of character and, let us say, deteriorated. This aside, there is no need to engage in petty terminological disputes. The questions of our times can only be correctly answered with recourse to mankind's accumulated scientific knowledge. Though, I might add that the fields that specifically study "economic" activity are especially relevant today. Whether the government should resort to price controls, stimulus packages, and redistribution schemes are much more serious questions than how many restrooms restaurants should furnish or whether use of the N-word should be prohibited. By and large, people work for the satisfaction their wage affords them, and entrepreneurs employ workers because workers increase productivity and therefore revenue. I don't exactly see what you are getting at with the rest of your reply. Yes, all contracts in a private property system are necessarily win-win. If it was not win-win, one or both of the parties would not have agreed to the contract.

I have no way of knowing why this man has converted from socialist to libertarian. Likewise, I can't say what his motives were for starting a business. Call it greed if you wish. But to say that he made money off his workers is very one-sided. His workers made money off of him too, and they apparently found that a Whole Foods job was their best option, otherwise they wouldn't have applied. I can hardly see how he was extorting his workers.

The *_conscious business_* will eventually replace their *_conscious_* human work force with *_conscious_* automation and technology that will *_consciously_* drive down the cost of labor which will in turn *_consciously_* contribute to a growing profit margin much to the *_conscious delight_* of the *_profit conscious_* shareholders/investors.

Thumbs down ratio says a lot.

Wow, can it be really true that Big Think has spotted a place in the market for a channel which is immune to filter bubbles by showing content with all kinds of view points??? To all the socialists in the comment section downvotig this video: there are plenty of left wing and right wing channels but few who get us all sorts of views. If you still haven't grasped that the real danger atm is polarisation, enjoy a second term of orange baffoonery at the WH.

Excellent speech!

He does believe in globalization, that would be interested to explore his views on that in relation to libertarianism especially.

Oooo his education ideas are dangerous

I mean that’s a stupid argument- 1$ a day is dirt poor. But living in the US on 100$ a week is extremely poor too. This guy is pretty naive

Win-win-win? Who are all these players?

Ooo turns him on, terrible word choice

Conscious capitalism? That sounds pretty Marxist not libertarian

Human flourishing

You don't like stealing from the rich, which never happens, and you said nothing in your post about stealing from the poor, which is ALL the rich elite ever do in life... When I was a Libertarian, I have often sat in many coffee shop talks in Libertarian circles... I know the conflict that exists inside your mind, as it was the same as myself, and other Libertarians around me in those groups. We personally want a system that allows the hardest workers to become the most successful; a high level of hard workmanship should correlate to a high successful life. Can we agree, ANYONE whom works a 40hr/week, should at least be able to retire? If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will know that that is not what we have in this rigged system of present day capitalism. In capitalism, especially from in the stock markets, where do the profits gained in the markets come from? To avoid your tap-dance that would most likely follow in your next post, it comes from the sweat-on-the-brow worker, at the bottom of this economical food chain. The rich investors get paid for nothing, but sitting on their asses. Let me further lay this out for you, the lazy elite rich not only get the lions share of the wealth, they get it for doing absolutely nothing, and what really infuriates me, is when capitalist 'minions', who cant understand what theft really is, want to protect the elite rich~! ... as you admitted to in your post. Its ultimately ludicrous. The problem is capitalism itself. The ultimate systematic flaw within capitalism, is that there is nothing that cant be purchased. But really the entire system is systematically flawed, and completely rigged in favor of the elite rich. Here's the ultimate conundrum for a Libertarian -> How do you get cronyism out of capitalism, if ridding cronyism requires government, the cronies, in order to implement the laws, to remove its cronyism? Before you say thats circular, I know its circular, thats my point. Furthermore, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism? Not to mention ... 6 homeless people for 10 empty houses, global warming, species extinction, obscene inequality, senior retirement, medical, automation, water, pollution, landfills, unsustainable depleting of our nature resources at a catastrophic rate (https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Resources1.jpg). Do I need to go on here? ... because its super easy to, and moreover I CAN... And remember, you don't have to accept capitalism in order to be a Libertarian, research Socialist Libertarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism To cut to the chase, capitalism was once a good system to move forward with, similar to religion before science came along, but its outdated and archaic, and can no longer deliver what we need because of its dire inefficiencies. Let it go, lets move on with another system altogether. Unless we part ways with capitalism, we will face our demise. Evolution and Science prove so, adapt or parish.

Michael Murch fuck. Did u watch the video? This is not socialism, no one is getting the same size of slice of pie and as long as no one gets too little of pie to enjoy the dessert that’s ok

He's a shithead.

"growing a pie" right out of a planet to live on...No one in poverty today CARES that the percentage used to be higher--useless and insulting argument. Also, apparently he has never heard of much happier healthier places in the world like Norway. And does he consider walmart "conscious capitalism"? In the ACTUAL world, ceos have become richer and richer while everyday people"s wages have been essentially stagnant- the playing field is already highly rigged. I have children who are registered nurses at a large hospital and it is hard to think of a more important and valuable job than that- yet their compensation is a joke.... This guy like so many these days lives in a bubble and can't see the rest of us. And about the whole "privatized is always better" idea- my water company went private with all those promises and our water bills literally TRIPLED almost instantly. There were months toward the end that the water bill was higher than the electric. We all finally fought and fought with the county until they took it back-- and IT WENT BACK DOWN close to what is was before- go figure! I have decades of my water bills saved to show what bs people like this guy spews.

I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously, nobody who is interested in social welfare wants to steal from the poor. The only option is to steal from the rich/middle class or nobody. Within pure capitalism, super rich entrepreneurs don't get rich by stealing but by providing a useful product to a lot of people. I could care less about how hard anyone works. I'm only interested in social welfare. Why should someone who works "harder" make more money? Not all labor is created equal. I an smack a rock against a tree for 14h a day and I won't get a damn thing for it. Money is an incentive for the most talented/productive people to use their abilities and time to make stuff people want. It also makes sure that entrepreneurs who aren't very good at making useful products don't keep using society's scarce resources to make useless products. If everyone could sit on his or her ass all day and life could roll on, why not let them? "Can we agree, ANYONE whom works a 40hr/week, should at least be able to retire?" It would be nice, but it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks "should" happen. The only thing that matters is what's best for society as a whole, and if that means slowing up production by redistributing wealth to people to make sure they will "be able to retire," then obviously you're not thinking for everyone, but just for some poor saps. Profits come from under-priced factors of production. If I can buy an A, a B, and a C for $100, produce a P, and sell the P for $150, then I make a $50 profit. Obviously, A, B, and C were under-priced because someone else could have offered up to $50 more for them and still made money. Getting a return on lended money is not usually referred to as profit but interest. To put it simply, the phenomenon of interest happens for three reasons: (A) the lender had to not spend all of his money so he can have some to lend, (B) the lender thinks it's worth lending at some interest rate, and (C) the borrower thinks it's worth borrowing at the same interest rate. For our purposes, that's all there is to it. Money-now and money-later are goods just like any other. Investors sell money-now in exchange for money-later. So what if they sit on their asses? They sell their money, and workers sell their labor. Workers can save their money and sell it too, but if they need to spend all their money to survive or they would just rather spend it, then they won't. Why is it "ludicrous"? As long as everybody voluntarily agreed to their job, there is no stealing. I think this is pretty common sense. "How do you get cronyism out of capitalism, if ridding cronyism requires government, the cronies, in order to implement the laws, to remove its cronyism?" Okay, so we're talking practical politics now. I don't think most folks want to use the government to get rid of the government. When and if the time comes, I think the best strategy will be to simply stop paying taxes. Eventually, the government will dissipate, and local, voluntarily-funded court systems will take over. "Furthermore, when in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism?" Ehh, when you wake up and don't get mugged? American society is already very capitalist. Most people don't try to kill and steal. All we've got to do is get rid of the people who do. It's not that hard, but the movement is not big enough yet. "6 homeless people for 10 empty houses" it's not capitalism's fault that people do drugs. "global warming" well, if nobody is causing it and/or we can't stop it/ it won't stop, then we all die (so what?). If somebody is causing it, then we stop them. Presto! "species extinction, obscene inequality" so what? "senior retirement" see above. "medical" I don't know what this refers to, but, obviously, capitalism does healthcare way better. "automation" not a problem; old jobs < new jobs + more/better products. "pollution, landfills" if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what? "unsustainable depleting of our nature resources at a catastrophic rate" so what? If we run out of stuff then we have to use different stuff or die. What is the point of having unused resources (for me, your link is dead btw)? You and your friends can have socialist libertarianism if you want, but don't try and force it on everybody else or we'll stop you. "To cut to the chase, capitalism was once a good system to move forward with, similar to religion before science came along, but its outdated and archaic, and can no longer deliver what we need because of its dire inefficiencies. Let it go, lets move on with another system altogether. Unless we part ways with capitalism, we will face our demise. Evolution and Science prove so, adapt or parish." I don't even feel like it. I don't want to be rude, but this is just dumb. Libertarian socialism want change the resources of the face of the earth Nobody thinks that capitalism is "outdated" except a few internet trolls and millennials who skipped economics class.

I love it~! This is proof, I can't make this shit up! Here it is people, the brilliant mind of a Libertarian for everyone to witness... A Libertarian stands up for capitalism and can answer all the worlds problems by his wonderful system of capitalism, lets recap these problems and the Libertarians solutions to these worldly issues~! global warming -> "then we all die (so what?)" lazy thieving rich people -> "So what if they sit on their asses?" retirement -> "doesn't matter" species extinction ->"so what?" obscene inequality ->"so what?" senior retirement -> "see above (so what?)" medical -> "I don't know what this refers to" automation -> "not a problem" pollution -> "if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what?" Because thats what we are seeing everyday nowadays right? BP cleaning up all of its oil spills? Plastics in the oceans? landfills -> "if it harms other people then it will be punished. If not, so what?" Landfills polluting watersheds, who gets punished? Have you ever seen anyone actually get punished for any pollution at all? ... again, all the plastic garbage that capitalism is producing? Polluter pays? I call bullshit! Show me. Only rich people do believe in this shit-where-we-eat system, and they are untouchable, as capitalism protects them. unsustainable depleting of our natural resources at a catastrophic rate -> "so what?" 6 homeless people for 10 empty houses -> "it's not capitalism's fault that people do drugs" WTF, I guess in a Libertarian mind all homeless people are druggies. FYI capitalism creates druggies, because that is unfortunately people's only escape from this shit-show. getting rid of cronyism -> "stop paying taxes" Hey Richard, stop paying taxes and see what happens. The rich elites demand you pay your taxes for their Socialism, in case they need to be bailed out again. Socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the rest of the dumb fks. When in the history of capitalism, has capitalism been without cronyism? -> "Ehh, when you wake up and don't get mugged?" So I guess unlike other Libertarians, you think that there is no cronyism in government? Dumbass! rich stealing money going to the top -> "As long as everybody voluntarily agreed to their job, there is no stealing." There is nothing voluntary about the choice to die from starvation, or work. That is not a choice. That is a gun to the head. That's capitalism! Richard, lastly, in your Economics 101 that you are getting all this wise brainy advise from for the future prospects of humanity, what do you think a system, capitalism or other, is good for? What is its purpose if not to serve humanity; for stated points above? You first replied, "the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom." yet you have clearly demonstrated that Libertarianism is nothing more than a "so what?" ideology.

This is not a hard concept. The system for baking larg pies is in conflict with system for redistributing pieces. So in the world where you can take his and give it to whom you want, the necessary arrangement of production does not form and there is no pie. If you are one of the guys who would want to eat a cake and have it and just gets pissed off that it is gone after it's eaten and demands a new one... then this is the exact same process. Demanding will not change reality.

I must have missed the part where he was a socialist...

So let me get this straight: his business experience made him realise that socialism was too idealistic and that free market capitalist ideas better fitted the real world. Funny that in a world shaped by free market ideology, which is a choice by those with power and influence and not just "how the world is". The bigger question is what system the majority of us would actually choose to live under if we had any choice.

Jeez, bud. There's no need to get so cranky. I guess I thought you were more knowledgeable about/friendlier to libertarianism. To answer your last question, a scientific social philosophy doesn't have any aims. It just studies the way the world is without calling anything good or bad. If the majority of people who compose society want X, then science can, given its current state of knowledge, tell them the easiest way to get X. If people want abject poverty and starvation, then outlaw productive activity and trade. If they hate redheads, kill the redheads. If the public just can't stand blue houses, burn blue houses (or paint them a different color). It's all about giving the citizens what they want, not silly, abstract ideas about "rights" or "justice" or "equality" or whatever. We live in a world where most people just want clean water, food, clothes, shelter, entertainment, and so on. So how do we get that stuff? I answer, apparently controversially, capitalism, that is, private property, division of labor, free trade, investment, entrepreneurship, equality under the law, and the rest. Now, with that out of the way, let's look at some of these. Global warming: People rank pretty highly the desire to not be washed away. Obviously then, if it's an imminent threat, man must devote effort toward stopping global warming. Whatever can be done should be done with the goal of attaining the public's goals. If someone is causing global warming, then we stop them. What else is there to do. What's controversial about this? Yeah, we can fail and die; we wouldn't be the first civilization. Lazy thieving rich people: Arbitrary value judgements regarding how much somebody should work aside, entrepreneurs fill indispensable roles. Although the consumers steer the ship, the entrepreneur is the person who removes maladjustments in the economy and puts production plans into action. Nobody imposed the choice between work or starvation on you; that's not capitalism; it's a fact of nature. If you don't work, you don't eat, regardless of the economic system. Pollution: If an entity is polluting, there are two options. (A) The polluting entity can pay off the polluted victim. In this way, pollution enters into economic calculation. Or (B), the pollution can be legally prohibited. Of course, I'm not saying that all pollution is always legally punished or ever will be; I'm merely describing how things should be ideally in the public's interest. "FYI capitalism creates druggies, because that is unfortunately people's only escape from this shit-show." Naw, it's prolly cause ah public schools and da decline of family life. We stop paying taxes to get rid of the government when the time comes. I'm not about to because I'll go to jail. "So I guess unlike other Libertarians, you think that there is no cronyism in government? Dumbass!" No, you completely misinterpreted what I said. In short, capitalism is where all theft and murder are illegal. So when people aren't being stolen from and murdered, you've got capitalism. The most general (without getting into nitty gritty) criticism of democratic ownership of the means of production is this: Why aren't people already doing it? Pure free market capitalism and even this current system is not stopping people from doing this. People aren't doing it because it's not as productive as entrepreneurial ownership. So, if you prohibit entrepreneurial ownership in favor of democratic ownership, you make everyone poorer. Feel free to do what you want. Just don't tell me what to do.


Re-read your post Richard, not 1 solution mentioned. I don't care about text book thinking, nor do I care about what capitalism *should be*. capitalists love to cherry pick everything. Something good happens, oh that's capitalism, if bad, that's not capitalism, when the reality of it is that it is always capitalism. capitalism causes cronyism. capitalism is responsible for the good as well as the bad, how could it not be? SO, with that in mind, if 95% of all crime could be wiped off the face of the earth by the ridding of capitalism, its time to do so. We don't have to hold onto it any longer. If you could present how capitalism could take care of all the problems mentioned, then I would give you my ear, but like other capitalists, you are tap dancing. Why? capitalism is not a family member. Its a tool that is now broken because it no longer fits the purpose for what it was originally intended for. Moreover, just as a tool can be used as a weapon, the rich elites have weaponized it in the form of crony corporatism. Again, you mentioned nothing of how to separate the 2. Im not cranky, Im serious about the problems of the world. Im not like dumbass conservatards whom, in some crazy delusional ideological thinking, want us all to relax and pull up a lawn chair to sit and watch the world crash. No wonder the world is in such bad shape. Ever go through a community and see the slums, its because people want to sit on their asses and not do anything about it, which is the conservatard methodology in a nutshell. We CAN do something about this coerced slavery, and I for one, want to show people that we will not get anywhere in dirty, filthy, shit-where-you-eat capitalism. And I think I have demonstrated that very well with this conversation Im having here with you. Do you actually want to present at least 1 solution as to how capitalism might solve any of the problems Ive listed? I want CHANGE!

This seems twisted to me. Libertarian isn't about neglecting anyone. It's about you doing what you wish as long as it doesn't interfere with my life, liberty, or property---and vice versa.

Libertarianism is an economical philosophy for the masses. If it cant take care of the masses, there is no reason to put it forward as a viable system for the masses.

Ayn Rand doesn't say love makes you weak. She would say love is selfish. Helping people is selfish, it makes you feel good. There isn't anything "altruistic" in the sense that no one does anything without the perception they will get something out of it. I kinda pisses me off how few people speak about Ayn Rand in complete ignorance. She's very clear about her ideology. Wtf is with all the misrepresentation? If she's wrong you should be able to explain without misrepresentation.

I think I offered solutions? Not doing anything is still a solution and a good solution in some cases. If it's right, what's wrong with textbook thinking? This whole conversation is about what should be. So we have to choose between this current system and your libertarian socialism? If that's what you're saying, that's ridiculous. Ironically, you say I'm tap dancing while you're rambling gibberish. "Capitalism" doesn't refer to "state capitalism." Are you saying that pure capitalism (ancapism) isn't attainable? Are you saying classical liberalism isn't attainable? Let me simplify this: Private property begets the market price system, which begets the proper resource allocation to produce as much of the stuff that people want as possible. That's all there is to it. That's the essential nugget of wisdom the science of economics gives us.

That's a misunderstanding of Rand.

There is no better system. If you think there is say it. It offer something practical. In a world with such diverse desires, talents, and motivations we are likely to do no better.

I highly disagree Richard. As a Libertarian, would you not agree that people who sit on their asses and do nothing are part of the problem, and not part of the solution? So by you saying "so what" you are doing little more than just sitting on your ass and doing nothing to address the problems we face. Let me be as clear as I can be -> Im saying that the present system is rigged and cannot be corrected; hence as Ive already stated numerous times, it is systematically flawed, meaning that it will never be corrected. History proves this to be true. Im saying that capitalism does NOT decrease poverty. If it did, you would expect there to be no poverty left after so many hundreds of years of capitalism. I do not consider anything that takes hundreds of years to complete, any kind of solution. Im saying that we need to come up with a better system that considers humanity and the environment first and utmost, not a small select few at the top. And definitely not a system that turns our world into a shit-hole. Im saying that those whom work the hardest should be rewarded with more success in their lives than those whom do not. I do NOT consider the stock market to be hard working, nor any kind of labor. Im saying that capitalism is not the system that protects us, nor our future from any kind of catastrophes that could and are coming to us. Im saying that economics, all of economics is a philosophy and NOT a science. It is a belief based system like religion, nothing to do with facts. If you actually listened to the Science, it is saying that we have to get off this roller coaster system of capitalism to save the planet, and our own extinction. Im saying that people need to wake up to these facts before its too late. capitalism is inefficient and archaic. It no longer takes care of us, nor does it represent us in any way. capitalism use to be about the people, and now it is about the corporations, control, and a means to enslave the masses into doing the bidding of the rich elite, a small group of individuals at the top, whom now live in Socialism. "Let me simplify this: Private property begets the market price system, which begets the proper resource allocation to produce as much of the stuff that people want as possible. That's all there is to it. That's the essential nugget of wisdom the science of economics gives us."

Yamamoto, sorry, capitalism is rigged. You can't blame anybody for being poor or otherwise, in a rigged system. Either you believe that people have the right to better themselves and create their own social mobility and success, or you are a fascist. Which are you? You don't get to just claim that the poor have no money... when they work, they never see their profits because they work for minimum wage, no matter what the profits accrued by their company. This is slavery, wage slavery to be exact. Its corporatism, and it has killed whatever notion of capitalism you or Richard, or any other proponent of it have. Those days are long gone. Time to get with todays reality -> We are being run by an oligarchy, or better put, a dictatorship, that has purchased our democracy, and are running the world to human extinction through environmental degradation to make profits at any cost. Its the old adage, what is the root of all evil? This is all I need to say to hold the entire truth about the downfalls of the system of capitalism. What cannot be purchased? Apart from being completely rigged, it is proven again and again to be systematically flawed, while foolish capitalist minions, make excuses for it. Well, I am intellectually honest, and I cannot abide by your betrayal of your human brethren in the face of a system that has failed us all. Ok yes, capitalism had its good days, but those days have not been seen in over 60yrs now. If we we're both on the battlefield, Im sure you, being a capitalist, would look after yourself first before aiding in your fellow team if they were to take a bullet for you. Same thing in the economic ways of humanity, you are ok with the poor "taking a bullet for you" through their hardwork and slave labor, and you think nothing of them for it. If you create a dog eat dog world, do not be surprised when you live in what resembles a 'Mexican dog fighting ring'. You should show some shame for not considering those less fortunate in the world you want to maintain for whatever insignificant reasons you have. All great systems and societies should judge not by the way the wealthy live in their system, but by the way the most impoverished live in their system. This is a good rule of thumb to measure ANY system. As for slavery, tell me, what is voluntary about the choice of not eating or working? In other words, death or forced minimum wage labor no matter how hard you work? If you don't consider that slavery, you don't understand the meaning, pure and simple. And btw, if you don't know, the entire reason for the civil war was that money should not be made off of the backs of the laborers. Yet, this is what the whole stock market is based upon; sucking money from the bottom so rich investors can maintain a life of sitting on their asses. All made more secure by the area of the world you were born, and to which parents you were born to. Easily I can map this perfectly onto the definition of slavery as well. "Capitalism does suck"

Carlos Spicyweiner Aye yi yi. You need to chill out. The world is not that complicated, nor is it so gloomy. A few points: Stealing from the poor is a non sequitur—-the poor by definition have nothing, so there is nothing to take. I don’t know how many years you have spent working and observing people. I’m in my 57th year. Here’s a theory that I have yet to see debunked. Sans those unpredictable hardships that we all experience in life the problem with those stuck at the bottom lies between their ears. Period. You can coach someone until your face turns blue—but if a young person doesn’t take their life seriously and makes stupid decisions there isn’t a political system that can help them. They are destined to be poor in perpetuity. Now if you want a system like Sweden, Finland, etc., that’s fine. But don’t expect anything but pushback in America. Working people don’t like giving the government 60-75% of their pay to government. In that world EVERYONE is equal for sure—-equally poor. All that other nonsense you mentioned is claptrap. There IS NO SLAVERY in America, and capitalism holds nobody hostage. You want to participate in the markets? You can, for a low price. Do you want to be a real estate mogul? You can. Buy your first house (smartly). Fix it up and sell it. Rinse. Repeat. You want to be a billionaire? Start a business. When it fails, pick up your pieces. Try again. One of your attempts may be successful. If so, rinse. Repeat. If one wants to sit on their ass, play video games, and smoke weed, you can do that too. Yeah you will end up a dirt-poor pothead, but that was due to calculations made between the ears. Capitalism does suck, but it offers greatest chance of success to greatest percentage of people. No system will cover 100%—-that is impossible. The opportunities are here. You can lead a horse to water..... This old saying still holds true.

We can perhaps argue that the S7 is the best so far, but you're right that we have not way of rationally inferring that it will always be the best. Capitalism, on the other hand, has been logically proven to be better than any system so far proposed.  Capitalism is all about science and technology. In fact, saving (delayed consumption) is a necessary precondition of employing technology and increasing the stock of capital goods to increase the quantity and/or quality of consumer goods.  If it the cost to go to Mars is greater than the revenue, then resources are going to a project that is not the most valuable project that they could gone to and we should be glad to know this. Without money, the NASA project could have been allowed and the public would have suffered a loss without knowing it! Money doesn't limit a capitalist economy. Any economy is limited only be its laws and resources. Money is a sine qua non of a modern economy because money enables capital accounting, which is an indespensible mental tool for rational resource allocation. Given the public's wants, money and capital accounting allow resources and time to be allocated optimally. The prices of resources and the interest rate regulate all productive activity to serve the public in the best possible way. Ive seen several of the RBE exponents' responses to L.v. Mises' economic calculation argument, and they have all failed to comprehend it. The problem of calculation has nothing to do with consumer goods prices or technical maximization of output. It has to do with the proper allocation of natural resources, labor, and capital goods (such as machinery). Only a capitalist economy can answer these questions. The RBE faces the same problem that the systems that advocated state or collective ownership of the means of production did. The RBE can decide, by the utilization of technical knowledge, what consumer goods to produce and the better of two or more production processes to produce a consumer good where the processes are differentiated by only an absolute difference of resources required, but the RBE cannot rationally decide which resources should be devoted to the production of which products and in which ways. Here's an illustration. Say 1 house can be produced by either of two methods which use different quantities of resources: method A requires 50 units of wood and 10 units of concrete; method B, being a newer method, requires 40 units of wood and 5 units of concrete to produce a house of the same size and quality. Now the RBE can rationally choose B over A to maximize the utilization of society's resources, as B produces the same product and conserves 10 units of wood and 5 units of concrete. There is no problem here and the RBE can tackle this problem with the same ease as a capitalist economy can. However, the RBE can't solve the following problem: 1 house can be produced with either 50 units of wood and 10 units of concrete or with 40 units of wood and 15 units of concrete. Now, how does the RBE choose? The capitalist economy, with prices for wood and concrete, can calculate the cost of the two projects to decide, and, in doing so, the capitalists maximize the public's satisfaction by using society's least valuable resources (resources with the smallest opportunity costs) to produce as much as possible. On the other hand, the RBE has no such tool as profit and loss calculation and, consequently, is left to grope in the dark. RBE citizens will suffer, as resources aren't directed toward their most value-productive employments, and the citizens receive products produced at the expense of other more valuable products, which the citizens would prefer. Of course, this problem is compounded in a modern economy where there are not two but millions of technological methods combining resources in different ways.

Give me one reason why one shouldn't sit on one's ass. What are you saying. We should make investing illegal? Savings and investment allowed technology to be utilized and are the reason we enjoy our fabulous standard of living. Things like inequality are not problems. Give me one reason why inequality is wrong that is not just an emotional plea rooted in envy for the rich. For one, history doesn't "prove" anything. We have economic theory for that. Just because some contingent social event happened in the past doesn't imply it will happen in the future. The current system is far from capitalism. We live in a mixed economy. The 19th century, especially in the U.S., was very classical liberal/capitalist, and was also the period of the most rapid economic growth ever seen. There's no reason why we shouldn't aim for that. In the past, capitalism has alleviated massive amount of poverty. This is an obvious historical fact. Before the industrial revolution, 99% of the population was had a standard of living no better than the Romans and was poor by today's standards. What happened? Private property, free trade, capital accumulation, and investment happened and enabled technology to improve the standard of living. There is no other solution to poverty. There's no magic trick to cause poverty to disappear overnight. Capitalism is the economic system for the masses. By seeking profit, capitalists inadvertently serve the consumers in the best possible way. Capitalists don't become rich without providing desired products. Big business serves the masses. Nobody gets super rich selling luxury items, which are inaccessible to the masses. Who gets super rich? People who supply TVs, cars, appliances, shoes, etc.. Capitalism serves humanity.  Define working hard, and tell me why anyone who works hard should make more than someone who works less hard. What does capitalism not have that any other system does? Why is capitalism unable to prevent catastrophes? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's unscientific. Just because your mind can't or won't grasp lines of aprioristic reasoning doesn't mean that economics doesn't convey true knowledge about the world. It can be logically proven that capitalism is the most efficient economic system. As long as the "individuals at the top" didn't get there through fraud and violence, why shouldn't they be there? There's no "logical conclusion" that capitalism can't be separated from cronyism. Again, even if capitalism had never been without cronyism, that wouldn't imply capitalism can't be without cronyism in the future, but the 19th-early 20th century U.S. remains a good example of low corruption, free market capitalism. Actually, the science of economics has everything to do with reality, and today's most controversial questions can be exclusively answered by it. Let us start anew with one point at a time: Can we agree that a market price system is necessary to effectively allocate resources?

You haven't established your directives of a system ... highly depends on what your goals are! If you mean a better system by raping the world of resources and exploiting our nature, and natural habitat so we can throw it all in landfills every other year, yeah I would agree that there is no better system than capitalism in doing such. If you mean a system that would be the most beneficial to the human race in preserving its existence with a high standard of sustainability, if that is truly the objective (to survive and keep surviving well), then it is quite laughable to hear you think that there is no better system than capitalism. Don't be silly. What if I was to say to you that there is no better cell phone than the Samsung Galaxy s7, and never ever will be? How would you answer such a stupid question like that? ... because that's literally what you are asking. As for my own personal take, we need a system that is falsifiable. We need to evolve faster in regards to efficiency, and therefore the main engine needs to be science-based; the only thing so far that humanity knows of that is self-correcting. When taken to its logical conclusion, it is 100% science and technology, that solves EVERY great problem that humanity has faced, and is facing. So why not have Science solve ALL our problems? ... not money. Money inhibits everything. We would have been to Mars already if, as NASA says, there wasn't a dirty little 4-letter word, COST! Capitalism will NEVER give you the cure outright, because it is not as profitable compared to dragging it out many years to do so. Everything has a cost. Not to mention, the cost of maintaining a class of super rich idiots among us. For them, the greater portion of the profits, the rich elite bury in personal luxury and savings. Back on point, regarding the problems of what we now face as a human species in the modern age, I would advocate for a RBE (Resourced Based Economy) that would be a much much better system for the world to move forward with in light of the horrors of this economic ever-so-slow train wreck of capitalism we see nowadays. Please watch these videos before responding to my comments here. I will cut my conversations short with people who do not understand what a RBE is, and are too lazy to look it up. To make it easier for you here are 2 independent plans for a definition of a RBE -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EkMjTnWk14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8

No Richard, Im not going to follow your retarded view down some rabbit hole for you to come to some misguided conclusion, probably that I have already answered because you didn't read my posts well enough, or understand. I just bitchslapped you, each time for every point you threw at me. Why can't people just admit when they are wrong? Its not a contest between blue and red, Im not even a Socialist! Its about the future of all life on this planet in jeopardy here, do you realize that? capitalism, whether I or you like it or not, is finished. You have not explained how it will stop even 1 of the problems it is currently facing. Its dumbasses like yourself that are creating the dark ages we live in now, and moreover the end to everything. I hope you are one to change your views in light of the evidence, or all this is completely meaningless. And I really hope you read EVERY point in that last post I sent, as you answered rather pretty quickly. I asked you, most importantly, what is scarce that is needed for basic human survival? After you answer this, your eyes will be opened to understand that there are no problems facing humanity when it comes to resources. Do you think in capitalism now, that all the resources go to the people??? WTF? No way! They go to the 1%, the elite rich among us. Im going to show you that your argument is completely fictitious, made up by people who want to keep capitalism going, most likely your daddy. In other words, more bullshit. Answer this 1 question ... What is scarce that is needed for basic human survival?

For now, let's just focus on whether or not a market price system is necessary for optimal resource allocation because we aren't going to get anywhere by addressing a million points at a time.  "either wood...too easy!" Its completely irrelevant whether the resources are renewable. The question is how do we determine which process allows more urgent wants to be fulfilled? Like the other RBEers, you've still failed to comprehend the problem. If this misapprehension is due to my inadequate explanatory skills, then I'm sorry. The important thing to remember is the following. Society's resources can produce all sort of things. The economic problem is this: Which things should we use them to produce, and how do we combine them to get as much of these things as possible? Profit and loss accounting is a mental tool that allows us to know whether we are making a resource more or less valuable in the eyes of the consumers. It's not an arbitrary game.

I apologize for the text-wall ahead of time, but you left me no option. "Give me one reason why one shouldn't sit on one's ass. What are you saying. We should make investing illegal? Savings and investment allowed technology to be utilized and are the reason we enjoy our fabulous standard of living."

Getting rid of money doesn't make cost go away. Cost is an essential feature of the reality of human life. If the RBE devotes an acre of land to grow apples, then the cost of that decision is the oranges that could have been grown on that acre instead. The capitalist money price system just allows us to see the cost of our decisions. Within capitalism, entrepreneurs with alternative uses for a resource bid the price of the resource up until the price equals the expected revenue to be generated by the resource. The highest bidder gets the resource. The highest bidder is the entrepreneur who expects the largest amount of revenue for the product of the resource. If product A generates more revenue than product B, then the consumers value product A more than product B. Through this market process, resources are always used in the most valuable way, thereby minimizing opportunity cost. Strictly speaking, the classical liberal program of Mises and Hayek aims at the material welfare of all society, not just the poor. But the poor's interests are not contrary to everyone else's. The interesting thing about economic theory is that it has the ability to identify policies that are beneficial to everyone, not just certain groups at the expense of everyone else. To illustrate this, let me remind you of the classical liberal position on slavery. To the liberal, slavery should be abolished, but not because of "human rights" or "dignity" or any other arbitrary, metaphysical, pre-scientific concepts. The liberal opposes slavery for one reason and one reason only: Slavery is bad for the consuming public. This is true because (A) slave labor is less productive than free labor, and (B) slave labor is immobile and prevents labor from being allocated to its most valuable employment. Likewise, redistribution is not in the poor's interest because we need rich people to invest in huge manufacturing plants to make stuff for the poor and encourage entrepreneurs to produce things that the poor demand. It's unfortunate that people themselves are a necessary factor of production and, therefore, the wage system (and material poverty that comes with it in some cases) must be maintained in order to fulfill the absolutely indispensable social function of labor allocation. "Food is not scarce, it just seems that way BECAUSE of capitalism." Okay, I think we are operating on a different definition of "scarce." See my above definition to see where I am coming from.

You are full of it. This problem of too much cost to not be able to distribute food properly is only present in capitalism, and falls apart in a RBE, because a RBE is not individualism, it is groupism. And it embraces science, and systems theory for efficiency. Again, since there are no patents on information, we can give the necessary agricultural information openly regarding the best way to produce food. No Monsanto needed to restrain us from growing with better technology EVERYWHERE. Back to that dirty little 4-lettered word, keeping us forever in the capitalist's death grip dark ages ... the perfect inhibitor ... COST! Moreover, do you remember what it was that we began with? In my first post? It was about poverty, wasn't it? How does capitalism take care of the poor? The first reply you sent to me, the first line was, "For utilitarian libertarians, such as Mises and Hayek, the entire point of libertarianism is to help those at the bottom." SO how do you take care of the bottom when you believe in such a shitty system for taking care of the bottom??? You just indicated in your last post, "food will be distributed to the consumers who are willing and able to pay the most", and if they can't pay for it? THEY STARVE ~clap clap clap~ capitalism, the best system ever, that will ever be BAHAHAHhahahahaha what a knee-slapper~! In capitalism, it cannot distribute the food to the people. Food is not scarce, it just seems that way BECAUSE of capitalism. Camman, what else do you have that is truly scarce for basic human life to sustain? I know you see what Im getting at. When you realize that there is nothing scarce for basic human life, then you can begin to see your chains! There is no need for any of this shit slavery to exist, other than to keep us from being free from the rich elite oligarchy; in order for a very small group of people to be allowed to lay claim to the entire planet, and run it into destruction.

1.That the amount of food is enough to feed the world doesn't imply that food is not scarce. The definition of "scarce" is "not abundant," not "not abundant enough to feed 2,100 calories per day per person." For something to be abundant, it must not have an opportunity cost of consuming it. Producing (and, therefore, consuming) food always has an opportunity cost because its factors of production--land, labor, and capital goods (like tractors and factories)--are scarce and non-specific, that is, there are not enough of them to produce everything anybody could want, and they could be used to produce different things. 2. Within capitalism, food, like any other good, will be distributed to the consumers who are willing and able to pay the most. If shipping food to a starving country is not profitable (or not the most profitable) use of the food, then the shipping, in the interest of the consumers, should not be undertaken because monetary loss implies that some consumer wants have been satisfied at the expense of some other more urgent (remunerative) wants. The RBE would have no way to avoid this mistake.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3062692/the-real-reason-theres-world-hunger-food-waste-not-food-shortages http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_FoodScarcity.html https://sdn.unl.edu/global-food-scarcity Ill quote Conley -> "The World Trade Organization estimates that if total calories from all the food produced were divided among all the people on earth, there would be 2,750 calories per person per day. Since the recommended daily minimum per person is 2,100 calories a day, there are enough calories to feed everyone in the world. But not everyone is getting the need calories and food because it's "not evenly distributed across the landscape of the world," Conley said." Just another point of failing capitalism. Its not profitable to distribute food to these places, nothing to do with scarcity. It would not be an issue in RBE. Care to try again Richard?

Okay, food.

I asked you a question and you didn't (couldn't?) answer, so I let you ask a question instead. My last comment was just a response to your points.  Okay, besides food, water, clothing, energy, and shelter all come to mind. A more precise definition of "scarce" is "being unable to be produced without an opportunity cost." I like it better than the colloquial Google definition, but terminological disputes are petty and useless, so let's just drop the word and say what we mean. Exactly why is it that capitalism causes less stuff to be made? Why would capitalists or the "elites" want people to starve? If stuff could be produced for free, then why would capitalists pay for stuff? Lot's of stuff wouldn't hurt anybody. Everybody would have more or as much stuff as now if things were free. You act like there's some world conspiracy to stop people from finding out that we really live in fairy-fairy land, and the "elite" don't want us to find out. Why would the "elite" want to restrict output? Given limited knowledge, within capitalism, distribution is always carried out in the best possible way for the satisfaction of the consumers. If you don't accept the theorem that profit seeking capitalists always allocate resources to their most valuable employments, then I invite you to refute it.  Within capitalism, everybody who is willing and able to work for the market wage gets a job. I'm afraid to tell you that, by switching to solar, you are actually capitalism in action.

You told me to keep on topic, and then you go off on a million tangents... What is scarce that is necessary for basic human life? "Okay, I think we are operating on a different definition of "scarce." See my above definition to see where I am coming from." -> Scarcity google definition -> "the state of being scarce or in short supply; shortage." Do you have a different definition? To recap, you're best, and only answer so far is 'food', which I have explained, and so have the videos, that I believe you actually didn't watch. Whatever the case may be, we are now living in the age of abundance. Scarcity is only a word to make people conform to capitalism (unless they think and reason). Scarcity use to exist, but now with technology and our many networks, we no longer have to worry about any basic needs for human life. Not to mention, more and more, day by day, our robots are building everything for us. Automation has forced governments to invent things like a UBI, because capitalism is failing so bad already. How pathetic, huh?! capitalism cant distribute the goods, nor can it provide enough jobs for the people, embarrassing. I heard that many politicians are now pushing for nuclear power over renewable resource energy, because without billing the people for energy, capitalism is falling to the way side, and the rich elite will not have anything to control with. I got solar, and we don't pay anything for electrical any longer. Im now striving to get an electric car so I can get rid of more capitalism in my life. True freedom. Scarcity is extinct. The future is bright, and only capitalism will continue to slow it down.

Look, this conversation is getting to be a bit too circular for my liking. I have asked you how to fix the poor within your Libertarian standards. You say capitalism, when I ask how, you said "so what" about it all. Again, you ask such dumb questions, "Why would capitalists or the "elites" want scarcity?"

1.By definition, within capitalism, nobody has power over another in the way that a feudal lord owns a serf. It is indeed logically conceivable that capitalists could hoard resources, but what is their incentive? Resources sitting in the ground or in warehouses are not profitable. What's the point of that "power"? What's your proof for this hoarding is going on? So long as capitalists aim at maximizing profit, no hoarding occurs. Instead, optimal resource allocation occurs. The relationship between citizen and state is not necessarily mutually beneficial, and is, therefore, coercive; however, that's not strictly speaking capitalism. 2. For a radical, you are very confident in your position. I don't think I've been any less open-minded than you. If you were ever a libertarian, it must have been a long time ago, since you don't seem to be very understanding of my position. In fact, you're downright dismissive as if I'm a crazy person, which is unlikely; although, I could be badly misguided; however, I haven't found any of your arguments sufficiently cogent to revise my position. 3. I'm not on the right. There is nothing conservative about me. I currently think free, unregulated, unbridled capitalism, which has never been implemented, will satisfy the wants of the public better than any other system. 4. The only way to "fix" the poor is to produce as many of the things they want as possible. The wage system and, therefore, inequality have a definite and indespensible social function. Equal distribution of all goods would be disastrous for everyone, including the poor. You can't expect to deviate from the material inequality arising on the market and not see a fall in productive output and a rise in malproduction at that. High wages attract labor to areas where labor is required to produce urgently desired products, and low wages attract capital good investment to areas where labor is not employed very usefully. Again, I invite you to refute the reality of these tendencies. 5. There often exists an incentive for companies to trick and lie to the consumers. It's the job of competition to expose false information and the job of the law to stop fraud. BTW, you still haven't explained how the RBE will optimally allocate the marginal unit of a factor of production.

Working for Whole Foods was one of the worst experiences in my life. The customers and managers are very very very very very toxic. No one I know enjoys or enjoyed working at Whole Foods. We are over worked, treated like slaves, and the pay isn’t worth the work we do. I lost a lot of respect for Whole Foods and I disagree with what this guy says.

17:20, working at whole foods was a miserable experience. Me and almost everyone else there hated working at Whole Foods but did it because other jobs paid poorly. Eventually the work and toxic negativity from our asshole customer convinced me to quit and work at Abercrombie. I love everyone there and I am much happier there. Whole Foods is a very toxic environment.

7:50, it turns you on?

He says «Poverty will disappear because capitalism is what will allows everyone to escape poverty. » Absolute non-sense, Capitalism is always heading towards a concentration of wealth. Time will prove him wrong, but he will be dead by then (2100) and that is why he thinks he can tell obvious lies. Furthermore, he is in adoration of China and India. What a dumbass.

Other news