4 ms·

Somehow I think Buffett would have ended up a parasite in any society. There's always been a niche for the Buffett type.

by oska 6y ago

wegs 6y ago
Why do you think he's a parasite? He seems to live a modest life, and work very hard to make the economy work more efficiently. He's giving almost all of his money to philanthropic causes, and seems to campaign for all the right causes. He maintains a pretty low profile for his level of success (he doesn't even support philanthropy through his own family foundation; he went with Gates, since he thought they'd do a better job). I think he's had about $10 million in frivolous spending in his life (a plane, and a home in California). I agree most people in the financial sector seem to be parasites, but Warren doesn't seem that way.
- oska 6y ago
  I think his claim to be a beneficial 'allocator of capital' is bogus. He tends to invest in established exploitative companies. His investments have been made on an almost exclusive basis of growing wealth, which in the end is a very sterile end to aim for. > I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty. — Buffett, quoted in Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco I agree he's led a modest life. I am somewhat dubious about his claims to be a philanthropist. I don't see exploiting the world (Buffett & Gates) necessarily redeemed by later posing as a philanthropist. None of this is meant as a critique of capitalism. Just a critique of the kind of sterile, exploitative capitalism that Buffett practises, that he then tries to dress up as philanthropy. "It's ok if I give away all my money at the end" - well he can't take it with him can he? And at 89, he still hasn't given most of it away anyway. Finally, here's a link to a much more detailed criticism of Buffett, if you're interested: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/special-investigation-the-dirty-secret-behind-warren-buffetts-billions/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/special-investigat...
  - unreal37 6y ago
    That article starts with an incorrect premise. "America isn’t supposed to allow moats, much less reward them. Our economic system, we claim, is founded on free and fair competition." That's called a straw man. No one has ever said America "doesn't allow moats" and that there is "free and fair competition". The whole point of business is, within the law, to build a moat that makes it impossible for a late-starting competitor to compete with you. Patents are moats. Immense capital is a moat. Brands are moats. Regulations are moats. When Disney pulls its movies from Netflix to start its own streaming service, it's using its moat to block a competitor. I bet almost every dollar you spend in your life goes to companies that legally try to stop you from spending money with their competitors. From your phone to your bank to your car to your airline. The Fed is currently propping up the price of assets through $3 Trillion of asset buying. This isn't a free economy.
    - projektfu 6y ago
      Funny, I thought the point of business was to exchange goods and services in mutually beneficial ways. The rest is rent seeking.
      - unreal37 6y ago
        That quote is probably right out of a business school textbook. Any Apple customer will tell you they "benefit" from spending all their computer and phone money with Apple. Apple trying to build a moat around their ecosystem doesn't preclude mutual benefit.
        projektfu 6y ago
        The vast majority of businesses are what I describe. The large economic profits are mostly rents accumulated by a small fraction of businesses, in a Pareto distribution. I argue we’d do fine with less of the rentiers.
        oska 6y ago
        I think most Apple customers will tell you that Apple products are too expensive. Most 'moats' are not beneficial to the consumer. What's beneficial to the consumer is competition, and companies innovating, not building moats, to stay ahead of their competitors.
- badpun 6y ago
  > He's giving almost all of his money to philanthropic causes His current net worth is $70b, for your statement to be true he would have to give away trillions.
  - bitcurious 6y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge One can be running a marathon and still have 40km left to run.
    - badpun 6y ago
      This only means that, so far, he's only talking about giving most of his money away, not actually doing it. If he'd be doing it at any significant speed, we'd be seeing monthly/yearly drops in his net worth.

Somehow I think Buffett would have ended up a parasite in any society. There's always been a niche for the Buffett type.

by oska 6y ago

Somehow I think Buffett would have ended up a parasite in any society. There's always been a niche for the Buffett type.

wegs 6y ago

Why do you think he's a parasite? He seems to live a modest life, and work very hard to make the economy work more efficiently. He's giving almost all of his money to philanthropic causes, and seems to campaign for all the right causes. He maintains a pretty low profile for his level of success (he doesn't even support philanthropy through his own family foundation; he went with Gates, since he thought they'd do a better job). I think he's had about $10 million in frivolous spending in his life (a plane, and a home in California). I agree most people in the financial sector seem to be parasites, but Warren doesn't seem that way.

oska 6y ago
I think his claim to be a beneficial 'allocator of capital' is bogus. He tends to invest in established exploitative companies. His investments have been made on an almost exclusive basis of growing wealth, which in the end is a very sterile end to aim for. > I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty. — Buffett, quoted in Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco I agree he's led a modest life. I am somewhat dubious about his claims to be a philanthropist. I don't see exploiting the world (Buffett & Gates) necessarily redeemed by later posing as a philanthropist. None of this is meant as a critique of capitalism. Just a critique of the kind of sterile, exploitative capitalism that Buffett practises, that he then tries to dress up as philanthropy. "It's ok if I give away all my money at the end" - well he can't take it with him can he? And at 89, he still hasn't given most of it away anyway. Finally, here's a link to a much more detailed criticism of Buffett, if you're interested: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/special-investigation-the-dirty-secret-behind-warren-buffetts-billions/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/special-investigat...
- unreal37 6y ago
  That article starts with an incorrect premise. "America isn’t supposed to allow moats, much less reward them. Our economic system, we claim, is founded on free and fair competition." That's called a straw man. No one has ever said America "doesn't allow moats" and that there is "free and fair competition". The whole point of business is, within the law, to build a moat that makes it impossible for a late-starting competitor to compete with you. Patents are moats. Immense capital is a moat. Brands are moats. Regulations are moats. When Disney pulls its movies from Netflix to start its own streaming service, it's using its moat to block a competitor. I bet almost every dollar you spend in your life goes to companies that legally try to stop you from spending money with their competitors. From your phone to your bank to your car to your airline. The Fed is currently propping up the price of assets through $3 Trillion of asset buying. This isn't a free economy.
  - projektfu 6y ago
    Funny, I thought the point of business was to exchange goods and services in mutually beneficial ways. The rest is rent seeking.
    - unreal37 6y ago
      That quote is probably right out of a business school textbook. Any Apple customer will tell you they "benefit" from spending all their computer and phone money with Apple. Apple trying to build a moat around their ecosystem doesn't preclude mutual benefit.
      - projektfu 6y ago
        The vast majority of businesses are what I describe. The large economic profits are mostly rents accumulated by a small fraction of businesses, in a Pareto distribution. I argue we’d do fine with less of the rentiers.
      - oska 6y ago
        I think most Apple customers will tell you that Apple products are too expensive. Most 'moats' are not beneficial to the consumer. What's beneficial to the consumer is competition, and companies innovating, not building moats, to stay ahead of their competitors.
badpun 6y ago
> He's giving almost all of his money to philanthropic causes His current net worth is $70b, for your statement to be true he would have to give away trillions.
- bitcurious 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge One can be running a marathon and still have 40km left to run.
  - badpun 6y ago
    This only means that, so far, he's only talking about giving most of his money away, not actually doing it. If he'd be doing it at any significant speed, we'd be seeing monthly/yearly drops in his net worth.