Originally posted by quackquackSo which is it? You've made two arguments.
Just because Buffett is an investment genius does not give him any expertiese in political redistribution plans. Free publicity is always of value and Buffett seems to be a master at it. Making himself seem like a good guy is more to his advantage that to talk about insider trading scandals (like the Sokol scandal at Berkshire Hathway -- his firm -- wh ...[text shortened]... -- not nominated for sainthood -- and certainly not be free from all questions regarding motive.
1: That Buffett isn't an expert in this field.
2: You're implying he's lying about his opinion for the sake of publicity.
1: ANYONE who is knowledgable about investments and knows how to make smart investment decisions MUST have a deep understanding of micro and macro economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
Buffett entered college as a freshmen in 1947 at the Wharton Business School of the University of Pennsylvania and studied there for two years from 1947 to 1949. In the year 1950, when he entered his junior year, he transferred to the University of Nebraska–Lincoln where at the age of nineteen, he graduated with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. After the completion of his undergraduate studies, Buffett enrolled at Columbia Business School after learning that Benjamin Graham (author of "The Intelligent Investor" – one of his favorite books on investing) and David Dodd, two well-known securities analysts, taught there. He received a M.S. in Economics from Columbia Business School in 1951. Buffett also attended the New York Institute of Finance.
Your suggestion that an investment genius wouldn't have intelligent insight into economic ramifications of such things as tax rates on the broader economy is laughable.
2: Warren buffet does not NEED publicity. He's Warren freaking Buffet. What you're accusing him of doing is LYING by advocating against his own self interest (tax wise), as well as something that would hurt the broader economy, AND upset fund managers... the people who a really the ones who drive stock prices, including shares of Berkshire.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBuffett may not need publicity (just like you may feel he may not need any more money) but the fact is that he seeks the limelight and uses it as a platform to make more money.
So which is it? You've made two arguments.
1: That Buffett isn't an expert in this field.
2: You're implying he's lying about his opinion for the sake of publicity.
1: ANYONE who is knowledgable about investments and knows how to make smart investment decisions MUST have a deep understanding of micro and macro economics.
http://en.w the people who a really the ones who drive stock prices, including shares of Berkshire.
Just because Buffett is an investment expert (and Krugman has a Nobel prize) doesn't mean they should dictate American Tax policy. I understand you may like their opinions; but the fact that he a sucessful business man or economic researcher has an opinion may make it interesting but does not make it valid. If I found someone who is as rich as Buffett who thought that wealthy people should pay less taxes, or a great economic researcher who believed that we are choking to death as a result of government burocracy would you argue that they must be right because they obviously understand macroeconomics? Of course not, it is bad enough that Buffett uses his investment career to butress his opinions. Now, you are doing the same thing.
Originally posted by quackquackUmm... Buffett's publicity has little to do with his success and the money he makes, if at all.
Buffett may not need publicity (just like you may feel he may not need any more money) but the fact is that he seeks the limelight and uses it as a platform to make more money.
Just because Buffett is an investment expert (and Krugman has a Nobel prize) doesn't mean they should dictate American Tax policy. I understand you may like their opinions; b ...[text shortened]... Buffett uses his investment career to butress his opinions. Now, you are doing the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
I never said Buffett should dictate anything, so there goes your strawman right there.
So because Buffett is a renowned investor and a successful businessman... that makes it BAD for him to give his opinion? And by the way, Buffett's fortune extends far beyond investing. Go to the link and look at all of the subsidiary companies that he oversees.
Also, Buffett didn't just give his opinion about taxation. He gave factual information about he and all his very rich friends actually pay a LOWER tax rate than their employees.
Originally posted by quackquackGood luck finding self-made rich conservatives. I haven't been able to identify them. I've tried. The self made rich are liberals.
Buffett may not need publicity (just like you may feel he may not need any more money) but the fact is that he seeks the limelight and uses it as a platform to make more money.
Just because Buffett is an investment expert (and Krugman has a Nobel prize) doesn't mean they should dictate American Tax policy. I understand you may like their opinions; b ...[text shortened]... Buffett uses his investment career to butress his opinions. Now, you are doing the same thing.
Originally posted by quackquackWhy are you trying to spin his own words?
Buffett may not need publicity (just like you may feel he may not need any more money) but the fact is that he seeks the limelight and uses it as a platform to make more money.
Just because Buffett is an investment expert (and Krugman has a Nobel prize) doesn't mean they should dictate American Tax policy. I understand you may like their opinions; b ...[text shortened]... Buffett uses his investment career to butress his opinions. Now, you are doing the same thing.
Buffet is using his prominent financial success to point out the stupidity of refusing to tax the super-rich. He said flat out that he can afford to give up more money in taxes. So why the hell aren't we telling him to pay more, if he's willing to?
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackFor example?
Most self made wealthy people are ecomically conservative.
On the liberal side I've got Buffet, Gates, most of Hollywood, etc.
Who are the self made rich conservatives? Well, the Governator was one. But who else?
Self-made rich know they can thrive under any system. It's the ones who have money they didn't earn who need to play these legal games.
Originally posted by whodeyHe talked about the fact that he signed a philanthropy plegde. And yet he's still willing to pay more in taxes, should the government tell him to do so.
Just think, all that money and he can't put it to good use helping the poor. Instead, he wishes that the money go to an institution that spends funds on such things as wars abroad. In fact, I heard one person claim that only 30 cents on the dollar that government spends goes where it actually should. Yea, lets give our money to an institution bought by the wealthy.
As for your alarmist statistics, cough up a verified source already.
Originally posted by wittywonkaBuffett can pay whatever he wants. He does not get to decide (even those similarly situated to himself) what they should pay.
Why are you trying to spin his own words?
Buffet is using his prominent financial success to point out the stupidity of refusing to tax the super-rich. He said flat out that he can afford to give up more money in taxes. So why the hell aren't we telling him to pay more, if he's willing to?
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaBuffett's opinion is not any more or less valid than your opinion. But when he is quoted as an economic guru implying that his opinion in more valid than yours or based on more evidence than yours (because he made a lot of money in something unrelated) or someone elses, I object.
You're right, he doesn't decide unilaterally.
But it's stupid to argue that his opinion is somehow invalid on the matter.
Originally posted by quackquackSo provide an economic guru of your own. I'd love to see some quotes from a specific conservative person.
Buffett's opinion is not any more or less valid than your opinion. But when he is quoted as an economic guru implying that his opinion in more valid than yours (because he made a lot of money in something unrelated) or someone elses, I object.
Originally posted by spruce112358No, clearly it's only the lazy, unemployed people who are just "sitting around and collecting government welfare"--who never, never exert any effort actually looking for a job--who are morally corrupt.
quackquack, you just don't get it.
Prosperity is not created through investment. Investment is done only by evil, lazy people who are trying to get out of working. Investors who make money are morally bankrupt criminals who should be stripped of their ill-gotten gains. (Investors who lose money got what they deserve.)
No, prosperity is created by ...[text shortened]... s prosperity is created and maintained according to, er, ... Greek socialists and Paul Krugman.
People who tirelessly burden themselves with the intricacies of the stock market--those people define the integrity of the United States' efforts to ease the unemployment crisis in the country.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't have a specific person in mind but you can read the Wall Street Journal if you a easily accessable point of few that tends to be pro-business and anti-tax.
So provide an economic guru of your own. I'd love to see some quotes from a specific conservative person.