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

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

#411

Post by tekknik » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

Mbwagava wrote: post #367

palsecam wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and directly running it? How much more personally involved can you get? Ms. Farmer is the CEO of BNSF Railway[1], she is the one “directly running it”. Moreover, Berkshire/Buffet is notorious for _not_ micro-managing, for letting its subsidiaires enjoy greater autonomy than they would in an usual conglomerate. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Farmer

Right, but what is the point of letting companies own other companies if this also doesn't imply transitive accountibility? It's hard to imagine we can't find reasons to imprison the board of blackrock, for instance. Such a massive company has disproportionately small social responsibility.

We should extend this logic of accountability. If your kid does something wrong every living parent and grandparent should be held accountable. The world would instantly be better.

Not sarcasm.

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

#412

Post by TFYS » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #386

TFYS wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competition is not the reason. The reason is workers choosing to improve things, invent things and make things more efficient. Competition is a way to incentivize people to do that, but it's not the only way.

Workers don't get to do that without some capital allocated. Rowing is one thing, deciding direction is just as important - and you'll find that the people deciding which way to row are largely trying to win.

Deciding direction is also just work. Why does the reward for that kind of work have to be ownership over the work other people do? An architect makes decisions about a building, a doctor makes decisions about treatments, a developer makes decisions about software architecture without needing to own the resulting building, patient or software, and they usually try to do their best.

As long as there is some link between the quality of work you do and the rewards you get, people will in most cases try their best. Allocation of capital is no different, and in my opinion should not be treated differently. Giving capital allocators ownership/percentage of the work others do is too much, and leads to unnecessary centralization of power.

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

#413

Post by tekknik » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:31 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #379

arrosenberg wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't explain it at all. The biggest swing from 2020 to 2024 was people under 45 voting for Trump at a much higher rate, mostly driven by men. Anyone under 45 was born at least 5 years after lead gas was banned in cars. They're mad because they don’t see a path to the future they were promised. Calling them stupid is patronizing and counterproductive, even if true.

I’m not saying all Trump voters are stupid. Just that there is a stupid subset that are not rationally motivated. It’s productive to call this out, because I think it requires reworking our political system to deal with their threat. Fortunately, MAGA seems eager to set the precedents we’ll need in the future. (It’s also not patronising because I don’t care what they do as much as that they don’t cause problems for o…

I propose another hypothesis, those that haven’t learned of the desire for real change instead of stagnant leadership will continue to make the same mistake each election cycle.

Learn to read the signs instead of calling people stupid for not agreeing with you, and then following it up with an attempt to force their alignment.

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

#414

Post by sofixa » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #409

sofixa wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro, which is made by Apple with their net profit margin of 24.3% for Q4 2024. BNSF, one of the companies which is the topic of this conversation, has an operating ratio of 68% for 2024 (how much of their revenue goes towards operational costs). Their net income was $5 billion. They can afford to have a little extra employees to cover fucking sick leave. > Get in the real world, not some…

Where do you get your data on BNSF? The data I have shows you’re off by a factor of near 5.

Their own website: https://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/

Every quarter you click on, <70% operating ratio, $1.something billion net income.

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

#415

Post by tekknik » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:40 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #327

lurk2 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, it’s often the opposite party that actually pushes for policies that would materially benefit the working class. Such as?

All the Democrat led states have paid leave and higher minimum wages/overtime exempt laws. And higher unemployment benefits. And longer leave times for new moms. It’s also the Dem states that have free school lunches for kids and more robust Medicaid funding. Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre exi…

Lets not forget higher taxes!

> Democrats passed ACA, which made insurance even possible to purchase if you weren’t offered it by employer, and the annual out of pocket maximum, ban on pre existing conditions as a criteria for calculating premiums, and ACA premium credits made it more attainable than it was before ACA.

Have you actually ever purchased a plan from the website? The last time I checked, the costs were the same as if I had a plan on my own. Also you could get policies prior to ACA, but were subject to health exams and non-coverage of preexisting conditions. In fact, one could argue that all ACA accomplished of benefit was forcing coverage of preexisting conditions. But let's also not forget the fine, which was applied to people who did not have health insurance under the assumption that it was a choice. In reality, people don't have health insurance if they can't afford it which made the penalty functionally a tax on the poor.

You speak of ACA like everybody will agree with you. A decade later I'm still mad at Obama and want my $4k back.

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

#416

Post by tekknik » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #157

closewith wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Buffet is one of the rare good ones. IIRC he has talked how absurdly little he pays in taxes and that it makes no sense rich pay so little.

for the record I like Grandpa Buffet, but this statement made by rich people is vomit inducing. If they are so eager to pay more, why not donate the money to the gov? Or instead why not take the money they would’ve donated and distribute it amongst the population based on income? People complain they don’t pay enough taxes, then continue because nobody else is doing it and it would put them at a disadvantage.

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

#417

Post by yodsanklai » Mon, May 05, 2025, 3:46 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #287

TeaBrain wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

There are many differences in the EU vs US that may account for differences of wealth. Singling out how easy it is to fire workers seems ideological.

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

#418

Post by TFYS » Mon, May 05, 2025, 3:50 PM UTC

FeloniousHam wrote: post #410

TFYS wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competition is not the reason. The reason is workers choosing to improve things, invent things and make things more efficient. Competition is a way to incentivize people to do that, but it's not the only way.

The evidence for (price) competition improving production efficiency and product fit is overwhelming, examples abound in everyday life, it's hardly worth mentioning. What are some notable examples "workers choosing to improve things"?

Most innovation is done by workers working for some company, no? Product development, research, etc is usually done by workers for a salary, not because they're competing against someone. Competition is not needed for paying people to improve things.

Competition has a lot of negative effects as well. Competition by definition has losers. Competition leads to resentment and conflict. Competition forces people to do things they might not want to to survive, because the moment someone is willing to do something to get an edge, everyone is forced to.

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

#419

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, May 05, 2025, 4:59 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #413

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not saying all Trump voters are stupid. Just that there is a stupid subset that are not rationally motivated. It’s productive to call this out, because I think it requires reworking our political system to deal with their threat. Fortunately, MAGA seems eager to set the precedents we’ll need in the future. (It’s also not patronising because I don’t care what they do as much as that they don’t cause problems for o…

I propose another hypothesis, those that haven’t learned of the desire for real change instead of stagnant leadership will continue to make the same mistake each election cycle. Learn to read the signs instead of calling people stupid for not agreeing with you, and then following it up with an attempt to force their alignment.

[dead]

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

#420

Post by s1artibartfast » Mon, May 05, 2025, 5:33 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #379

arrosenberg wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't explain it at all. The biggest swing from 2020 to 2024 was people under 45 voting for Trump at a much higher rate, mostly driven by men. Anyone under 45 was born at least 5 years after lead gas was banned in cars. They're mad because they don’t see a path to the future they were promised. Calling them stupid is patronizing and counterproductive, even if true.

I’m not saying all Trump voters are stupid. Just that there is a stupid subset that are not rationally motivated. It’s productive to call this out, because I think it requires reworking our political system to deal with their threat. Fortunately, MAGA seems eager to set the precedents we’ll need in the future. (It’s also not patronising because I don’t care what they do as much as that they don’t cause problems for o…

Are you using rationally motivated synonymously with economically motivated?

There there's a lot more that motivates voters besides economics.

My hypothesis is that it is simply broad spectrum culture war. Mass communication and global human mobility have simply raised the stakes or control over social Commons. The same time due to related factors, there is low agreement on shared social rules, vales, and priorities.

In the sense that good fences make good neighbors, there is no clear fence today.

There is no trust in institutional norms to provide protection, so every battle for power seems existential.

I find it hard to argue with this. Real politik and the rule of the jungle have always been in effect. It is just less dramatic when there is consensus on the rules and limitations.