patrick.net

Agreed.

He comes across as a friend of the people, argues for higher taxes on the wealthy but his investment prowess the last ten years has been based on buying TBTF companies. So he is just a crony now spouting the administration line

Buffett on gold http://smaulgld.com/gold-silver-and-real-estate/

smaulgld says

He comes across as a friend of the people, argues for higher taxes on the
wealthy but his investment prowess the last ten years has been based on buying
TBTF companies. So he is just a crony now spouting the administration line

That makes absolutely no sense. He can't lobby to make the tax system better and own large cap stocks?? What is hypocritical about that??

Mark D says

Buffett continuously invests in companies whose practices either rape the
environment, treat their employees terribly, or outright steal from the American
public - and YET everyone seems to think Buffett is super-cool.

Buffet owns companies that make money. He is an investor first and foremost. People invest their money with him and he is obligated to maximize returns for them. Again--there is nothing hypocritical about that.

His tonsils have Obama's cum stains on them.
Word has it, each one is worth a few billion each.

smaulgld says

He comes across as a friend of the people, argues for higher taxes on the wealthy but his investment prowess the last ten years has been based on buying TBTF companies. So he is just a crony now spouting the administration line

Correct. There would be non of his 'prowess' left had it not been for the 2008 crony bailouts.

mell says

Correct. There would be non of his 'prowess' left had it not been for the
2008 crony bailouts.

That's crap. You're basing that off of his remark that had the entire financial system gone kaput, then eventually Berkshire would have been in trouble too.

But your theory is that the system would have been fine with no bailouts--so Berkshire wouldn't have been in any trouble.

tatupu70 says

But your theory is that the system would have been fine with no bailouts

No, not "fine" at all. The crooked craps game could have collapsed from the current, ridiculous, 40% of corporate profits back to a more historic, and healthier, norm of 20%.
This would have been catastrophic of course….for them anyway.

tatupu70 says

mell says

Correct. There would be non of his 'prowess' left had it not been for the

2008 crony bailouts.

That's crap. You're basing that off of his remark that had the entire financial system gone kaput, then eventually Berkshire would have been in trouble too.

But your theory is that the system would have been fine with no bailouts--so Berkshire wouldn't have been in any trouble.

No doubt a lot of companies in the financial and insurance sector and those invested heavily in it such as Berkshire would have gone bust or come close to it. But not the entire system, in fact it would have been a good reset and leveling of the playing field for those companies who played conservatively to come to the forefront and replace the old dirty crony TBTF bastards. Mobility is what this country is (was) about, not rewarding failure.

Robert Sproul says

tatupu70 says

But your theory is that the system would have been fine with no bailouts

No, not "fine" at all. The crooked craps game could have collapsed from the current, ridiculous, 40% of corporate profits back to a more historic, and healthier, norm of 20%.

This would have been catastrophic of course….for them anyway.

Exactly - "catastrophic for them" are the keywords. Instead we are now back to "perfect" or near perfect trading months, i.e. 30 of 30 days profit. Anybody who thinks this is possible without crony capitalism, insider info and front-running (while fucking over clients) needs to have their head checked. The Fed has their back. Dewey, Cheatham and Howe indeed.. ;)

mell says

Exactly - "catastrophic for them" are the keywords. Instead we are now back
to "perfect" or near perfect trading months, i.e. 30 of 30 days profit. Anybody
who thinks this is possible without crony capitalism, insider info and
front-running (while fucking over clients) needs to have their head checked. The
Fed has their back. Dewey, Cheatham and Howe indeed.. ;)

OK--you need to take a step back and really understand what is going on and who/which party is repsonsible for it. Who vetoed Elizabeth Warren? Which party wants more regulation of the banking industry and which party wants less regulation?

And why the hell must the Federal Reserve be mentioned in every last one of your posts?? You insist on muddying the waters of every issue.