Agree that there is no such thing objectively as good or evil it is only where you choose to stand - I don't accuse Buffett of being evil but I disagree with the morality he has chosen and the objections I have are in terms of basic human rights and freedoms.
As well as the specific examples I raise, I don't mean to say that he is a one-dimensional character I am sorry if I gave that impression. I do mean to say that there is very little that I can learn from him beside a few amusing anecdotes.
If you have billions you need to find the best companies but if all you want is a few million it can be found by sniffing around the garbage heap.
The dignity of employment stands in contrast to the ostracism of unemployment that our society imposes on others. You accuse me of imposing morality on others when all I ask is that people have the right to choose that for themselves?
Maybe you value money and another may value art, is the only value of things economic?
Is not the indignity of unemployment a natural consequence of the requirement to keep wages low enough for people to be compelled to work. You call that the dignity of employment but the employee is only very marginally better than a chattel slave as they have minimal freedom except in as much as it serves the requirements of the corporation.
This must be the best of all possible worlds.
What about the environment, we constantly put economics before that - how's that going to work out for the future of our species (and others for we have no right either to dominate the biosphere we share with them).
Maybe we should produce a whole lot less and would be happier, would that be best for us? Can that argument be expressed and is Buffett specifically in the way of it, look at the latest AGM notes with his advocacy of consumerism.
Again that's being a good investor when maybe he should encourage people to drink less coke and that would be better for people in general.
Yes yada yada self responsibility but it's all calculated for maximum uptake marketing spend and minimum social value.
The disagreement between us is then fundamentally that between freedom (which I would advocate) and totalitarianism (which you would advocate in terms of Buffett's "freedom" to withhold the means of sustenance and the right to live in a free society from others).
It's a disappointingly weak argument from your end to be fair I think you are a smart guy but most people don't follow things all the way down to their logical underpinnings.
I certainly haven't said that he should be held to a higher standard than I, in fact I am going to do exactly what I say with my money - I don't intend to enrich myself but to have enough and then to do good for others with it of my own free will.
That would be the objection I have to the Ayn Rand doctrine which I basically agree with but would express as "yes it's your right to keep what you have earned but your life may be lonely and you won't have any friends". I don't know what human nature is but it sure isn't just pure selfishness and "philanthropy" after you die.
There's a difference of course between money friends and real friends, Buffett has plenty of money friends.
I also don't say that money should be given away or wealth expropriated, again it's easier to build a straw-man than to challenge my arguments as they are well-considered.
I have some sympathy to the anarchist arguments, as well as the capitalist ones, the Ben Graham and Buffett ideas. I choose all of the best ideas without fear or favor and shamelessly champion them as my own, when I am wrong I will in time admit it and change my position.
We live in a very different time from when those arguments were proposed and should be making new ones.
You are right though would it be better under different stewards, in many aspects he is very good at stewarding capital and if there were more like him we wouldn't see so much wasted. It's not black and white.
Here's another side to the coin, if there was no coca-cola, no insurance (which people take out only for fear of destitution - I don't have any as it's not an issue for me), no Sees Candy well then would the world would be a better place?
Some of his investments like precision castparts I would agree with but again should he have a monopolistic position. If you agree with free markets then many of his companies wouldn't exist but others like Shaw are just playing by the rules.
We do need more stewards of capital like him but also people who want to open the game up, say what you like I am 100% practicing what I preach. Let's get this straight I am not saying Buffett should be stripped of his wealth I am saying there should be a lot more objective assessment of what he does and there is very little.
Incidentally thanks for all the excellent analysis of SHJ on this thread and apologies for digression, but then again I am always the contrarian.
My contribution on the question of the Christchurch business is that we will expect it to wind down because the earthquakes damage is winding down. As Jim C said some time ago it may not prove to have been a great venture for them.
Andrew Hooker is attempting to re-open the EQC stuff and we will see how he gets on.
As also previously discussed we don't have the same litigious society you have in Aussie and we prefer it that way but let's not open up that can of darn worms as well !
Good luck to all you are welcome to disagree but in investments or politically I have already dissected your weak arguments and found them wanting
(20min delay)
