I lost a lot of respect for Warren Buffett

[socialize_me]

I like the guy's personality, he's really approachable, and has without a doubt the best investment strategy in the history of the world, but his actions lately have made me really question his integrity. I mean, it's one thing to profit off of this Depression we're about to enter, but it's a whole 'nother thing to tell Congress how important it is to pass this bailout, to forecast disaster if it doesn't get approval, and then at the same time buy stakes in GE and Goldman Sachs ahead of the Congressional bills circling around trying to get this bailout through. It's sickening. This is no different than war profiteering (which is why I NEVER have nor will invest a penny in a Defense Contractor) as Buffett has inevitably used his position of power as being the one to look to since his success has brought him so much acclamation, to influence Congressional and public opinion on such a matter that would dramatically alter market conditions. He had Berkshire Hathaway put on the SEC's Do-Not-Short-List, he invests billions into a crumbling financial system (regardless they're preferred shares), and does so with the confidence that the Congress will take action to make his positions, which if you look at his portfolio are heavily weighted with financial investment, very lucrative.

How is this any different from, say, Colin Powell using his reputation to influence us to go to War only to find out he invested (which he didn't; I'm just saying for sake of argument) millions in Defense Contractors??? Isn't spreading rumors to alter investment decisions illegal according to the SEC's rules??? How is Buffett by going to Congress and on TV telling people how we need this bailout which he knows will spike up financial stocks, then goes ahead and purchases billions of dollars worth, not illegal?? I mean, I know it's blatantly unethical, but it should damn well be illegal. Spreading rumors how if we don't get this bailout passed the world will end seems like rumor spreading to me..not to mention that's where he plans on making a huge profit.

 

[surf]

agreed. he and Bill Gross at PIMCO are not the people to be talking to right now - their grim bastards w/pom poms and a bullhorn.

 

[Scotso]

While I agree with some of your post, there's really no moral dilemma involved in profiting from something that's going to happen anyway, in my opinion. Why shouldn't he go for it?

I also have a major problem with this:

This is no different than war profiteering

Uh, it's very different. People aren't dying because he's buying stocks. He's not taking money from American taxpayers. To compare the two is at best sensationalism that the liberal media and the neocons would be proud of.

I know it's blatantly unethical, but it should damn well be illegal. Spreading rumors how if we don't get this bailout passed the world will end seems like rumor spreading to me..not to mention that's where he plans on making a huge profit.

Illegal? Illegal to invest where you will make the most profit? That would pretty much spell the end of the stock market and of any money making at all. I think you're on the wrong board.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I still think turning an initial $10,000 investment into $90 MILLION ( several years ago figures ) for each of his shareholders is pretty respectable.

 

[socialize_me]

While I agree with some of your post, there's really no moral dilemma involved in profiting from something that's going to happen anyway, in my opinion. Why shouldn't he go for it?

I also have a major problem with this:



Uh, it's very different. People aren't dying because he's buying stocks. He's not taking money from American taxpayers. To compare the two is at best sensationalism that the liberal media and the neocons would be proud of.



Illegal? Illegal to invest where you will make the most profit? That would pretty much spell the end of the stock market and of any money making at all. I think you're on the wrong board.

I have no problem with Buffett profiting from the disaster, that's not the problem. If you actually read what I wrote, you would understand what I DO have a problem with is the fact that he took it upon himself to use his reputation to lobby Congress by basically threatening a complete economic collapse if we don't pass this bailout. It would have been very different had he just shut up, invested anyway, and took the profits once the bill passed; but you don't have a problem when a billionaire uses his divine influence to pass legislation that would make him money?? How the fuck isn't that corporatism? If some of these Republicans get pissed off about Pelosi giving a partisan speech, imagine what the impact Buffett's advice was in pushing some of these fence-sitting Congressmen and Senators into the direction of being pro-bailout??

This is a huge problem. You're having people use their reputation to earn them a seat at the table, to be anointed experts on these issues enough to change the opinion of our elected officials. There is a damn big difference between 100 people calling their Senator to oppose this bill, and having one billionaire come out, who happens to be Warren Buffett, and say it is necessary. You're telling me that wouldn't influence some votes?? You better fucking believe it would.

People aren't dying, yes I know, but apparently you don't understand what analogies are. The point I was making was that both Colin Powell and Warren Buffett both used their reputations to push support in one direction. That should be a huge concern, but apparently it gets reduced to this argument that "there is a difference because no one died"--I thought this whole movement was centered around principle. What Colin Powell and Buffett did were unprincipled and unethical.

It is indeed frustrating trying to communicate on these message boards because people think out-of-context and distortedly. They take an idea they wished was there and then make points about it. I have no problem with the man making money from this disaster, which is apparently what you think or at least wanted me to say, but where I do have a problem is that he used his reputation to muscle in a piece of legislation that would make him more money. It's no different than getting a contract based on who you know within the Government. Buffett used his influence to without a doubt change votes in the House and Senate to get support for this legislation. It's a de facto contract (but apparently you need to see it in writing for this to be a perfectly identical analogy) that he made. He acted as a soothsayer saying this economy would crash, he bought up shares of institutions that would crash if this legislation were not to pass, and then he gets the votes to keep those share prices stable and pushing upward. But there's no problem with that????? What's your definition of corporatism??

 

[freelance]

The point I was making was that both Colin Powell and Warren Buffett both used their reputations to push support in one direction.

It's the buying influence that bothers me. In Warren Buffett's case, I don't suppose he even has to buy it with actual money.

 

[Mark]

CNBC said Buffet has been in constant contact with Paulson in working out how to construct the Bailout.

And then Buffet takes positions directly affected by how the Bill is laid out. Can you say conflict of interest?

Corporate Fascism/Socialism at it's best.

Buffet's getting a little old to be racking up the soul payback points so quickly.

 

[socialize_me]

Exactly!! I mean how can you legitimize what Buffett is doing??? Again, I have no problem with him making money off of this economy, but to actually influence lawmakers and now actually help draft the provisions for the legislation is about as corporatist as you can get!!!

 

[surf]

I still think turning an initial $10,000 investment into $90 MILLION ( several years ago figures ) for each of his shareholders is pretty respectable.

whatever respect he may have earned (from you) should all be lost now. a lot of fascists have been respected by the public - for a time....

 

[BeFranklin]

CNBC said Buffet has been in constant contact with Paulson in working out how to construct the Bailout.

And then Buffet takes positions directly affected by how the Bill is laid out. Can you say conflict of interest?

Corporate Fascism/Socialism at it's best.

Buffet's getting a little old to be racking up the soul payback points so quickly.

Its insider trading at best. Because it involves the government, it probably breaks a few more laws as well.

Buffet made 2.5 billion in one day doing this last week.

 

[pacelli]

Buffet is going to lose his entire fortune - just wait and see.

 

[nbhadja]

While I agree with some of your post, there's really no moral dilemma involved in profiting from something that's going to happen anyway, in my opinion. Why shouldn't he go for it?

I also have a major problem with this:



Uh, it's very different. People aren't dying because he's buying stocks. He's not taking money from American taxpayers. To compare the two is at best sensationalism that the liberal media and the neocons would be proud of.



Illegal? Illegal to invest where you will make the most profit? That would pretty much spell the end of the stock market and of any money making at all. I think you're on the wrong board.

Buffet is aiding Paulson in making an unconstitutional bill that will STEAL MONEY FROM ME and all other US citizens (well it will steal my money's value with inflation).

He is a bastard and a thief. There is a reason that the constitution gives us the rights to own guns...so we can shoot thief bastards like Buffet right in the head.

I will not respect lousy scum like Buffet while he influences this country to kill itself.

Oh and Buffet is going to help lobby the US to invade Iran.

 

[Scotso]

There is a reason that the constitution gives us the rights to own guns...so we can shoot thief bastards like Buffet right in the head.

Yes, I'm sure that's the reason.

 

[Liberty Rebellion]

Yeah, I lost a lot of respect for him when I saw him on the panel after IOUSA. People were asking him serious questions becuase they were concerned about the economy and our debt. He just brushed it off the entire time saying, "as long as the pie keeps getting bigger, we're fine. THe American people's ingenuity will conquer all."

Yeah, but if the effing pie keeps getting bigger and you're only getting crumbs, who gives a shit? I'm sure he and the few remaining globalist banks will own 98% of the pie no matter the size.