Monday, August 6, 2012

The 91-Year-Old Billionaire Behind Chick-Fil-A

Chick-fil-A has approximately 1,600 restaurants across 38 states, and it's the 10th most popular fast food chain in America, raking in more than $4 billion in annual sales. It's the second-largest fast food chicken chain behind KFC.

The founder, S. Truett Cathy, has a net worth of around $1.3 billion, and is ranked on the Forbes wealthiest list as 375th richest person in America.

Business Insider has a fascinating profile, here.


  1. I had the pleasure to meet and speak with M. Cathy in one of my business classes at Auburn U. in 1982. He stressed his values MORE than any other of his attributes for his successes. Didn't mean a whole lot to me at the time, but I've grown to appreciate him a lot more as I've noticed C-F-A's on so many street corners.

  2. Yet he donates money to organizations that want to use the force of government to ban gay marriage. Yet Wenzel does not denounce that, wounder if he is a paleo-conservative like Rothbard.

    1. Yo, Adrian, you mentioned the state in your post. Yet you failed to denounce the holocaust. You are obviously a nazi.

    2. "You are obviously a nazi", if by nazi you mean a person who is trying to show the hypocrisy of Wenzels post of been a real a-hole with things about Friedman and Cato, while never really calling out paleo-conservatives such as Rothbard for endorsing George Bush.

    3. You have failed to appreciate the comedic value of the anonymous poster. He took your non-sequitur and flipped it on you in a hilarious way. I'm going to keep that one in mind for future use. Kudos anonymous @6:14.

      Onto your comment: Have you actually read Rothbard's 'endorsement' of Bush? I doubt it because if you had you would realize it was a scathing endorsement. I'll put it at the end of this comment since its pretty long and our previous discussion here by our very own Bob Wenzel. But I'll add my own comments here:

      1. Rothbard calls both candidates bozos to begin with. He recognizes Bush's statist tendencies and cronyism.

      2. In this 'endorsement' he only gives a list that includes "In Bush's favor" and "Against Clinton". Obviously since you're such a brilliant authority on Austrian theory and thought, you noticed that Rothbard didn't include the "Against Bush" or "In Clinton's Favor" lists which represent the unseen. Oh wait, you didn't.

      3. For God's sake I think we can all agree here that Clinton is and was a dangerous man to have in power. We have the benefit of hindsight here and know nearly everyone that was connected to what would become the Clinton White House was bad for liberty. It's a who's who of control freaks: Clinton himself, Hillary, Al Gore, Madeleine "Its worth it" Albright, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Janet Reno, Robert Reich, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor (appointed to 2nd Circuit), Leon Panetta, Elena Kagan and the list goes on and on.

      4. I'm not so dense to think that a second Bush term would have been better than Clinton, we don't know for sure. I recognize that. But there's something to be said about "the devil you know".

      5. From a pragmatic perspective what options were there? It would come down to the two major parties candidates. Rothbard, as many of us unfortunately do, chose the lesser of the two evils.

      6. Finally, review Rothbard's closing point. His desire is to roll back the state and 'launch a counter-revolution against government meddling' and laments the reality that a Bush victory will not bring about this outcome.

      Can we please put this issue to rest on the EPJ for good? Rothbard and GHWB has come up repeatedly since the Rand debacle and its not even remotely the same issue.



  3. Of course, if he were donating money to groups trying to force gay marriage, Adrian would have no problem. Nor would he mind the additional gov't programs (especially Social Security) that would pay out even more spousal benefits.

    1. "Force gay marriage", I have never heard of any group trying to force people to get into a gay marriage. I already mind the existing benefits.

  4. Sorry, Bob, but I have to disagree. I have my values- which include separating marriage from the state completely- and want to use peaceful means to achieve them.

    The hateful bigot, Cathy, wants to use him money to enforce the values he embraces by empowering the state to increase the power the government has in the area of marriage.

    Who cares what his "values" are if they include using the government to enforce them? Fuck him- the history of this era will paint gaycists in a poor light.


    1. How are you disagreeing with Wenzel? It seems to me he is only stating facts. I don't see where he is promoting Cathy's views. Cathy is also a war hawk and I doubt Wenzel supports that either. On more than one occasion Wenzel has pointed out the wealth of people he has disagreed with, see Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg.

      Finally, can you point me to a comment made by Cathy about how "he embraces by empowering the state to increase the power the government."? Frankly, I have never understood why gays are so in an uproar about wanting to have their partnerships meddled in by the state. I think Cathy doesn't realize it, but he is really making life easier for gays---with calling for less government envolvement.