4 ms·

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

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.

ethbro 9y ago
I'm not denying your points. It just seems like you're torturing the facts so that Buffett is an exemplar vs looking at things more objectively. > most-conspicuous richest men in the world You mean the guy who still lives in a $600k house in Omaha [1] and briefly owned a $5.5M vacation house in California? The guy who donates ~$2.8B [2] in Berkshire stock to charity annually? Who has said he does not plan to pass down an inordinate amount of wealth to his children? These are facts. And they don't jive with a narrative of "He's doing all these things just to make more money." A valid point becomes lesser when you have to perform gymnastics to make it fit to the person you've chosen. There's plenty of people who are better fits for your narrative: Larry Ellison, the Koch brothers, the Waltons, the Mars's, Soros, etc. [1] http://www.today.com/slideshow/homes-warren-buffett-48385413 http://www.today.com/slideshow/homes-warren-buffett-48385413 [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/07/14/warren-buffett-just-donated-nearly-2-9-billion-to-charity/#55d5e49c23f2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/07/14/warren-...
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  You're proving my point. Buffett is conspicuous due to his legend, not due to his ostentation. His legend would be harmed by making unpopular statements about tax policy, or by adopting a visibly-ostentatious lifestyle, or by a variety of other things that don't play well in the media. Buffett's legend is a valuable asset that he does not want to damage. Call it "mental gymnastics" if you want; I just call it analysis. Every approach has pros and cons and I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives. I just believe it is important to understand how these moves can work. In competitive endeavors like business, it is wise to visualize the exercise as a game of chess. If I move to A5, that opens B4-C4 for my opponent, and opens to me D6-F6. My experience is that often, those who try to discourage such perspectives are merely trying to maintain the edge they get by having opponents that aren't aware a game is being played at all. Enshrining placidity and complacency as social values only allows the sharks to operate more freely.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives That's the "I'm not saying he's a rapist, I'm just asking the question" defense, and it's bullshit. Every single one of your posts in this thread is along the lines of "If Gates and Buffett were profiteering assholes, they would do {thing they do} for {evil reason you ascribe to it}." So by duck typing, you're absolutely saying they're profiteering assholes. And then you throw out strawmen like this to support your point: > 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.
    - cookiecaper 9y ago
      I understand your point and I don't really disagree that passive accusations are irritating. It seems like the speaker is trying to weasel out of responsibility for what he's saying. All I can say is that it's not my intention to do that in this case. IMO people are too quick to accept something at face value if it's politically or rhetorically convenient to do so, and I wanted to get more people thinking about the potential subtexts of statements made by the world's most conspicuously wealthy men, especially when these statements are oriented toward political matters.

ethbro 9y ago

I'm not denying your points. It just seems like you're torturing the facts so that Buffett is an exemplar vs looking at things more objectively. > most-conspicuous richest men in the world You mean the guy who still lives in a $600k house in Omaha [1] and briefly owned a $5.5M vacation house in California? The guy who donates ~$2.8B [2] in Berkshire stock to charity annually? Who has said he does not plan to pass down an inordinate amount of wealth to his children? These are facts. And they don't jive with a narrative of "He's doing all these things just to make more money." A valid point becomes lesser when you have to perform gymnastics to make it fit to the person you've chosen. There's plenty of people who are better fits for your narrative: Larry Ellison, the Koch brothers, the Waltons, the Mars's, Soros, etc. [1] http://www.today.com/slideshow/homes-warren-buffett-48385413 http://www.today.com/slideshow/homes-warren-buffett-48385413 [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/07/14/warren-buffett-just-donated-nearly-2-9-billion-to-charity/#55d5e49c23f2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2016/07/14/warren-...

cookiecaper 9y ago
You're proving my point. Buffett is conspicuous due to his legend, not due to his ostentation. His legend would be harmed by making unpopular statements about tax policy, or by adopting a visibly-ostentatious lifestyle, or by a variety of other things that don't play well in the media. Buffett's legend is a valuable asset that he does not want to damage. Call it "mental gymnastics" if you want; I just call it analysis. Every approach has pros and cons and I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives. I just believe it is important to understand how these moves can work. In competitive endeavors like business, it is wise to visualize the exercise as a game of chess. If I move to A5, that opens B4-C4 for my opponent, and opens to me D6-F6. My experience is that often, those who try to discourage such perspectives are merely trying to maintain the edge they get by having opponents that aren't aware a game is being played at all. Enshrining placidity and complacency as social values only allows the sharks to operate more freely.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > I make no assertion about the true status of Buffett's motives That's the "I'm not saying he's a rapist, I'm just asking the question" defense, and it's bullshit. Every single one of your posts in this thread is along the lines of "If Gates and Buffett were profiteering assholes, they would do {thing they do} for {evil reason you ascribe to it}." So by duck typing, you're absolutely saying they're profiteering assholes. And then you throw out strawmen like this to support your point: > 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.
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    I understand your point and I don't really disagree that passive accusations are irritating. It seems like the speaker is trying to weasel out of responsibility for what he's saying. All I can say is that it's not my intention to do that in this case. IMO people are too quick to accept something at face value if it's politically or rhetorically convenient to do so, and I wanted to get more people thinking about the potential subtexts of statements made by the world's most conspicuously wealthy men, especially when these statements are oriented toward political matters.