Warren Buffett steps down as Berkshire Hathaway CEO after six decades(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Warren Buffett steps down as Berkshire Hathaway CEO after six decades
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-12-31/warren-buffett-steps-down-as-berkshire-hathaway-ceo-after-six-decades
611 comments
I think moralism is an side effect of the demise of spiritualism in the west. We somehow have to shape moral values, the lack of a framework for it makes it feel blunt and chaotic.
That being said, I find it odd to moralize on moralism. We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job and never get punished.
Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
There is no balance.
(This isn't about buffet, idc, just about your interwoven opinion.)
That being said, I find it odd to moralize on moralism. We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job and never get punished.
Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
There is no balance.
(This isn't about buffet, idc, just about your interwoven opinion.)
The point is that moralism makes everyone blind and see in black and white.
Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.
Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.
I have a huge problem with your use of "moralism" as a term. For me it appears to be used pejoratively as an act to weaken the concept of morals at large. (Which isn't your invention but something you probably picked up.)
We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.
What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.
We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.
What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.
It's pretty strange to see "whoever you've convinced yourself is the current villain" next to, you know, actual villains. Who do you think qualifies to be an actual villain, if they don't?
You are clearly describing "villainizing" people or groups. This is actually the opposite of moralism, which would be criticizing specific violations of morals.
Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.
Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.
Lol I don't think people had to convince themselves of anything regarding the examples you sited, they let everyone know who they are on their own
> We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job
When was this ever not the case? And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?
The point is that power corrupts, so we try to design decentralized systems wherever possible that don't require absolute power to function (ie. free markets, the internet, etc). Trusting specific human animals to wield authority over us in a non-awful way is not a reliable solution.
> Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
When was this ever not the case? And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?
The point is that power corrupts, so we try to design decentralized systems wherever possible that don't require absolute power to function (ie. free markets, the internet, etc). Trusting specific human animals to wield authority over us in a non-awful way is not a reliable solution.
> Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.
Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
> And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?
Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.
> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.
Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.
> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.
I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.
(opinion) current "democratic" systems structurally have a tendency to put the worse people at the top (amoral/immoral/corrupt etc.). with that assertion, swapping to random people would probably prove an improvement.
Yes, we seem to lack the framework and vocabulary to discuss morality anymore. You may be right that this is tied to the demise of spiritualism (or perhaps organized religion).
Sure -- but as far as idols go, you could do a lot worse than Mr. Buffett
It's OK to have someone to look up to and have an example to follow, but why do you need to have an idol?
I think that a role model is a good reference point, a pivot.
You may ask yourself, what would X do and why, and that could help you clarify your own views.
You may ask yourself, what would X do and why, and that could help you clarify your own views.
It depends on how much you believe other people’s stated public persona.
If you believe it, then it helps model other areas of life in a way that undoubtably supports the outcome.
For example, not part of Mr Buffets persona (and I believe it!) is staying up until 2am getting wasted and having 5 baby mommas.
And so anyone trying to have even a shadow of Mr. buffets success should probably also avoid doing so, and perhaps do some of what Mr. buffet does instead. Like reading the financial papers.
To give one example.
If you believe it, then it helps model other areas of life in a way that undoubtably supports the outcome.
For example, not part of Mr Buffets persona (and I believe it!) is staying up until 2am getting wasted and having 5 baby mommas.
And so anyone trying to have even a shadow of Mr. buffets success should probably also avoid doing so, and perhaps do some of what Mr. buffet does instead. Like reading the financial papers.
To give one example.
Yes of course there's only one way to have a succefull life and one should just follow what others before them have already done, in order to be successful, who needs to think for themselves and make choices, just read the financial papers make a lot of money and then when you are dead and forgotten by the world at least you will have all your money to comfort you in the afterlife
Notably, Mr. Buffet didn't do that (per-se). But he certainly copied a bunch of habits which apparently worked for him. Or not. Who knows.
You can't get much beyond the median if you copy other people, unless you're really lucky. But if you handicap yourself constantly too, good luck even hitting the median.
You can't get much beyond the median if you copy other people, unless you're really lucky. But if you handicap yourself constantly too, good luck even hitting the median.
You're right, you are unique and special, everyone else is a blind follower. https://xkcd.com/610/
I don't know, why are humans so bound by human nature? What a question!
Some people just do
> He still lives in the same home he bought when he was 28 years old.
What does “living” mean in this case? That can mean absolutely nothing. I travel a lot (and probably Buffet too), and tax authorities would have a headache with what should I pay and to whom if I reported it completely to them when and where I am. In the country where I officially live I’m maybe 20-30%. There is no other countries with more. The simple case of 50%+1 days is nowhere near. In Buffet case, it can be even less. 10 years ago I had a different pattern. I wasn’t at home but in the same country (in the case of the US, like a state) at random places like 80-90%. So does Buffet really live there, like properly?
What does “living” mean in this case? That can mean absolutely nothing. I travel a lot (and probably Buffet too), and tax authorities would have a headache with what should I pay and to whom if I reported it completely to them when and where I am. In the country where I officially live I’m maybe 20-30%. There is no other countries with more. The simple case of 50%+1 days is nowhere near. In Buffet case, it can be even less. 10 years ago I had a different pattern. I wasn’t at home but in the same country (in the case of the US, like a state) at random places like 80-90%. So does Buffet really live there, like properly?
I agree, however I don’t think the last two of your bullets are necessarily something to learn from on the surface.
The last one is key to my entire value system as a person. I have had some financial wins in life and try not to let it impact my day to day. I avoid, sometimes with great effort, flashy things (I’ve been tempted to by exotic cars as an example but have found if I just rent one for a day or two that urge goes away, it’s just a toy to me). I usually say I’m not materialistic, but I am at times, and what I strive to be is humble, modest, and invisible. I don’t want other people seeing me as flaunting wealth. It’s not who I want to be or how I want my kids to see me act.
That said, I do, like Buffet, live in a nice house. I’m not depriving myself. But it’s also very approachable by any successful employee of a company (maybe salary of a director or VP of any large company could afford it). It doesn’t represent what I could afford if I wanted to really get into the elite neighborhoods of my city. I don’t really enjoy people in those areas. They tend to always talk about money in one way or another (vacations, private schools, cars, houses, maids, nanny’s, etc). Nothing wrong with it I suppose, just not my jam and not how I want my children raised and not the people I want as my neighbors and peers. I’ve always been much more envious of those unsuspecting rich people that drive clunker cars or live in modest homes and mow their own lawns but then you find out they paid for 16 grand children to go to college or something random like that. That’s the kind of thing I’d rather be known for than the guy with the Ferrari or yacht (even if they weren’t mutually exclusive).
That said, I do, like Buffet, live in a nice house. I’m not depriving myself. But it’s also very approachable by any successful employee of a company (maybe salary of a director or VP of any large company could afford it). It doesn’t represent what I could afford if I wanted to really get into the elite neighborhoods of my city. I don’t really enjoy people in those areas. They tend to always talk about money in one way or another (vacations, private schools, cars, houses, maids, nanny’s, etc). Nothing wrong with it I suppose, just not my jam and not how I want my children raised and not the people I want as my neighbors and peers. I’ve always been much more envious of those unsuspecting rich people that drive clunker cars or live in modest homes and mow their own lawns but then you find out they paid for 16 grand children to go to college or something random like that. That’s the kind of thing I’d rather be known for than the guy with the Ferrari or yacht (even if they weren’t mutually exclusive).
+1. I’ve always looked up to the hedge fund manager driving a civic and those who sneakily donate enormous amounts anonymously.
Life goals!
Love this take!
Modern society is too narrow minded about what wealth means. To most people it means fancy watches, cars, homes, etc. To me wealth is about time and freedom. I can pick up the tab at dinner for a group of 12. I can afford to keep my 1972 Schwinn bicycle in tip top shape or my grandfather's jacket mended when it breaks. I can afford to rent forever if I want. I'll never work a job I don't like, I can just quit. I feel more wealthy this way than if I owned 3 lambos and had to work to make ends meet.
Modern society is too narrow minded about what wealth means. To most people it means fancy watches, cars, homes, etc. To me wealth is about time and freedom. I can pick up the tab at dinner for a group of 12. I can afford to keep my 1972 Schwinn bicycle in tip top shape or my grandfather's jacket mended when it breaks. I can afford to rent forever if I want. I'll never work a job I don't like, I can just quit. I feel more wealthy this way than if I owned 3 lambos and had to work to make ends meet.
[deleted]
> I’ve been tempted to by exotic cars as an example but have found if I just rent one for a day or two that urge goes away, it’s just a toy to me
> I don’t want other people seeing me as flaunting wealth
Lmao.
> I don’t want other people seeing me as flaunting wealth
Lmao.
Exotic cars are designed to be fast and fun to drive, for people that enjoy driving. You can still find them fun even if you dislike showing off. There are even some great exotic cars that look normal enough on the outside that a non car enthusiast won’t recognize them as anything unusual.
People kind of judge by what you drive around in, not that you once rented a ferrari on holiday.
FWIW Nobody I know sees me rent these cars. I usually do it while on vacation. They’re fun to drive, so it’s closer to an occasional hobby than a complete change of my lifestyle
I dont judge, you are free to do however you please, but dont act like renting expensive car is a normal human thing to do and has nothing to do with bragging about how much money you have. Its a rich person hobby.
Still feels like you're blowing it out of proportion and are judging my hobby and reading into my post as braggadocios (which it was meant to be very matter of fact and kind of the opposite if you read any of it besides what I admitted to as my indulgence). Very average income/wealth people have hobbies that cost them a couple thousand dollars a year and we all choose our own hobbies. I don't golf and there are millions of golfers that spend the same or perhaps way more as an example. I don't drink alcohol and I would guess a large portion of US adults spend more annually on beverages than I do on that one "hobby". Damn near everyone travels and that's essentially a hobby. Plenty of people go deep sea fishing or whale watching on rented yachts. I could go on but are you judgmental on their "rich person hobby" like you are of mine?
Edit: I rarely do this with HN but I'm getting troll vibes from you and so I clicked on your comment history where you lay out your unfortunate financial situation in a comment ("I have 500€ in my bank account, 3k debt and 30 years of work left ahead of me") and it all makes sense that you are just resentful or jealous. My only constructive advise is you should try not to have this attitude on HN, there are plenty of wealthy or good-to-know people here and any chance conversation could turn into something that shifts your life's trajectory. If the breadcrumbs show that you're just a troll you're basically building a wall between you and those people.
Edit: I rarely do this with HN but I'm getting troll vibes from you and so I clicked on your comment history where you lay out your unfortunate financial situation in a comment ("I have 500€ in my bank account, 3k debt and 30 years of work left ahead of me") and it all makes sense that you are just resentful or jealous. My only constructive advise is you should try not to have this attitude on HN, there are plenty of wealthy or good-to-know people here and any chance conversation could turn into something that shifts your life's trajectory. If the breadcrumbs show that you're just a troll you're basically building a wall between you and those people.
People seem to dismiss the value of humility and frugality nowadays, but I see them as important virtues that lead to a more enjoyable life. Counter intuitively, wealth can allow someone the freedom and privilege to live a simpler and more frugal life, which can feel more rewarding and fun.
For one, I like to have a connection with the place I live and the physical objects I use like my car and home- the fact that they are old things I fixed up and maintain myself gives me a sense of place, connection, and pride- just buying something expensive that someone else prepared for me would feel infantalizing and unsatisfying. I enjoy deeply understanding and being part of the history of the objects and tools I use, in a way that can’t be purchased.
Also, I think a lot of consumerism and conspicuous consumption comes from a sad and depressing place of anxiety that you aren’t good enough to make friends or find romantic partners without doing this. Many people don’t directly want or enjoy conspicuously expensive things, but are hoping it leads to social status or approval. But this inevitably means resigning yourself to essentially buying the company of people that don’t actually like you. At the extreme end you see some famously wealthy people so anxious about not being perceived as wealthy enough that they glue tacky fake plastic gold on everything they own because they’re afraid of looking poorer than billionaires. That type of narcissism is not a happy way to live, and will turn off the kind of people that would have built a genuine emotional connection with you.
For one, I like to have a connection with the place I live and the physical objects I use like my car and home- the fact that they are old things I fixed up and maintain myself gives me a sense of place, connection, and pride- just buying something expensive that someone else prepared for me would feel infantalizing and unsatisfying. I enjoy deeply understanding and being part of the history of the objects and tools I use, in a way that can’t be purchased.
Also, I think a lot of consumerism and conspicuous consumption comes from a sad and depressing place of anxiety that you aren’t good enough to make friends or find romantic partners without doing this. Many people don’t directly want or enjoy conspicuously expensive things, but are hoping it leads to social status or approval. But this inevitably means resigning yourself to essentially buying the company of people that don’t actually like you. At the extreme end you see some famously wealthy people so anxious about not being perceived as wealthy enough that they glue tacky fake plastic gold on everything they own because they’re afraid of looking poorer than billionaires. That type of narcissism is not a happy way to live, and will turn off the kind of people that would have built a genuine emotional connection with you.
Well said! A large part of my ethos is not caring what people think of me. As in, random people that don’t know me or try to make guess of my social status based on what signals I’m putting out. I care about what some people think about me, but not my financial situation more so what they think of me as a human.
Avoiding scaling your lifestyle with tour current wealth seems like an extremely important lesson people could learn here. Very few people know what "enough" means to them.
Its probably worth noting that I mean "enough" in the context of consumption and physical goods. "Enough" wealth doesn't really matter, its only a number in a database or a piece of paper until you spend it.
Its probably worth noting that I mean "enough" in the context of consumption and physical goods. "Enough" wealth doesn't really matter, its only a number in a database or a piece of paper until you spend it.
Not only that, but it’s important. Needless to say I am not comparing net-worths :) My rent spend started increasing around 4-5th year (steeply) of starting my first job and I saw it and kinda stopped/curbed it at somewhere like 7th year. It has remained there (give or take) because it had reached a really good level (below luxury or ultra premium so to speak) wrt my city’s general rental trends and spends (of course inflation factored in). It’s been 8 years since and I have been without a job for last two years (a bit by choice, if certain things can really be called choice) and pretty much my other spending trends also kinda plateaued around those years (experience spends kept going up slowly but I find them easier to manage). I can’t explain how much it has helped me when I have been living on savings for straight 2 years now. Not just the specific relative smaller amount but more so the predictability of it.
To a certain extent this is true. You shouldn’t be going into debt just because your income level allows you to get more loans etc. But once you reach a certain income threshold it doesn’t really matter.
So what was the point of him living a frugal, simple lifestyle? I would argue that its just something he was used to and found joy in, and thats ok. Some people like that. Others might want to use their money to unlock new experiences that come with it. Thats ok too.
So what was the point of him living a frugal, simple lifestyle? I would argue that its just something he was used to and found joy in, and thats ok. Some people like that. Others might want to use their money to unlock new experiences that come with it. Thats ok too.
Sure, and of course the elephant in the room is overconsumption and planetary overload, which get unlocked too on a bigger scale as a result of similar thinking.
Which ends does unlocking potentially endless ”experiences” serve? Our personal disconnect from nature is not separate from our collective disconnect from nature.
[deleted]
>Very few people know what "enough" means to them.
Does this ultimately come down to Taste?
It is hard to judge what is enough. While a Civic is a perfectly good car, it certainly isn't the safest, nor does it have the best riding experience. Once you get into attention to details, what is "enough" often means mediocre.
I want "good enough" from a crazy perfectionist. Like Steve Jobs' Apple.
Does this ultimately come down to Taste?
It is hard to judge what is enough. While a Civic is a perfectly good car, it certainly isn't the safest, nor does it have the best riding experience. Once you get into attention to details, what is "enough" often means mediocre.
I want "good enough" from a crazy perfectionist. Like Steve Jobs' Apple.
I don’t disagree, I just don’t think “living in the same house for decades” qualifies as a clear signal of living simply. It could just as easily be a front or compulsive frugality. Or a really nice house to begin with. For instance, there’s no way my family would fit in the first house my wife and I bought. And we couldn’t have afforded our current house back then, either. It’s also worth noting that 60+ years ago was a very different house-buying experience. So I don’t think there’s much to learn from the fact that Warren Buffett bought a house back then and still lives in it, other than that it worked out for him and he’s not flaunting his wealth for whatever reason makes sense to him.
His inspiration is a big reason why I still drive my 1993 Honda Civic after owning it for 15 years. I bought it for $1000 after graduating college. I say a little prayer every time I turn the key that it actually starts. I gave it its own github repo where I track the maintenance I do on it. It reminds me where I come from, and that I don't need shiny shit to be happy. I believe this to be a virtue.
My girlfriend years ago thought it was incredible and amusing that I was working a fancy tech job and drove this old car around. We are now happily married.
These days, I could buy a Bentley with cash. But I don't need one.
Warren Buffet's example is an inspiration that should be followed by more people who go into debt buying crap they can't afford with money they don't have in order to look rich.
My girlfriend years ago thought it was incredible and amusing that I was working a fancy tech job and drove this old car around. We are now happily married.
These days, I could buy a Bentley with cash. But I don't need one.
Warren Buffet's example is an inspiration that should be followed by more people who go into debt buying crap they can't afford with money they don't have in order to look rich.
Driving a car that old puts yourself and others on the road at greater risk due to lack of safety features compared to a modern car. One could argue being able to afford a new car and not buying one to extoll other virtues is neglecting your own and communal good.
If you’re afraid to carefully drive a high quality and well maintained older car that was designed from the ground up with safety and quality at the absolute forefront- say an 80s Mercedes or Volvo, you would benefit from relaxing a bit and being willing to take slightly more risk in life.
Besides, I am not wholly convinced that improved safety tech is a replacement for the type of safety first engineering used in every tiny detail of those old cars, that mitigate certain types of accidents and injury that won’t be addressed in crash testing.
Besides, I am not wholly convinced that improved safety tech is a replacement for the type of safety first engineering used in every tiny detail of those old cars, that mitigate certain types of accidents and injury that won’t be addressed in crash testing.
Back-up cameras are really important for kids who can't be seen in a rearview mirror. Those can be retrofit into an older car, but after having a kid I can see why these became mandatory.
A well designed car and proper driving technique make a backup camera unnecessary.
Many old cars have excellent rewards visibility without needing any camera- no camera will compare to a first generation Porsche Boxster with the top down for example, where you can directly see behind you by looking back. Volvo wagons are great like that also.
I also, as a rule never back anywhere that I haven’t seen directly just a few seconds before. I always back into parking places so I can see them facing forwards and not back up when starting out, and if I do need to back up when starting out I walk behind the car and look around first and then immediately get in and back up.
Many old cars have excellent rewards visibility without needing any camera- no camera will compare to a first generation Porsche Boxster with the top down for example, where you can directly see behind you by looking back. Volvo wagons are great like that also.
I also, as a rule never back anywhere that I haven’t seen directly just a few seconds before. I always back into parking places so I can see them facing forwards and not back up when starting out, and if I do need to back up when starting out I walk behind the car and look around first and then immediately get in and back up.
No driving technique will let you see the toddler that ran to your rear wheel by the time you got into the car.
How is a toddler going to get behind my car before I can get in it that I did not notice was nearby and start visually tracking from standing there? How is a backup camera going to help when I backed into the spot and am now pulling out forwards? That’s just not a realistic concern. Also, backup cameras cannot see much closer to the wheel than those cars I mentioned with good visibility.
Tech really won’t help you here- safe driving requires looking where your vehicle is going with your own eyes. The field of view of a backup camera is insufficient- even if you have one, it’s usually better to be looking directly behind you and not use it. I see cars with backup cameras and sonar hit each other in parking lots all the time, because they thought the camera was a replacement for looking and situational awareness.
Tech really won’t help you here- safe driving requires looking where your vehicle is going with your own eyes. The field of view of a backup camera is insufficient- even if you have one, it’s usually better to be looking directly behind you and not use it. I see cars with backup cameras and sonar hit each other in parking lots all the time, because they thought the camera was a replacement for looking and situational awareness.
No backup camera will let you observe the nail the wind blew close to your tire to puncture it soon as you move the car. Perhaps it is best if I just stay home.
I have not yet flattened a kid with my car, but I suppose there's still time. Also backup cameras are very important for today's vehicles which are gigantic monsters compared with cars of the 90s. My car is quite low to the ground.
Also, show me the stats on how many toddlers are pancaked by lack of backup cameras each year per capita. That will inform me about how truly "important" this problem supposedly is.
A lot of old cars you could see clearly out of the rear windscreen. Modern vehicles seem to have dropped that.
Safety features like tracking where you are, and requiring a subscription for seat heating ?
I just think the everything connected to cloud approach sucks, but Im communal danger now.
I was driving a 30 year old car for a while (Miata). I'd say I was pretty low risk as you tend to go slowly in classic ones so things don't blow up. Also the small size reduces the risk to other road users compared to driving a massive suv or some such.
You're saying my 2000lb car poses a greater risk to other drivers than your 8000lb tesla? I think you skipped physics 101.
By your logic, we should all drive gigantic monster trucks. Lunacy.
Also, I already have a mom who worries about me. She likes the car. I don't need to be mothered by a stranger on the internet thank you.
By your logic, we should all drive gigantic monster trucks. Lunacy.
Also, I already have a mom who worries about me. She likes the car. I don't need to be mothered by a stranger on the internet thank you.
I phrased it like this to a friend who was looking to buy an upgrade to a relatively new car: "What I paid you $1000 a month (his new car payment) to drive the old car?" When I put it in that perspective, he drove that car for quite a while longer.
Personally, I buy new, and keep putting my car payment into a savings account once it is paid off. If I can't afford to put that money into savings, I can't afford a new car payment. I'm only allowed to do non-routine repairs from those funds. It's amazing how much you don't want to crack into that for a car once it grows to a few thousand. It's the most powerful visual impact of savings I've come across.
Car payments have a way of disappearing into an upgraded lifestyle when you don't have to make them, and then they come out of savings when you take a loan for the car.
Honda Civic may be the ultimate car for that. I bought a pickup 8 years ago that I hope will be a 20 year car. Buy something with a reputation for 200k+ miles.
Personally, I buy new, and keep putting my car payment into a savings account once it is paid off. If I can't afford to put that money into savings, I can't afford a new car payment. I'm only allowed to do non-routine repairs from those funds. It's amazing how much you don't want to crack into that for a car once it grows to a few thousand. It's the most powerful visual impact of savings I've come across.
Car payments have a way of disappearing into an upgraded lifestyle when you don't have to make them, and then they come out of savings when you take a loan for the car.
Honda Civic may be the ultimate car for that. I bought a pickup 8 years ago that I hope will be a 20 year car. Buy something with a reputation for 200k+ miles.
+1, I am by far the most financially successful of my circle, and I drive the cheapest car (a used Fiat Punto) and have sort of the cheapest house (albeit it's bigger it's not downtown).
Don't buy yourself a Bentley, but you really ought to buy yourself a newer car that supports comma.ai. You don't get points for making your own life worse unnecessarily. Necessarily, sure, but don't make a sport of it.
My life is better driving a car that is simple and fun, where I feel alert and connected to the road and every function is controlled by me deliberately and manually. Ideally something with no screens, a manual transmission, and no power steering. Being chaperoned by AI is infantalizing and boring.
Disagree. The last one is important.
You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever, but it will not make you happy.
You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever, but it will not make you happy.
>You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever, but it will not make you happy.
Well that seems like an assumption! Plenty of people are happier with nicer things. I don't think we need to tell people what should make them happy.
Well that seems like an assumption! Plenty of people are happier with nicer things. I don't think we need to tell people what should make them happy.
> Plenty of people are happier with nicer things.
Are they truly happier, in the sense of being more content? Or are they just deriving more temporary pleasure from the hedonic treadmill they're on?
You can probably tell which one it is, by how long their happiness with their house / car / TV / fill-in-the-blank lasts, before they start thinking about trading up to an even nicer fill-in-the-blank.
Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard wrote a great book on happiness, here's an excerpt I enjoy which talks about the difference between pleasure and happiness, in two parts. [1] [2]
1. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...
2. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...
Are they truly happier, in the sense of being more content? Or are they just deriving more temporary pleasure from the hedonic treadmill they're on?
You can probably tell which one it is, by how long their happiness with their house / car / TV / fill-in-the-blank lasts, before they start thinking about trading up to an even nicer fill-in-the-blank.
Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard wrote a great book on happiness, here's an excerpt I enjoy which talks about the difference between pleasure and happiness, in two parts. [1] [2]
1. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...
2. https://www.matthieuricard.org/en/pleasure-and-happiness-the...
This is a deeply personal decision and I categorically reject any kind of moralization around frugality.
Fair enough on the personal decision part. I'm less interested in telling people what to do and more interested in whether the premise ('nicer things = happier') actually tracks with how human satisfaction works. The research suggests it often doesn't, which seems worth knowing regardless of what you choose to do with that information. [1]
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/690806/
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/690806/
It's a bit more than just a personal decision. Overconsumption is ruining our environment, which we collectively have to share.
> This is a deeply personal decision and I categorically reject any kind of moralization around frugality.
It's not a bout moralizing but recognizing how the reward centres of the human brain work:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
I would recommend the recently published book The Art of Spending Money by Morgan Housel, or check out the interviews he's done in recent months on it:
* https://collabfund.com/blog/my-new-book-the-art-of-spending-...
It's not about being frugal or cheap or spendy, but on recognizing human psychology and what actually brings most people happiness. See also the 85-year Harvard study on the topic:
* https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11575524/
* https://the-good-life-book.com
* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...
It's not a bout moralizing but recognizing how the reward centres of the human brain work:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
I would recommend the recently published book The Art of Spending Money by Morgan Housel, or check out the interviews he's done in recent months on it:
* https://collabfund.com/blog/my-new-book-the-art-of-spending-...
It's not about being frugal or cheap or spendy, but on recognizing human psychology and what actually brings most people happiness. See also the 85-year Harvard study on the topic:
* https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11575524/
* https://the-good-life-book.com
* https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...
Maslow's hierarchy of needs would assume that there is a point beyond which extra material comfort does not make you happy or content, but it also is quite clear that there is a point at up to which it does. Most books on happiness are written for people who are long past the point where increasing their monetary inputs will increase their happiness and contentment, but it is also clear those people exist and are perhaps even in the majority of humanity.
I really don't like this moralizing but more importantly there's increasing evidence that wealth does correlate with life satisfaction.
> The data showed the happiness gap between wealthy and middle-income participants was wider than between middle- and low-income participants.
And the apparent reason:
> He said: “A greater feeling of control over life can explain about 75% of the association between money and happiness. So I think a big part of what’s happening is that, when people have more money, they have more control over their lives. More freedom to live the life they want to live.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/18/mone...
> The data showed the happiness gap between wealthy and middle-income participants was wider than between middle- and low-income participants.
And the apparent reason:
> He said: “A greater feeling of control over life can explain about 75% of the association between money and happiness. So I think a big part of what’s happening is that, when people have more money, they have more control over their lives. More freedom to live the life they want to live.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/18/mone...
Sure, but I’d argue that it’s largely reduced stress rather than raw materialism. For example being able not to worry about paying both the electric bill and a child’s dental work this month.
There’s many other research that corroborates this view. After some point increasing income didn’t increase life satisfaction. Usually somewhere in the low upper-middle class region.
There’s many other research that corroborates this view. After some point increasing income didn’t increase life satisfaction. Usually somewhere in the low upper-middle class region.
> After some point increasing income didn’t increase life satisfaction. Usually somewhere in the low upper-middle class region.
That's the common assumption that this research repudiates.
> These findings are counter to a widely covered 2010 study that found happiness rises with income, but plateaus at around $75,000.
He studied much richer people:
> Killingsworth also used data from the ultra-wealthy (people with a median net worth between $3m and $7.9m), which is often lacking and difficult to obtain.
> The data showed the happiness gap between wealthy and middle-income participants was wider than between middle- and low-income participants.
> His study also found wealthy individuals were “substantially and statistically significantly happier than people earning over $500,000 each year”.
That's the common assumption that this research repudiates.
> These findings are counter to a widely covered 2010 study that found happiness rises with income, but plateaus at around $75,000.
He studied much richer people:
> Killingsworth also used data from the ultra-wealthy (people with a median net worth between $3m and $7.9m), which is often lacking and difficult to obtain.
> The data showed the happiness gap between wealthy and middle-income participants was wider than between middle- and low-income participants.
> His study also found wealthy individuals were “substantially and statistically significantly happier than people earning over $500,000 each year”.
> Are they truly happier, in the sense of being more content?
The biggest thing anyone can do in their life is figure out exactly what makes them happy, and spend their money there. Don't let society tell you. People on this site likely care about computers and spend a disproportionate amount of their money on them, and that's ok. I don't care about cars or TVs, but I care about experiences and comfort so will spend money on travel and upgraded plane tickets.
I also care about agency, so tend to save money rather than spend. I want the freedom it provides more than what it can buy - typically.
The biggest thing anyone can do in their life is figure out exactly what makes them happy, and spend their money there. Don't let society tell you. People on this site likely care about computers and spend a disproportionate amount of their money on them, and that's ok. I don't care about cars or TVs, but I care about experiences and comfort so will spend money on travel and upgraded plane tickets.
I also care about agency, so tend to save money rather than spend. I want the freedom it provides more than what it can buy - typically.
Yeah but what is meaningfully "nicer" becomes and exponentially more expensive and ends up being mostly wasted value. And by time someone has to start actually worrying about such questions they have enough free capital to spend that they can have a high quality version of almost anything anyone would want to possess or use other than pure displays of wealth.
Maybe if the basic needs on the average person were taken care of then random displays of extravagant wealth would be acceptable. But when something as simple as getting a rotten tooth extracted or a filling on a front tooth is too much "luxury" for many working class citizens, it is a complete misallocation of society's resources.
Maybe if the basic needs on the average person were taken care of then random displays of extravagant wealth would be acceptable. But when something as simple as getting a rotten tooth extracted or a filling on a front tooth is too much "luxury" for many working class citizens, it is a complete misallocation of society's resources.
But commercialism keeps telling people that only nicer things can make them happy.
Sure, but wisdom can be shared about what is less likely to make you happy.
> Plenty of people are happier with nicer things. I don't think we need to tell people what should make them happy.
They are happier… for a limited time and then want 'more':
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
'Upgrading' things can lead down a road where problems arise:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diderot_effect
They are happier… for a limited time and then want 'more':
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
'Upgrading' things can lead down a road where problems arise:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diderot_effect
I'm happy right after I eat ice cream too. Doesn't make it a good lifestyle.
Before you go on about how saying it's "good" or "not good" is a value judgement that I'm not entitled to make -- you're damn right it is, and I'll do what I want.
Before you go on about how saying it's "good" or "not good" is a value judgement that I'm not entitled to make -- you're damn right it is, and I'll do what I want.
That happy feeling only lasts about six weeks.
Happiness is unsustainable. However, contentment is an attainable goal.
Happiness is unsustainable. However, contentment is an attainable goal.
I bought a bigger nicer TV (the biggest I ever bought) about 4 years ago and it still brings me joy to this day every time I use it
So no, not only 6 weeks
So no, not only 6 weeks
My 14" portable CRT I had when I was a teenager gave me joy every time I used it. My first car cost me less than 2k and gave me joy for 5 years.
You are now unable to get joy from a TV smaller than the largest one you've ever bought. Many people are unable to get joy from a car costing under 10k, let alone 2k.
The things you own end up owning you.
You are now unable to get joy from a TV smaller than the largest one you've ever bought. Many people are unable to get joy from a car costing under 10k, let alone 2k.
The things you own end up owning you.
You are putting words in their mouth there.
You seem very sure about what does and doesn't make other people happy!
You seem very sure about what does and doesn't make other people happy!
> I bought a bigger nicer TV (the biggest I ever bought) about 4 years ago and it still brings me joy to this day every time I use it
n=1. For the general population:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
n=1. For the general population:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
Though Buffet has kept that first house, he also bought several others along the way.
Yeah, but if the first house you buy is a two bedroom at 28 when you are single, it isn't bad to buy a bigger house when you have a family and 3 kids.
> You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever, but it will not make you happy.
Speak for yourself. There are a lot of aspects to being happy, and having to not want for things certainly helps.
Speak for yourself. There are a lot of aspects to being happy, and having to not want for things certainly helps.
You will never not want for things, no matter how much you have.
It is actually the opposite. The less things you have, the less things you will want.
I even experience this with food. If I am on a strict diet for 2 weeks and then have a "cheat" meal, a previously normal meal feels like a satisfying feast.
If I splurge on food for 2 weeks, even 3/4th a pizza doesn't satisfy. I just want the other 1/4th.
It is really why we have so much wealth as a society but so much discontent. It is like believing there is some amount of alcohol that would satisfy the alcoholic. It just grows the desire for more while contentment is harder and harder to achieve.
I am pretty sure this is just a property of the dopaminergic system.
I even experience this with food. If I am on a strict diet for 2 weeks and then have a "cheat" meal, a previously normal meal feels like a satisfying feast.
If I splurge on food for 2 weeks, even 3/4th a pizza doesn't satisfy. I just want the other 1/4th.
It is really why we have so much wealth as a society but so much discontent. It is like believing there is some amount of alcohol that would satisfy the alcoholic. It just grows the desire for more while contentment is harder and harder to achieve.
I am pretty sure this is just a property of the dopaminergic system.
But you can do that without any money.
> You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever
> But you can do that without any money.
Well...
Material things can contribute to happiness, or detract.
Balancing the things we spend our life on, relative to an understanding of what makes us happy, is going to be an idiosyncratic exercise. Assuming that X won't contribute to the happiness of person Y is some deep projection.
There seem to be many kinds of happiness too. Would I remain happy if I lost my house? Yes. I have gone through enough ups and downs to know that. But would I feel as fulfilled? No. I have gone through enough ups and downs to know that.
> But you can do that without any money.
Well...
Material things can contribute to happiness, or detract.
Balancing the things we spend our life on, relative to an understanding of what makes us happy, is going to be an idiosyncratic exercise. Assuming that X won't contribute to the happiness of person Y is some deep projection.
There seem to be many kinds of happiness too. Would I remain happy if I lost my house? Yes. I have gone through enough ups and downs to know that. But would I feel as fulfilled? No. I have gone through enough ups and downs to know that.
Very disingenuous answer. That's not what I was responding to. I was responding to this-
There are a lot of aspects to being happy, and having to not want for things certainly helps.
I would give you a better answer here but it appears you thought misquoting the conversation was clever so I'll simply leave you corrected.
There are a lot of aspects to being happy, and having to not want for things certainly helps.
I would give you a better answer here but it appears you thought misquoting the conversation was clever so I'll simply leave you corrected.
It's true (I live in Omaha). He is still in the same house.
I didn't grow up here—my wife did. Very early on, when I first visited Omaha, she drove me by his place. After three decades or so in California, I retired and we moved back to her hometown. Buffett is still there.
I didn't grow up here—my wife did. Very early on, when I first visited Omaha, she drove me by his place. After three decades or so in California, I retired and we moved back to her hometown. Buffett is still there.
Like anyone can just drive up to his house? Doesn't seem safe for such a high profile billionaire's residence to be so accessible.
I went by it a few weeks ago. There's a gate on the driveway, and I assume some kind of security presence. Probably no different than anyone under constant public scrutiny.
Wait until you learn about the Hollywood Hills! I'm so excited for you.
"Happiness can't buy me money" -- Some actor
[deleted]
> You can buy a bigger and bigger house car tv stereo whatever, but it will not make you happy.
Hard disagree here.
Ask a 4 person family stuffed into a one bedroom condo if buying a larger 3 bedroom home would make them happier, I'd imagine to 99.99999% of them the answer is yes.
I upgraded my road bike 2 years ago from an entry level one to a nice racing bike and each weekend I ride a 100km route, that sure as heck makes me happier than riding the old slower and heavier bike.
We just took our extended family on a vacation for a week. Money sure as heck made us happier in that instance.
It is true that cash can't fix all issues in life but any one who says money can't make you happy is either lying or doesn't have money.
Run a simple thought experiment in your head. If you woke up tomorrow under crushing credit card and medical debt and it was suddenly paid off, would that make you happier?
Hard disagree here.
Ask a 4 person family stuffed into a one bedroom condo if buying a larger 3 bedroom home would make them happier, I'd imagine to 99.99999% of them the answer is yes.
I upgraded my road bike 2 years ago from an entry level one to a nice racing bike and each weekend I ride a 100km route, that sure as heck makes me happier than riding the old slower and heavier bike.
We just took our extended family on a vacation for a week. Money sure as heck made us happier in that instance.
It is true that cash can't fix all issues in life but any one who says money can't make you happy is either lying or doesn't have money.
Run a simple thought experiment in your head. If you woke up tomorrow under crushing credit card and medical debt and it was suddenly paid off, would that make you happier?
Kinda depends on the size of your current one.
That’s because you haven’t tried buying better bicycles. I assure you that every new bike I buy makes me happier.
It doesn't make you happier, it's just that you became unhappy and the new bike was necessary to temporarily make you happy again.
Happiness is binary. You're either happy with where you are or where you're heading or you're not.
Happiness is binary. You're either happy with where you are or where you're heading or you're not.
> It doesn't make you happier
It sounds to me like you haven’t rode a bike in a long time. I recommend you try it and get back to me.
It sounds to me like you haven’t rode a bike in a long time. I recommend you try it and get back to me.
I own several and have ridden thousands upon thousands of miles.
When I got my first bike as a kid, a cheap "mountain bike" with 24" wheels that probably weighed more than my current road bike, I was at maximum happiness. I was not at only 40% happiness because it didn't have a carbon frame or a Di2 groupset from the future. I was at 100.
Later when I got my first road bike I was at 100% happiness again. But nothing can make me happier than I was with that first, heavy bicycle-shaped object. It might equal it but it's impossible to surpass.
When I got my first bike as a kid, a cheap "mountain bike" with 24" wheels that probably weighed more than my current road bike, I was at maximum happiness. I was not at only 40% happiness because it didn't have a carbon frame or a Di2 groupset from the future. I was at 100.
Later when I got my first road bike I was at 100% happiness again. But nothing can make me happier than I was with that first, heavy bicycle-shaped object. It might equal it but it's impossible to surpass.
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.
No they said we can all learn from it. I understood the implication, I just reject the stated idea that that lesson is to “live in one house for your entire adult life”.
Meh. If you have the resources, buy whatever makes you happy.
If a bigger house makes you happy because you have space for your hobbies and you don't need to fight with your family members for space, buy a bigger house.
The whole "money doesn't bring happiness" thing is bullshit unless you are a Buddha.
A mansion in Malibu isn't going to make me happy, because I wouldn't know what the hell to do in Malibu. An upgrade from a 2-bedroom to a 4-bedroom home with a garage so I don't have to smell laser cutter fumes anymore and hack a ventilation system out a bedroom window? That very well might.
If a bigger house makes you happy because you have space for your hobbies and you don't need to fight with your family members for space, buy a bigger house.
The whole "money doesn't bring happiness" thing is bullshit unless you are a Buddha.
A mansion in Malibu isn't going to make me happy, because I wouldn't know what the hell to do in Malibu. An upgrade from a 2-bedroom to a 4-bedroom home with a garage so I don't have to smell laser cutter fumes anymore and hack a ventilation system out a bedroom window? That very well might.
> An upgrade from a 2-bedroom to a 4-bedroom home with a garage so I don't have to smell laser cutter fumes anymore and hack a ventilation system out a bedroom window? That very well might.
As someone who upgraded from a 2 bedroom flat to a 3 bedroom house with a garage, I concur. Having a place to store my bikes and other “dirty” tools that’s not inside was such an improvement to my quality of life that I tell people to always look for a half decent garage when they buy. Especially if they also like cycling!
As someone who upgraded from a 2 bedroom flat to a 3 bedroom house with a garage, I concur. Having a place to store my bikes and other “dirty” tools that’s not inside was such an improvement to my quality of life that I tell people to always look for a half decent garage when they buy. Especially if they also like cycling!
It will if you have had four children after 28yo.
The key to a happy life is to learn how to reduce the amount of things you own and how to build strong relationships. Once you have enough to put a roof over your head and food on your table, more than that can only be used to purchase increasing amounts of comfort, which is not the same as increasing amounts of happiness.
YouTube has plenty of videos of people calling in with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year in income and somehow they are still broke and in debt. Live below your means, save the excess income into an investment portfolio, keep doing that until you have enough money to live off the interest. Don't even think about buying a Rolex until you have so much money coming in from interest that you don't even know what else to do with it. Even then, remember that the Rolex, like anything else, requires maintenance, but that if you make someone else happy, they can take care of themselves.
YouTube has plenty of videos of people calling in with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year in income and somehow they are still broke and in debt. Live below your means, save the excess income into an investment portfolio, keep doing that until you have enough money to live off the interest. Don't even think about buying a Rolex until you have so much money coming in from interest that you don't even know what else to do with it. Even then, remember that the Rolex, like anything else, requires maintenance, but that if you make someone else happy, they can take care of themselves.
>>Here are some things Buffet has done that I admire (notice that phrasing):
Perhaps the best thing Buffet has managed to do is to live long. Most of compounding magic begins at ages 60-65, a time where most investors start to die out.
Second best thing he did was to start/acquire a insurance firm. The 'float' helps them to run a kind of in house index fund on other peoples money, without having to pay TERs/Fees. Thats basically no effort bogle style compounding. Even if you end with a situation where you have to return ALL the premiums collected, you still get to keep the returns.
Other wise everything else is just fairly normal, if you are sitting in front of charts for long, its impossible to miss something that's going up on a weekly timeframe for long periods of time. You just pyramid upwards and wait, patiently.
The real issue is waiting doesn't work too well for most people as you start to die out after 60.
Perhaps the best thing Buffet has managed to do is to live long. Most of compounding magic begins at ages 60-65, a time where most investors start to die out.
Second best thing he did was to start/acquire a insurance firm. The 'float' helps them to run a kind of in house index fund on other peoples money, without having to pay TERs/Fees. Thats basically no effort bogle style compounding. Even if you end with a situation where you have to return ALL the premiums collected, you still get to keep the returns.
Other wise everything else is just fairly normal, if you are sitting in front of charts for long, its impossible to miss something that's going up on a weekly timeframe for long periods of time. You just pyramid upwards and wait, patiently.
The real issue is waiting doesn't work too well for most people as you start to die out after 60.
> Most of compounding magic begins at ages 60-65, a time where most investors start to die out.
Percentage-wise, few wealthy investors are dying out at ages of 60-65. In the US, males that make it to age 60 have a life expectancy of 81-82. But that's across all men - life expectancy is strongly correlated with wealth in the US, so a man in the top 1% could very reasonably expect to live to very late 80s/90s.
Nevermind that Buffet was still fabulously rich when he was 60, so none of your logic makes any sense to me.
Percentage-wise, few wealthy investors are dying out at ages of 60-65. In the US, males that make it to age 60 have a life expectancy of 81-82. But that's across all men - life expectancy is strongly correlated with wealth in the US, so a man in the top 1% could very reasonably expect to live to very late 80s/90s.
Nevermind that Buffet was still fabulously rich when he was 60, so none of your logic makes any sense to me.
>>none of your logic makes any sense to me.
Compounding is a function of time. More time you are alive, more you see in that time. This follows from definition of compounding itself.
Compounding is a function of time. More time you are alive, more you see in that time. This follows from definition of compounding itself.
Nobody doubts how compounding works. They doubt the logic of using that to argue that someone achieving a sustained CAGR of nearly 20% over decades and being recognised by peers as the greatest money manager of the twentieth century when he was already one of the world's richest man in his sixties actually achieved "fairly normal" performance mostly down to living a long time.
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 you the lowest is the key.
Buffet does this better. He basically takes the float from insurance business(Geico) and invests in the index his company manages. This basically sets you up for a long compounding cycle. Translation- You are basically investing in the US economy.
Apart from this there are some base businesses in an economy that's under long term multi year climb. Now anybody who is staring at stock charts(weekly) will tell you eventually you do learn to 'Pyramid upwards' on stocks that are clear winners. Lots of literature has been written on this.
All said and done, you can be rest assured there only at best 10 such stocks in any economy. Once you find them, you do periodic audit if the companies are holding up good and just keep putting in money as time passes.
I don't remember where- but I remember reading, Fidelity found out the most profitable accounts belonged to people who were dead. That says two things. 1) You have to hold stocks for long periods of time, like really long periods of time(Index, and some of its constituents that are carrying most of the freight) . Most people won't make it. 2) Live long enough.
Quite literally once you gain the skills to pick stock. Next single biggest skill you can master is to be healthy and live long. These things take lots of time to work.
Buffet does this better. He basically takes the float from insurance business(Geico) and invests in the index his company manages. This basically sets you up for a long compounding cycle. Translation- You are basically investing in the US economy.
Apart from this there are some base businesses in an economy that's under long term multi year climb. Now anybody who is staring at stock charts(weekly) will tell you eventually you do learn to 'Pyramid upwards' on stocks that are clear winners. Lots of literature has been written on this.
All said and done, you can be rest assured there only at best 10 such stocks in any economy. Once you find them, you do periodic audit if the companies are holding up good and just keep putting in money as time passes.
I don't remember where- but I remember reading, Fidelity found out the most profitable accounts belonged to people who were dead. That says two things. 1) You have to hold stocks for long periods of time, like really long periods of time(Index, and some of its constituents that are carrying most of the freight) . Most people won't make it. 2) Live long enough.
Quite literally once you gain the skills to pick stock. Next single biggest skill you can master is to be healthy and live long. These things take lots of time to work.
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 access to capital. On the contrary, others have typically started off earlier with more, and generally donated rather less than Buffet over the last couple of decades...
The "index funds and live long" advice is sensible precisely because even the average savvy investor isn't likely to time value investments as well as Warren Buffet did.
The "index funds and live long" advice is sensible precisely because even the average savvy investor isn't likely to time value investments as well as Warren Buffet did.
Index doesn't go up. Individual stocks do. I mean a small section of the stocks within the index contribute to most returns. This is of course different in a bull market where lots of them go up at once. But even in choppy and bear markets, its a small section of stocks that do most of the upward movement.
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.
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.
> - He still lives in the same home he bought when he was 28 years old.
Really makes me wonder what drives him. For many people it's the money, but with him it doesn't seem that way. But I haven't read too much about him, so if anyone has insight I'd love to hear about it.
Really makes me wonder what drives him. For many people it's the money, but with him it doesn't seem that way. But I haven't read too much about him, so if anyone has insight I'd love to hear about it.
Read his biography - "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life". It's quite long but pretty accurate picture of the man and what drives him. His answer was always that he just loves what he does and he does it with people he loves (Charlie). One can hardly ask for more in life.
Yeah, from the outside it seems like he has lived exactly the life he wanted to. I only know one person like that, and have always tried to learn from him.
From the outside yes - money and career wise, he accomplished everything he wanted.
His personal life is much more complicated though - impossible to know if he was happy or not, but for sure it was not usual.
His personal life is much more complicated though - impossible to know if he was happy or not, but for sure it was not usual.
Loosing him has had to be hard for Warren.
For some people, money is not for buying things, but just for keeping score. That can make it rewarding and addictive to accumulate money, even if you don't buy anything (like a giant house) with it.
The score keeping aspect makes it interesting, just like playing tennis while keeping score is more interesting than just hitting a ball back and forth across the net without counting.
The score keeping aspect makes it interesting, just like playing tennis while keeping score is more interesting than just hitting a ball back and forth across the net without counting.
Yeah, I kind of agree. I read Andrew Tobias's (did I get the apostrophe right?) book on investing and he made a point very early on: the people who are rich like money. No, not like you and I like money, they like money the way you and I like fishing, or reading, or hiking or whatever. It's their hobby, their love, the thing they like to learn about, read about…
Warren Buffett wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't obsessed with money. But to your point, that doesn't have to translate to material goods: the bigger house, yachts, etc.
Warren Buffett wouldn't be where he was if he wasn't obsessed with money. But to your point, that doesn't have to translate to material goods: the bigger house, yachts, etc.
Maybe he just likes building things that others find useful.
When I was younger I rented furniture from a company called CORT. I happened to notice on the contract or receipt or something, that it was a Berkshire company (I didn't know that before then).
If I were Warren Buffet, I would have been happy to know that someone was a satisfied customer of one of his companies. I got some decent furniture for a few months at a reasonable price.
Just like I'm happy when someone is a satisfied user of my software.
When I was younger I rented furniture from a company called CORT. I happened to notice on the contract or receipt or something, that it was a Berkshire company (I didn't know that before then).
If I were Warren Buffet, I would have been happy to know that someone was a satisfied customer of one of his companies. I got some decent furniture for a few months at a reasonable price.
Just like I'm happy when someone is a satisfied user of my software.
What has he built
That's not entirely fair, he may have been profit chasing or he may have actually believed in the companies he was investing in.
If he believed in them as an investor he helped build the companies.
If he believed in them as an investor he helped build the companies.
> What has he built
He took Berkshire Hathaway, a struggling textile company, and transformed it into one of the largest and most successful conglomerates in history.
He took Berkshire Hathaway, a struggling textile company, and transformed it into one of the largest and most successful conglomerates in history.
For some people, money is not for buying things, but just for keeping score.
You can see this behaviour in online multiplayer games that have a currency aspect --- some people will spend almost as quickly as they earn, while others will save some and buy items as they can afford, and then there are those who will just keep saving and saving, rarely buying.
You can see this behaviour in online multiplayer games that have a currency aspect --- some people will spend almost as quickly as they earn, while others will save some and buy items as they can afford, and then there are those who will just keep saving and saving, rarely buying.
I can recommend the Acquired (podcast) 3 part series on Berkshire.
There was a cool fact in there that he sees every price tag as the opportunity cost with compounding interest.
There was a cool fact in there that he sees every price tag as the opportunity cost with compounding interest.
Homes and physical community are a pretty personal thing.
Also, given that he is a billionaire, I do kind of assume that he has paid money to upgrade his home at some point, probably also owns additional homes elsewhere, maybe has done other things with his vast amount of money that normal people don't do, that are still consistent with living at the same address as when he was 28.
Also, given that he is a billionaire, I do kind of assume that he has paid money to upgrade his home at some point, probably also owns additional homes elsewhere, maybe has done other things with his vast amount of money that normal people don't do, that are still consistent with living at the same address as when he was 28.
I agree that more personal growth can be taken from reviewing other's behavior rather than analysis of their "overall morality". However, when people are powerful and their actions effect many people it is very important to reflect on the morality of their actions.
Holding powerful people and institutions to account for the morality of their actions can and has been a powerful force for good.
Holding powerful people and institutions to account for the morality of their actions can and has been a powerful force for good.
The house he bought at 28 is 3500 square feet in a very very nice neighborhood and was worth $1.2 million a few years ago. It's humble by billionaire standards, not by average person standards. He never needed to size-up because of children, or size-down because of a bad economy, he was already set for both space and finances. Let's not create a moralistic myth out of his lack of need.
No, he's really humble, guys, trust me. He has only owned JUST ONE private jet in his life and has upgraded it only ONCE guys. He also currently owns the world's largest private jet operator NetJets [0] via Berkshire that he uses regulary to leverage its fleet now. I'm dying in the light of this humility.
0 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DLB-28383
0 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DLB-28383
For reference, this is the house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#/media/File:Dun...
That's a very misleading photo. An aerial view shows the multiple large buildings much better. https://presidenthouse.org/entry-18
That's a much better set of photos. It also confirms he was content with a two-car garage.
It also stands in contrast to the other celebrities and business leaders featured on that site. If they had a ranking ordered by size/value ascending, I wonder what number he would be. I still suspect it'd be near the top.
It also stands in contrast to the other celebrities and business leaders featured on that site. If they had a ranking ordered by size/value ascending, I wonder what number he would be. I still suspect it'd be near the top.
Very interesting page :-D
Buffet seems to be on top. Eric Schmidts condo is also worth a look.
Buffet seems to be on top. Eric Schmidts condo is also worth a look.
If you compare that with Zuckerberg, Buffett is a saint without question.
Question: does it make you a saint if you don't spend money lavishly when you have it? Note: its only about not spending it, not about donating or otherwise using it for an ethical purpose.
Bezos was at least controversial to some when he was amazon CEO, now he started spending his fortunes and looks like a complete douche.
A touch of humbleness creates sympathy with people that cope with reality.
A touch of humbleness creates sympathy with people that cope with reality.
>Let's not create a moralistic myth out of his lack of need.
That's the moral though. He didn't need it so he didn't do it. Whereas so many others with so much less do so much more.
That's the moral though. He didn't need it so he didn't do it. Whereas so many others with so much less do so much more.
> Let's not create a moralistic myth out of his lack of need.
Absolutely, but let's also not do the opposite. Being poor does not make one morally superior either.
Absolutely, but let's also not do the opposite. Being poor does not make one morally superior either.
You say "it's humble by billionaire standards" - I think it's relatively humble by ~$300k a year standards. The thing I love about this house is that I think it represents just about the maximum real utility one can get from a home.
He had 3 kids, and a 3500 sq ft house is, IMO, an extremely average size for any decently paid professional where I live with a family that size. It basically looks like something that had everything he needed, and anything beyond that that you so often see in rich people houses is just for show and bling.
He had 3 kids, and a 3500 sq ft house is, IMO, an extremely average size for any decently paid professional where I live with a family that size. It basically looks like something that had everything he needed, and anything beyond that that you so often see in rich people houses is just for show and bling.
the GP said "average person" though and 300k/year is waaaaaaay past average person.
[deleted]
It's insanely humble by billionaire standards. Any FAANG SWE over 30 or so in the United States can get that. Contrast with multiple compounds, entire islands, etc.
Buffet surely made lots of upgrades and has added plenty of material comforts.
But it is quite possible to be a kind of lazy where even 10-20x current wealth, people would live where they currently live. American neighborhoods are reasonable that way. It is just primary home and they would holiday/vacation wherever.
But it is quite possible to be a kind of lazy where even 10-20x current wealth, people would live where they currently live. American neighborhoods are reasonable that way. It is just primary home and they would holiday/vacation wherever.
It is highly unusual for someone to stay put after their net worth increases tenfold. Normally, you would expect an individual to seek out more elite social circles and embrace a significantly more opulent lifestyle. Not having that isn’t a sign of laziness (one can be certain that someone like Warren Buffett lives exactly as he chooses) but rather a reflection of the rare ability to decide that what he has is already enough.
> 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.
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 total 135 million households.
Redfin has data showing about 8 million homes are worth $1 million plus, so 5 to 6 million households at the $1.5m mark seems about right as an estimate - or put another way - about 5% of US households could afford Warren Buffets home (but maybe not on a 95th percentile income in Omaha, Nebraska).
https://www.redfin.com/news/million-dollar-homes-increasing/
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 total 135 million households.
Redfin has data showing about 8 million homes are worth $1 million plus, so 5 to 6 million households at the $1.5m mark seems about right as an estimate - or put another way - about 5% of US households could afford Warren Buffets home (but maybe not on a 95th percentile income in Omaha, Nebraska).
https://www.redfin.com/news/million-dollar-homes-increasing/
And yet "Majority of Americans Can No Longer Afford an Average House"
https://www.statista.com/chart/32925/annual-income-required-...
https://www.statista.com/chart/32925/annual-income-required-...
They're not the only group that can afford it. They're just one that also happens to be much larger by multiple orders of magnitude than billionaires.
Still, slightly more than the 0.00026% who are billionaires.
Not the daily FAANG SWE injection
I think it's more that he didn't build a gaudy billionaire mansion, even though he easily could have.
Adding the letter archive into a LLM prompt is a good read. you can use this as a source https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/letters.html
Right. This is why I believe we should not build statues of people, only of ideas.
> He consistently communicated with shareholders of Berkshire in a straight-forward and transparent way in his letters and annual reports.
How often did he ever deliver "bad news"?
How often did he ever deliver "bad news"?
How many days a year did Buffet live in that house, though? I suspect he was always on the move such that the home base never actually mattered. Same as Musk.
> 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?
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?
While you're joining the current bolshevik revival that the populist left is trying to spin up, I just hope you remember the kulaks (the land-owning peasants) and many of the Serednyaks (the middle class peasants) also got murdered in the revolution. I'd keep any claims of moral superiority to myself if I were you.
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?
While you're joining the current bolshevik revival that the populist left is trying to spin up, I just hope you remember the kulaks (the land-owning peasants) and many of the Serednyaks (the middle class peasants) also got murdered in the revolution. I'd keep any claims of moral superiority to myself if I were you.
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.
The vast majority of billionaires don't get wealthy by 'gaming the system' and if that were the case and you simply could just game the system, why isn't there more of them?
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.
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.
I never claimed they got rich by gaming the system. My god learn to read.
> "I never claimed they got rich by gaming the system. My god learn to read."
> "I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system"
> "I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system"
Funny that u think this:
> I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system
Means:
> Billionaires make their money by gaming the system
Serious reading comprehension issue.
> I am not retarded enough to compare my income to a billionaire gaming the system
Means:
> Billionaires make their money by gaming the system
Serious reading comprehension issue.
I appreciate this viewpoint. Thanks for sharing.
[deleted]
He said he would keep writing at least once a year.
[deleted]
"He still lives in the same home he bought when he was 28 years old."
Good for him. Big savings right there. Buying/selling/moving house can cost a fortune.
Good for him. Big savings right there. Buying/selling/moving house can cost a fortune.
... which makes the need for rent control and renter protection laws obvious. When people have the "choice" between paying their landlord 5k more just because the landlord can or spending 5-10k on finding a new home and moving, landlords have all the cards.
Somebody needs to get out of the city.
SF and NYC are the only two places in the US where rent control makes any sense whatsoever. And it's to solve a problem that was largely created... by rent control.
Once you start you can't stop.
SF and NYC are the only two places in the US where rent control makes any sense whatsoever. And it's to solve a problem that was largely created... by rent control.
Once you start you can't stop.
Renter control is the "got mine, lets pull the ladder up" version of Nimby-ism for renters.
Amazing for Grandma to pay $500/mo to live alone in a 2b Manhattan where she raised her family.
Terrible for the young families try to find their own 2b bedroom to start their family.
[0] - higher paying, emotionally rewarding, etc.
Amazing for Grandma to pay $500/mo to live alone in a 2b Manhattan where she raised her family.
Terrible for the young families try to find their own 2b bedroom to start their family.
[0] - higher paying, emotionally rewarding, etc.
I wonder how this will affect BRK-B, given that so many investors (or at least the "retail " ones) buy its shares with the assumption that they provide exposure to Buffett's strategy.
In any case, I hope Warren can experience not working at all in the few years he likely has left after being alive for over 1/3 of his country's existence!
In any case, I hope Warren can experience not working at all in the few years he likely has left after being alive for over 1/3 of his country's existence!
I don't know the guy, but by all indications he is even-keeled, low-stress, conscientious but come what may. Given his nationality and net-worth, I'd wager that Warren is a centenarian in waiting, unless and until he chooses to invest in the afterlife. Whichever comes first.
Respect.
Respect.
BRK is now (since the last 10-20 years) large and diversified enough that it more or less tracks the S&P 500 and the overall stock market. There isn't some genius trading strategy in there. Buffett himself tells everyone who will listen to buy and hold a diversified index fund for a long period of time.
BRK and VOO have a correlation of 0.7 over the past 5 years. That's high enough that they have been relatively similar, but not so high that I would really say it "tracks" it.
Of course, no one knows the future so who knows if this will continue.
Of course, no one knows the future so who knows if this will continue.
random web correlation calculator shows it has deviated since around May this year and is currently around 0.3
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-correlations#analy...
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-correlations#analy...
BRK is like a conservative S&P500. It offers enough diversification off the "total market" funds for me that I invest a small but material portion of my "safe money" with them.
Sort of like holding boring dividend stocks without the dividend.
Sort of like holding boring dividend stocks without the dividend.
BRK has a beta of 0.7 (meaning it's less volatile than the market) because a third of it is just cash (probably because they want to buy the blood in the next crash like they did in 2000) so I'm curious why you wouldn't just keep that part of your portfolio in cash like he does? Now me personally I think that strategy is kind of dated because the dollar has lost 39% of its value over the last twelve months because it's only as good as the blood sweat and tears of the people who mint it. Dividend stocks like Heinz aren't good investments these days either, since as far as I can tell, those dividends have been coming straight out of the stock's value. Even Buffett turned his back on them. A tidal wave has been rolling through this country sweeping away everyone who follows the safe socially sanctioned wisdom about investing.
Mostly because I don't trust myself to push cash into the market when there is blood on the streets. Or really ever, for that matter. Both due to thinking "everything is still overvalued" as well as decision paralysis even when/if I do feel the time is generally right.
I'm generally overly conservative, so this is somewhat of a middle ground. Along the lines of the best diet is the one you can consistently stick with, not necessarily the most theoretically optimal one. Same goes with investing for me.
I intellectually understand it's likely a worse bet than just dumping 100% into VTI or whatnot, but investing isn't simply a mathematical game - at least in my case.
> A tidal wave has been rolling through this country sweeping away everyone who follows the safe socially sanctioned wisdom about investing.
Agreed. I'd be retired now if I would have been able to shake the conventional wisdom in this area and just YOLO'ed it.
I'm generally overly conservative, so this is somewhat of a middle ground. Along the lines of the best diet is the one you can consistently stick with, not necessarily the most theoretically optimal one. Same goes with investing for me.
I intellectually understand it's likely a worse bet than just dumping 100% into VTI or whatnot, but investing isn't simply a mathematical game - at least in my case.
> A tidal wave has been rolling through this country sweeping away everyone who follows the safe socially sanctioned wisdom about investing.
Agreed. I'd be retired now if I would have been able to shake the conventional wisdom in this area and just YOLO'ed it.
Math is only useful when you apply it to something that has value, like knowledge. Warren Buffett got it by reading balance sheets all day. He'd see through all the smooth talking and marketing because of it. One of the things that makes the system broken these days is no one has time to do what he did. People just park their money in passive funds like VTI. I'd be surprised if even Vanguard read these companies balance sheets. Although I know the fund managers care a lot about environment social governance.
where are you getting this 39% figure? inflation in 2025 was only 2.7%.
What are you going off? CPI? For thousands of years gold has been the benchmark of currencies. For example you can read the Code of Hammurabi from Ancient Babylon where they used gold and silver as their currency, and then convert the figures mentioned in their laws. You'd be surprised by how invariant everything seems. https://justine.lol/inflation/ CPI isn't a trustworthy indicator. The government can't tell the truth about inflation because retirees all own TIPS so the government would have to pay them obscene amounts of money if the official numbers went up, which it can't afford, because the whole reason the government is debasing the currency in the first place is to pay for all the other benefits it gives to retirees.
39% just doesn't pass basic muster. in the past year, my rent hasn't near-doubled. it doesn't cost anywhere near twice as much as last year to buy food or clothing or transportation. 39% inflation over the past year would mean the economy is rapidly shrinking in real terms.
Inflation benefits people like your landlord, because his property value increases while his mortgage fees go negative. The bank is basically paying him to lord over you. So maybe he's a nice guy and doesn't make life harder for you when he's doing so well. Equities have concomitantly appreciated in value, keeping the overall economy worth about the same, but the gains get redistributed to more modern companies while everyone else gets washed away in the rising tide. Everything else it needs some time to trickle down and cause some pain before vendors wise up. That arbitrage opportunity is what incentivizes the folks who get the printed money to do it in the first place.
Berkshire's cash holdings are pretty different from an S&P 500 index fund.
Last I heard he had a couple guys working for him who sound extremely smart and explained it’s almost impossible to beat the S&P but they try.
> In any case, I hope Warren can experience not working at all in the few years he likely has left after being alive for over 1/3 of his country's existence!
Honestly I struggle to understand the desire of folks earning an income to wish the best for folks who have literally never struggled in their lives. This hero worship of billionaires is bizarre in the extreme. Warren Buffet earned his billions on investments from friends and family that the vast, vast majority of people have zero access to. But people keep acting as if he is some sort of genius because he was able to grow an equivalent of $1MM in investments from friends and family at a time when basically every single fucking industry in the country was growing at crazy rates. Capital begets capital. Wake me up when someone actually comes from rags and doesn't just try to weave that into their propaganda.
Honestly I struggle to understand the desire of folks earning an income to wish the best for folks who have literally never struggled in their lives. This hero worship of billionaires is bizarre in the extreme. Warren Buffet earned his billions on investments from friends and family that the vast, vast majority of people have zero access to. But people keep acting as if he is some sort of genius because he was able to grow an equivalent of $1MM in investments from friends and family at a time when basically every single fucking industry in the country was growing at crazy rates. Capital begets capital. Wake me up when someone actually comes from rags and doesn't just try to weave that into their propaganda.
There's no Buffett's strategy. Market buys whatever Buffett's company bought. That's how he got unusual gains.
Moment of fame stretched over 60 year of clipping coupons off of that initial fame.
The thing that made it possible was that he was content with his performance and never tried to one up himself. He kept his fame and market interest in him simmering over six decades inatead burning out in one bright flash.
Moment of fame stretched over 60 year of clipping coupons off of that initial fame.
The thing that made it possible was that he was content with his performance and never tried to one up himself. He kept his fame and market interest in him simmering over six decades inatead burning out in one bright flash.
I used to share a somewhat similar sentiment.
I know one anecdote is not data, but his investment in BYD all the way back in 2008 does counter that viewpoint somewhat - his investment success in the BYD case isn’t from other investors following him in, it’s from him identifying BYD as a successful company far before any other major investors did.
I know one anecdote is not data, but his investment in BYD all the way back in 2008 does counter that viewpoint somewhat - his investment success in the BYD case isn’t from other investors following him in, it’s from him identifying BYD as a successful company far before any other major investors did.
> There's no Buffett's strategy. Market buys whatever Buffett's company bought. That's how he got unusual gains.
That sure does trivialize him. If that was your goal, you nailed it.
I personally don’t think that’s a fair take, but I’ve no interest in trying to change your mind.
That sure does trivialize him. If that was your goal, you nailed it.
I personally don’t think that’s a fair take, but I’ve no interest in trying to change your mind.
> That sure does trivialize him. If that was your goal, you nailed it.
Pretty much. I'm always interested what's left once I reject te ususal narratives that people keep repeating to each other. I find this kind of excercise insightful and satisfying.
While in every working thing there's myriad of significant details, the main engine of operation is usually just one usually quite straightforward thing. I like making attempts at recognizing those main things. I'm sometimes wrong but even when I am I find satisfaction that I tried instead just repeating some selection of what other people said.
Pretty much. I'm always interested what's left once I reject te ususal narratives that people keep repeating to each other. I find this kind of excercise insightful and satisfying.
While in every working thing there's myriad of significant details, the main engine of operation is usually just one usually quite straightforward thing. I like making attempts at recognizing those main things. I'm sometimes wrong but even when I am I find satisfaction that I tried instead just repeating some selection of what other people said.
Yes its the typical attitude than gives HN users a bad name. And this particular comment doesn't seem to have done beyond surface level research either on his investment works. Maybe not even surface level. Too much confidence too little works just empty words.
I've begun to call it (in my own head) "pessimissivism", a fatal combination of being pessimistic and dismissive. It can't be unique to HN, but I find it particularly jarring that it has taken root here, given the optimistic and open-minded origins of this forum.
We are talking about about billionaires gambling with company issued casino chips while messing up the actual brick and mortar economy. Being open-minded and optimistic about this activity brought us such wonderful events as 2008.
Value investing a la Buffett and Munger is certainly not how we got 2008. Quite the opposite. In fact they were some of the most prominent individuals before 2008 outspoken about the risks of the derivatives that led to 2008, calling them "financial weapons of mass destruction".
> There's no Buffett's strategy
There is and it’s found in float, leverage and low-volatility assets [1].
If you look at what he does, that becomes clear. If you only pay attention to how people talk about him on the internet, you’ll be misled into seeing trend following.
[1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19681/w196...
There is and it’s found in float, leverage and low-volatility assets [1].
If you look at what he does, that becomes clear. If you only pay attention to how people talk about him on the internet, you’ll be misled into seeing trend following.
[1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19681/w196...
You can invent any strategy and you will be consistently successful if you get the flock to follow you. And if you don't, your strategy will crash and burn eventually, whatever it might be. The prolonged success of Buffet's strategy doesn't lie in the strategy. It lies solely in his fame and market followers.
That doesn't explain how he did well before people had heard of him. Also if you read his letters he talks about his strategy and it's not that.
Dead clock is perfectly accurate twice every day.
He has plausible narratives for his success and that was enough to manufacture fame out of his initial random success. And the fame carried him for decades.
He has plausible narratives for his success and that was enough to manufacture fame out of his initial random success. And the fame carried him for decades.
I read somewhere that Bershire Hathaway had sort of finished it's mission. 40 years ago there were lots of large companies who were very 'inefficient' and BH would come along, invest a lot, and start demanding changes. Company performance would improve and BH would make big $$$$.
Now there are few of these and it is hard to do.
I don't know enough to know whether it is right or wrong. but I think that is what I read.
Now there are few of these and it is hard to do.
I don't know enough to know whether it is right or wrong. but I think that is what I read.
That wasn't their main thing. The main one was to buy stocks or companies for less than they were worth, either because the market mispriced them or because company owners wanted to retire and sell to Berkshire. They also were big into insurance float which is getting insurance premium money that doesn't have to be paid out for a while which provides a kind of free leverage. Buffett did a lot of other things too.
I think over the last few decades, he could make deals just because the Buffett name held so much influence. If Buffett was investing, then others could assume that the company won't go bankrupt.
That's certainly part of it, but in the "buying mispriced assets" category, Buffer made some very smart, large bets. During the Great Financial Crisis, BH made a $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs that eventually made them billions in profit when everyone else was running for the hills.
I actually think this is a deal only Buffett could have made. By bringing on Buffett as an investor, it sent a signal to the market that the bank was solvent and improved confidence in the company. Another investor would not have brought the same calm so would not have had the same return even if they bought the same amount at the same time.
Isn't that the model of every private equity? It was always hard to do well.
Although it doesn't seem that way, there are lot of companies that have become large recently, it is best time ever historically for companies to be able to grow large quickly much more so than 50 years ago in the early days of BH.
There are 1000+ unicorns today, about 50 of the fortune 500 are founded > 2000, a large number of companies that have chosen to remain private with revenues in excess of >$10B like Stripe or SpaceX etc
While it is true that lot of the action has been in sectors BH has never been comfortable holding large assets in such as SaaS, new fin-tech(i.e. crypto etc), or gig econ(Airbnb/Uber etc), social media(tiktok et al.) etc, that doesn't mean the principles are no longer needed or there aren't opportunities to take stake in these now mature companies and drive value.
Although it doesn't seem that way, there are lot of companies that have become large recently, it is best time ever historically for companies to be able to grow large quickly much more so than 50 years ago in the early days of BH.
There are 1000+ unicorns today, about 50 of the fortune 500 are founded > 2000, a large number of companies that have chosen to remain private with revenues in excess of >$10B like Stripe or SpaceX etc
While it is true that lot of the action has been in sectors BH has never been comfortable holding large assets in such as SaaS, new fin-tech(i.e. crypto etc), or gig econ(Airbnb/Uber etc), social media(tiktok et al.) etc, that doesn't mean the principles are no longer needed or there aren't opportunities to take stake in these now mature companies and drive value.
Berkshire had a pivot where, decades back, Munger convinced Buffett to switch from investing in bad companies at a great price to good companies at a good price. Their new strategy is still active.
That said, the turnaround 'mission' you mention about still happens, but is more associated with private equity than Berkshire.
That said, the turnaround 'mission' you mention about still happens, but is more associated with private equity than Berkshire.
Not quite right. The pivot was from good companies at a great price to great companies at a good price (unless you can get a great price, but that’s unlikely).
Over the long run the latter is a better and more scalable strategy.
Over the long run the latter is a better and more scalable strategy.
They also have a history of buying good private companies at a good price and then let the management keep cooking. This is especially relevant to family businesses that want liquidity for the heirs and good long-term (indefinite) stewardship rather than selling to some PE vulture that will destroy their legacy.
Well, many companies are still mispriced, but stock markets today look a lot more like voting machines than weighing machines - so it takes more time to be proven right (or wrong).
Seems inaccurate to me. What I've heard is that BRK is famous for being hands-off. Their management team is too small anyway to have done much micromanaging.
Correct. Berkshire only buys well-functioning businesses. '“Turnarounds” seldom turn'.
https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1979.html
https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1979.html
Berkshire's investment in Apple is responsible for ~50% of its portfolio success in the last 20 years.
The rest is insurance.
Respect to the man for running an operation for 60 years. That's a helluva feat that deserves a lot of admiration.
Still surprised at HN's glazing of someone whose life's mission was to make a number go up and to the right via insurance packages.
The rest is insurance.
Respect to the man for running an operation for 60 years. That's a helluva feat that deserves a lot of admiration.
Still surprised at HN's glazing of someone whose life's mission was to make a number go up and to the right via insurance packages.
Buffett's restraint was legendary and his transparency even more so.
Bill Gates also initially dismissed him, thinking he had nothing to learn.
General Electric also tried to "make a number go up" and effed up the insurance part despite having Buffett as a model and putting 10,000 people through their custom management training facility every year.
Raise a glass to the man and read his letters.
Bill Gates also initially dismissed him, thinking he had nothing to learn.
General Electric also tried to "make a number go up" and effed up the insurance part despite having Buffett as a model and putting 10,000 people through their custom management training facility every year.
Raise a glass to the man and read his letters.
> Berkshire's investment in Apple is responsible for ~50% of its portfolio success in the last 20 years.
And by all accounts, that investment was suggested by his son. He famously said that he didn't understand technology enough to invest in it.
And by all accounts, that investment was suggested by his son. He famously said that he didn't understand technology enough to invest in it.
Also bought $4.3 billion of Google in November. That’s tiny compared to what their Apple investment was, but their days of ignoring tech stocks seem to be over.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/14/warren-buffetts-berkshire-ha...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/14/warren-buffetts-berkshire-ha...
Did Berkshire investing in Apple shares help Apple achieve success?
I always see fawning comments when it comes to Warren Buffet. I think people need to examine more closely what his portfolio companies do and how they’ve been successful. Some of them are genuinely positive stories. But in other places, the truth isn’t so pretty. Look up how rail workers are treated by BNSF, for example. Like many ultra wealthy people who are caught up in evaluating companies solely on financial grounds, Buffet ignores what the impact of his choices are. And let’s be real - there isn’t any “fair competition” in many parts of the American economy to fix these problems. The railways are especially problematic because the infrastructure they own creates monopolies in regions.
He’s no worse than CSX with public ownership. Rail workers are getting what they voted for - a dimishment of rights at the federal level and right to work crap that broke their union.
Don’t worship buffet, but study him. The Acquired podcast on him is a great jumping off point.
Don’t worship buffet, but study him. The Acquired podcast on him is a great jumping off point.
Why are you assuming that people aren't explicitly celebrating those negatives? Buffett is a capitalist, and the evils are part of the package. The majority of people here would do the same in a heartbeat to earn the same wealth and status.
Driving 7 minutes to work and stopping at a drive-thru to pick up McDonalds breakfast every day. The man is a true American hero.
Being genuine here - what is heroic about those two things?
> what is heroic about those two things?
America threw off a king and founded a republic. Equality is a founding value and one we still respect. A rich man keeping his habits despite his wealth, and doing so next to the rest of us, is a role model for other up and comers.
(The Romans had a similar thing about pastoral farmers. Every culture has its myth, and we like it when those in power try to live up to it.)
America threw off a king and founded a republic. Equality is a founding value and one we still respect. A rich man keeping his habits despite his wealth, and doing so next to the rest of us, is a role model for other up and comers.
(The Romans had a similar thing about pastoral farmers. Every culture has its myth, and we like it when those in power try to live up to it.)
> Equality is a founding value and one we still respect.
Easily stated by someone who was not a slave. Equality had fuck all to do with the founding of this country. Some people were *literaly* slaves. You *literally* could not vote unless you were a male land owner. Fuck this nonsense propaganda. Every bit of freedom in this country had to be fought for against this country and against the majority of white men. And we are still far, far from equal. Not until the vote of a Californian for President is equal in weight to someone from Wyoming. Not until the systemic structural advantage for white men in rural areas is eliminated. It's just such fucking bullshit to preach equality when our entire history has been a counter example.
Easily stated by someone who was not a slave. Equality had fuck all to do with the founding of this country. Some people were *literaly* slaves. You *literally* could not vote unless you were a male land owner. Fuck this nonsense propaganda. Every bit of freedom in this country had to be fought for against this country and against the majority of white men. And we are still far, far from equal. Not until the vote of a Californian for President is equal in weight to someone from Wyoming. Not until the systemic structural advantage for white men in rural areas is eliminated. It's just such fucking bullshit to preach equality when our entire history has been a counter example.
There's probably some truth in that resentful language, but if you grade in a curve of history what has been achieved by the idea of the United States and its focus on freedom and equality of opportunity has been miraculous.
p.s. Because this probably matters to you, this is said by a non-white son of immigrants.
p.s. Because this probably matters to you, this is said by a non-white son of immigrants.
What a strange and naive post
I don't think so. They are deliberately ignoring the side of the coin they don't like (a non ethno-state based on freedom and equality who has had a positive role in the history of mankind) because they are afraid that we don't take into account the side of the coin they care about, namely that all those rights and laws are mostly paper until some decide to make them more real.
If anything those perspectives need to be reunited rather than ignoring one for the other.
The history of humanity is filled with horrors and humans have done the worst to other humans but it is also true that nowhere in history has humanity been, on average, safer.
For that we have to thank all of those who believed in something better and made actual efforts to make a difference
If anything those perspectives need to be reunited rather than ignoring one for the other.
The history of humanity is filled with horrors and humans have done the worst to other humans but it is also true that nowhere in history has humanity been, on average, safer.
For that we have to thank all of those who believed in something better and made actual efforts to make a difference
I think it comes from the all-billionaires-are-evil mindset, which I see more and more of
It might be a you-problem then because that is not what they were about is about and yet you are the one grouping them together.
I am not saying categorization is bad, nor even that yours was unreasonable, but let's not forget the purpose of categories: Not having to think about difference, complexities
You would have done better to address and/or counter their points
I am not saying categorization is bad, nor even that yours was unreasonable, but let's not forget the purpose of categories: Not having to think about difference, complexities
You would have done better to address and/or counter their points
I think they just meant it's very stereotypically american to drive a very walkable distance and eat McDonald's every day
I’m familiar with this neighborhood. If this were my commute I’d probably walk often.
But:
It’s 42 minutes by foot one way, which is on the longer end for most people. About half of it is pleasantly walkable, the rest looking like no trees and along a busy street.
… For probably six months out of the year, the rest being too uncomfortably hot or windy/cold for most people.
And he’s probably wearing a suit and leather shoes every day, so you risk wet/muddy shoes, road salt, or dripping in sweat or rain. Mess up your hair with a hat in the winter.
And if you are going anywhere after, you’ll need a car anyway. The rest of Omaha is not walkable and quite hilly.
And he’s old, quite old. He’s been old for decades. Some people can do 3.6mi/day in their 50s-80s but most will not.
And his time value in literally among the… top ten in the world or so? And has been for decades?
I say all this as a relatively extreme walking advocate: for most people in some locales (including most of America), it just doesn’t make sense, and this criticism is very silly.
He’s Warren Buffet, so he could make this work if he wanted to. He could insist everyone come to him at his home while he wears pajamas.
But it’s not unreasonable to drive this commute.
And you can get a decent breakfast at McDonald’s too :D
But:
It’s 42 minutes by foot one way, which is on the longer end for most people. About half of it is pleasantly walkable, the rest looking like no trees and along a busy street.
… For probably six months out of the year, the rest being too uncomfortably hot or windy/cold for most people.
And he’s probably wearing a suit and leather shoes every day, so you risk wet/muddy shoes, road salt, or dripping in sweat or rain. Mess up your hair with a hat in the winter.
And if you are going anywhere after, you’ll need a car anyway. The rest of Omaha is not walkable and quite hilly.
And he’s old, quite old. He’s been old for decades. Some people can do 3.6mi/day in their 50s-80s but most will not.
And his time value in literally among the… top ten in the world or so? And has been for decades?
I say all this as a relatively extreme walking advocate: for most people in some locales (including most of America), it just doesn’t make sense, and this criticism is very silly.
He’s Warren Buffet, so he could make this work if he wanted to. He could insist everyone come to him at his home while he wears pajamas.
But it’s not unreasonable to drive this commute.
And you can get a decent breakfast at McDonald’s too :D
He is extremely rich. All of these problems are easily solvable with the resources he has.
And yet he chose his choices.
Any American worth that much is safer in a discretely armored car than on foot.
If you let fear dictate your life, you are correct.
You should. And you do too. Otherwise, you would’ve never looked both ways before crossing the street, and you would already be dead.
Do you feel that road safety dictates your life?
Your example seems to miss the point.
Of course I look both ways but I still cross the street.
I've watched people (friends included) who have let fear so overcome them that they frankly miss out on life. Won't travel, nervous about even leaving their home…
Of course I look both ways but I still cross the street.
I've watched people (friends included) who have let fear so overcome them that they frankly miss out on life. Won't travel, nervous about even leaving their home…
Looking both ways is letting fear dictate your life, at least enough that it changes your behavior in major ways. Fear is an important component of staying alive. Fear not dictating your life means not looking and expecting everyone to stop for you.
He could have a discrete security detail nearby.
Nothing. We shouldn't dilute the term hero. Let's call it what it is "groundedness"
[deleted]
> We shouldn't dilute the term hero
Buddy you're fighting against 3000 years of dilution. Let people have their word
Buddy you're fighting against 3000 years of dilution. Let people have their word
It's just a sarcastic take. I wouldn't read into it too much. If it didn't make you grin like a goofball, it failed and you should just move on to the next comment.
On the one hand yes, on the other hand I would hope that if I was a bazillionaire that I would still keep the comforting habits that worked for me when I was a normie.
I would argue “normie habits” are more depressing than this. Habits like stressing out about feeding your family. Counting the number of days until your money runs out and figuring out what odd jobs you can cover the shortfall with. Not going to the doctor because of the cost.
For many people, stopping by McDonalds inspires guilt, and not just because it’s a bad nutritional choice, but rather because that’s how thin the margins are. I still remember all of these things about my 20s. Now, a couple decades later and by no means super-wealthy, I will happily ignore grocery prices, pay for specialist care and sort of just eyeball my checking account every week or so to make sure I don’t need to shuffle something around.
Not dogging anyone who wants to enjoy the “simple” things in life, and I’m probably one of the more pro-billionaire people on this site (which is hilarious given what this site is really about), but I think most of us are out of touch with what the average American experiences. Midnight Taco Bell runs are an escape for those folks as much as they are a guilty pleasure. I’m happy that for me they can just be the latter.
For many people, stopping by McDonalds inspires guilt, and not just because it’s a bad nutritional choice, but rather because that’s how thin the margins are. I still remember all of these things about my 20s. Now, a couple decades later and by no means super-wealthy, I will happily ignore grocery prices, pay for specialist care and sort of just eyeball my checking account every week or so to make sure I don’t need to shuffle something around.
Not dogging anyone who wants to enjoy the “simple” things in life, and I’m probably one of the more pro-billionaire people on this site (which is hilarious given what this site is really about), but I think most of us are out of touch with what the average American experiences. Midnight Taco Bell runs are an escape for those folks as much as they are a guilty pleasure. I’m happy that for me they can just be the latter.
Not just relative to other billionaires, relative to the average American, he never went after get rich quick schemes, has a reputation less dirty, values life-long relationships more, and fell to not one of so many traps and dynamics that see many successful people trash their own legacy.
The internet citizen is so often convinced that everyone with a high net worth is crooked, cheated to get where they are at, and would be even more morally corrupt if only they weren't so undeserving as to be incompetent of the ways to do so.
So often the ambitious can believe that to succeed one must perform ultra sexy acts of innovation multiplied by inhuman hours of naive young team members. This pressure can drive us to be impatient, reckless, and unscrupulous.
When we look at most startup CEOs who make it big, we say "don't try to emulate them" because we know they took huge risks and rolled at least a few good numbers. A person can emulate Warren Buffet. It's just patient and prudent, avoiding self-deception for decades. Yet it is excruciating. If not for Warren Buffet, so many would say, "It's not worth it" or "It will never work because you'll slip up."
Being at least an anecdote that being honest and right can work out in the long run is a herculean counterweight against the vast traps of cynicism that can lead many to defeat themselves before they even try. It's tough to keep going or commit to that path, especially as your options keep going up. Few else tried because it takes an entire lifetime. Making it work saved a lot of people from a lot of imprudent choices and will continue to save more. That is heroic.
The internet citizen is so often convinced that everyone with a high net worth is crooked, cheated to get where they are at, and would be even more morally corrupt if only they weren't so undeserving as to be incompetent of the ways to do so.
So often the ambitious can believe that to succeed one must perform ultra sexy acts of innovation multiplied by inhuman hours of naive young team members. This pressure can drive us to be impatient, reckless, and unscrupulous.
When we look at most startup CEOs who make it big, we say "don't try to emulate them" because we know they took huge risks and rolled at least a few good numbers. A person can emulate Warren Buffet. It's just patient and prudent, avoiding self-deception for decades. Yet it is excruciating. If not for Warren Buffet, so many would say, "It's not worth it" or "It will never work because you'll slip up."
Being at least an anecdote that being honest and right can work out in the long run is a herculean counterweight against the vast traps of cynicism that can lead many to defeat themselves before they even try. It's tough to keep going or commit to that path, especially as your options keep going up. Few else tried because it takes an entire lifetime. Making it work saved a lot of people from a lot of imprudent choices and will continue to save more. That is heroic.
In his youth he was heavily inspired heavily by the book "1000 ways to make 1000 dollars", quite literally a get rich quick book.
Also his bets on GEICO were probably a little impatient, reckless, and unscrupulous, but that's fine.
He is one of the finest businessmen to study and certainly one of the more moral billionaires.
Also his bets on GEICO were probably a little impatient, reckless, and unscrupulous, but that's fine.
He is one of the finest businessmen to study and certainly one of the more moral billionaires.
Here comes the internet doing internet things. Happy 2026.
Not seen in a photograph with Jefferey Epstein.
(yet)
(yet)
At some point the biggest enemy is the inner cynicism that would tear down perfection manifest to avoid seeing even the bare idea of an aspiration and the consequent actions it would motivate.
It's down to earth.
We expect the ultra-wealthy to eat at the French Laundry in California, to have chauffeurs, to live in New York penthouses…
We expect the ultra-wealthy to eat at the French Laundry in California, to have chauffeurs, to live in New York penthouses…
I think they meant hero in the sense of archetype rather than heroic.
But I agree with the person suggesting not diluting the word.
But I agree with the person suggesting not diluting the word.
I think they are being hyperbolic.
I always salute at the McDonalds drive-thru.
The man has enviable health.
Take a Caesar salad at a McDonald's every day, and your health will likely also be enviable.
The word "salad" doesn't imply "healthy".
It has plenty of green vegetables, and croutons, sauce, and chicken nuggets are all optional. (Ask me how I know.)
Stress is the #1 killer. Being rich likely helps the stress levels. Not worrying about rent/mortgage can likely extend someone's life by 10% easily.
Genetics is the #1 killer.
Most of a person's potential life expectancy is pre-determined.
Most of a person's potential life expectancy is pre-determined.
*wealth
Wealth does that.
Also, consistently eating 1 item from McDonald's every day is probably not going to tank your health (if it's one of your few diet vices).
We've got people drinking 600 calorie frappucinos before they touch a bite of food.
We've got people drinking 600 calorie frappucinos before they touch a bite of food.
Also, breakfast items are typically the "healthiest" fast food items. An Egg McMuffin for example has a fresh egg, piece of ham and an English muffin. Hardly a disaster meal diet wise.
McDonalds has healthy food options. Getting a quarter pounder, a salad, and a cup of water is reasonably healthy.
It's the soda and the shakes and the fries that'll getcha.
It's the soda and the shakes and the fries that'll getcha.
The quarter pounder is loaded with sugar too unfortunately. The sweet bread is one of the worst things about it. The salad dressing will be too. It's not healthy and doesn't even taste good. But it's addictive.
It has 10g of sugar, which isn't good but no where near a medium coke. Though not a healthy meal because of high sodium, but with some added fibers isn't very bad.
It's a bit more subtle than that. The sugar is there to make it palatable and addictive. The real problem is it's hyper-processed and ridiculously easy to digest. It'll spike your blood sugar levels then have you wanting more an hour later. There's no point looking at a single food in isolation, you have to look at the entire lifestyle and the kind of lifestyle that includes McDonald's is not a generally a healthy one.
Then again Buffett apparently did it for 6 decades. But he also only had to drive a few minutes to work and probably had a mostly stress free life. You can eat all the healthy veg you want but if your day is punctuated by a dreadful commute and generally filled with stress, that's what will get you.
Then again Buffett apparently did it for 6 decades. But he also only had to drive a few minutes to work and probably had a mostly stress free life. You can eat all the healthy veg you want but if your day is punctuated by a dreadful commute and generally filled with stress, that's what will get you.
The hamburger buns I buy at the grocery store taste like cake to me. There's only one brand of bread in the store that doesn't add sugar, and they only stock a couple loaves at a time (and it's the one I buy).
The sugar in the McBurger is nothing like the amount in a coke or a shake.
And no, McBurgers are not addictive. I don't want more than one or two a month.
The sugar in the McBurger is nothing like the amount in a coke or a shake.
And no, McBurgers are not addictive. I don't want more than one or two a month.
None of what you described is either healthy or tasty. McDonald food is hyper-processed. They add a lot of sugar to a lot of ingredients.
I used to enjoy the salads at McDonald’s, but it’s been a few years since I’ve seen them on the menu.
By several accounts, Buffet has a "McGold" card - good for free food for life, at least at Omaha-area McDonalds locations.
Combined that with his "frugal" and "creature of habit" reputations, that might explain is morning routine.
Combined that with his "frugal" and "creature of habit" reputations, that might explain is morning routine.
If Buffet was a customer of mine, I'd give him such a card, too. It's good for business!
Idk about hero, but he's definitely american. What a fast food warrior!
you're going to get a lot of flack because some will only accept if he walked to work and ate vegan gmo-free granola at a granola stand on HackerNews I think to be called a "True American"
also incredible that america is safe enough for a billionaire to do this alone without security
He spends big money on security.
damn you guys are gullible
noooooooo he’s the billionaire with a heart of gold nooooooooo he’s just a sweet old man who likes mcdonald’s!!!!
His whole "I love fast food and coca cola" thing is a fake persona
if one is to make a fake persona, fast food and coke (the drink) probably won’t make top-100 list
I seem to recall the secret service was driven crazy by Bill Clinton going for a run out of the white house only to pick up a Big Mac at McDonald's.
Berkshire Hathaway holds over 9% of Coca Cola's shares, worth $28 billion and returning over $800 million a year in dividend payments. Isn't that worth being seen visibly supporting Coca Cola products?
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXwAtQqkN6c/XM3Brj-ZkuI/AAAAAAAAv...
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xXwAtQqkN6c/XM3Brj-ZkuI/AAAAAAAAv...
one thing is being visible, everyone is visible that is sponsoring a product in some way, e.g. athletes with gatorade. it is a whole other thing to accuse someone of creating a “fake persona” if he just wanted to “promote” coke there are many other ways this could be done (especially with virtually unlimited money for PR etc)
Au contraire, larger-than-life people may desire to pass off as normal & common.
Or that's just what he feels. He also sleeps in a fairly normal home. Wouldn't he have a secret mega mansion if he was just putting on a show?
It's all fake to fool you!! Coca cola is only the popular beverage it is because the illuminati chose Warren to shill for it!!
[deleted]
If it's secret, then how would you know?
As a red blooded capitalist who loves this country as much as the next patriot, I can assure you admiration for fast food and coke is 100% real.
Admiration for how American it is maybe but it’s goddamn preservative and sugar ridden slop.
IDK. I'm living in Italy atm and I see a lot of people drink regular Coke presumably b/c they like it. What's different from the US is that's it's more of a single serving treat, instead of 2 gallons of free refills.
Yes but many of us love it all the same.
Well, impossible to prove of course but it reminds me of Ingvar Kamprad (the man behind IKEA) who used to drive an old Volvo when in Sweden to appear as a "man of the people".
In fact he had his main residence in Switzerland and was filthy rich which is a bit of a hard swallow especially in Sweden, a country still very much affected by the "Law of Jante".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
A reporter that was doing a documentary about his wealth asked him once directly when stepping out of his old Volvo and Kamprad kinda lost it; it was a big kerfuffle at the time on the telly.
For those paying attention it was really revealing about the true nature of the man (let me add he was a young Nazi back in the day).
Most people came to his defense like the red-blooded capitalist gentleman commenting above about Buffet being a 100% American.
The older generation still swallow the farce hook, line and sinker. For the rest of us it's pretty clear it was a well thought-out facade to placate the plebeians to sell more cheap furniture.
In fact he had his main residence in Switzerland and was filthy rich which is a bit of a hard swallow especially in Sweden, a country still very much affected by the "Law of Jante".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
A reporter that was doing a documentary about his wealth asked him once directly when stepping out of his old Volvo and Kamprad kinda lost it; it was a big kerfuffle at the time on the telly.
For those paying attention it was really revealing about the true nature of the man (let me add he was a young Nazi back in the day).
Most people came to his defense like the red-blooded capitalist gentleman commenting above about Buffet being a 100% American.
The older generation still swallow the farce hook, line and sinker. For the rest of us it's pretty clear it was a well thought-out facade to placate the plebeians to sell more cheap furniture.
> he was a young Nazi back in the day
He remained a Nazi member well into the 1950s, which I find truly bizzare.
He remained a Nazi member well into the 1950s, which I find truly bizzare.
I didn't know that, talk about being late to the party.
On a tangent I also found this recently about Le Corbusier:
---
Research from the last decade, primarily from a series of books published in 2015 and released correspondence, has confirmed that the influential modernist architect Le Corbusier was a fascist and antisemite with ties to the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime in France.
--
He wanted to build this in Stockholm in 1933:
https://ptpimg.me/om1779.png
On a tangent I also found this recently about Le Corbusier:
---
Research from the last decade, primarily from a series of books published in 2015 and released correspondence, has confirmed that the influential modernist architect Le Corbusier was a fascist and antisemite with ties to the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime in France.
--
He wanted to build this in Stockholm in 1933:
https://ptpimg.me/om1779.png
Coca-Cola is a great energy drink. But you have to expend this energy, say, by thinking really hard.
He shamelessly advertised companies in his portfolio, whether it was always having a can of coke or candies on the table or stopping at a McDonald's in a documentary.
I refuse to believe that his lifestyle was what was on display.
He lived in the same house for 60 years, sure, but his private jets kept getting upgraded. Good for him, but I find the frugality theater very off putting.
I refuse to believe that his lifestyle was what was on display.
He lived in the same house for 60 years, sure, but his private jets kept getting upgraded. Good for him, but I find the frugality theater very off putting.
I have read enough on Munger and Buffet that I don't think it was quite theater. I think they really believe/believed their own bullshit.
Like the way Munger would promote reading but Andrew Carnegie built 2500 libraries. They would view building libraries as an opportunity cost and waste of capital.
"Ah shucks, I wish people like me would pay a lot more in taxes" but of course these guys didn't spend a dime on actual lobbying to make that happen. Again, that would be seen as a giant opportunity cost and waste of capital. They wouldn't want to go outside their "circle of competence" into something like politics or policy. How convenient.
I think the only way to have this image of a saintly grandpa when actually an absolute cut throat , money obsessed, richest person of all time is to believe your own bullshit.
Like the way Munger would promote reading but Andrew Carnegie built 2500 libraries. They would view building libraries as an opportunity cost and waste of capital.
"Ah shucks, I wish people like me would pay a lot more in taxes" but of course these guys didn't spend a dime on actual lobbying to make that happen. Again, that would be seen as a giant opportunity cost and waste of capital. They wouldn't want to go outside their "circle of competence" into something like politics or policy. How convenient.
I think the only way to have this image of a saintly grandpa when actually an absolute cut throat , money obsessed, richest person of all time is to believe your own bullshit.
He definitely had a multi million (vacation ?) house in Laguna Beach, California
He has owned a couple of planes as well. Jokingly nicknamed the indefensible.
https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/warren-buffett-nicknamed-...
https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/warren-buffett-nicknamed-...
I don't know the details, but large personal residences tax your brain (as well as your bank account).
Instead of spending hours of his life negotiating RE purchases, maintaining his properties, cutting checks to plumbers, doing renovations, etc. (that I hear many other billionaires do), he was practical with his (luxury) purchases focusing on time saving (living near work, fast food, private jet) and the experience (luxury vacation).
If you don't appreciate that, I think you're missing the point of his frugality.
Instead of spending hours of his life negotiating RE purchases, maintaining his properties, cutting checks to plumbers, doing renovations, etc. (that I hear many other billionaires do), he was practical with his (luxury) purchases focusing on time saving (living near work, fast food, private jet) and the experience (luxury vacation).
If you don't appreciate that, I think you're missing the point of his frugality.
Besides, the chances that you get to that age, with his good health, on a diet of Coke and McDonald's when sitting all day are very low.
Much lower than the chance it's just marketing.
Much lower than the chance it's just marketing.
You should read one of his many biographies. Every one of them has him drinking like 6 cherry cokes a day, and eating ham sandwiches, mcdonalds, and steak nonstop.
You don't have to believe anything, but the many people who spent the most time with him have reported on this extensively.
You don't have to believe anything, but the many people who spent the most time with him have reported on this extensively.
Yet another example to me of how he literally engineered his life for success, using principles like choosing which variables to hold fixed. What discipline.
If he was poor, people would call him lazy for eating mcdonalds everyday...
Whole point of being rich is to have freedom to do whatever you want. Including fancy dress like poor and eat like them for personal marketing at times.
Pretty sure Mr Buffet mostly eats salads.
Pretty sure Mr Buffet mostly eats salads.
Poor people should properly budget and cook at home to avoid staying poor
If you can afford to eat McDonald's nobody cares (well it's not healthy either but that's a different matter that doesn't really have to do with being poor or not)
If you can afford to eat McDonald's nobody cares (well it's not healthy either but that's a different matter that doesn't really have to do with being poor or not)
> Poor people should properly budget and cook at home to avoid staying poor
You can't budget your way out of being poor. Most actually poor people (as opposed to people who have a substance abuse problem) I know have a very good grasp of their budget as they are constantly shifting money around figuring out which bills they have to pay and which bills they can put off.
You get out of being poor by getting more money. Period. Nothing else works.
Yes, more money doesn't guarantee you get out of being poor, and we all know people who got a windfall and then were worse off than before.
However, insufficient money absolutely does guarantee that you will be poor indefinitely.
You can't budget your way out of being poor. Most actually poor people (as opposed to people who have a substance abuse problem) I know have a very good grasp of their budget as they are constantly shifting money around figuring out which bills they have to pay and which bills they can put off.
You get out of being poor by getting more money. Period. Nothing else works.
Yes, more money doesn't guarantee you get out of being poor, and we all know people who got a windfall and then were worse off than before.
However, insufficient money absolutely does guarantee that you will be poor indefinitely.
You can't budget your way out of a genuine lowest-quintile income without going to ridiculous lengths that are more difficult than getting a higher-paid job.
You can absolutely reconsolidate and budget your way out of debt, though. Or budget your way to having a savings account when you're earning the median income.
You can absolutely reconsolidate and budget your way out of debt, though. Or budget your way to having a savings account when you're earning the median income.
Yes and can avoid debt in the first place so that when you are making more money it's not just going to interest payments
How much money you have depends on how much you make and how much you spend
While you can't budget your way out of being poor if you have a very low income you absolutely can keep yourself poor by not budgeting no matter how much you make
I don't know why you seem to take offense with a simple suggestion that will help reduce how much you spend
There are people who make six figures who are in debt because they overspend and food is often one of the biggest factors in that
While you can't budget your way out of being poor if you have a very low income you absolutely can keep yourself poor by not budgeting no matter how much you make
I don't know why you seem to take offense with a simple suggestion that will help reduce how much you spend
There are people who make six figures who are in debt because they overspend and food is often one of the biggest factors in that
> There are people who make six figures who are in debt because they overspend and food is often one of the biggest factors in that
Those people aren't "poor". They aren't worried about eating or staying warm.
"Poor" is when you are deciding between fixing the car you need for work and whether or not you will have electricity the last 4 days of the month. You don't fix that with "clever budgeting".
Those people aren't "poor". They aren't worried about eating or staying warm.
"Poor" is when you are deciding between fixing the car you need for work and whether or not you will have electricity the last 4 days of the month. You don't fix that with "clever budgeting".
If you have a negative net worth then I consider you poor no matter how much money you make
But yes obviously there are levels to it however regardless if you are buying overpriced fast food when you could be cooking at home for much cheaper that's not good for anybody especially if you don't make a lot of money... So what's your point other than trying to argue over the definition of poor?
If you don't have an emergency fund and your car breaks down and then you have to get into debt to fix it and then you have to spend more paying interest on that debt and you get stuck in a cycle... Compare that to reducing your expenses by not buying fast food and building up an emergency fund and not getting stuck in that situation to begin with
But yes obviously there are levels to it however regardless if you are buying overpriced fast food when you could be cooking at home for much cheaper that's not good for anybody especially if you don't make a lot of money... So what's your point other than trying to argue over the definition of poor?
If you don't have an emergency fund and your car breaks down and then you have to get into debt to fix it and then you have to spend more paying interest on that debt and you get stuck in a cycle... Compare that to reducing your expenses by not buying fast food and building up an emergency fund and not getting stuck in that situation to begin with
I guess that distinction in poor matters some to me, because when I read your original comment (budgeting to avoid staying poor) the first thing that came to mind was someone I know who often says things like poor people should just work harder and variations of that. And then I'm thinking like food deserts or people dealing with more pressing issues where there's probably a general inability to do any long term planning. And in that context it comes across as out of touch or like a naive solution to a complex problem, but then I guess you also have broke college students and others who could certainly heed this advice, not just necessarily low income people.
Even if you live in a food desert you could make cheap unhealthy food at home and it will always be cheaper than McDonalds and with even just a little bit of creativity it will be much healthier too
> So what's your point other than trying to argue over the definition of poor?
Because people make political decisions about programs that support the "poor" and the definition matters.
In particular, if a program supports the "poor" and winds up handing money to someone who is making $100K, there are a lot of people who will scream about that and attempt to cut off all support for all poor people.
This was the whole the point behind the racist "welfare queens" dog whistles, for example.
Because people make political decisions about programs that support the "poor" and the definition matters.
In particular, if a program supports the "poor" and winds up handing money to someone who is making $100K, there are a lot of people who will scream about that and attempt to cut off all support for all poor people.
This was the whole the point behind the racist "welfare queens" dog whistles, for example.
You don’t have time to do those things if you are poor and working 2-3 jobs. Properly budgeting and analyzing costs takes a lot of time, and unexpected expenses and cost of living increases destroy your budget a lot more than McDonald’s.
Cooking at home saves you time if you do it right. A slow cooker, frozen meat, frozen veg, stock powder. Cook a batch and put into containers for the week. It’s not hard to develop a healthy, cheap, quick approach to eating. Most people find ways to keep justifying their existing opinions, that’s the real problem of poverty. It’s rare that people adopt an experimental approach to their problems to learn unexpected solutions. So to my mind, poor is more about being rigid, rather than a lack resources.
> poor is more about being rigid
Oh no please broaden your mindset. This is not a healthy way to look at wealth inequality in 2025. Being poor can happen for arbitrary reasons, and the impact can vary greatly across countries and continents. E.g if you get and recover from cancer in Europe you will be OK financially, while being ruined in America.
This is an extreme example, but the point is not to weigh individual examples but rather to recognize that you as an individual don't understand the circumstances that create or alleviate poverty, because entire government branches are dedicated to doing this and haven't figured it out.
Bottom line poverty is bad news for everyone, there's money to be made solving poverty. It's not a trivial problem to solve.
Oh no please broaden your mindset. This is not a healthy way to look at wealth inequality in 2025. Being poor can happen for arbitrary reasons, and the impact can vary greatly across countries and continents. E.g if you get and recover from cancer in Europe you will be OK financially, while being ruined in America.
This is an extreme example, but the point is not to weigh individual examples but rather to recognize that you as an individual don't understand the circumstances that create or alleviate poverty, because entire government branches are dedicated to doing this and haven't figured it out.
Bottom line poverty is bad news for everyone, there's money to be made solving poverty. It's not a trivial problem to solve.
> You don’t have time to do those things if you are poor and working 2-3 jobs
I know multiple folks who did this. Poor people aren’t mentally deficient. (Often they’re sturdier than those of us who grew up comfortably enough.)
> unexpected expenses and cost of living increases destroy your budget a lot more than McDonald’s
This is correct. But it’s true for most Americans when we consider medical debt.
Budgeting and analyzing spending and risk is still sensible.
I know multiple folks who did this. Poor people aren’t mentally deficient. (Often they’re sturdier than those of us who grew up comfortably enough.)
> unexpected expenses and cost of living increases destroy your budget a lot more than McDonald’s
This is correct. But it’s true for most Americans when we consider medical debt.
Budgeting and analyzing spending and risk is still sensible.
Most poor humans managed to store food for the winter prior to the industrial revolution avoid overeating and draining their stores. I'm sure the poor 2-3 job worker can meal prep with cheap easy meals.
They also had a lot of time to do it. In much of Europe it seems subsistence farmers worked a lot fewer hours than one might expect. Especially in the winter
> Properly budgeting and analyzing costs takes a lot of time
For family? Not really
For family? Not really
"Poor people should"
You should demand more of people with power before you criticize those with none
I'm not demanding anything just giving common sense advice but I guess common sense isn't very common these days
Why do you read it as a demand and not just good sense?
I have legitimately no clue whether you're being sarcastic or not. Only an American could say that doing that amounts to being a hero. Personally, I call it misery.
America, as an idea, is so strange
Is the drive-thru pickup or the McDonald the strange idea. Actually, wait, both are strange.
That being said, McDonald did know how to do business. I’ve found myself there several times because their spaces are well located and they invested well in their interior that it made it a good place to grab a coffee alone, with a laptop or for a random meet.
That being said, McDonald did know how to do business. I’ve found myself there several times because their spaces are well located and they invested well in their interior that it made it a good place to grab a coffee alone, with a laptop or for a random meet.
No America as an idea is awesome. In reality ? Quite strange
America was the first influencer country in the history
>America was the first influencer country in the history
Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Britain, pre-Columbian Mexico and India would like a word with you after class.
Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Britain, pre-Columbian Mexico and India would like a word with you after class.
I meant to say modern-day influencer. Like instagram/tiktok like. All this "American-Dream" style things were promotional material with twisted reality. Movies showing luxury lifestyle of a "regular" American/US person.
Although per-person adjusted income is really high compared to many parts of the world, day-to-day lifestyle is hardly comparable to "Home Alone" or Wolf of Wall Street themes.
But yes, each era had prosperous countries trying to attract talent obviously. From Egypt to Persians then Rome and even Ottomans too. Later on France/Britain during industrialization.
Although per-person adjusted income is really high compared to many parts of the world, day-to-day lifestyle is hardly comparable to "Home Alone" or Wolf of Wall Street themes.
But yes, each era had prosperous countries trying to attract talent obviously. From Egypt to Persians then Rome and even Ottomans too. Later on France/Britain during industrialization.
America is awesome.
Sorry, a person who life is built around greed is no hero.
I respect Buffett greatly on a professional level, and think it's the height of arrogance to believe any one of us personally has the moral right to decide which level of lawful activity becomes turpitudinous greed.
THAT SAID...
My uncle (he's 98) had a passing acquaintance with Buffett during their overlap at Penn, and in the one econ class they shared, he remarked having heard Buffett say in almost salivating eagerness as he rubbed his hands that if only there could be another Great Depression, he would make a killing. The dude has value investing in his DNA beyond anything else, I truly believe. But he's argued for changing complex and unfair taxation, and always been a good citizen as far as I can tell. I think if all of Wall Street were like him, the world would be a much better place.
THAT SAID...
My uncle (he's 98) had a passing acquaintance with Buffett during their overlap at Penn, and in the one econ class they shared, he remarked having heard Buffett say in almost salivating eagerness as he rubbed his hands that if only there could be another Great Depression, he would make a killing. The dude has value investing in his DNA beyond anything else, I truly believe. But he's argued for changing complex and unfair taxation, and always been a good citizen as far as I can tell. I think if all of Wall Street were like him, the world would be a much better place.
People buying a house also hope for a dip in the market so they can buy in cheaper.
People with a lot less economic knowledge than Buffet still understand that another Depression could easily render them jobless and unable to pay a mortgage on a cheaper house. Wishing for a housing market downturn is not the same as a widescale GDP pullback.
I know a lot of investors who wait for a dip in the market to buy stocks.
Personally, I am terrible at timing so I just buy stocks and let them stew for years.
Personally, I am terrible at timing so I just buy stocks and let them stew for years.
With $150 billion dollars he could have done a lot more than "argue for" changing taxation. If he had spent that money actively fighting for a better system, maybe that'd be worth something. To sit back on your billions and say "aw shucks, this really shouldn't be possible" is not much of an effort.
Edit: Some people seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying if he thought taxation was unequal or thought wealth inequality was a problem, he could have used his wealth specifically to fight against billionaires like himself, not just give money towards generic charitable causes.
Edit: Some people seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying if he thought taxation was unequal or thought wealth inequality was a problem, he could have used his wealth specifically to fight against billionaires like himself, not just give money towards generic charitable causes.
It seems buffet has taken “the giving pledge” along with Bill Gates and others. “More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death.” - https://www.givingpledge.org/pledger/warren-buffett/
Yes, that's giving it away (some after death), not specifically using it to address wealth inequality.
> that's giving it away (some after death), not specifically using it to address wealth inequality
Because the money isn’t being spent on your pet issue it’s being mis-spent?
Because the money isn’t being spent on your pet issue it’s being mis-spent?
I was responding to a comment that defended Buffet by saying he "argued for changing complex and unfair taxation". I'm saying if you have billions that could be spent on taking tangible action to change such taxation, simply "arguing for" changing it is not very impressive.
> if you have billions that could be spent on taking tangible action to change such taxation
Do you have evidence he didn’t try? He’s been a prolific (albeit measured) donor to candidates who have pushed for this [1].
From what I can tell, Buffett enjoyed making money. He outsourced his philanthropy to Bill & Melinda Gates. Their focus has tended to be global poverty.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=warren+buffe...
Do you have evidence he didn’t try? He’s been a prolific (albeit measured) donor to candidates who have pushed for this [1].
From what I can tell, Buffett enjoyed making money. He outsourced his philanthropy to Bill & Melinda Gates. Their focus has tended to be global poverty.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=warren+buffe...
Those numbers are a pittance relative to his wealth. He could have established a foundation and given it hundreds of millions of dollars specifically to push for a more equitable taxation system. He did not do that.
> He could have established a foundation and given it hundreds of millions of dollars specifically to push for a more equitable taxation system
You want another billionaire to create a super PAC?
You want another billionaire to create a super PAC?
Seems to be the only way anything gets done around here. :-)
philantropy as those billionaires sold it should never exist in a just society
He tasked that to his kids:
He turned 95 years old on August 30. He was 75 when he began giving away his fortune, announcing plans in June 2006 to give away the bulk of his wealth to five foundations, primarily the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He changed his will in 2024, designating 99.5% of his remaining fortune after his death to a charitable trust overseen by his three children and also announcing in June 2024 that donations to the Gates Foundation would cease upon his death.
Just think, if that charitable trust is structured correctly, it could be used to pay a modest believable "administration" salary to many many generations of offspring all while paying out some token pittances to make the whole thing seem genuine.
See
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/buffett-kin...
if you want to know what his kids are up to.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/buffett-kin...
if you want to know what his kids are up to.
That article seems to accurately describe the charitable activities of Peter Buffett and his NoVo Foundation, but it's worth pointing out that Howard G. and Susan Buffett have charitable foundations of their own that seem to have a more conventional philanthropic approach, one that may perhaps be more amenable to a clearer focus on getting the right outcomes. It seems unwarranted to assume that the description in the article applies to the Buffett children's activities as a whole.
Is that charitable trust going to fight for wealth equality and a more progressive tax system?
Do you believe that wealth was cash sitting in a bank account?
I think you're referring to Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. I'm not aware of any that exist.
Banks do not store their deposits in a cash vault. They loan it out (except for a reserve percentage), and charge interest on the loan. That's how they make money. That's why they offer free checking - so they can loan your money out and charge interest. They will even pay you to deposit your money, so they can loan it out and make money on it.
Wealthy people know how to make money, which means putting the money to productive use creating goods and services that people want. If that money is confiscated from them, there's that much less money creating goods and services people want.
Banks do not store their deposits in a cash vault. They loan it out (except for a reserve percentage), and charge interest on the loan. That's how they make money. That's why they offer free checking - so they can loan your money out and charge interest. They will even pay you to deposit your money, so they can loan it out and make money on it.
Wealthy people know how to make money, which means putting the money to productive use creating goods and services that people want. If that money is confiscated from them, there's that much less money creating goods and services people want.
A man who built what he loves and produced so much surplus value for the rest of us to enjoy (read: profit) is _exactly_ a hero. I’m sure I could find ways critique him, but not in the context of celebrating his career.
> A man who built what he loves and produced so much surplus value for the rest of us to enjoy (read: profit) is _exactly_ a hero.
Life imitates art, I suppose.
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
Life imitates art, I suppose.
https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
My friend, Earth has never been a better place for humans to live than it is today. I hope more entrepreneurs come along to make it even better.
The idea that humans have destroyed the planet is quite silly.
The idea that humans have destroyed the planet is quite silly.
Tell me more about the surplus value that Warren produced
Look at a stock chart of Berkshire Hathaway over time.
I believe the point is that price is not value.
Perhaps, but the price is the value.
Art vs artist debate is tired, as is celebrity distance appraisal. If you want to know if someone is good or bad your best bet (still iffy) is to ask their kids or spouse. That’s he’s skilled at the financial game is obvious. Whether that’s valuable is a philosophical question that has little to do with Warren Buffet.
thisgetsit(3)
I don't think built around greed is fair. If he was greedy he'd be spending the money rather than giving nearly all of it to charity.
If he built his life around greed, you must have numerous examples, so give specific instances to support this charge. No handwaving.
Buffet has also made a lot of money for his investors. People can buy shares in Berkshire Hathaway.
> People can buy shares in Berkshire Hathaway.
They can buy stock, but B-H doesn't pay dividends. So the only way to make money with its stock is to flip it to someone who's willing to pay more.
They can buy stock, but B-H doesn't pay dividends. So the only way to make money with its stock is to flip it to someone who's willing to pay more.
I don't want a society where you have to be a hero to produce mass benefit to others. I want a society where greedy people feel like they have to serve the needs and wants of others to fulfill their greed.
I don't know to what extent Buffet does it. Nor does our current quasi-fascist society where the government is highly embedded with industry and regulating who is the winner and who is the loser and then taxing/inflating the working class to make sure they stay afloat.
But in the idealistic version of America, it is supposed to be a place where becoming a billionaire means you are not just producing billions of profit for yourself, but billions of value for others. That every deal, both sides are better off. This is what we aspire to, the whole ideal towards voluntary trade and capitalism as a method a tide that rises almost all boats and at the very least doesn't involve sinking another boat lower.
I don't know to what extent Buffet does it. Nor does our current quasi-fascist society where the government is highly embedded with industry and regulating who is the winner and who is the loser and then taxing/inflating the working class to make sure they stay afloat.
But in the idealistic version of America, it is supposed to be a place where becoming a billionaire means you are not just producing billions of profit for yourself, but billions of value for others. That every deal, both sides are better off. This is what we aspire to, the whole ideal towards voluntary trade and capitalism as a method a tide that rises almost all boats and at the very least doesn't involve sinking another boat lower.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.” — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
He built his life around developing successful businesses. That's not greed.
Mostly true, compared to other billionaires he's a much better flavor and a stronger record of appearing human but still, agree. I'd recommend reading
The Snowball for a more complete understanding of him.
He is an _American_ hero
Actualy, he didn't. He's probably the one billionaire alive today for which you could not make that case. I know of one other (but he's dead).
He was greedy when others were fearful ;)
Yvon Chouinard has a stronger claim
> He's probably the one billionaire alive today for which you could not make that case.
Is this Stockholm Syndrome?
Is this Stockholm Syndrome?
You ever see Good Will Hunting? The scene where he talks about where he can “just play” and then describes the most talented people in history at what they do. That’s Buffett in his chosen life’s work.
Buffett didn’t get, for example, a small loan of a million dollars to start. He’s been working at this longer than probably anyone what will ever read this comment has been alive.
He doesn’t care about the money in the sense I feel you’re implying.
Nobody is perfect, and holding anyone to that standard sets an impossible threshold.
I don’t know how familiar you are with Warren Buffett, but I would encourage you to dig into his Wikipedia page at least, however accurate we think that is these days.
Buffett didn’t get, for example, a small loan of a million dollars to start. He’s been working at this longer than probably anyone what will ever read this comment has been alive.
He doesn’t care about the money in the sense I feel you’re implying.
Nobody is perfect, and holding anyone to that standard sets an impossible threshold.
I don’t know how familiar you are with Warren Buffett, but I would encourage you to dig into his Wikipedia page at least, however accurate we think that is these days.
Yes he did start with a "small loan of a million dollars"!
Buffett started with 1.2 million dollars (105K in 1956) in investments from his family, i.e. his aunt, sister, and father in law.
It is very nearly impossible to get rich without starting with a huge chunk of money, Buffett is no exception.
Buffett started with 1.2 million dollars (105K in 1956) in investments from his family, i.e. his aunt, sister, and father in law.
It is very nearly impossible to get rich without starting with a huge chunk of money, Buffett is no exception.
Gates/Allen started Microsoft with $5000. Jobs started Apple by selling his VW bug.
Jobs is probably a good example here, and obviously there aren't many Jobses in the world. As far as I know, he started with nothing really.
Bill Gates however was born rich and had powerful, well-connected parents and grandparents.
Obviously Bill did better with those tools than most people would, but would it have been possible if he started as an average kid with an average amount of money? He wouldn't have gone to a prestigious school with nice computers (or any computers), or have been able to fail at traf-o-data and keep going, for example.
His mom was on the board of a charity which included the CEO of IBM, which is how IBM got involved with Microsoft. Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft without that deal, or without Mary Gates, or the money that facilitates all these kinds of things.
The older I get, the more I believe that "you can start with nothing and make it" is essentially a lie told to the working class to keep them from cannibalizing the rich (via taxation).
Bill Gates however was born rich and had powerful, well-connected parents and grandparents.
Obviously Bill did better with those tools than most people would, but would it have been possible if he started as an average kid with an average amount of money? He wouldn't have gone to a prestigious school with nice computers (or any computers), or have been able to fail at traf-o-data and keep going, for example.
His mom was on the board of a charity which included the CEO of IBM, which is how IBM got involved with Microsoft. Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft without that deal, or without Mary Gates, or the money that facilitates all these kinds of things.
The older I get, the more I believe that "you can start with nothing and make it" is essentially a lie told to the working class to keep them from cannibalizing the rich (via taxation).
> Obviously Bill did better with those tools than most people would, but would it have been possible if he started as an average kid with an average amount of money?
Yes. Remember Woz had no money and no computer and still wrote Apple Basic. He wrote it in a notebook and hand-assembled it. An 8 bit Basic can be written in about 2K bytes.
I designed and built a 6800 computer in 1978, and wrote the software for it all in asm (the result was a VT-100 terminal workalike). I did have an assembler available which certainly made me more productive, but it was still small enough to do by hand. There were only 40 instructions or so in the 6800, and after a while one inadvertently had them memorized. You could hand assemble them as fast as you could write. In those days I wrote code asm in pencil in a spiral notebook.
What made Gates & Allen special was not their families, but their ability to see the opportunity that everyone else missed. When the MITS computer was the front page on Popular Science magazine, Allen saw it and ran to Gates exclaiming that this was the opportunity they were looking for, and they needed to get to work on it immediately.
Yes. Remember Woz had no money and no computer and still wrote Apple Basic. He wrote it in a notebook and hand-assembled it. An 8 bit Basic can be written in about 2K bytes.
I designed and built a 6800 computer in 1978, and wrote the software for it all in asm (the result was a VT-100 terminal workalike). I did have an assembler available which certainly made me more productive, but it was still small enough to do by hand. There were only 40 instructions or so in the 6800, and after a while one inadvertently had them memorized. You could hand assemble them as fast as you could write. In those days I wrote code asm in pencil in a spiral notebook.
What made Gates & Allen special was not their families, but their ability to see the opportunity that everyone else missed. When the MITS computer was the front page on Popular Science magazine, Allen saw it and ran to Gates exclaiming that this was the opportunity they were looking for, and they needed to get to work on it immediately.
> His mom was on the board of a charity which included the CEO of IBM, which is how IBM got involved with Microsoft. Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft without that deal, or without Mary Gates, or the money that facilitates all these kinds of things.
IBM gave Gary Kildall the opportunity first. Gary whiffed the deal, and then IBM went to Gates. Gary Kildall did not have a wealthy background, and he became quite wealthy off of CP/M.
IBM gave Gary Kildall the opportunity first. Gary whiffed the deal, and then IBM went to Gates. Gary Kildall did not have a wealthy background, and he became quite wealthy off of CP/M.
His retirement was sad and his death tragic. I wish his family would release the second half of his autobiography.
I agree and would also like to read it, but I understand his family's decision. I'd probably do the same.
In retrospect, I wish I had pressed my dad to write an account of his wartime experiences. Fortunately, his letters were saved, but unfortunately, the letters were censored and so were kinda cardboard.
In retrospect, I wish I had pressed my dad to write an account of his wartime experiences. Fortunately, his letters were saved, but unfortunately, the letters were censored and so were kinda cardboard.
You should read his whole bio.
Don't get me wrong, I like him, he's a quick wit, it's just not true that he started with nothing, he started with a lot.
Better late than never, I don’t know if you’ll see this. He started investing well before people started giving him money. Like, decades.
Wikipedia page on Buffett:
At 11, he bought three shares of Cities Service Preferred for himself, and three for his sister Doris Buffett (who also became a philanthropist).[20][21][22] At 15, Warren made more than $175 monthly (equivalent to $3,057 in 2024) delivering Washington Post newspapers. In high school, he invested in a business owned by his father and bought a 40-acre farm worked by a tenant farmer.[23] He bought the land when he was 14 years old with $1,200 (equivalent to $21,434 in 2024) of his savings.[23] By the time he graduated from college, Buffett had amassed $9,800 in savings (equivalent to $129,511 in 2024).[18]
Wikipedia page on Buffett:
At 11, he bought three shares of Cities Service Preferred for himself, and three for his sister Doris Buffett (who also became a philanthropist).[20][21][22] At 15, Warren made more than $175 monthly (equivalent to $3,057 in 2024) delivering Washington Post newspapers. In high school, he invested in a business owned by his father and bought a 40-acre farm worked by a tenant farmer.[23] He bought the land when he was 14 years old with $1,200 (equivalent to $21,434 in 2024) of his savings.[23] By the time he graduated from college, Buffett had amassed $9,800 in savings (equivalent to $129,511 in 2024).[18]
[deleted]
Have you ever read Elon's wiki? Or any other individual rich enough to curate whatever views they choose?
Warren buffet did good and he came up with a winning strategy. Momentum was ultimately his friend and what drove his success. When ETFs are great today and their popularity largely because of Warren, I think a lot of what's increasingly becoming obviously wrong with the markets ties back to the original strategy behind ETFs.
There's no more self selection or focus on fundamentals. All pensions are now exposed and regular contributors to the markets, so winner and losing picking doesn't really exist in the same way and performance is no longer tied to reality. I dread what that means as populations stagnant since it puts some risk on future pensions and their somewhat ponzi-esque structure.
All the pessimistic rants aside - it's insane to refer me to a billionaire's wiki as an attempt to get to know them. I largely look at people based on how they might treat family, friends, strangers, etc. In that regard, I'm mixed.
Warren buffet did good and he came up with a winning strategy. Momentum was ultimately his friend and what drove his success. When ETFs are great today and their popularity largely because of Warren, I think a lot of what's increasingly becoming obviously wrong with the markets ties back to the original strategy behind ETFs.
There's no more self selection or focus on fundamentals. All pensions are now exposed and regular contributors to the markets, so winner and losing picking doesn't really exist in the same way and performance is no longer tied to reality. I dread what that means as populations stagnant since it puts some risk on future pensions and their somewhat ponzi-esque structure.
All the pessimistic rants aside - it's insane to refer me to a billionaire's wiki as an attempt to get to know them. I largely look at people based on how they might treat family, friends, strangers, etc. In that regard, I'm mixed.
Elon and Buffet are polar opposites.
But can you infer this from their Wikipedias?
Why do I need to go to a website when I'm fairly well informed about the lives of both?
Because the prior OP tried to direct me to wiki to learn about them. This chain has context.
Musk at one point was one explosion away from bankruptcy.
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.
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.
> You're also not an asshole
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. !!
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. !!
It's fascinating how even smart people like you become so utterly naive when it comes to politics. This guy partly owns some of the most evil companies humanity has ever created ffs. Zero ethics, 100% capitalist greed.
It's not that hard to see evil in everyone and it doesn't make one that much smarter
Yeah let's give the billionaires the same benefit of the doubt we give our friends & family & working-class people.
Fortunately, we have you to keep naive people like me in their place.
Happy New Year to you too.
Happy New Year to you too.
He made his billions by figuring out who were worthy people to give money to.
He's not exactly curing cancer but i could think of a lot more underhanded ways to make billions. I think he is above average ethically relative to his billionaire peers.
He's not exactly curing cancer but i could think of a lot more underhanded ways to make billions. I think he is above average ethically relative to his billionaire peers.
He owns a lot of companies and keeps his distance from their reputations. Companies make money and stay on top by doing awful things. Think about coca cola and plastic pollution. Buffett has to own that when he has a controlling stake.
What’s the counter-factual here? Coca Cola not allowed to exist? Plastic not a permissible material for soft drink bottles? Nobody allowed to drink soft drink? Companies forced to clean the streets?
I dislike plastic pollution as much as you do, but your elected representatives have more responsibility here than Buffett.
I dislike plastic pollution as much as you do, but your elected representatives have more responsibility here than Buffett.
Imagine what a world we would live in if people held themselves to the same standard they hold billionaires to. After all, coca-cola would change their ways pretty quickly if people stopped buying things over the issue.
> Think about coca cola and plastic pollution
Does Coca Cola make plastic bottles? I thought their whole deal is they sell syrup to local bottlers.
Does Coca Cola make plastic bottles? I thought their whole deal is they sell syrup to local bottlers.
Berkshire owns less than 10% of Coke. That’s means Berkshire’s voice is represented in the boardroom, but is more than a factor of five from the common definition of “controlling stake”.
But hey, he also owns Sees Candy.
And he’s giving away most of his fortune to help others when he dies.
Idk how that can be considered a “life centered around greed”
Idk how that can be considered a “life centered around greed”
Buffet is not a good guy. Our society’s greatest problem right now is concentrated corporate power being used to destroy the ability of working people to prosper.
Buffet had an active and direct role in making this happen. He supported and advocated for monopoly, and profited from it.
He lived a lavish life that included opulent mansions and private jets, and used his resources to deftly drive a media narrative of himself as a regular guy, with apparent success as your post demonstrates.
Buffet had an active and direct role in making this happen. He supported and advocated for monopoly, and profited from it.
He lived a lavish life that included opulent mansions and private jets, and used his resources to deftly drive a media narrative of himself as a regular guy, with apparent success as your post demonstrates.
Not doubting you, but any specific examples of him supporting monopoly?
Or are you saying the general environment of high finance supports this?
No doubt he had more money than he needed but if this is referring to his preference for coka-cola and apple stock / any stocks with the ability to set their own prices because of market dominance, I feel like that’s not a totally fair criticism.
Or are you saying the general environment of high finance supports this?
No doubt he had more money than he needed but if this is referring to his preference for coka-cola and apple stock / any stocks with the ability to set their own prices because of market dominance, I feel like that’s not a totally fair criticism.
Tons of evidence it’s all hiding in plan sight:
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/warren-buffett-americas-f...
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/warren-buffett-americas-f...
The Verisign investment was a minority holding.
And this bit is tripe: “Buffett is the avatar of monopoly. This is a guy whose investments philosophy is literally that of a monopolist. I mean, he invented this sort of term, the economic ‘moat,’ that if you build a moat around your business, then it's going to be successful. I mean, this is the language of building monopoly power.”
Seeking moats isn’t monopolistic. It’s inherent to competition.
And this bit is tripe: “Buffett is the avatar of monopoly. This is a guy whose investments philosophy is literally that of a monopolist. I mean, he invented this sort of term, the economic ‘moat,’ that if you build a moat around your business, then it's going to be successful. I mean, this is the language of building monopoly power.”
Seeking moats isn’t monopolistic. It’s inherent to competition.
Which “opulent mansions”?
He lives in the same home in Omaha that he had in the 60's. BH does not own any corporate jets but they do own NetJets that sells/leases fractional shares of their jet fleet of which Buffet uses for his travel.
They did directly own/operate aircraft in the past as well, as disclosed in letters to investors.
https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/warren-buffett-nicknamed-...
https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/warren-buffett-nicknamed-...
The 6000 sq ft home in Omaha. The $10m+ home in Laguna Beach. Plus purchasing the home next door as overflow
That actually sounds pretty meager considering his wealth.
Funny how the goal posts shift. From modest house in Omaha to multi-million dollar property in Laguna Beach. If more properties are revealed are those "pretty meager" too? It's amazing the degree to which normal people will simp for billionaires.
Since I hadn't established any goal posts, I couldn't have shifted them.
But I get your point. I'm happy to make billionaires illegal by taxing them back to being millionaires, but to try and hoist Warren Buffet up as the problem ignores the much, much worst offenders out there.
But I get your point. I'm happy to make billionaires illegal by taxing them back to being millionaires, but to try and hoist Warren Buffet up as the problem ignores the much, much worst offenders out there.
It's very obvious that some of the lesser plutocrats have public PR campaigns now. Zuck obviously got a stylist too.
Can’t even remember if Zuck testified before the Congress or Senate, but his super weird fucking haircut on that day is indelibly etched into my brain. So a stylist is probably a solid strategic choice for him.
Legend has it that Meta was having difficulty making their metaverse Mii characters look human, so Zuck solved that problem by making himself look like a Mii.
That was his biggest win in quite some time if true. Really hit the mark. My guess is he refused to acknowledge his receding hairline so he just kept having hard "bangs" cut further and further back.
Do you feel this way about all billionaires or is it something about Buffet?
I do feel exactly that with few exceptions.
What would warrant an exception? I generally don’t like billionaires either, but I wouldn’t put Buffet at the top of my shit list just for curating a public persona.
There are couple of artists for example that had managed to become near- or full billionaires. Of course I do not know the details but in my view this warrants an exception
Do artists who make business deals also warrant an exception?
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/180675/trump-the-ar...
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/180675/trump-the-ar...
Why does an “artist” get an exception for being a billionaire?
I think you must have at least some sort of antisocial and sociopathic personality qualities to become a billionaire.
Here is a fantastic farewell message that Seth Klarman wrote on Buffett's retirement for The Atlantic,
How Buffett did it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://www.thea...
How Buffett did it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://www.thea...
That link isn't loading up for me.
Buffett's Alpha: http://docs.lhpedersen.com/BuffettsAlpha.pdf
tldr; he was leveraged with good stocks
tldr; he was leveraged with good stocks
“””Whether it’s socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down”””. Buffet, BH annual report 2008
this is a very interesting read, thank you for posting
you may consider a simple example for yourself:
Portfolio $100,000.00 $60k into US Tbills, (3, 5, 10y) $40k into SP500 cash $40k into Sp500 on margin
$140k exposure For the portfolio to be wiped out, you would need to have a 50% drawdown in the sp500 which hasn't happened in 90 years, and that assumes in a crash your tbill face value wont soar due to rate cuts
you may consider a simple example for yourself:
Portfolio $100,000.00 $60k into US Tbills, (3, 5, 10y) $40k into SP500 cash $40k into Sp500 on margin
$140k exposure For the portfolio to be wiped out, you would need to have a 50% drawdown in the sp500 which hasn't happened in 90 years, and that assumes in a crash your tbill face value wont soar due to rate cuts
I will never undertand this people that live all their life working, when they clearly have the chance to retire much sooner.
I will retire right away if I had 10 millions. Maybe 50 millions if I was younger than 40.
I will retire right away if I had 10 millions. Maybe 50 millions if I was younger than 40.
This is merely your failure to imagine it. Maybe they enjoy it, maybe they have a specific goal they want to achieve, have some sort of obsession, maybe they feel duty to all the people they lead and relie on them, think they are making the world better so they feel compelled to continue working, are mad with power and enjoy lording over other people. There are many many reasons why one would work after being financially secure, and they're all equally valid as a personal motivator.
And, anyways, I think you say this now, but if you were to get those 10 millions you would probably change your tune. A lot of people would find some other project to dedicate their energy. Especially the kind of people that make stuff happen.
And, anyways, I think you say this now, but if you were to get those 10 millions you would probably change your tune. A lot of people would find some other project to dedicate their energy. Especially the kind of people that make stuff happen.
It can also be as simple as finding meaning in the habit of work and the growth which may come with it. Nihilism and hedonism wear thin after a short while.
> sort of obsession
That doesn't sound very positive to me. Perhaps OP has a point
That doesn't sound very positive to me. Perhaps OP has a point
I am one of the person who, if they got 40 mil USD tomorrow, would just work much harder on stuff I like to work on (which is making open source software sustainable in robotics), because I would have to spend less time have to take care about the economics of daily life. I could get a chef to cook me personalized healthy meals. I could have a mini-gym at home (which is not that expensive to be honest).
but I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO, and so with working out and eating consuming 4 hours and sleeping 6 hours a day and 2 hour of spouse time. I legit have 12 hours a day to work everyday. I could easily do that in a sustainable manner 6 days a week, and spending Sunday relaxing by helping out in my parent's farm and then relaxing in the evening before going back to work next week.
Seems like an ideal life for me. The only difference from today is the extra 3 hours I spend in traffic and an average 1 hour daily in running errands. And extra work on Saturday like fetching groceries, looking after my home, fixing stuff etc.
If I get money, I could save that 4 hour of my life and dedicate it to working on something I really like.
but I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO, and so with working out and eating consuming 4 hours and sleeping 6 hours a day and 2 hour of spouse time. I legit have 12 hours a day to work everyday. I could easily do that in a sustainable manner 6 days a week, and spending Sunday relaxing by helping out in my parent's farm and then relaxing in the evening before going back to work next week.
Seems like an ideal life for me. The only difference from today is the extra 3 hours I spend in traffic and an average 1 hour daily in running errands. And extra work on Saturday like fetching groceries, looking after my home, fixing stuff etc.
If I get money, I could save that 4 hour of my life and dedicate it to working on something I really like.
This is crazy to me. I almost think it’s rage bait but will give you the benefit of the doubt. The lifestyle you describe leaves no room for friends, relationships, or hobbies. Working 72 hours a week is not sustainable for anyone over the long term unless they truly have no interest in any of the three things I listed. That may be the case for you, but that’s exceedingly uncommon.
> I could get a home near a major airport like 10 mins from SFO
You need a lot less than 40m$ to get a house 10 minutes from SFO, Daly City or outer neighborhoods in SF have homes for less than a million for sale right now
You need a lot less than 40m$ to get a house 10 minutes from SFO, Daly City or outer neighborhoods in SF have homes for less than a million for sale right now
It's one out of a sea of options. Of course, not all are good and healthy. But some are.
once someone is on top, they almost never give it up. how often does the king abdicate without being so ill he can’t continue?
Don’t apply the morality of a worker to a top capitalist
Don’t apply the morality of a worker to a top capitalist
Work life is quite a lot different for a working-stiff than it is for a CEO. In large part, their company is an extension of themselves. Work whatever hours you want to. Private plane to take you wherever you want to go for free, if you can come up with a work-related excuse to go there (with no need to justify not coming back for weeks). Multiple folks acting more-or-less as your personal assistants. An office bigger than your house, filled with anything you want in it, on the company's dime. A big pool of cash you can order the company to throw at whatever interests you. etc.
I doubt he cares that much about the company paying for things. Once you hit 10B+, all of that stuff is just noise.
In my experience of CEO's they actually do care deeply about not paying for anything if the company can pay.
Based on this description, you could say that what the CEO does in no way resembles what real work looks like for 90% of the population. Which I think is true. It's a pity they make so much more than people who do actual work.
> you could say that what the CEO does in no way resembles what real work looks like for 90% of the population
I’d wager you can say this about most jobs. The anomaly is butt-in-seats office jobs.
I’d wager you can say this about most jobs. The anomaly is butt-in-seats office jobs.
He sat around talking to people, reading, betting on stocks/financial markets, playing games and occasionally buying a business.... that is many people's dream retirement.
Their work is their enjoyment. Buffett would've been investing even in "retirement," so to him, work and retirement are functionally the same.
This.
The work/retirement dichotomy is such a weird and peculiar artifact of the 1950s US middle-class nuclear-family milieu.
That's gone.
For the rest of us, it's just...live your life, until you don't.
(viz. Below the fold: "Buffett remains as chair...")
The work/retirement dichotomy is such a weird and peculiar artifact of the 1950s US middle-class nuclear-family milieu.
That's gone.
For the rest of us, it's just...live your life, until you don't.
(viz. Below the fold: "Buffett remains as chair...")
Peculiar artifact? Are you forgetting all the people who retired from mining coal, building cars, or running plumbing? It's not weird that seventy year olds would prefer to stop doing those things. I don't know that many people who would claim blasting ore underground is their enjoyment.
Why are you arguing a strawman? No one brought up coal miners, not sure what that has to do with the 1950s anyway in specific.
When you are the boss work is a lot less unpleasant than when you are an employee. When you are at the highest level in the organization and also the major shareholder, you can shape your work environment and and workday in a way that you like it.
He worked for 60 years because he liked doing it, and as he became more successful, the job just getting more pleasant for him.
I cannot speak for him but from reading his annual reports and various writings and listening to the occasional interview, it seems that he enjoyed working much more than anything he would do while being retired.
You can call this great american work ethic, and that is part of it, but the other part of it is that when you are the boss you can kind of remove most unpleasant parts of your job and leave only the parts that are the most fun and interesting for you.
He worked for 60 years because he liked doing it, and as he became more successful, the job just getting more pleasant for him.
I cannot speak for him but from reading his annual reports and various writings and listening to the occasional interview, it seems that he enjoyed working much more than anything he would do while being retired.
You can call this great american work ethic, and that is part of it, but the other part of it is that when you are the boss you can kind of remove most unpleasant parts of your job and leave only the parts that are the most fun and interesting for you.
Can you imagine reading and researching the world on your retirement? Because that's what people like him do, except they mainly focus on 10-K statements. Those are genuinely interesting to read once you learn to skip boilerplate and go for the content.
He also seems to talk to a lot of people, and he has access to pretty much anyone given his stature. Imagine being passionate about business and then being able to spend every day talking to people about their businesses and their thoughts on business. I'm surprised he retired at all!
I'm at that point now, debating when I'll retire. We only live once and I'm not sure if I should continue working. I've reached financial freedom at a pretty young age. It's a daily debate in my mind when to call it quits, but I've never not worked and it's difficult to make the change. What I'm missing in life is time and that's what work takes from me and is the driving force behind my desire to retire -- time to do other things in life.
If you don’t have family or kids do not stop working.
I have a wife and two kids. That's one reason I still work (it's probably not a good example for the kids to see a father not working)
And if you do have kids, the most profitable thing for your wife to do upon learning you won't be working any longer would be to divorce you, take 50%, impute your income for child support calculation at what you were earning before (so every 5 years you owe your full pre-tax salary). That way their quality of life won't be impacted nearly as much.
So likely at least 8x your pre-tax salary (like 11 or 12x post tax) is gone right off the bat as soon as you retire. So if you are retiring before age 40 basically all of your wealth will vaporize as soon as the mother of your children realizes they can basically take the entire wealth through a mixture of divorce, child support, and alimony and they must act fast before the imputed income calculation drops.
So likely at least 8x your pre-tax salary (like 11 or 12x post tax) is gone right off the bat as soon as you retire. So if you are retiring before age 40 basically all of your wealth will vaporize as soon as the mother of your children realizes they can basically take the entire wealth through a mixture of divorce, child support, and alimony and they must act fast before the imputed income calculation drops.
You could stop working and lie for 5 years claiming you are employed and doing work stuff. Then the risk of this is over. But you should definitely have a prenup or a postnup if this isn’t possible.
If your number is on the order of $10 million, I suspect that no, you wouldn't, because you haven't thought hard enough about retirement and how to achieve and keep it with a satisfying lifestyle to realize that you don't need nearly so much (or at least most people, maybe you have a need for very fancy things, I won't judge). And requiring $50 million at a younger age? What's the logic in that? The younger you are the lower you can set your number, because if you end up being wrong either about the feasibility or about your mental state from not having a job, you still have time to fix things or even pivot to a new career. (You also get more years of compound interest.) I quit my BigCo job 5 years ago just before my 30th birthday with ~$500k across VFIAX and VGT, I've been "retired" since and that amount has grown considerably. I'm still quite happy not working for someone, while still being reasonably confident I could get a programming job again if a need or desire arose, and there's always the possibility of going a bit crazy and burning through it all to self-fund hiring some employees of my own to make a go at a business.
It's not hard for me to understand why people keep working even if I'm not and don't want to be that way. There are so many reasons, I'll list a few, some work just as well even for people who are working despite having "enough", whatever that means. Some people just really like having a job, or think of it as a moral duty (and themselves as doing good by fulfilling that obligation), or some get their self-worth from having a job, or some like being occupied by work when they know that without it they'd just rot. Some like the social company. Many actually like their work a lot more than they dislike it and pay above some threshold is just "nice". If you're particularly good at your job, too, there's a lot of joy in doing things you're good at, no matter what kind of job it is. Some have expensive tastes or have made expensive compromises or have fallen on expensive bad luck that all can need ongoing funding. Some want to make or support things and need capital to do so. Some just see life as a game, and money going up is their source of happiness and sign of winning. There's all sorts of minds and preferences in this world.
It's not hard for me to understand why people keep working even if I'm not and don't want to be that way. There are so many reasons, I'll list a few, some work just as well even for people who are working despite having "enough", whatever that means. Some people just really like having a job, or think of it as a moral duty (and themselves as doing good by fulfilling that obligation), or some get their self-worth from having a job, or some like being occupied by work when they know that without it they'd just rot. Some like the social company. Many actually like their work a lot more than they dislike it and pay above some threshold is just "nice". If you're particularly good at your job, too, there's a lot of joy in doing things you're good at, no matter what kind of job it is. Some have expensive tastes or have made expensive compromises or have fallen on expensive bad luck that all can need ongoing funding. Some want to make or support things and need capital to do so. Some just see life as a game, and money going up is their source of happiness and sign of winning. There's all sorts of minds and preferences in this world.
I totally get it. You need a purpose to be happy. If you enjoy your work and get a sense of fulfillment from it, why should you stop?
HN seems allergic to discussing the reality of power dynamics IME.
Being in charge of Berkshire hathaway is a very powerful and respected, revered, envied, coveted, admired. Retired is just retired. As folksy as he presented I suspect Buffet very much enjoyed weilding that power which he could not likely ever get elsewhere.
Being in charge of Berkshire hathaway is a very powerful and respected, revered, envied, coveted, admired. Retired is just retired. As folksy as he presented I suspect Buffet very much enjoyed weilding that power which he could not likely ever get elsewhere.
He's just wired differently. He spent his spare time reading financial statements.
You could argue he was retired and just continuing his hobby.
You could argue he was retired and just continuing his hobby.
I would probably be Software Engineering even if my employer didn't pay me to. As evidence, note that it's new year's eve and I'm writing patches (and waiting for tests) during my holidays for someone else's FOSS project I'm contributing to :).
I my employer didn't pay me, I'd stop working on their projects. But in the meantime, I enjoy my profession (at least most of the time) and get paid. If I had enough money then I'd stop working on what my management wants and work on stuff that I want to work on. And I have to imagine that at this point, Buffet is also doing whatever he wants to.
I my employer didn't pay me, I'd stop working on their projects. But in the meantime, I enjoy my profession (at least most of the time) and get paid. If I had enough money then I'd stop working on what my management wants and work on stuff that I want to work on. And I have to imagine that at this point, Buffet is also doing whatever he wants to.
This is how I am.
I can design and build anything. If I didn't have to do it for work, I'd be making my own evil projects.
You can't take the country out of this boy it turns out...
I can design and build anything. If I didn't have to do it for work, I'd be making my own evil projects.
You can't take the country out of this boy it turns out...
Can you imagine a singer who will continue singing even after getting 50 million ?
To some people, their careers are interesting in and of itself, beyond money.
This applies to many professions: scientists, CEOs, writers, painters.
To some people, their careers are interesting in and of itself, beyond money.
This applies to many professions: scientists, CEOs, writers, painters.
As a retired person I’ve always been curious about this. I questioned a friend who is multiple FU money rich. He said he just love his job, and he’s in a position to work the way he wants to work.
Not my cup of tea (and Die with Zero book explains the common sense on this) but I get why though. There is tons of status attached to it, lots of people don’t know what to do with themselves, a lot of identity ( especially in US) attached to the work.
Not my cup of tea (and Die with Zero book explains the common sense on this) but I get why though. There is tons of status attached to it, lots of people don’t know what to do with themselves, a lot of identity ( especially in US) attached to the work.
> I will never undertand this people that live all their life working, when they clearly have the chance to retire much sooner.
Some people just love what they do. In addition to people loving what they do, there are also people who don't like to do nothing: travelling, reading, sipping pina coladas in the pool in Florida, painting, playing videogames all day long etc. is not for everyone.
And there are even people who fit both: they love what they do and they have moreover absolutely no interest in retiring and "doing nothing".
EDIT: also some people are action junkies that must be working. A friend of mine is working a full-time regular job and is also a voluntary firefighter, responding to emergencies during week-ends etc. He doesn't do it for the little additional money it brings: he does it because he loves to be helpful.
Some people just love what they do. In addition to people loving what they do, there are also people who don't like to do nothing: travelling, reading, sipping pina coladas in the pool in Florida, painting, playing videogames all day long etc. is not for everyone.
And there are even people who fit both: they love what they do and they have moreover absolutely no interest in retiring and "doing nothing".
EDIT: also some people are action junkies that must be working. A friend of mine is working a full-time regular job and is also a voluntary firefighter, responding to emergencies during week-ends etc. He doesn't do it for the little additional money it brings: he does it because he loves to be helpful.
If you are really enjoying your life, why would you change it to something that you wouldn't enjoy?
We all die on the same order of magnitude.
We all have pleasure and suffering along the same couple of orders of magnitude.
In geological timespans, none of the fun you had will matter. Even a year from now, your memories are just wistful nostalgia (perhaps a psychological detriment!) And that's if your brain architecture is even set up to recall senses and events well (not everyone can).
My view is that the intellectual pursuit is more fulfilling than a world simulating traversal of novel experiences. Those neurons will turn to dust soon anyway, and it'll be like it never even happened. Why spend so much time fretting over it?
Spend time with family, but trying to rack up on restaurants and things and places and visits - meh, it's just simulation and squirts of neurotransmitters. Ephemeral. They leave no trace. It all fades to emptiness.
I'm not saying be completely stoic. But don't overdose on pleasure and thrill and novelty. Over indexing that way cuts down on impact.
Building never stops, even when you do. Laying a foundation shapes human behavior at scale. Leads to more shoulders being stood upon. Higher order effects.
Every single person I admire made an impact.
I'm not my genes that I was built from or the genes that I might pass down. I'm the ideas and deeds of a short life that hopefully left lasting impact and caused second order effects.
We all have pleasure and suffering along the same couple of orders of magnitude.
In geological timespans, none of the fun you had will matter. Even a year from now, your memories are just wistful nostalgia (perhaps a psychological detriment!) And that's if your brain architecture is even set up to recall senses and events well (not everyone can).
My view is that the intellectual pursuit is more fulfilling than a world simulating traversal of novel experiences. Those neurons will turn to dust soon anyway, and it'll be like it never even happened. Why spend so much time fretting over it?
Spend time with family, but trying to rack up on restaurants and things and places and visits - meh, it's just simulation and squirts of neurotransmitters. Ephemeral. They leave no trace. It all fades to emptiness.
I'm not saying be completely stoic. But don't overdose on pleasure and thrill and novelty. Over indexing that way cuts down on impact.
Building never stops, even when you do. Laying a foundation shapes human behavior at scale. Leads to more shoulders being stood upon. Higher order effects.
Every single person I admire made an impact.
I'm not my genes that I was built from or the genes that I might pass down. I'm the ideas and deeds of a short life that hopefully left lasting impact and caused second order effects.
Hacker news moment. If you believe this, you are lost, but man. What a terrible take.
Build what? The next big ad serving platform? The next mass surveillance platform? New ways to squeeze money out of people? You’re right we all die so nothing matters, why would what you build matter more than the relationships you make, the good feelings you create? Build, but build art. Build something that will change peoples minds, make them feel good, make them want to change the world.
Do not conflate building something to make some guy richer, as just as or more important than spending time with family or creating true art.
Build what? The next big ad serving platform? The next mass surveillance platform? New ways to squeeze money out of people? You’re right we all die so nothing matters, why would what you build matter more than the relationships you make, the good feelings you create? Build, but build art. Build something that will change peoples minds, make them feel good, make them want to change the world.
Do not conflate building something to make some guy richer, as just as or more important than spending time with family or creating true art.
Not the GP but I don’t think they were talking about “building something to make some guy richer” - they was were talking about building a life and relationships that positively impact the people they care about.
It provides purpose. Many people who retire early after doing all the random stuff they thought would be cool would likely find themselves isolated and decaying without purpose.
I took a sabbatical last year. Ran out of cool and exciting stuff real quick.
I personally realized that I got bored of solo sized projects. It’s a lot more fun working with other really smart, motivated people.
I personally realized that I got bored of solo sized projects. It’s a lot more fun working with other really smart, motivated people.
“Everything must end; meanwhile we must amuse ourselves.”
— Voltaire
— Voltaire
When what you do depends on having power and you are above a certain level it's either up or down and out.
For a lucky few of us, our job is something we might do unpaid if we had our needs addressed already. It's fun!
I like travel, I like relaxing at home. But I don't know if it's what I'd want to do all the time. I like having some pull, driving me towards a greater goal.
I like travel, I like relaxing at home. But I don't know if it's what I'd want to do all the time. I like having some pull, driving me towards a greater goal.
What does retiring even means when
- you enjoy it AND
- you do not have a "boss" telling you what to do AND
- it makes you more "popular" because the World you live in associate a higher number with your "value" in society
Why would you even stop? It's not about having enough to survive.
- you enjoy it AND
- you do not have a "boss" telling you what to do AND
- it makes you more "popular" because the World you live in associate a higher number with your "value" in society
Why would you even stop? It's not about having enough to survive.
Retiring simply means doing something else. For him, whatever that was must have been less fun.
He did exactly what he wanted to do. That's all you need to know. To each their own.
I get the sense that he arranged things so that he didn't have to work all that hard, he didn't do any short-term trading requiring constant attention and his work was done at his portfolio companies as soon as they had management he trusted.
It wasn't really work for him I think. He enjoyed the vast majority of what he did. Not all of us get to be so lucky. Does an artist or writer retire if they love their art?
I get you, but maybe you wouldn't be able to retire.
It was that quest for more that made them even get to that 10 or 50 million you talk about.
If they didn't have that personality for more, they likely would have stopped way sooner.
It was that quest for more that made them even get to that 10 or 50 million you talk about.
If they didn't have that personality for more, they likely would have stopped way sooner.
Warren Buffett also retried at a younger age. In a 1969 letter to partners he wrote, “I intend to give all limited partners the required formal notice of my intention to retire”. But life had other plans…
What would you do though? My brain needs problems to solve. Maybe I'd just grow my own food. But if I didn't like that and just bought food I'd get bored very quickly.
I agree with you. There are so many more worthwhile things to do than investing. I would also retire immediately with that kind of money and focus on creating real value in the world
That's a very selfish take.
For folks with the ability to make truckloads of money and then give it away to good causes, that is going to be the best choice v trying to add value in the world to make themselves feel better.
For folks with the ability to make truckloads of money and then give it away to good causes, that is going to be the best choice v trying to add value in the world to make themselves feel better.
That is some logic twisting there.
> For folks with the ability to make truckloads of money
Make it? Like actually invent and build stuff? Or just harvest money from others because you have the capital?
> For folks with the ability to make truckloads of money
Make it? Like actually invent and build stuff? Or just harvest money from others because you have the capital?
It's not logic twisting, it's just acknowledging the difference between doing good and feeling good.
As for "harvesting" - call it what you want - he is taking a truckload of money out of the financial system and giving it to worthy causes.
As for "harvesting" - call it what you want - he is taking a truckload of money out of the financial system and giving it to worthy causes.
allocating capital well provides significant value to the world. His style of investing specifically meant not pouring money into hype stocks and instead investing in companies that have sustainable business models.
You don't need retirement-level money to create "real value in the world"...
Have you ever considered that some people enjoy investing?
Imagine if I said "there are so many more worthwhile things to do than painting" if some famous artist retired.
Imagine if I said "there are so many more worthwhile things to do than painting" if some famous artist retired.
Charlie’s will explains their mindset:
https://youtu.be/FvRT15EayG0
https://youtu.be/FvRT15EayG0
I like to say if I could retire today; I would do the same thing I do now, just without a boss telling me to do it. I love what I do.
According to him he was doing what he liked.
I don't think he's a hero, particularly, but he also does not strike me as a villain like some of the modern day billionaires either. I read a biography of him and he seems like an interesting guy. I don't think the 'humble lifestyle' thing was a schtick, like some suggest. I mean he mostly lived in Nebraska... give me a tiny fraction of his wealth and I would have taken right off out of Nebraska as the first thing I did, to go live somewhere warm and sunny.
He also seemed a bit more aware of how much power money can translate into, and it seems he kind of stuck to "being rich" rather than shooting for "rich and also politically powerful" (although I'm sure there are probably a few exceptions).
Compare his investment in the Washington Post with Bezos'. Buffett actually made money off it, and kept his hands off the direction of the paper. We all saw how much Bezos started leaning on it - which has had the effect of shedding subscribers as no one trusts it any more, and it's not attracting new readers of... the Fox News persuasion I guess we can call it.
It also seems he mostly stuck to what he knows in terms of kind of boring investments rather than flashy rockets and other showy things.
And of course he's been good with giving his money away and convincing others to do likewise.
He also seemed a bit more aware of how much power money can translate into, and it seems he kind of stuck to "being rich" rather than shooting for "rich and also politically powerful" (although I'm sure there are probably a few exceptions).
Compare his investment in the Washington Post with Bezos'. Buffett actually made money off it, and kept his hands off the direction of the paper. We all saw how much Bezos started leaning on it - which has had the effect of shedding subscribers as no one trusts it any more, and it's not attracting new readers of... the Fox News persuasion I guess we can call it.
It also seems he mostly stuck to what he knows in terms of kind of boring investments rather than flashy rockets and other showy things.
And of course he's been good with giving his money away and convincing others to do likewise.
> he also does not strike me as a villain like some of the modern day billionaires either
With Musk, doge, and the handling of important programs like USAID, that bar has been set remarkably low.
With Musk, doge, and the handling of important programs like USAID, that bar has been set remarkably low.
Berkshire stock could fall 99% and he would still have outperformed the S&P. Insane.
Interesting that his performance was essentially identical to the S&P over the past 30 years (Sortino 0.72 vs 0.69): https://testfol.io/?s=jJ4P0GrZxLi
I wonder how much is due to the market becoming more efficient, vs Berkshire's size / market impact?
I wonder how much is due to the market becoming more efficient, vs Berkshire's size / market impact?
Probably a bit of both. Berkshire's size means he was limited to the largest companies which are pretty well analysed.
During that period he did some different things which some of his personal money like buying stock in Dae Han Flour Mills, a Korean flour miller that was like 2 times earnings in 2003 but was probably too small a position to make sense for Berkshire. (https://www.netnethunter.com/warren-buffett-cheap-stock-pick...)
During that period he did some different things which some of his personal money like buying stock in Dae Han Flour Mills, a Korean flour miller that was like 2 times earnings in 2003 but was probably too small a position to make sense for Berkshire. (https://www.netnethunter.com/warren-buffett-cheap-stock-pick...)
How do you figure? The portfolio looks to have performed roughly the same as the S&P.
BRK total return from inception to 2025: about 5,502,284% (55,000x gain)
S&P500 total return over the same period: about 39,054% (390x gain)
$1 in BRK would be $55k today. $1 in S&P500 would be $390 today. Therefore, following the hypothetical 99% drop, 1% of Berkshire return would be $550, still well above the S&P500's $390.
S&P500 total return over the same period: about 39,054% (390x gain)
$1 in BRK would be $55k today. $1 in S&P500 would be $390 today. Therefore, following the hypothetical 99% drop, 1% of Berkshire return would be $550, still well above the S&P500's $390.
That is wild.
Interesting that they are so over-liquid, when they sold off a lot of their Apple stock mid-2024 and Apple is up 22% from then.
Not a significant miss relative to the portfolio. But a significant miss relative to holding cash.
Not a significant miss relative to the portfolio. But a significant miss relative to holding cash.
Probably the best thing about Buffett was his admission of his shortcomings - he wasn't a manager, or adminstrator, of companies - he thought he could do it, blew it, and learnt from the experience.
He was a damned fine investor, a very good eye for a bargain (that would later turn into a goldmine).
I get that people have opinions on that, but I'm not too fussed about the player, when it's the game that they should be focussed on.
He was a damned fine investor, a very good eye for a bargain (that would later turn into a goldmine).
I get that people have opinions on that, but I'm not too fussed about the player, when it's the game that they should be focussed on.
Related:
Warren Buffett's final shareholder letter [pdf]
https://berkshirehathaway.com/news/nov1025.pdf
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45882837)
Warren Buffett's final shareholder letter [pdf]
https://berkshirehathaway.com/news/nov1025.pdf
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45882837)
[deleted]
So, best investor ever? (Not counting people who built enterprises, just people whose trade was to invest.)
I plan to buy some BRK stock. I’m sure it will be a good investment. But also, somewhat sentimentally, just to own a part of a financial masterpiece.
I plan to buy some BRK stock. I’m sure it will be a good investment. But also, somewhat sentimentally, just to own a part of a financial masterpiece.
BH share holder here. Thanks, Warren. You made me a ton of money. Forever grateful.
A very good (IMO) explanation of Warren Buffets success here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9owVrLm7mls
Curious what is his secret to longevity?
He drinks lot of Coke, I doubt he exercises much yet he is still alive at 95 and some would say reasonably healthy at that age.
He drinks lot of Coke, I doubt he exercises much yet he is still alive at 95 and some would say reasonably healthy at that age.
did warren buffets success help america or just his shareholders? How does the $350 billion cash concentration affect the economy and his businesses? I would think it would be better served redistributing it back into the economy to create opportunities for working class, so they can make a living wage, vs having multiple jobs and no savings or safety net.
Ways it helps America:
* His shareholders include many Americans. The cash pile is concentrated as far as corporate governance is concerned, but lots of people own a piece of it in their retirement accounts. (Often indirectly via index funds.)
* Many employees work for businesses owned by Berkshire Hathaway. I'd guess they're pretty stable businesses, not about to get bought out and shut down? Maybe decent places to work? (Not sure about the railroad, though.)
* Many people are customers of these businesses. Mostly a good thing?
Admittedly there are lots of Americans that don't participate in that, though.
* His shareholders include many Americans. The cash pile is concentrated as far as corporate governance is concerned, but lots of people own a piece of it in their retirement accounts. (Often indirectly via index funds.)
* Many employees work for businesses owned by Berkshire Hathaway. I'd guess they're pretty stable businesses, not about to get bought out and shut down? Maybe decent places to work? (Not sure about the railroad, though.)
* Many people are customers of these businesses. Mostly a good thing?
Admittedly there are lots of Americans that don't participate in that, though.
[deleted]
what Buffet shows is the power of understanding fundamentals & sticking to your strengths
remember this was a guy picking stocks in the middle of nowhere - Omaha Nebraska using just Newspapers, Annual Reports and a phone. With the power of conviction.
not internet like we have to do or "A.I" - yet he built the largest conglomerate known to man
remember this was a guy picking stocks in the middle of nowhere - Omaha Nebraska using just Newspapers, Annual Reports and a phone. With the power of conviction.
not internet like we have to do or "A.I" - yet he built the largest conglomerate known to man
Wonder if he's still going to go to McDonald's every morning.
The world's richest ukulele player.
His YouTube series “Secret Millionaire Club” is great for kids.
Buffett and Munger were both great teachers and entertainers.
Buffett and Munger were both great teachers and entertainers.
He's not dead. No need to eulogize just yet.
legend. no words.
he's as old as the hills, so yeah. see ya dude.
It's not possible to become a billionaire with a B without fucking over a lot of people, but for a billionaire he isn't so bad. If we can't get rid of billionaires the next best thing is to hope they are more like Buffett and less like Musk or Thiel or Trump...
[deleted]
jimnotgym(4)
Greeks had their Mythology with heroes and pseudo-Gods, we have oligarchs and pseudo-philantrops
In what world is he a “pseudo” philanthropist? He’s already given more than $60 Billion away and pledged to donate 99%+ of his wealth. He has also called for his class of ultra-wealthy to be taxed more
Also, on what planet did Ancient Greeks not celebrate their wealthy.
Also why are they "pseudo-Gods?"
I can't help but wonder if Buffett's dividend focused strategy will continue to be a successful approach in the future. Buffett is no slouch, but seems to have fallen behind relatively unsophisticated investors like Musk and Zuckerburg as time went on and they focused on valuation more than returns/profit.
Buffet's strategy assumes a rational market, so I wouldn't expect it to work as well in an environment where stock market valuations are increasingly vibes-based and often wildly inflated by circumstances that should be illegal (like selling X to xAI to generate a voodoo valuation).
Arguably the entire market is heavily overvalued now, though, so while his strategies are probably no longer optimal, they'll probably continue to work out well enough at least until the next big correction.
Arguably the entire market is heavily overvalued now, though, so while his strategies are probably no longer optimal, they'll probably continue to work out well enough at least until the next big correction.
“in the short run, the market is a voting machine… but in the long run, the market is a weighing machine.”
Ben Graham
Ben Graham
It seems like something is broken since TSLA (for example) has been completely divorced from fundamentals since at least 2020. The richest man in the world has the vast majority of his net worth derived from vaporware and straight up fraud. Still wondering when the "weighing machine" kicks in.
The market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent.
Unfortunately it's expensive to short Tesla because Elon and Peter Thiel don't allow their shares to be shorted. Add to that, it's part of the S&P 500. It's going to take a while but I foresee a lot of red for TSLA. We'll see what happens but TSLA is already revising their target of cars sold in Q4
> Elon and Peter Thiel don't allow their shares to be shorted
Do you have more information about that? That sounds impossible for a publicly traded company.
Do you have more information about that? That sounds impossible for a publicly traded company.
You can look at DRS: https://www.investing.com/news/company-news/genius-group-sha...
Oh I see, you meant Elon and Thiel prevent the shares they control from being shorted? I originally thought you meant they prevent any TSLA shares from being shorted.
investors have stopped looking at TSLA as a car company awhile ago so car sales will hardly move the price (downward)
> Buffet's strategy assumes a rational market
The public stuff, sure, in the short term. The wholly-owned stuff, however, is pure private equity: their cash flows should cash flow irrespective of financing conditions.
The public stuff, sure, in the short term. The wholly-owned stuff, however, is pure private equity: their cash flows should cash flow irrespective of financing conditions.
Some people suggest this is a function of too much wealth centred in too few people, causing a high demand for assets. If that is true, maybe that is where we should focus?
Massive wealth inequality is certainly a factor, not just in this but the associated affordability situation being faced by the group of people whose wealth isn't being buoyed by the stock market.
But I don't know what we can do about it when government has been captured by people with vested interests in not fixing anything.
It feels like things have to get bad enough to get people to actually rise up. Not like, revolution or anything, but real protest (and enough political awakening to understand that they are being fed culture war bullshit to distract them from the class war they should be waging).
But I don't know what we can do about it when government has been captured by people with vested interests in not fixing anything.
It feels like things have to get bad enough to get people to actually rise up. Not like, revolution or anything, but real protest (and enough political awakening to understand that they are being fed culture war bullshit to distract them from the class war they should be waging).
> relatively unsophisticated investors like Musk and Zuckerburg
They're sophisticated government contractors. They've insulated themselves from the wiles of the market.
They're sophisticated government contractors. They've insulated themselves from the wiles of the market.
Musk and Zuckerberg, investing it's not their main thing they happen to have shares in companies they're CEO of, and their main activities it's managing them not investing
Musk and Zuckerberg are primarily entrepreneurs, not investors.
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...
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...
According to the paper you posted (interesting analysis), it’s not just low-vol assets, but good quality ones. Also, they would no doubt do a lot more buying of undervalued (good quality) companies if they weren’t by this point “too big to care”, so to speak.
Undervalued, not underperforming. Companies that others overlook but have solid fundamentals and great strategy.
An undervalued company is one that everyone else thinks is a loser but actually isn't - if you can identify that (and maybe make some adjustments to it) you can make a lot of money pretty quickly.
If it's undervalued it should be worth more, no?
Is Intel undervalued? Should Intel be worth more? Intel is an example of a company that I had in mind.
When people say undervalued in this context, they usually mean it has a low price to earnings ratio. Intel is definitely not that - although it could still be a good bet if you have reason to believe their fortunes will greatly improve in the future. But it wouldn’t be a Buffett target in its current state.
Actually, yes, half a year ago Intel was massively undervalued when you looked at metrics like Price to Book ratio. It still is actually, although not as much.
He calls them "cigar butts." His analogy is that you collect enough of them, and you have a whole cigar.
Our society has become moralistic. It's so much more useful to identify behaviors to learn from - either to emulate or to avoid - than to debate whether various public figures are good or bad people.
That said, it makes me a little sad that we've read the last of his annual letters.