Warren Buffet, Objectivist Hero

[sjw]

It has been common in years past for Objectivists to put men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on a pedestal. I wonder what these "hero worshipers" think now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=2

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It has been common in years past for Objectivists to put men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on a pedestal. I wonder what these "hero worshipers" think now?

http://www.nytimes.c...ffett.html?_r=2

Shayne

Buffett smells. Gates is smart but even luckier. He tried to sell DOS to IBM for $100,000. If he hadn't been turned down there'd be no Microsoft to speak of today. Buffett was smart and lucky too--lucky to be investing in the last half of the 20th Century. In that sense he simply had to be extremely good at what he was doing regardless for he isn't one of many--he's at the top of the investing heap almost all because of his ability.

--Brant

[sjw]

It has been common in years past for Objectivists to put men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on a pedestal. I wonder what these "hero worshipers" think now?

http://www.nytimes.c...ffett.html?_r=2

Shayne

Buffett smells. Gates is smart but even luckier. He tried to sell DOS to IBM for $100,000. If he hadn't been turned down there'd be no Microsoft to speak of today. Buffett was smart and lucky too--lucky to be investing in the last half of the 20th Century. In that sense he simply had to be extremely good at what he was doing regardless for he isn't one of many--he's at the top of the investing heap almost all because of his ability.

--Brant

His father was a congressman, so I suspect that it was more his political connections than his wits that made him successful, particularly when he says idiotic things like this.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It has been common in years past for Objectivists to put men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on a pedestal. I wonder what these "hero worshipers" think now?

http://www.nytimes.c...ffett.html?_r=2

Shayne

Buffett smells. Gates is smart but even luckier. He tried to sell DOS to IBM for $100,000. If he hadn't been turned down there'd be no Microsoft to speak of today. Buffett was smart and lucky too--lucky to be investing in the last half of the 20th Century. In that sense he simply had to be extremely good at what he was doing regardless for he isn't one of many--he's at the top of the investing heap almost all because of his ability.

--Brant

His father was a congressman, so I suspect that it was more his political connections than his wits that made him successful, particularly when he says idiotic things like this.

Shayne

It may have opened doors for him in Omaha in the late 1950s when he first went looking for investors, but after that I don't see that until very recently, like the last two years. He accumulated wealth by accumulating value in one place and it grew like hell. He created little or no underlying value. In that sense Gates has it all over Buffett as do thousands of entrepreneurs. I don't think Buffett has one ounce of the true entrepreneur in him, although it's arguable if anyone wants to waste their time. I don't.

--Brant

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/11/dear-uncle-sucker/

Edited November 17, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Reidy]

Rand identified the mixed-economy businessman, who gets money from government favors rather than from wealth-production, in 1946, and she worked this insight at length in her subsequent writings. Anyone who has tried to play Gotcha! with an Objectivist over this matter in the last 64 years has been swinging at air.

[sjw]

Rand identified the mixed-economy businessman, who gets money from government favors rather than from wealth-production, in 1946, and she worked this insight at length in her subsequent writings.

Sure, Rand did, and then Objectivists (usually the ARI kind) have been unable to identify this type ever since.

Anyone who has tried to play Gotcha! with an Objectivist over this matter in the last 64 years has been swinging at air.

You're the one swinging at air.

Shayne

[PDS]

Buffet is an obnoxious braggart and a pretentious ignoramus.

[DavidMcK]

Actually it is much harder than what the above posts suggest...the businessman who is self-made and hasn't gotten much money from government programs, but still believes in the mixed economy. The other type is the Soros type...a socialist oriented (or central authority oriented) type who can still compete in the private economy. Not every business person who believes the same things that James Taggart believes in acts like the character, and not everyone who acts like Reardon believes in the same things. Thus 'Atlas Shrugged' to straighten everyone out.

Edited November 17, 2010 by DavidMcK

[sjw]

Actually it is much harder than what the above notes suggest...the businessman who is self-made and hasn't gotten much money from government programs, but still believes in the mixed economy. The other type is the Soros type...a socialist oriented (or central authority oriented) type who can still compete in the private economy. Not every business person who believes the same things that James Taggart believes in acts like the character, and not everyone who acts like Reardon believes in the same things. Thus 'Atlas Shrugged' to straighten everyone out.

The current economic setup makes it literally impossible for a businessman working at the scale of Warren Buffet to be "self-made" in the economic sense. Even a totally virtuous big businessman is, through no fault of his own, benefiting from a laundry list of laws and regulations that keep the competition from entering in the first place. This is yet another Objectivist foible -- an inability to comprehend big government favoritism toward big business.

Shayne

[Reidy]

Can you give us some examples? If this foible is as common as you say, they shouldn't be hard to find.

To make your point really well, the example would need to be one in which an Objectivist praised somebody qua mixed-economy businessman, not somebody who happened incidentally to be one. An Objectivist saying "Bill Gates is a great entrepreneur, as proven by his support of an income tax in Washington" would do the trick. An Objectivist saying "Bill Gates is a great entrepreneur" would not.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Reidy

[sjw]

Can you give us some examples? If this foible is as common as you say, such examples shouldn't be hard to find.

Examples of Objectivists with foibles? Or examples of big business fascism in America?

Shayne

[Reidy]

Neither. I mean an example of what you said in #9 - an Objectivist who admires businessmen who made their money from government favors.

[Kimmler]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9375

Blimey, you don’t make it hard for us do you! I doubt any objectivist would make such a statement and it is disingenuous to state that just because none do they don’t praise the mixed economy businessman. As this link shows…they need to get their facts correct before praising

[anthony]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9375

Blimey, you don’t make it hard for us do you! I doubt any objectivist would make such a statement and it is disingenuous to state that just because none do they don’t praise the mixed economy businessman. As this link shows…they need to get their facts correct before praising

For one brief moment, the problem of the ideology of communism, and the one of capitalism intersect.

The communist cannot point to any glories of communism because, well..., there never were any (and anyway, as we know, the theory was great, but Man is weak), and the capitalist can only(?) show how great civilisation is, despite intrusion, compromise and dilution, and has only amoral mutants like Soros, or pragmatic hybrids like Buffett, to point to as its exemplars.

Tony

[sjw]

Neither. I mean an example of what you said in #9 - an Objectivist who admires businessmen who made their money from government favors.

All big businessmen nowadays make their money that way, whether they want to or not. So just find any Objectivist who thinks Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or especially, John Allison, are men to admire for their "achievements", where "achievement" is not measured in an understanding of what the person actually does to obtain his riches, but just the brute fact of the riches. For most Objectivists, especially the ARI breed, the existence of an extremely rich person is almost complete proof of "achievement."

No slave system had a better opiate for the masses. This is just another variation on "the Pharaoh is a God, we must worship him." Objectivism is the opiate for people who like to pretend themselves reasonable and to pretend they care about individual rights.

Shayne

[sjw]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9375

Blimey, you don’t make it hard for us do you! I doubt any objectivist would make such a statement and it is disingenuous to state that just because none do they don’t praise the mixed economy businessman. As this link shows…they need to get their facts correct before praising

For one brief moment, the problem of the ideology of communism, and the one of capitalism intersect.

The communist cannot point to any glories of communism because, well..., there never were any (and anyway, as we know, the theory was great, but Man is weak), and the capitalist can only(?) show how great civilisation is, despite intrusion, compromise and dilution, and has only amoral mutants like Soros, or pragmatic hybrids like Buffett, to point to as its exemplars.

Tony

It is not the political systems that have created achievement, it is individual men who have dragged civilization forward. So far in human history, the best political systems were one that were occasionally getting out of the way. Where that happened we had massive progress because of individuals. But this happened even in the Dark Ages -- Galileo dragged civilization forward. Men like Galileo and Nikola Tesla are the heroes to put on a pedestal, not "capitalism."

Shayne

[anthony]

Shayne,

Completely agreed; you have put the horse back in front of the cart - but what system most allows and encourages the individual to breathe and create?

Tony

Edited November 18, 2010 by whYNOT

[sjw]

Shayne,

Completely agreed; but to put the horse back in front of the cart, what system most allows and encourages the individual to breathe and create?

Tony

Well, it depends on what individuals you care about. Under the Nazi system, certain engineers and scientists and artists were allowed to breath and create.

We shouldn't be choosing among "least worst" alternatives. No alternative that doesn't fully respect individual rights is acceptable. Objectivists like to claim that the capitalist system (whatever one might mean by that) is the one that respects individual rights, but then after swallowing that idea whole, they tend not to bother to check whether the system is actually respecting rights or not, they just tend defend it to the hilt. Objectivists make good nationalists.

Shayne

Edited November 18, 2010 by sjw

[anthony]

Shayne,

I do think that "capitalism" is too broad a concept to encompass both economics and politics - and I definitely believe that individual rights is the primary concern, whatever the 'system'.(Is capitalism a true 'system'? Contrasted with others, it is almost a-systematic.)

Until we get closer to full realization of capitalism, I guess the label will have to do.

Along this line, Rand's "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism..."

is apt.

If there are Objectivists who ignore or avoid individual rights,in favor of capitalism, or nationalism (as you say), then they are missing the point, and are dead wrong.

But this has not been my experience on the forums (except for a measure of parochialism and patriotism which is justified given the contexts), and if anything O'ists are painstaking in identifying the smallest breach of rights.

Btw, to make my meaning clearer, I edited my previous 'cart and horse' post.

Tony

[sjw]

Shayne,

I do think that "capitalism" is too broad a concept to encompass both economics and politics - and I definitely believe that individual rights is the primary concern, whatever the 'system'.(Is capitalism a true 'system'? Contrasted with others, it is almost a-systematic.)

Until we get closer to full realization of capitalism, I guess the label will have to do.

Actually "capitalism" is too specific. It doesn't allow for voluntary communes for example. Also, it was a term coined not by pro-liberty Americans, but by Marx.

Along this line, Rand's "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism..."

is apt.

Why would she say "egoism" instead of "individualism" here? The latter term more properly conveys the proper stance here.

If there are Objectivists who ignore or avoid individual rights,in favor of capitalism, or nationalism (as you say), then they are missing the point, and are dead wrong.

But this has not been my experience on the forums (except for a measure of parochialism and patriotism which is justified given the contexts), and if anything O'ists are painstaking in identifying the smallest breach of rights.

My experience differs, particularly concerning ARI Objectivists, who are the only real kind of Objectivist IMO. An Objectivist who would entertain different philosophical opinions from Ayn Rand is not an Objectivist.

Shayne

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Rand identified the mixed-economy businessman, who gets money from government favors rather than from wealth-production, in 1946 . . .

End quote

I worked for Mr. Buffet until I retired. My retirement is in a safe account 8 -)

In 2008 he supported Barack Obama for a very cynical reason. He said that with Obama there would be plenty of good bargains in the stock market after a year or so of Liberalism. In other words, vote for the incompetent or loony toons guy who will fatten my wallet and the hell with the rest of the country.

Of course Buffet’s “official” Presidential recommendation was a bit more flowery to disguise what he really meant. I have looked askance at the guy ever sense.

Peter Taylor

[sjw]

Peter if true, that's worse than cynical, it's pure evil.

Shayne

[Selene]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Rand identified the mixed-economy businessman, who gets money from government favors rather than from wealth-production, in 1946 . . .

End quote

I worked for Mr. Buffet until I retired. My retirement is in a safe account 8 -)

In 2008 he supported Barack Obama for a very cynical reason. He said that with Obama there would be plenty of good bargains in the stock market after a year or so of Liberalism. In other words, vote for the incompetent or loony toons guy who will fatten my wallet and the hell with the rest of the country.

Of course Buffet's "official" Presidential recommendation was a bit more flowery to disguise what he really meant. I have looked askance at the guy ever sense.

Peter Taylor

Peter:

It was actually much worse than that. "Wall Street" met with O'biwan at a very private lunch. From that lunch seventy-five (75%) of "Wall Street" campaign money went to electing him and the Democratic Congress. And boy! Did O'biwan and the Dems take very good care of Wall Street - YES THEY COULD AND YES THEY DID! Bailouts for Wall Street and the Unions are elegant paybacks.

Essentially, these folks should be tried and executed.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett also insisted that the wealthy didn't sacrifice. "There's no sacrifice among the rich," Buffett said. "There's plenty of sacrifice going on now. I mean, if you look at Iraq and now Afghanistan, there's been sacrifice. But I would doubt if you take the people on the Forbes 400 list -- whether many of them have a child or a grandchild that served in Iraq or Afghanistan -- they come home in body bags to Nebraska, but they don't have to call up anybody up at the country club to notify them," he said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/28/warren_buffett_theres_no_sacrifice_among_the_rich.html

[Selene]

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett also insisted that the wealthy didn't sacrifice. "There's no sacrifice among the rich," Buffett said. "There's plenty of sacrifice going on now. I mean, if you look at Iraq and now Afghanistan, there's been sacrifice. But I would doubt if you take the people on the Forbes 400 list -- whether many of them have a child or a grandchild that served in Iraq or Afghanistan -- they come home in body bags to Nebraska, but they don't have to call up anybody up at the country club to notify them," he said.

http://www.realclear...g_the_rich.html

Well there is a simple solution...

O'biwan should appoint a Spread the Sacrifice Czar, the SS Czar, and, together with the Social Security, the other SS thugs, randomly select the social security numbers of five thousand of the wealthiest's children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces and execute them.

Then send all the body bags to SAC HQ's in Omaha Nebraska and make the phone calls to the country clubs. There problem solved.