3 ms·

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-conspic

by 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.

by ethbro 9y ago

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.