~C4Chaos

Starbucks On Its Way to Becoming Post-American?

With its closing of 600 stores in the U.S., is Starbucks on its way to becoming post-American? If this trend continues then it looks like Starbucks would fulfill its prediction.

"Starbucks predicts that by 2010 it will have more cafés in China than in the United States." [via The Post-American World]

My question is a rhetorical question, of course. From the perspective of globalization, BIG business (especially multinational business) is by definition post-American. Why? Because the market is global.

Case in point: Since 2005, Starbucks' growth plan gives priority to China. The Beijing Olympics is opening China's doorway.

The New Gilded Age: The Rise of the Super Rich

Just finished watching CNBC's documentary, Untold Wealth: The Rise of the Super Rich. Go check it.

"In 1985, there were 13 American billionaires. Today there are over 1,000. And the richest 1% of Americans control more wealth than 90% of the U.S. population - combined. [watch it]

The amounts these people spend on their toys, accessories, properties, and luxuries are jaw-dropping. Nevermind the recession and the record-high gas prices, the super rich could afford anything. That's why the middle-class millionaires are insecured. Yep, you heard me right: middle-class millionaires.

Ah, well. Welcome to The New Gilded Age.

Re: Incest Between Business and Government

As a follow up to my previous post, Incest Between Business and Government, here's the video and transcript of Bill Moyers' interview with Steve Fraser.

"Steve Fraser, historian and author of WALL STREET: AMERICA'S DREAM PALACE, discusses the modern parallels and differences to the first Gilded Age, the big disparity between the rich and poor, and the increasing strain on working Americans." [watch it here]

Good stuff.

Sex Continues to Sell More Than Ethics

I'm not surprised. This is classic capitalism in the works. Here's a case in point.

(via Fast Company: American Apparel's New Image)

"A whopping majority of American shoppers may consider themselves environmentalists, but, according to the Journal of Industrial Ecology, only 10% to 12% "actually go out of their way to purchase environmentally sound products." Similarly, Brandweek reported on a survey that found that even among consumers who called themselves "environmentally conscious," more than half could not name a single green brand.

"Why the disconnect? Well, ask most people whether they care about the environment, and it's not particularly surprising that many would say yes. Ask whether they would back that up by "buying green" if they had the chance, and again, it's likely that very few would admit to being hypocrites by saying no. What we do in the marketplace is another matter."

...

"Eventually, I ended up in Charney's office, just in time, it would turn out, to witness an underwear fitting. He had concluded that -- whatever the polls might say -- ethical consumers were a niche. And he wasn't going to sell as many T-shirts as he wanted by targeting a niche; he wanted a generation. "We make sexy T-shirts for young people," he summarized. " [read more]

The article is an excerpt from Rob Walker's Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are.

Incest Between Business and Government

Steve Fraser says: "Basically, we left the financial marketplace largely unregulated – a tendency which had begun under Reagan and continued at an accelerated pace all through the years since Reagan, including under the Clinton administration... When push comes to shove, businessmen and their financial enablers may talk the talk about the free market. But when times get tough, they turn to the government to bail them out... That is this close, almost incestuous relationship between business and government."

(via Bill Moyers Journal: The American Dream in Reverse)

See also Steve Fraser on Gilded Ages.

Speaking of big business and inequality, one of the richest people in the world is on the side of the regular working people. Here's what Warren Buffett has to say about this issue:

"Certainly the worst taxes-- is something like a sales tax. I would say that we've got a pretty bad system, when we tax the person who-- who cleans out my office, the receptionist. They are paying 15-- payroll taxes, over 15 percent now, just for openers.

"Most of my income is taxed at 15 percent, and-- and doesn't pay a payroll. Mainly it’s dividends and capital gains. And if you look at the For-- Forbes 400, a bunch of my fellow rich guys-- they will-- their tax rate overall to the federal government will be less than that of their receptionist. And I challenge anybody. If they want to make me a bet on that, and I've urged Congress, both the Senate and the House, to get the figures anonymously from the IRS. Just look at that Forbes 400. Takes a billion three to get on the Forbes 400 this year. And the aggregate wealth is just staggering. And those people are paying less percentage of their total income to the federal government than their receptionists are." [read more]

Ah well, maybe Scott Adams is right. Maybe there really are puppet masters running the United States.

I am watching Yvon Chouinard's Classic Speech

Very fluffy and inspiring. Watch it here.

"Yvon Chouinard, legendary climber, businessman and environmentalist, is the founder and owner of one of the world's most inspiring companies, Patagonia, Inc. In this talk before a sold-out audience at the University of California Santa Barbara, Mr. Chouinard talks about his personal history and how he created Patagonia and the philosophy that he runs the company by. He discusses how he has tried to minimize Patagonia's impact on the environment and gives several examples, including the fact that his company's famous fleeces are now made out of recycles soda bottles. He also talks about his " One Percent for the Planet" plan in which participating businesses contribute at least 1% of their net annual sales to groups on a list of researched and approved environmental organizations." [watch it]

Relax, It's Only a Recession, Not a Black Swan

Yep. Looks like the U.S. is heading towards recession alright.

See Freakonomics: The Latest Data: Yes, It's a Recession

(image via Freakonomics)

Economists and the Federal Reserves are scampering over the "end of the good times." Expect more "stimulation" from the government.

"For months, policy makers and Wall Street economists have been predicting, and hoping, that the aggressive series of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve would keep the economy growing, despite the housing bust. But the possibility seemed to diminish almost by the hour on Friday."

Economists doing the predicting... I wonder what Nassim Nicholas Taleb is thinking right now. Damn you, Gaussian Bell Curve! Damn you!

Anyway, don't panic. Its just a recession. Be thankful it's not a Black Swan.

Bill Gates Calls for Creative Capitalism

Last night I watched the three-hour documentary, The Corporation. I was again reminded that the current state of capitalism is not only unsustainable but also wreaks ethical havoc wherever it sets its profit-centric tentacles. If a corporation is a sentient being then its psychological make-up is that of a psychopath. And yet, we're all dependent on it. We're all profiting from it, directly or indirectly. We're all co-creators of a fast-growing global capitalistic society. We're all drinking from its intoxicating cup of madness.

But all hope is not lost. There's a growing number of conscientious CEOs, like Ray Anderson of Interface and Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia, to name a few. Serendipitously, during the World Economic Forum 2008 at Davos, the richest man in the world issues a call for a kinder and more creative capitalism.

Here is a video of Bill Gates's speech at Davos.

Bill Gates may not have the cool image of Steve Jobs, but he's still one of my heroes. I think Richard Mahoney is right when he said that, "'Bill Gates is going to be remembered more for what he did for international public health than what he did for the world of computers.'' I'm hoping that Bill Gates would also be remembered for his vision of a kinder, more creative, and conscious capitalism.

I Am Watching The Corporation...

I've been wanting to watch this documentary for a long time now. But I couldn't find a DVD to rent. Good thing it's now available on Google Video.

"THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV, news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change."

Elon Musk = Steve Jobs On Steroids

(Tesla Roadster image via bozs13)

Steve Jobs maybe a control freak when it comes to micromanaging, but he looks pale in comparison with Elon Musk. Who is Elon Musk? Elon Musk is a Silicon Valley superstar: co-founder of Paypal and SpaceX; chairman of Tesla Motors and SolarCity. Musk has a similar path with Steve Jobs. They both like to be in full control. They've both been fired by their boards. They both came back stronger and more powerful. They are both uber-passionate entrepreneurs who are changing the world. But Musk is taking the more difficult and seemingly impossible problems: space exploration, "green" cars, solar power, and then some. No wonder Inc Magazine chose Elon Musk as Entrepreneur of the Year:

"Yet the kingmakers of innovation--the academics, the investors, the bloggers--tend not to talk about Musk. They dwell on idea people like Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, the 23-year-old wunderkind whose high-concept notions about social networks have made him the hottest thing in business. Or they talk about prognosticators, people like MIT's Nicholas Negroponte, whose One Laptop per Child program has captured the imaginations of moguls, wonks, and Davos attendees everywhere. Elon Musk isn't a software geek or a self-styled visionary. He's not particularly young or brash or handsome, and he can come off as kind of a jerk. He isn't hawking new technology, and he's quite shy. Yet he just might change the world."

Read more.

I'm rooting for Musk to change the world of business, space exploration, alternative energy, and transportation. I also dream of having an affordable Tesla Roadster whilie living in a Solar-powered city and a chance to travel to outer space.

Brian Johnson @ Falling Fruit: Conscious Business

Brian gets interviewed on Falling Fruit! w00t! Check it out.

Arete and the Hero's Journey

“In this episode we talk with the founder and former CEO of Zaadz.com, Brian Johnson, and explore conscious business in relationship to areté, the classical Greek notion of living at one's highest potential, as well as the archetypal hero's journey. During our conversation we touch on how easy it is to look at people we admire and forget that they too struggled on their path to greatness.”

Lessig: Is Google (2008) Microsoft (1998)? (aka Supercapitalism)

Last night me and my good friend Dave attended a lecture by Lawrence Lessig at the University of Washington. The title of the lecture: Is Google (2008) Microsoft (1998)?

As usual, Lawrence Lessig delivered another brilliant and insightful presentation. He deserved the standing ovation. He more information in one hour of lecture than I can digest. Good thing I took some notes. Here are some bumper sticker notes:

-- "the data is the platform"
-- "comedy of the commons"
-- "lawyers are not innovators"
-- "silly to moralize a corporation"
-- "Microsoft is not evil"
-- "support the competition"
-- "politics diverted"

I hope that Lessig posts a video of that presentation so I can share it with everyone. Really good stuff.

In the meantime, allow me to share some of the nuggets of wisdom I got out of that lecture.

First, the title of the lecture is a bit misleading. It's more like a hook to get people to pay attention. Mention Google and Microsoft and heads would turn immediately. But I'm not disappointed one bit. In fact, Lessig delivered more than what was promised by the title. Here's my attempt at summarizing the lecture.

Lessig started his trademark Powerpoint presentation with the story of how Microsoft lost its "coolness." And then he proceeded with the story of how Google now dominates the tech industry, while still maintaining its "coolness" factor -- the data is now the platform. In his storytelling he covered his usual topics such as copyright, creative commons, read-only/read-write culture, economies of culture (e.g. hybrid companies), and corruption. But those topics, as interesting and fascinating as they were, were only ingredients to the meat of the lecture.

The real meat of the lecture is: the eroding of trust by the public on the government and the misplace of this trust on "good" corporations undermine our democracy.

Lessig concluded his lecture by pitching the book Supercapitalism by Robert Reich. The arguments in this book (which Lessig agrees with) go contrary to the popular idea of Corporate Social Responsibility. Here's an excerpt on Lessig's blog:

"The problem, from Reich's (and my) perspective, is that the other half of us - the part that thinks not as an actor in a market, but as a citizen - has atrophied. That is, the half of us (again, of each of us - Reich's point is that each of us has these two parts) that demands that government set sensible and efficient limits on private action has atrophied. Deep skepticism about government has made most of us turn away from it as a tool of sensible policy making. We instead (and this is a truly brilliant part of the book) turn to corporations to make good policy in government's stead. We push for "corporate social responsibility" and praise corporations who agree to do the "good" thing, imagining that this means something other than the "money making" thing. This, Reich says, is "politics diverted" - trusting companies to do good policy rather than getting government to set good policy, imagining "corporate social responsibility" will produce something different from corporations maximizing profits."

....

"Corporations are not more efficient governments. They are instead increasingly efficient money making machines. And while there's nothing at all wrong with money making machines -- indeed, wealth and growth depends upon them -- there is something fundamentally wrong with trusting these machines to restrain the drive for profits in the name of doing the right thing."

And this, for me, is the most important nugget of wisdom from that lecture. As much as I support and love the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility and Conscious Capitalism, I also admire Lawrence Lessig's brilliance so I pay attention to his arguments. So I'll be adding Supercapitalism to my reading list. It would be interesting to see how I can hold these opposing views and still manage to do the right thing, at least in my own sphere of influence.

For more info on Supercapitalism, keep watching this bookmark tag:
http://coolmel.zaadz.com/bookmarks/tagged/supercapitalism

I now leave you with this excerpt from a Robert Reich interview on Forbes:

---

Forbes.com: Doesn't the increase in consumer power allow the average American a greater opportunity to act as a citizen both of the U.S. and of the world?

Robert Reich: If consumers were willing to sacrifice good deals for the sake of some social goal they believed in--for example, paying more for a garment with a label guaranteeing it's not made by children in a poor country or for a book that's made with recycled paper--then you're right: Supercapitalism, as I've called it, would serve the interests of us both as consumers and as citizens. But the overwhelming evidence shows that consumers are not willing to make such sacrifices. If items are priced the same, consumers will choose the one that better matches their personal ethics, but they won't pay more for one that does.

Consumers are acting logically, because they have no guarantee that other consumers would make the same choice--meaning that their sacrifice would be pointless. The only way to make sure any such economic sacrifice is effective is to seek laws and rules that match one's ethical values.

That's where citizenship and democracy come in. It's through the democratic process that the economic "rules of the game" are determined--rules that all consumers and all private-sector competitors have to play by.

People Against Dirty: The Slobs Behind Method

I think it's time that I switch to a more earth-(and human)-friendly cleaning brand.

See also: Method co-founders, Adam Lowry and Eric Ryan, featured in Vanity Fair's Green issue.

What would you say to the person you were one year ago?

(This is in Response to the Questions and Reflections for October 24, 2007)

Buy GOOG, AAPL, and GAIA :)

Z3: Conscious Capitalism and (Bright) Green Business

(Crossposted from zBlog:~C4Chaos)

This post is the sixth in a series on the topic of Eco Business and Conscious Capitalism. I'd like to thank Julian Walker for putting this Zymposium together and to all those who joined this conversation in the past few days. Before I express my own thoughts on this topic, allow me to recap the different perspectives covered by my fellow participants.

Siona kicked it off with a powerful meditation on first person perspective of Conscious Capitalism: a sense of responsibility, or “taking ownership of my position in the world.” Brian followed up with the two roles we play in the conscious capitalism equation: conscious consumer, and conscious earner. Christiana dug deep and wide by asking a few important questions and differentiating the different aspects of Conscious Capitalism and Green Business. Jeff continued with his personal reflection by sharing an overview of the history of capitalism and then opening the “case” for Conscious Capitalism. And finally, Tommy Rosen (of Eco Gift Shop) shared a dilemma that he faces as an entrepreneur in the field of “green” business–the dilemma of not being “ECO” or “green” enough.

In this post, I'll share my views on Conscious Capitalism and its important role in the proliferation of “green” business.

The Driving Force Behind Conscious Capitalism

The participants touched on different perspectives and definitions of a big umbrella term that is Conscious Capitalism. A common thread I noticed is that Conscious Capitalism boils down to Capitalism infused with right intention. And what is the driving force behind this “right intention”? Patricia Aburdene, author of Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism, put it succinctly,

“Welcome to the Dawn of Conscious Capitalism–a popular, decentralized, broad-based crusade to heal the excesses of capitalism with transcendent human values.”

Transcendent human values–such us fairness, love, integrity, caring, humility, and compassion–are the forces that drive this right intention.

To put it another way, whereas the major mode of thinking in Capitalism is “objective” (i.e. profit at all costs, creation of a consumer culture), in Conscious Capitalism, the major mode of thinking is driven by “subjective” (i.e. sense of purpose) and “intersubjective” (i.e. high standard of morals and ethics).

If Capitalism is like an operating software then its long due for an upgrade. In the book, Capitalism 3.0, author Peter Barnes, described the two versions of Capitalism and a proposed solution:

Capitalism 1.0, or shortage capitalism, wherein people want more goods than the economy can provide; Demand exceeded supply.

Capitalism 2.0, or surplus capitalism, wherein there's no limit to what corporations can produce; their problem is finding buyers. This version created the excesses that we see today which result in three tragic flaws: “it devours nature, widens inequality, and fails to make us happier in the end.”

Capitalism 3.0, re-inventing the commons, wherein the essence is to “fix capitalism's operating system by adding a commons sector to balance the corporate sector. The new sector would supply virtuous feedback loops and proxies for unrepresented stakeholders: future generations, pollutees, and nonhuman species.” Note that although it doesn't use the word “conscious” or require changing the profit motive and human nature, Capitalism 3.0 is a manifesto coming from a more embracing world view, sense of purpose, and ethics (i.e. it includes future generations and has compassion for non human species).

Conscious Capitalism and (Bright) Green Business

If Conscious Capitalism is capitalism infused with transcendent human values, then green business (or eco business) is its natural offshoot. Caring and compassion are transcendent human values that are behind the idea of sustainability (caring for the environment and nature, and compassion for culture and future generations, including nonhuman species). Sustainability in turn is the hallmark of a green business.

However, although green businesses are devoted to sustainability and that big corporations are now paying homage to being green, we still often see environmentalism, anti-capitalism, and capitalism clashing with one another. In their loud clashing, although the extremes on all camps raise our collective awareness of the limitations on each of those camps, I think that the more sustainable solution(s) lie somewhere in the middle. When it comes to capitalism and environmental concerns I firmly believe that the solutions lie somewhere in the brighter shade of the “green” spectrum – a shade of green which embraces technology, ecology, economics, politics, consciousness and ethics, and in the process, raises the consciousness of capitalism.

Case in point: In the green issue of What is Enlightenment: Ecology, Politics & Consciousness, Ross Robertson praised the book, Worldchanging: A Users Guide for the 21st Century. Worldchanging is comprised of ”bright greens“–“those who harness the engines of capitalism, high technology, and human ingenuity to jump-start the manufacture of a dramatically sustainable future”– in contrast to “dark green” (old-school environmentalism which is anti-this, anti-that, while wallowing in their own romanticism).

“…bright green environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we need to overcome than the “tools, models, and ideas” that already exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions.”

As Jeff Klein and Michael Strong would say, “criticize by creating.” Their motto echoes that of the bright greens. And bright greens are as ambitious as they are practical. Here's what Alex Steffen (co-founder of Worldchanging) has to say:

“We don't need more recycling, we need a completely different system of closed-loop manufacturing, and no matter how many cans I crush my personal actions at the consumer level are of very little importance in getting us there. Even millions more eco-consumers will not get us what we need. What we need instead, it seems to me, is a global movement of smart people who understand the systems in which we're embedded, are actively pursuing better models which could replace them, and are clever as heck about communicating visions for doing so to their fellow citizens.”

Bright greens seek to understand technology, ecology, economics, design principles and capitalism, and leverage them for solutions instead of tearing down the systems in which we're embedded. By this definition, my views are very compatible with the bright greens. However, as Robertson pointed out in the WIE magazine, the bright greens are somewhat anti-spiritual:

“According to Sterling at least, the bright green paradigm will be one that is completely free of spiritual or mystical overtones…. 'If it doesn't pass muster over at the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, we don't want to know about it. It's not that we're going to pick big public fights with spiritually motivated Greens and other illuminated hippie types. This is useless and a waste of time. like beating up Quakers and Amish. We're simply going to serenely ignore them, the way everyone else does.'”

I have no problem with this. After all, computers, nanotechnology, nuclear, solar and wind power were created without spiritual or mystical overtones. I'm not saying that we have to deny the spiritual or the mystical impulse, but I think that, at this point in time, the spiritual and mystical language should stay in the background or on a different domain so as not to cause more confusion and stigma in the business world. Similar to a separation of church and state. We can honor the transcendent human values and reconcile them with the task at hand. But I see no need to be too “spiritual” and “religious” about it.

To sum it up, Conscious capitalism is the tree, green businesses are branches and leaves, we (consumers, entrepreneurs) are the agents of  growth and change. Awareness starts with the individual and spreads like wild fire.

Are You Thinking of Getting an MBA?

Before spending a ton of dough, you might want to check out this one:

”The Personal MBA (PMBA) is a project designed to help you educate yourself about advanced business concepts. This manifesto will show you how to substantially increase your knowledge of business on your own time and with little cost, all without setting foot inside a classroom.   

“The PMBA is more flexible than a traditional MBA program, doesn’t involve going into massive debt, and won’t interrupt your income stream for two years. Just set aside some dedicated reading time, pick up one of these books, learn as much as you can, discuss what you learn with others, and go out into the real world and make great things happen.

“If you’re interested in educating yourself about business, the Personal MBA is the best place to start.”

Thanks to Seth Godin for the heads up.

I think PMBA is the more practical approach when it comes to learning. But the biggest drawback is “the credential.” A lot of people take MBAs because it's required for climbing the corporate ladder. But I think PMBA is very useful if you're planning to become an entrepreneur or if you just want to have an understanding of how business works.

For those of you who already have an MBA degree, what do you think about Personal MBA? Based on your experience, is an MBA really worth it?

Current Reading: Business-sattva: The Business Bodhisattva

I'm in a coffee shop reading Business-sattva: The Business Bodhisattva by Fred Kofman. Here's a quote that struck me as I drink a cup of hot coffee:

“…business doesn't have a purpose. it purposes a goal for those who accept to play by its rules. In business, a simple statement of the goal is 'to make money today and in the future'–or more complicatedly, to maximize the value of the enterprise by maximizing the present value of its future cash flows. This is the point of the game. Each business organization (analogous to a sports team) tries to carry on operations such as invention, production, distribution, marketing and sales of goods and services at a (long-term) profit. There are some aspects of business that are like tennis; for instance, you compete against the producers of substitute products for market share. Some aspects are more like golf; for instance, you try to make the most (present-valued) money, regardless of who you are 'playing' with. On the other hand, as opposed to tennis, golf or football, business is not a finite game. It doesn't have well defined spatial boundaries. The playing field of business is the world, (and potentially outer space); business is transacted anywhere and everywhere human beings live.”

Fred went on and did a meta-analysis on the role business people play in the playing field of business up to the playing field of “life.” To sum it up, the question shouldn't be “What is the purpose of business?” but instead, “What is the purpose of the person doing business?”

Go ahead. Check it out. it's a good read.

Murdoch Wins

Sorry Bill Moyers. He ain't no angel Gabriel, but Murdoch still wins. Money changes everything. Ah, well...

Murdoch Wins His Bid for Dow Jones

"A century of Bancroft-family ownership at Dow Jones & Co. is over.

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sealed a $5 billion agreement to purchase the publisher of The Wall Street Journal after three months of drama in the controlling family and public debate about journalistic values."

Best (Generic) Career Advice, Ever

I've been contemplating about careers lately. Serendipitously, I read the best generic career advice, ever. It's from Uncle Scott. Read the entire post for more context. Here's the relevant quote:

"At least one of the skills in your mixture should involve communication, either written or verbal. And it could be as simple as learning how to sell more effectively than 75% of the world. That’s one. Now add to that whatever your passion is, and you have two, because that’s the thing you’ll easily put enough energy into to reach the top 25%.  If you have an aptitude for a third skill, perhaps business or public speaking, develop that too.

"It sounds like generic advice, but you’d be hard pressed to find any successful person who didn’t have about three skills in the top 25%.

"What are your three?"

I'll take this advice seriously and reflect on it.

John Mackey's Alter-Cyber-Ego

One of the big news in the business world today is John Mackey's alter-cyber-ego, "rahodeb."

Here's a detailed coverage on WSJ. And here's the latest coverage on CNBC.

---

Call it the Strange Case of the Anonymous CEO Web Postings. A court filing by the Federal Trade Commission has revealed that for years always-outspoken Whole Foods CEO John Mackey added his "two cents" to Yahoo's message board about the company's stock. Posting under the name "rahodeb" to keep his real identity secret, Mackey talked up Whole Foods and his own leadership while liberally trashing competitor Wild Oats.

Now the FTC is using some of those postings in its effort to show Mackey is trying to illegally stifle competition through his proposed acquisition of Wild Oats.

On the Whole Foods web site today, Mackey defends himself, saying he posted anonymously because it was "fun" and that rahodeb's postings "do not represent any official beliefs, policies, or intentions by either Whole Foods Market or me."

Read more...

---

Looks like the FTC is determined to block the Whole Foods and Wild Oats merger. This revelation is now being leveraged, according to Mackey, "to embarrass both me and Whole Foods through these disclosures."

Whether Mackey's intention was harmless or not, the news media and the blogosphere are now painting him to be one of the evil and wacky CEOs out there. This will surely put a dent on Mackey's reputation as a CEO and might even affect the Whole Foods and Wild Oats merger.

Finally, here's a thoughtful post on Open Integral and a discussion on the I-I Pod @ Zaadz.

But the question is: Is it wrong for a CEO to post anonymously on the Internet?

I believe that anonymity is bliss, as long as it's done with right intention.

I wish Mr. Mackey well. This too shall pass.