6 ms·

Warren Buffett is one of the world's most brilliant and skilled virtue-signaling crony, rentier capitalists. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/w

by themgt 9y ago

Warren Buffett is one of the world's most brilliant and skilled virtue-signaling crony, rentier capitalists. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren-buffetts-mobile-home-empire-preys-poor https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren-buff... https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/ https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/ However, when Nation reporters visited the "hurricane-proof" shelters in June, six to eight months after they’d been installed, we found them to consist of twenty imported prefab trailers beset by a host of problems, from mold to sweltering heat to shoddy construction. Most disturbing, they were manufactured by the same company, Clayton Homes, that is being sued in the United States for providing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with formaldehyde-laced trailers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Air samples collected from twelve Haiti trailers detected worrying levels of this carcinogen in one, according to laboratory results obtained as part of a joint investigation by The Nation and The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund.

rexpop 9y ago
What is this notion of "rentier capitalism"? How is it "crony"? What is a good book about these phenomena?
ReligiousFlames 9y ago
If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich, publicly-finance political campaigns, commit to real climate change policy, enact single-payer healthcare and address broken justice and mental healthcare systems with reform and compassion of investing in citizens and the public commonwealth. Sure his giving some capital to B&MGF seems like a noble deed, but it doesn't go far enough to change the world for the better in desperately vital ways given his assets, influence and capabilities. Buffett might live in a tiny house in Nebraska and try to seem a "good guy," but actions ultimately speak louder than words. That might seem harsh/entitled/demanding but a few people like him control trillions of dollars and the politics of many countries (which is also partly our fault for not opposing these conditions and demanding a fairer division of profits/labor/representation.), he's in a much better position to act instead of "standing around" as if he's stuck in an economic "bystander effect."
- golergka 9y ago
  > If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich Why the talk about "equality" always comes down to forcibly taking other people's money?
  - linschn 9y ago
    I'll bite. Because capitalism is a system in which the rich get richer. This preferential accumulation of wealth where wealth already is is an inherent feature of capitalism. The same kind of phenomenon can be seen in the population of cities for example: the more people there are in a city, the more other people are likely to move there. If you want to know more about this, see, e.g. Picketty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...) Also, profound inequality is bad for growth (The IMF says so, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...): "when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.". So given that there is a runaway feedback loop that make the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer, and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large, it logically follows that there must exist some scheme to redistribute a part of the wealth of the extra-rich to the rest of society. Taxation is (or should be) such a shame. Note that there is no moral argument here. No finger pointing, no entiltement. Just a systemic view of things: it is detrimental to all to let a runaway feedback loop increase inequalities.
    - Baeocystin 9y ago
      I think you have salient points. That said, did you mean shame? Or scheme?
      - linschn 9y ago
        I meant scheme, as in mechanism, or process, thank you :) I can't edit the original post now.
valuearb 9y ago
So one of his hundred subsidiaries, that makes tens of thousands of homes a year, had one of its many teams build twenty without air conditioners, and oversprayed pesticide in one. BTW: The "virtue signaling" jibe is because socialists hate the very idea that even a single capitalist can behave ethically. If two people like Charlie and Warren become wealthy anonymously and ethically that's bad enough. But if they have they temerity to preach to other capitalists and investors about ethical behavior it can only be "virtue signaling" to socialists, never just an honest desire to improve the world. As far as the "crony capitalist" jibe, lol. Warren started with $29,000 in savings and he was worth tens of millions by his thirties investing from Nebraska, without any help from Wall Street or anyone, no inside information or even a computer. And that's continued to this day. Warren Buffett is an affront to classists and socialists because he's the most famous of the many of US super rich who came from middle class or poor backgrounds, putting a lie to some if their class warfare rhetoric.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't post ideological rants to HN, regardless of the ideology. It's not what this site is for.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    How do you define the post that i was responding to?
    - dang 9y ago
      Pretty bad. But yours was worse because it was even more generic, more ideological, and more declamatory—a trifecta of badness by HN's standard. Other standards evaluate these things differently, of course, but when posting here the house rules apply. If a comment goes the wrong way down a one way street, please go in the opposite direction. That is, instead of more generic, be more specific; instead of more ideological, more unpredictable; instead of more declamatory, more thoughtful. Then you're making the discussion better even though someone else made it worse.

by themgt 9y ago

rexpop 9y ago

What is this notion of "rentier capitalism"? How is it "crony"? What is a good book about these phenomena?

ReligiousFlames 9y ago

If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich, publicly-finance political campaigns, commit to real climate change policy, enact single-payer healthcare and address broken justice and mental healthcare systems with reform and compassion of investing in citizens and the public commonwealth. Sure his giving some capital to B&MGF seems like a noble deed, but it doesn't go far enough to change the world for the better in desperately vital ways given his assets, influence and capabilities. Buffett might live in a tiny house in Nebraska and try to seem a "good guy," but actions ultimately speak louder than words. That might seem harsh/entitled/demanding but a few people like him control trillions of dollars and the politics of many countries (which is also partly our fault for not opposing these conditions and demanding a fairer division of profits/labor/representation.), he's in a much better position to act instead of "standing around" as if he's stuck in an economic "bystander effect."

golergka 9y ago
> If he truly cared so much about equality, he'd spend zillions to lobby Congress to massively raise taxes on the rich Why the talk about "equality" always comes down to forcibly taking other people's money?
- linschn 9y ago
  I'll bite. Because capitalism is a system in which the rich get richer. This preferential accumulation of wealth where wealth already is is an inherent feature of capitalism. The same kind of phenomenon can be seen in the population of cities for example: the more people there are in a city, the more other people are likely to move there. If you want to know more about this, see, e.g. Picketty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...) Also, profound inequality is bad for growth (The IMF says so, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I...): "when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.". So given that there is a runaway feedback loop that make the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer, and given that profound inequality is detrimental to the economy at large, it logically follows that there must exist some scheme to redistribute a part of the wealth of the extra-rich to the rest of society. Taxation is (or should be) such a shame. Note that there is no moral argument here. No finger pointing, no entiltement. Just a systemic view of things: it is detrimental to all to let a runaway feedback loop increase inequalities.
  - Baeocystin 9y ago
    I think you have salient points. That said, did you mean shame? Or scheme?
    - linschn 9y ago
      I meant scheme, as in mechanism, or process, thank you :) I can't edit the original post now.

valuearb 9y ago

So one of his hundred subsidiaries, that makes tens of thousands of homes a year, had one of its many teams build twenty without air conditioners, and oversprayed pesticide in one. BTW: The "virtue signaling" jibe is because socialists hate the very idea that even a single capitalist can behave ethically. If two people like Charlie and Warren become wealthy anonymously and ethically that's bad enough. But if they have they temerity to preach to other capitalists and investors about ethical behavior it can only be "virtue signaling" to socialists, never just an honest desire to improve the world. As far as the "crony capitalist" jibe, lol. Warren started with $29,000 in savings and he was worth tens of millions by his thirties investing from Nebraska, without any help from Wall Street or anyone, no inside information or even a computer. And that's continued to this day. Warren Buffett is an affront to classists and socialists because he's the most famous of the many of US super rich who came from middle class or poor backgrounds, putting a lie to some if their class warfare rhetoric.

dang 9y ago
Please don't post ideological rants to HN, regardless of the ideology. It's not what this site is for.
- valuearb 9y ago
  How do you define the post that i was responding to?
  - dang 9y ago
    Pretty bad. But yours was worse because it was even more generic, more ideological, and more declamatory—a trifecta of badness by HN's standard. Other standards evaluate these things differently, of course, but when posting here the house rules apply. If a comment goes the wrong way down a one way street, please go in the opposite direction. That is, instead of more generic, be more specific; instead of more ideological, more unpredictable; instead of more declamatory, more thoughtful. Then you're making the discussion better even though someone else made it worse.