Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 435 posts

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#271

Post by dragonwriter »

arrosenberg wrote: post #234
karaterobot wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear how this represents him not being pragmatic, could you say more?

Deteriorating conditions for the working class are the main driver of our push toward authoritarian government. A pragmatist would have been more sympathetic for reasons beyond pure capitalist economics.

> Deteriorating conditions for the working class are the main driver of our push toward authoritarian government.

No, they aren't. It's dubious that even the widening relative gap between the working class and the capitalist class plays a major role, though that at least has the virtue of being a real condition and not a fantasy.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#272

Post by Der_Einzige »

arrosenberg wrote: post #234
karaterobot wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear how this represents him not being pragmatic, could you say more?

Deteriorating conditions for the working class are the main driver of our push toward authoritarian government. A pragmatist would have been more sympathetic for reasons beyond pure capitalist economics.

[flagged]

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#273

Post by WalterBright »

riffraff wrote: post #269
WalterBright wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also get that way by inheriting wealth, Then their parents must have been billionaires, generating it with investments. If the inheritors divest from those investments, then they incur enormous income taxes. So it's likely to stay. > by buying favorable laws and regulations, Then it's not free market. There is no government system that is immune from buying influence and corruption. > by anticompetitive practi…

> the inheritors divest from those investments, then they incur enormous income taxes. But isn't this sidestepped buy the "buy, borrow, die" approach, often criticized? https://www.theatlantic.com/economy/archive/2025/03/tax-loop...

The investments remain if they borrow against them. They just become collateral for the loan.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#274

Post by mmooss »

WalterBright wrote: post #229
mmooss wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also get that way by inheriting wealth, by buying favorable laws and regulations, by anticompetitive practices (we've seen a few in the IT sector), and by other problematic behavior. I agree that free markets are great in principle but your comments seem dogmatic - all free markets and only free markets. The conversation would be much more interesting if it was about the nuances.

> They also get that way by inheriting wealth, Then their parents must have been billionaires, generating it with investments. If the inheritors divest from those investments, then they incur enormous income taxes. So it's likely to stay. > by buying favorable laws and regulations, Then it's not free market. There is no government system that is immune from buying influence and corruption. > by anticompetitive practi…

Your Manichean divide between 'free market' and 'socialist' doesn't reflect reality. You seem obsessed.

> nothing is perfect

The same could be said about anything, including free market economics. It's meaningless.

> nuances do not drive prosperity

They certainly do. The differences are often in the details.

> Perhaps

That's honest, at least ...

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#275

Post by kmeisthax »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #272
arrosenberg wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deteriorating conditions for the working class are the main driver of our push toward authoritarian government. A pragmatist would have been more sympathetic for reasons beyond pure capitalist economics.

[flagged]

What do you think is a driver of that male loneliness? The traditional heterosexual norms of courtship and marriage don't exactly work when your country has a huge swath of people in economic precarity. People put off dating, sex, and procreation because they can't afford it.

Unless you plan to just... force people to fuck? And hope people don't notice their finances getting fucked? Seems like a recipe for drama[0].

> oh wait actually soon Marxist’s are going to do the anti-AI shit of claiming they’re sentient and thus deserve “rights”

As someone who's never read Marx, this feels like a strawman at best? At the very least, "liberate the robots" is a pro-AI position, not an anti-AI one.

[0] https://xkcd.com/592/

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#276

Post by FirmwareBurner »

newbie578 wrote: post #181
kinnth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buffet reminded me a lot of Angela Merkel. They stood clearly and simply for good moral judgment, fair systems and looked at the bigger picture to carry most people forward. They also based all their decision in facts, truth and science. They learn't their trades (economics & politics) over time and weren't afraid to adapt as times changed. Their slow and steady presence did more for equality and fairness than many o…

I cannot believe that there are people praising Merkel with a straight face. She is literally a laughing stock in Europe, I put her as the poster boy for immigration crisis together with the energy crisis. The only thing she did was shove problems further in the future not caring about the consequences.

[flagged]

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#277

Post by FirmwareBurner »

Aeolun wrote: post #253
FiniteField wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The current times" are a direct result of decisions like that of Merkel to throw open the borders of Germany to a million unchecked foreign men. If there's one reason that the AfD is the largest party in Germany today, it's because of that decision Merkel made a whole decade ago. How was that "based in facts, truth and science", or "slow and steady"?

The million unchecked foreign men (and women) are presumably propping up the German economy as we speak. There will always be people that dislike change, but it may ultimately be better to start integrating them earlier rather than later. If you make it through the bad times (e.g. now), at the other end is the outcome you desire.

>The million unchecked foreign men (and women) are presumably propping up the German economy as we speak.

How many of those unchecked are women? What's the point of having borders then? Or law enforcement putting criminals in jails, when they could be out there propping up the economy. As long as your illegal activities are putting money into the state coffers, you should be allowed to continue unchecked, screw the laws.

Yeah sure, they might cause some trouble for the lower and middle class living amongst them, but think of the economic gains for the top 1%! Their real estate and stock portfolios have never looked so good. And if people vocally disagree with this you call them fascist and put them in jail for threatening your "democracy".

How does Poland's economy manage to grow faster than Germany's without illegal immigration? Maybe they can send some researchers there to find out.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#278

Post by mmooss »

WalterBright wrote: post #233
mmooss wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse for who? The US outcomes have been very good for the wealthy, especially the ultra-wealthy, but less good for other people than outcomes in many other wealthy countries.

During the 19th century, the US elevated scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class and beyond. The newly wealthy "aristocracy" sprang from the poor, much to the disdain of European royalty. Poverty in the US continued going down until 1968, when it began edging up again. 1968 was the advent of the "Great Society" programs.

The current wealth disparity, at historic levels, began growing mostly in the 1980s.

> 1968 was the advent of the "Great Society" programs.

1968 was when Nixon was elected.

> During the 19th century, the US elevated scores of millions of immigrants from poverty to the middle class and beyond. The newly wealthy "aristocracy" sprang from the poor

I don't grasp the relevance of these 19th century events to today. How does it address the fact that today, for most of the population, US outcomes are worse than many peer countries?

Who are you quoting with "aristocracy" and did they really come from poor people or from the middle class?

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#279

Post by colechristensen »

brandon272 wrote: post #235
apexalpha wrote: post #82

I’m not sure if it’s originally his but a small talk by him about getting a car made an impression on me and since watching it it’s become a good motivator to stay in shape. This seems like a good moment to share it. https://youtu.be/0fMRHpguTPM?si=75lLHzDynMCKhT9H

The interesting thing about this is that Buffett himself has never really had a reputation for taking care of his body in terms of getting exercise or eating well.

At 94, there have probably been a dozen contradictory versions of what "eating well" meant to a large consensus of people. There should be a lot of skepticism for any particular version of "healthy" is when it comes to diet.

"Variety and moderation" is probably good enough advice for most people without specific health conditions.

Re: Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire

#280

Post by alephnerd »

Aeolun wrote: post #253
FiniteField wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The current times" are a direct result of decisions like that of Merkel to throw open the borders of Germany to a million unchecked foreign men. If there's one reason that the AfD is the largest party in Germany today, it's because of that decision Merkel made a whole decade ago. How was that "based in facts, truth and science", or "slow and steady"?

The million unchecked foreign men (and women) are presumably propping up the German economy as we speak. There will always be people that dislike change, but it may ultimately be better to start integrating them earlier rather than later. If you make it through the bad times (e.g. now), at the other end is the outcome you desire.

> The million unchecked foreign men (and women) are presumably propping up the German economy as we speak.

The refugee crisis didn't appear to have a significant impact (positive or negative) on the labor market based on a recent study by the IZA and ZEW [0] - "Our estimates suggest that those migrants have not displaced native workers but have themselves struggled to find gainful employment. We find moderate increases in crime, and our analysis further indicates that while at the macro level increased migration was accompanied by increased support for anti-immigrant parties, exposure to asylum seekers at the micro level had a small negative effect." [0]

There are systemic issues with the German economy that aren't related to immigration. A lot of the current malaise can be attributed to the economic slowdowns in Russia (with the Russian Invasion of Ukraine) [1] and China (due to Zero COVID and the subsequent indigenization) [2], due to how tied German industry was with both markets [3].

[0] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecca.12420

[1] - https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/no-more-illusions-...

[2] - https://ecfr.eu/article/the-end-of-germanys-china-illusion/?...

[3] - https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2024/130/arti...

Post reply on HN