291–300 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the worst he's done?
I do not know what the worst is that he has done. For sure he and his business partners tried to strongarm the german city / community of Egelsbach to sell it's airport (Germany's largest small airplane airport, near Frankfurt/Main) to him. The aim was to expand the airport, at the expense of the inhabitants. The upside would have been 1-10 jobs, the downside a lot of noise and reduced price of property and life qual…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the worst he's done?
here's one off the top of my head. Musk vs. Buffett: The Billionaire Battle to Own the Sun - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-solar-power-buffett-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I'll take that bet absolutely. It's a little reductive to use "past performance is not an indication of future gains" as an argument. If you extrapolate that with the premises that I am using (namely, that it is possible to intentionally and consistently beat the market), there is no reason to have faith in the continued investment in anything, private or public, because you cannot use any past measure of succe…
> It's a little reductive to use "past performance is not an indication of future gains" as an argument. If you extrapolate that with the premises that I am using (namely, that it is possible to intentionally and consistently beat the market), there is no reason to have faith in the continued investment in anything, private or public, because you cannot use any past measure of success as guidance. No, the point is th…
Per your parallel comment - can you define "measurable"? For example, can I just choose RenTec's Medallion and call it a day? How quickly does data about the fund's annual performance have to be available, and from which source preferably?
At this juncture it might just be easier for you to email me :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the worst he's done?
Off-hand, I can't give specifics. Lehman is one situation that comes to mind. Another, not WS-based, is that he disowned his granddaughter for talking about the family in a documentary about the ultra-rich.
that is assuming the stock market doesn't crash. if you bought an index fund in 1928 you would still be broke AF in 1935 and wouldn't get your money back until the 50s. buffett profited off the housing bubble and should not be trusted. he owned huge stakes in the ratings agencies that were giving AAA+ ratings to these awful mortgage products, even as publically he was decrying the financial products involved as 'mass…
Your analysis of the great crash ignores the effects of dividends, which were very high in the thirties and made investors profitable much more quickly than you claim.
The housing bubble burst and BRK is worth far more now.
You don't know what Buffett does, how he got rich, or much about the stock market either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>let's face it: those who like to hide behind "states rights", it all comes back to "states rights to buy and have slaves" This is an idiotic strawman. That's the equivalent of saying that people who think countries in the European Union should be mostly free to implement their own laws are pro slavery. Smaller localized government control vs one rule for everyone has little to do with slavery. There is no reason tha…
Yes you're misunderstanding the point. It refers to southern US states who claimed states rights when seceding from the Union in the American Civil War.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slaves were expensive, not free (not to say they werent a contributing factor)
Expensive compared to what? Since this idea is a little counter-intuitive, can you suggest a search or link? From this [0] I can only conclude that owners were paying for value and the price did go up over time, as did the price of cotton, but it looks like it was a good deal. [0] https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this situation you are probably right. However, it's very problematic as a general statement. There are too many atrocities committed by violent majorities against powerless minorities that come to mind. This blanket statement gets into victim shaming really quick.
Agreed. Atrocities have happened and will most likely happen again with innocent victims. But even with violent majorities there is usually a justification of the behavior that somehow involves something the minority party is doing (or not doing) that justifies the action. Not that this makes it any more morally palatable (or true) from an objective viewpoint but the division may exist to be seized upon. I'd also arg…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My calculation, admittedly very rough, is that the search by the elite for superior investment advice has caused it, in aggregate, to waste more than $100 billion over the past decade."
So big money is dumb money? In a big way.