Buffett to step down following six-decade run atop Berkshire • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 5:52 AM UTC

dehugger wrote: post #236

WalterBright wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sovied Union and Communist China all had vast natural resources. But a third world economy. Japan, S Korea and Hong Kong have next to no natural resources. Great prosperity. Germany turned to free markets after WW2 and enjoyed the "German Miracle". (Germany has since turned to socialism, with predictable results.) Germany received far, far less Marshall Plan money than Britain and France, who had no miracle. > bu…

Consider, for a moment, the state that China was in at the conclusion of WW2. It hadn't even industrialized yet. The British and the Japanese absolutely trashed China for over a hundred years! Russia was also not industrialized until after their revolution in ~1920, and suffered horrific losses in the homeland during WW2. The US emerged from WW2 fully industrialized and nearly unscathed. The US mainland remained unto…

China didn't industrialize until after 1978, when they gave up on communism and began a transition to capitalism. Over 30 years after WW2 concluded.

Russia did not industrialize in the 1920s. They did collectivize agriculture, famine ensued. They turned back to free market farming, famine went away. They turned again to collectivization, and farming collapsed again. Eventually, the Soviets allowed farmers to farm small plots and sell what they could raise. These small free market plots kept the country from starving.

Russia did work hard at industrializing during WW2, but it was propped up by the US, who heavily supplied the Soviets. The US actually built factories in the US, dismantled them, and shipped them to the Soviet Union during the war. US engineers and craftsmen taught them.

When WW2 ended, the Soviets looted everything industrial they could find from the Soviet sector. Whole factories were moved east. Soviet industrial output grew during the war.

British industry was also untouched, because the German bomber fleet did not have the range to cover much of Britain, and because Hitler stupidly decided to bomb houses instead of factories. Britain had a pretty anemic recovery from the war - despite getting far more Marshall Plan money than Germany.

Japan did not have a free market before the war, and not much of an industrial economy. Curtis LeMay had a hard time finding industrial targets to bomb, as Japanese industry was characterized as "a drill press in every home". Japan turned to free markets after the war, and we know what happened next. Recall that Japan was burned into ash in WW2. They went from utter defeat to economic superpower, despite not having any natural resources, in just 30 years.

How much more of an "unequal" starting point could there possibly be?

The only common characteristic of prosperity is free markets. And the more free market an economy is, the more prosperous it is. Over and over. It goes back to the middle ages.

The other common characteristic is when countries turn towards socialism, things just get worse and worse for them.

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

#282

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:04 AM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #274

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…

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 ...

> You seem obsessed

Being rude is not persuasive.

> including free market economics. It's meaningless.

I've explicitly said many times that free markets work even if they're not ideal or perfect.

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

#283

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:06 AM UTC

brookst wrote: post #247

WalterBright wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uniquely privileged position? The only unique thing about America is free markets. Any country can become highly successful by enacting free markets. The only thing in the way is their disbelief that they work. There's a common thread across the world and history. The more free market a country is, the more it prospers.

This is painfully naive. Simple, obvious contradiction: can every country enjoy the benefits of issuing the de facto reserve currency for the world? Just by having free markets? The US has been incredibly privileged. I’d argue that was earned in some ways and lucky in others. But it’s undeniably true.

> The US has been incredibly privileged.

Free markets are a choice the US made. Any country can choose to have a free market, and some have. The reserve currency thing has nothing to do with it.

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

#284

Post by gwbrooks » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:07 AM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #190

chrisco255 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, a single actor, probably wouldn't be a significant factor. However, an international government or corporate entity owning hundreds of thousands of acres and exploiting resources on the land and routing them back to their home country can be problematic. It places additional strain on limited resources and the profits are not spent in the local economy...just sent overseas. Absentee ownership of non-productive r…

I see it completely opposite of you. 1) The foreign entity is investing where Americans aren't. 2) There is a very huge risk for the foreign entity to own such an operation because of political changes. By law or decree the US or the state can always nationalize these lands. Thus, ultimately, I see no issue there.

1. Foreign entities are also investing in land that is strategically or tactically important -- agricultural land is a good example of the former; land near military bases an example of the latter. China has demonstrated a willingness to do both.

2. I think this represents a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. The Constitution provides no power for the federal government to acquire land without just compensation, which courts have regularly held to mean fair market value. Put another way: The feds can likely devise a path for buying your land, but can't outright nationalize it. Changing that is not a matter of presidential decree or even a law by Congress; it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which is an extraordinarily heavy political and policy lift.

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

#285

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:08 AM UTC

TeaBrain wrote: post #237

WalterBright wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US was the most prosperous country in the world in the mid 20th century. It was also the free'est market in the world at the time.

Once again, regardless of how free the US market was in the mid-20th century, this is not the most unique privilege about the US today, as you put it in your previous comment. Any country could institute the same market regulations and degrees of freedom as the US, but only one country can have the position of having the dominant reserve currency and dominant trade currency.

As countries that have turned to free markets have shown, they enjoy great prosperity from it. The reserve currency thing is irrelevant.

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

#286

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:09 AM UTC

TeaBrain wrote: post #257

WalterBright wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a result of American prosperity, not the cause.

You are getting two things confused here. The original question was what privileges the US had that others do not. The USD being the reserve currency is unquestionably a privilege. That it is not the original cause of American prosperity is completely besides the point.

Oh, it's exactly the point.

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

#287

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:12 AM UTC

TeaBrain wrote: post #254

WalterBright wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm in EU, I thought we had free markets too Significantly less free than in the US, and correspondingly less prosperity. > Some countries, including the US, reached prosperity by protecting their markets. Not true. If it was true, N Korea would be massively prosperous.

>Significantly less free than in the US, and correspondingly less prosperity. Which measures of freedom became restricted in the EU following the GFC that led to the prosperity of the EU diverging from the US?

One problem is you cannot fire people in the EU. This makes for companies being very slow to hire, and inefficient allocation of workers to jobs.

Free markets are chaotic, and are constantly reallocating resources from less efficient uses to more efficient uses.

Regulations that impede that make for lower prosperity.

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

#288

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:14 AM UTC

akdor1154 wrote: post #248

WalterBright wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uniquely privileged position? The only unique thing about America is free markets. Any country can become highly successful by enacting free markets. The only thing in the way is their disbelief that they work. There's a common thread across the world and history. The more free market a country is, the more it prospers.

> There's a common thread across the world and history. The more free market a country is, the more it prospers. As long as the trend of capitalist market+power consolidation is considered to be 'less free market', I think I'd agree with you. - Sincerely, an otherwise raging leftie

Just for fun, name the largest 10 US corporations in 1920, and how they came to consolidate power today.

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

#289

Post by WalterBright » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:18 AM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #278

WalterBright wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

The US was not settled by wealthy people, or even middle class people. The poor people came by the scores of millions. Many came as indentured servants. The Irish came here because of the potato famine. And so on.

If you like, name a wealthy American who came from royalty. I can't think of any.

Fun fact: the Titanic was not built to transport rich people to the US. Quite the contrary, the bulk of it was for poor people immigrating to the US. The first class section was for status and marketing. The money came from the rest of the human cargo.

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

#290

Post by arrosenberg » Sun, May 04, 2025, 6:21 AM UTC

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]

This is pretty unhinged, so I’ll only respond to the one interesting thing - it’s pretty obvious that part of the male sexlessness problem is related to a lack of good paying, respectable jobs. Tough to get a good woman if you don’t have that going for you.