4 ms·

Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can

by pyoung 15y ago

Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect.

marknutter 15y ago
Being a savvy investor does not necessarily imply being an expert on public policy. And your statement pretty much nullifies any attempt to ever argue with anything Warren Buffett says, which isn't a very productive stance to take.
lionhearted 15y ago
> Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. So you can't argue with him about... -Parenting? -Philosophy? -Regulation? -Physical fitness? > If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect. Markham pointed out that capital is going to be invested differently if tax laws change. I mean, duh, right? It's an obvious, correct, and important point that was overlooked in the OpEd for some reason. If you disagree that changing tax laws is going to change capital investment, the burden is firmly on you to explain why instead of just saying "Dunning Kruger" which is basically a sophisticated way of calling someone an idiot. So I'm holding by the "Godwin's Law II" suggestion - if you try to call someone out on Dunning Kruger, you lose. If you've got a good argument, just make it instead of calling names.
- pyoung 15y ago
  I am still waiting for someone to make a good argument that effectively counters Buffett's OpEd. 'changing tax laws is going to change capital investment' is not an argument against changing tax laws. Capital investment is affected daily by economic growth, interest rates, investor confidence, and a large number of other factors. Buffett points out in his OpEd that when capital gains tax were much higher in the past than they are currently, economic growth was higher than it is now. This implies that higher capital gains results in more effective investment. Until you can counter that, you do not have a point to make (and please, no more comparisons to Mongolia). Also, only someone affiliated with the Nazi party would try to come up with an addendum to Godwin's Law. Sorry, I had to.
thestranger 15y ago
How about this? http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2008/05/the-dumbest-thing-ive-heard-warren-buffet-say.html http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2008/05/the-dumbest-thin...
- jackpirate 15y ago
  It's so dumb, I'm 403 forbidden to see it.

by pyoung 15y ago

marknutter 15y ago

Being a savvy investor does not necessarily imply being an expert on public policy. And your statement pretty much nullifies any attempt to ever argue with anything Warren Buffett says, which isn't a very productive stance to take.

lionhearted 15y ago

> Anyone who has the imprudence to argue with Warren Buffett, the savviest investor of all-time, is most likely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. So you can't argue with him about... -Parenting? -Philosophy? -Regulation? -Physical fitness? > If you can't understand why, then you also may be a victim of the same effect. Markham pointed out that capital is going to be invested differently if tax laws change. I mean, duh, right? It's an obvious, correct, and important point that was overlooked in the OpEd for some reason. If you disagree that changing tax laws is going to change capital investment, the burden is firmly on you to explain why instead of just saying "Dunning Kruger" which is basically a sophisticated way of calling someone an idiot. So I'm holding by the "Godwin's Law II" suggestion - if you try to call someone out on Dunning Kruger, you lose. If you've got a good argument, just make it instead of calling names.

pyoung 15y ago
I am still waiting for someone to make a good argument that effectively counters Buffett's OpEd. 'changing tax laws is going to change capital investment' is not an argument against changing tax laws. Capital investment is affected daily by economic growth, interest rates, investor confidence, and a large number of other factors. Buffett points out in his OpEd that when capital gains tax were much higher in the past than they are currently, economic growth was higher than it is now. This implies that higher capital gains results in more effective investment. Until you can counter that, you do not have a point to make (and please, no more comparisons to Mongolia). Also, only someone affiliated with the Nazi party would try to come up with an addendum to Godwin's Law. Sorry, I had to.

thestranger 15y ago

How about this? http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2008/05/the-dumbest-thing-ive-heard-warren-buffet-say.html http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2008/05/the-dumbest-thin...

jackpirate 15y ago
It's so dumb, I'm 403 forbidden to see it.