The inflation thing has been an article of faith with Buffett and Munger. I think a fairly smart person could see that: unless the government has a bias against

The inflation thing has been an article of faith with Buffett and Munger. I think a fairly smart person could see that: unless the government has a bias against extending suffrage, you should expect politicians to advocate extending suffrage to more groups (so those groups feel they owe it to whoever let them vote); so there will be more voters; so politicians will have an incentive to do take more broadly redistributive action; so if they can have their money on the benefits (projects funded by deficit spending) but not on the costs (depreciation of financial assets), they'll go for it. This is a huge part of the reason that Buffett and Munger have moved away from capital-intensive industries. I thought one interesting part was the mix of different cognitive biases used to make Coke popular: the idea that universal distribution was a form of 'social proof' was new to me (the first time I read it; KO is up about 40% including dividends since then). And the inflation thing should not be a big deal. Besides those paragraphs, the essay holds true if you have a real-money target (with the same compounded growth) or a target in terms of ounces of gold or cowrie shells. It's not like Coca-Cola made their money because they were short the dollar through leverage.