3 ms·

I know I am "supposed" to like Warren Buffett, but frankly I don't; and this does show why I don't. Buffett buys a discretionary, almost a luxury item, store,

I know I am "supposed" to like Warren Buffett, but frankly I don't; and this does show why I don't. Buffett buys a discretionary, almost a luxury item, store, and jacks up the prices well above the rate of inflation. The owner of LVMH does the same. This is not the same as a company that is advancing technology or building the same item, but for less money. I value the guy who runs the sriracha sauce company higher than Buffett: https://theweek.com/articles/753620/sriracha-hot-sauce-guy-american-hero https://theweek.com/articles/753620/sriracha-hot-sauce-guy-a...

daniel-cussen 4y ago
- mikebenfield 4y ago
  > he says never invest in tech, never ever. He's repeatedly explained that he doesn't invest in tech (well, until recently) because he doesn't understand it will enough, but has he ever told others not to invest in tech?
  - nightski 4y ago
    They are quite smug and judgmental in their annual meetings towards anything they don’t understand.
    - marvin 4y ago
      That's good; means the good things they don't understand will be priced lower for those who do.
      - daniel-cussen 4y ago
        In the long run, like way after they're dead. I don't know. I'm in business for the dividends and raising tax funds for the State. You do both together generally, and because every businessman wants to do the total opposite, he hates paying dividends, hates giving the money he earned to investors, always saying reinvest. Or buybacks, which are strictly dividends. Buybacks are dividends. They just say they're different because they want to dodge taxes. Like there's this whole song and dance they teach in speculation schools, as if you could learn this in schools ("all those Harvard MBA's didn't add up to dogshit" -- Michael Douglas, Wall Street) well those guys, they're like no dividends no. Because then your stock goes down by the amount you paid. Like really? But who cares, if an investor reinvests the dividend his share is the same, call it by another name. Come on. Nomenclature thing. But without dividends, there's no point in investing. I talk about it and pg too, that's the end game, there is no other end game really. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464
        marvin 4y ago
        I agree with you regarding dividends, returning money to investors, of course. I was thinking more of things like how e.g. Tesla was not even a decade ago priced at $2 billion dollars when it was pretty frickin' obvious they had a very reasonable chance of growing to a globally dominant manufacturer. Lots of smart people missed that, but quite a few saw it as well.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > but he says never invest in tech, never ever. He has changed his stance recently, and now has billions in tech holdings, including a recent HP bet [1]. IIRC, Berkshire also has big stakes in Apple, IBM, and Nubank. 1 - https://thetechee.com/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-reveals-4b-hp-stake/ https://thetechee.com/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-rev...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jdlshore 4y ago
A key quote from the article supports what you're saying: "Warren and I raised the prices of See’s Candies a little faster than others might have. There are actually people out there who don’t price everything as high as the market will easily stand. And once you figure that out, it’s like finding money in the street.” Whether that's a reason to admire Buffet, or dislike him, I'll leave to the reader. The impression I have of Buffet is that's not a romantic; he's out to make money in a sustainable, long-term way, and is unapologetic about it.
- JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
  I’m still trying to understand this quote so pardon me for being thick. Is he saying they raised the price as high as the market would allow or that they waited for a while to do that?
  - jdlshore 4y ago
    They raised the price as high as the market would allow, but did it gradually over time (about 10% per year).
mbesto 4y ago
> I value the guy who runs the sriracha sauce company higher than Buffett: Value him in what sense? The sriracha guy made a terrible commercial mistake. The capitalist in me doesn't value a person who does that and I would hesitate investing in a venture he did over, say, Warren Buffet (hypothetically speaking of course). People "like" Warren Buffett because he's the ultimate capitalist. Also... If you value the sriracha guy over Buffett in a "altruistic this is better for the consumer" type of way, then sure you could make that case (as the article does), but also remember that Buffett is giving away all (most) of his profits to charity. The utilitarian could argue that Buffett's value is far greater. He's gobbled up all of the profits from various industries (for example luxury goods which provide little benefit to "the little guy") and is reapportioning those profits to charities that may actually save lives (not just dress up your rice). I don't know, I'm not arguing for Buffett personally, but there's more than whats on the surface.
- shrubble 4y ago
  What was the 'terrible commercial mistake' that the sriracha guy made? If the sriracha guy is letting people keep their own money, that is decidedly utilitarian also...
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > What was the 'terrible commercial mistake' that the sriracha guy made? "He does not bother going after restaurants and other businesses that use his sauce in their dishes and products, even though he could make millions from them in licensing fees. His company's advertising budget is nothing. He hasn't even bothered to trademark the name "sriracha."
    - shrubble 4y ago
      Now apply it to businesses that have an open-source model...

daniel-cussen 4y ago

mikebenfield 4y ago
> he says never invest in tech, never ever. He's repeatedly explained that he doesn't invest in tech (well, until recently) because he doesn't understand it will enough, but has he ever told others not to invest in tech?
- nightski 4y ago
  They are quite smug and judgmental in their annual meetings towards anything they don’t understand.
  - marvin 4y ago
    That's good; means the good things they don't understand will be priced lower for those who do.
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      In the long run, like way after they're dead. I don't know. I'm in business for the dividends and raising tax funds for the State. You do both together generally, and because every businessman wants to do the total opposite, he hates paying dividends, hates giving the money he earned to investors, always saying reinvest. Or buybacks, which are strictly dividends. Buybacks are dividends. They just say they're different because they want to dodge taxes. Like there's this whole song and dance they teach in speculation schools, as if you could learn this in schools ("all those Harvard MBA's didn't add up to dogshit" -- Michael Douglas, Wall Street) well those guys, they're like no dividends no. Because then your stock goes down by the amount you paid. Like really? But who cares, if an investor reinvests the dividend his share is the same, call it by another name. Come on. Nomenclature thing. But without dividends, there's no point in investing. I talk about it and pg too, that's the end game, there is no other end game really. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=306464
      - marvin 4y ago
        I agree with you regarding dividends, returning money to investors, of course. I was thinking more of things like how e.g. Tesla was not even a decade ago priced at $2 billion dollars when it was pretty frickin' obvious they had a very reasonable chance of growing to a globally dominant manufacturer. Lots of smart people missed that, but quite a few saw it as well.
boeingUH60 4y ago
> but he says never invest in tech, never ever. He has changed his stance recently, and now has billions in tech holdings, including a recent HP bet [1]. IIRC, Berkshire also has big stakes in Apple, IBM, and Nubank. 1 - https://thetechee.com/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-reveals-4b-hp-stake/ https://thetechee.com/warren-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-rev...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jdlshore 4y ago

A key quote from the article supports what you're saying: "Warren and I raised the prices of See’s Candies a little faster than others might have. There are actually people out there who don’t price everything as high as the market will easily stand. And once you figure that out, it’s like finding money in the street.” Whether that's a reason to admire Buffet, or dislike him, I'll leave to the reader. The impression I have of Buffet is that's not a romantic; he's out to make money in a sustainable, long-term way, and is unapologetic about it.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
I’m still trying to understand this quote so pardon me for being thick. Is he saying they raised the price as high as the market would allow or that they waited for a while to do that?
- jdlshore 4y ago
  They raised the price as high as the market would allow, but did it gradually over time (about 10% per year).

mbesto 4y ago

> I value the guy who runs the sriracha sauce company higher than Buffett: Value him in what sense? The sriracha guy made a terrible commercial mistake. The capitalist in me doesn't value a person who does that and I would hesitate investing in a venture he did over, say, Warren Buffet (hypothetically speaking of course). People "like" Warren Buffett because he's the ultimate capitalist. Also... If you value the sriracha guy over Buffett in a "altruistic this is better for the consumer" type of way, then sure you could make that case (as the article does), but also remember that Buffett is giving away all (most) of his profits to charity. The utilitarian could argue that Buffett's value is far greater. He's gobbled up all of the profits from various industries (for example luxury goods which provide little benefit to "the little guy") and is reapportioning those profits to charities that may actually save lives (not just dress up your rice). I don't know, I'm not arguing for Buffett personally, but there's more than whats on the surface.

shrubble 4y ago
What was the 'terrible commercial mistake' that the sriracha guy made? If the sriracha guy is letting people keep their own money, that is decidedly utilitarian also...
- mbesto 4y ago
  > What was the 'terrible commercial mistake' that the sriracha guy made? "He does not bother going after restaurants and other businesses that use his sauce in their dishes and products, even though he could make millions from them in licensing fees. His company's advertising budget is nothing. He hasn't even bothered to trademark the name "sriracha."
  - shrubble 4y ago
    Now apply it to businesses that have an open-source model...