561–570 of 612 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk at one point was one explosion away from bankruptcy.
I wasn't talking about tech, but about their character.
I'm far less of a risk taker than he is, and have consequently not made big scores like Musk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our society has become moralistic Which is extremely important. It's important to call out highly immoral behavior and lifestyles. Being a billionaire by itself is highly immoral. These people sleep like babies while people starve to death. > He consistently communicated with shareholders of Berkshire in a straight-forward and transparent way in his letters and annual reports. We praising for the bare minimum now?
If we're going to assign moral value to people based on their wealth (a classic logical fallacy), then I think you need to take a look in the mirror. The global median income is $2,760 annually. You sleep like a baby making likely 10-100X that, all while people are starving to death. What are you doing to help the starving poor with your vast wealth? Are you not also morally bankrupt yourself, using your own logic? W…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Any FAANG SWE That is so few people. So, so, few people. Rough lookup says less than 150,000 people in the US, or 0.044% of the US population.
Zillow estimates that home as $1.5 million. That’s not far off the current median home sales price in San Francisco and easily the median home price in many, many upper middle class neighborhoods across the country. How many households in the US can afford a $1.5m home? Assuming they need $400k then we can see that that’s a 95th percentile household income in the US, which translates to about 6 million of the US’s to…
https://www.statista.com/chart/32925/annual-income-required-...
I just asked ChatGPT what Warren Buffett's strategy is, and it said buying undervalued companies and holding for a long time. Is that true? I thought it's not a good idea to buy loser companies.
> I just asked ChatGPT Please don’t do this. > what Warren Buffett's strategy is, and it said buying undervalued companies and holding for a long time No. It’s cheap leverage applied to low-volatility assets bought for a fair price [1]. (Munger got him off the ‘cigarette butt’ strategy of buying on the cheap.) [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19681/w196...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't talking about tech, but about their character.
Risk tolerance is a component of character. Musk has put his entire fortune on the line more than once, and more than once was a whisker from bankruptcy. I'm far less of a risk taker than he is, and have consequently not made big scores like Musk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risk tolerance is a component of character. Musk has put his entire fortune on the line more than once, and more than once was a whisker from bankruptcy. I'm far less of a risk taker than he is, and have consequently not made big scores like Musk.
You're also not an asshole, but Musk is.
Some disagree with your assessment(!)
> but Musk is
I'm going to reserve judgement on that because the media lens is pretty distorting. He's not afraid to stand up to bullies, and I've seen that interpreted as assholishness.
Steve Jobs also had a reputation as an asshole. A couple of my friends had encounters with him, and I asked is he really an asshole? Both confidently said yes. !!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I’m talking about. You’re assuming a lot about why and how people move.
Nowhere did anybody say “moving house for any reason is bad”. Buffet could’ve moved if he wanted to, I presume. So, evidently, he didn’t have any of those ‘other reasons’. What we *can^ say is that he didn’t move, which shows that he didn’t allow lifestyle inflation to extend to his place of residence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people who are looking at long term wealth building are better off looking at John Bogle's work. The key is this, you absolutely must stick to investing in the index as a whole, but the issue there is fees you pay is a percentage of your investment, even if small, over years compounds against you. That might look small, but its a double digit percentage if done over decades. Hence picking a fund that charges…
Buffet was richer than most nonagenarians put together in his fifties, and has been consistently generating 6x the US economy's growth over long periods. Insurance float is a neat source of capital if regulators will let you put it into equities and six decades of return usually beats four, but it's bizarre to pretend that BRK's outlying returns compared with other financial institutions come from longevity and acces…
You need to study index carefully, like pick each stock and study it. You will see Buffet isn't exactly investing outside the index, his investments come from inside the index.
You are not looking for needle in a haystack here. More like a thick loaf from a pound of bread. If you squint enough, you find them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're going to assign moral value to people based on their wealth (a classic logical fallacy), then I think you need to take a look in the mirror. The global median income is $2,760 annually. You sleep like a baby making likely 10-100X that, all while people are starving to death. What are you doing to help the starving poor with your vast wealth? Are you not also morally bankrupt yourself, using your own logic? W…
Sorry but I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system while half of my salary is taken to help exactly the people who cant afford life themselves. The world would be a much better place if billionaires got taxed as much as regular people. By percent not in absolute numbers obviously.
Also, you still haven't explained how you're morally superior by being in the top 10% of global earners vs. the top .01%, while people are starving. Using your logic about how you think the world works, you've clearly gamed the system to take more for yourself.
Billionaires are subject to the exact same tax laws as you. What you're likely referring to is the discrepancy in taxation of capital gains vs. income and the use of debt to borrow against assets.
But you then have to contend with the fact pretty much every successful country in the world taxes capital less than income at a certain point. And nobody taxes debt. Why? Because it incentivizes risk taking and investment in businesses (a value multiplier) vs. the non-scalable activity of selling your hours as an employee past a certain point.
What you perceive as "immoral" activity (investment and entrepreneurship) is the risk-taking that makes the economy function and grow, which benefits everyone.
Even your perceived socialist utopia, the Nordics (where I live) taxes capital gains less than income. I think you may want to investigate whether this is a Chestertons fence before loudly shouting about remaking the world on an emotional impulse and calling me a bootlicker.