3 ms·
So if you're arguing that $24,000 Buffet could have caught up to $1,000,000 Buffet, it seems like you're implying that $1,000,000 Buffet could have made more mo
by hexane360 9y ago
So if you're arguing that $24,000 Buffet could have caught up to $1,000,000 Buffet, it seems like you're implying that $1,000,000 Buffet could have made more money from "people wanting to throw money at them", or that there's some natural limit to wealth that Buffet would have hit in either timeline.
Even in this case, isn't the author's thesis still valid? Don't focus on what the already successful person is doing right now, focus on what they did when they were in your position - i.e. young and scrappy.
- SonOfLilit 9y agoAs I said, I fully agree with the author's thesis, just not at all with the way he made his case.
- edanm 9y agoWas that the author's thesis? That's not what I got from the article tbh. "[...] it seems like you're implying [...] that there's some natural limit to wealth that Buffet would have hit in either timeline." Yes, that's the implication. People give him more money as long as he can produce excess returns. At some point, he can no longer produce excess returns. That point is (theoretically) independent of his starting position - his knowledge/skills/luck allow him to invest, say, $100B successfully, but no more. So the reason he doesn't manage more isn't that he started with less, it's that this is the actual limit of his abilities. (That's what parent is saying, I'm not 100% sure of this because I'm not 100% of how this plays out in a public company, etc. He's not a typical hedge-fund manager. But parent is probably pretty close to right).