4 ms·

Just out of curiosity, is there anything Gates/Buffet could do that you wouldn't approach cynically, i.e. that you would assume they're really doing it for othe

by edanm 9y ago

Just out of curiosity, is there anything Gates/Buffet could do that you wouldn't approach cynically, i.e. that you would assume they're really doing it for other peoples' benefits rather than their own?

roenxi 9y ago
Cynicism comes into its own when that sort of money is involved. Practically it isn't possible to become build that sort of wealth without being super-aware of the financial outcomes of your decisions. It isn't safe to take someone at face value once they can buy a PR firm without blinking.
- edanm 9y ago
  "It isn't safe to take someone at face value once they can buy a PR firm without blinking." Well I agree with that. But it seems like you're saying that there's literally no evidence in the world that can convince you that your cynical view of them is wrong, which is a pretty hard position to hold IMO.
cookiecaper 9y ago
I think it's always valuable to analyze the cynical angle and potential game. As a sibling commenter stated, you don't get to Gates or Buffet level without good awareness of the game. In most cases, you can hardly get up more than one or two rungs on the corporate ladder without it. I don't necessarily impute any of these motives upon Gates or Buffet per se. I just think it's important to be aware of how such actions align with their interests. The subjective judgment of each man's true motives is left to the reader. I will say that if Gates and Buffet truly believed that 40% of the wealth they accrue each year could be put to better use by the USG than themselves, they could put their money where their mouth is and donate that portion of their assets to the U.S. Treasury. [0] Instead, they seem to keep that wealth within vehicles that they can control. [0] https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/faq_gifts_to_govt.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/faq_gifts_to_govt.htm
- dahoraTSUNAMI 9y ago
  Just to clarify, Buffet and Gates didn't climb a corporate ladder. You are right, though, that the thinking is different and theirs is most likely atypically well-refined.
- ethbro 9y ago
  How do you square your comments with Buffett being on the record (repeatedly) in griping about his effective tax rates vs those who earn less? One example: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secreta... I don't have any quotes in memory from Gates, but your position of "Buffett is just trying to get good PR by advocating tax changes that wouldn't effect him" doesn't mesh with his quotes to the effect of "It's unfair I pay less effective tax than my secretary." What exactly do you seem him advocating that has an ulterior motive?
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    I think it's a calculated illustration. Power is all about making calculated gambles like that. If everyone was bare with their intentions all the time, it'd be easy for their enemies to bring them down. The fact of the matter is that any type of change to the tax status of a significant asset is going to have far-reaching implications and plenty of people sticking their hands in the pot to try to make the outcome favorable to themselves. A puff piece that features one of the most-conspicuous richest men in the world suggesting a tax hike against himself is just throwing a bone to the dogs; it's fodder that keeps Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett in the news and it makes the Buffett/BH brand more recognizable, likable, and personable, which are very important qualities. It also gives him an anchor to point to if he ever needs to negate bad press. He can say "Look, I have a track record of advocating for selfless causes. What kind of greedy billionaire would get on TV and ask for a tax hike? You wouldn't see Donald Trump do that! The things that are causing my bad publicity are not actually bad, they're just misunderstood." When people hear "tax hike" they think about it in relation to themselves, i.e., a hike on wage taxes. Beyond PR interest, the ulterior motives would be a) increasing the tax rate on people who are having good years in their small businesses, so that the growth of their nascent empire is stymied, lest it someday pose a challenge to BH's interests; and b) many of BH's major holdings are closely linked to government activity, things like railroads and utility companies. More money to the government = more money to BH, and this good PR makes government employees more favorable to Buffett/BH since he is not demonizing the thing that pays their salaries (taxes). It's convenient to assume that people are honest and straightforward as long as one remains naive enough to believe that. But with something as complex and interconnected as BH and Buffett, nothing occurs in a vacuum. Buffett's private thoughts remain private. He knows when he is on the public stage and he certainly knows to calculate the consequences of his actions there. To deny that this is significant is to deny the purpose and value of Public Relations completely.
astrodev 9y ago
Not naming their foundations after themselves would be a good start.
- croon 9y ago
  I would argue the opposite. They're not hiding behind other names, and you could instead argue that they're doing it for legacy, not for capital gain.

by edanm 9y ago

roenxi 9y ago

Cynicism comes into its own when that sort of money is involved. Practically it isn't possible to become build that sort of wealth without being super-aware of the financial outcomes of your decisions. It isn't safe to take someone at face value once they can buy a PR firm without blinking.

edanm 9y ago
"It isn't safe to take someone at face value once they can buy a PR firm without blinking." Well I agree with that. But it seems like you're saying that there's literally no evidence in the world that can convince you that your cynical view of them is wrong, which is a pretty hard position to hold IMO.

cookiecaper 9y ago

I think it's always valuable to analyze the cynical angle and potential game. As a sibling commenter stated, you don't get to Gates or Buffet level without good awareness of the game. In most cases, you can hardly get up more than one or two rungs on the corporate ladder without it. I don't necessarily impute any of these motives upon Gates or Buffet per se. I just think it's important to be aware of how such actions align with their interests. The subjective judgment of each man's true motives is left to the reader. I will say that if Gates and Buffet truly believed that 40% of the wealth they accrue each year could be put to better use by the USG than themselves, they could put their money where their mouth is and donate that portion of their assets to the U.S. Treasury. [0] Instead, they seem to keep that wealth within vehicles that they can control. [0] https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/faq_gifts_to_govt.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/faq_gifts_to_govt.htm

dahoraTSUNAMI 9y ago
Just to clarify, Buffet and Gates didn't climb a corporate ladder. You are right, though, that the thinking is different and theirs is most likely atypically well-refined.
ethbro 9y ago
How do you square your comments with Buffett being on the record (repeatedly) in griping about his effective tax rates vs those who earn less? One example: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secreta... I don't have any quotes in memory from Gates, but your position of "Buffett is just trying to get good PR by advocating tax changes that wouldn't effect him" doesn't mesh with his quotes to the effect of "It's unfair I pay less effective tax than my secretary." What exactly do you seem him advocating that has an ulterior motive?
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  I think it's a calculated illustration. Power is all about making calculated gambles like that. If everyone was bare with their intentions all the time, it'd be easy for their enemies to bring them down. The fact of the matter is that any type of change to the tax status of a significant asset is going to have far-reaching implications and plenty of people sticking their hands in the pot to try to make the outcome favorable to themselves. A puff piece that features one of the most-conspicuous richest men in the world suggesting a tax hike against himself is just throwing a bone to the dogs; it's fodder that keeps Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett in the news and it makes the Buffett/BH brand more recognizable, likable, and personable, which are very important qualities. It also gives him an anchor to point to if he ever needs to negate bad press. He can say "Look, I have a track record of advocating for selfless causes. What kind of greedy billionaire would get on TV and ask for a tax hike? You wouldn't see Donald Trump do that! The things that are causing my bad publicity are not actually bad, they're just misunderstood." When people hear "tax hike" they think about it in relation to themselves, i.e., a hike on wage taxes. Beyond PR interest, the ulterior motives would be a) increasing the tax rate on people who are having good years in their small businesses, so that the growth of their nascent empire is stymied, lest it someday pose a challenge to BH's interests; and b) many of BH's major holdings are closely linked to government activity, things like railroads and utility companies. More money to the government = more money to BH, and this good PR makes government employees more favorable to Buffett/BH since he is not demonizing the thing that pays their salaries (taxes). It's convenient to assume that people are honest and straightforward as long as one remains naive enough to believe that. But with something as complex and interconnected as BH and Buffett, nothing occurs in a vacuum. Buffett's private thoughts remain private. He knows when he is on the public stage and he certainly knows to calculate the consequences of his actions there. To deny that this is significant is to deny the purpose and value of Public Relations completely.

astrodev 9y ago

Not naming their foundations after themselves would be a good start.

croon 9y ago
I would argue the opposite. They're not hiding behind other names, and you could instead argue that they're doing it for legacy, not for capital gain.