Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Watch Warren Buffett Squirm

In an awesome interview, Bloomberg's Betty Liu takes Warren Buffett to the mat and asks him at the 4:13 mark, point blank, if you are in favor of billionaires paying more taxes, why don't you just send the government a check? He dodges the question and Liu asks him again, and we get to see the weasel Buffett really is.

Also of note in the video is Buffett's anti-capitalist stand where he talks with disdain of financiers as "paper shufflers." The man is a self-hating capitalist.

The only area he is right in is when he sticks to his knitting and talks about what is going on in his businesses, which do not show indications of a double-dip recession.


17 comments:

  1. This is deeply silly.

    When we talk about tax rates, we're talking about the policies the government pursues that apply to the country.

    No one person can, in a burst of civic responsibility, significantly affect the deficit through donations.

    We can, however, add about $700 billion in revenue by returning to surplus-era marginal rates on income earned over $250,000. And there's no reason to think, given our postwar economic performance, that these rates would inhibit economic growth. So, let's do it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "paper shufflers"

    ???

    People that are trading money, contracts, or pieces of ownership are "paper shufflers?" Maybe so, but what the hell does he think he is? And why does he hate financiers so?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Most businesses, save a few like freight haulers can see a recession as it begins. In my business I didn't feel the last recession until the end of 2009. What you see is a slippage in your growth rates which you don't know if it is related to a Q over Q anomaly or a real slowing. It takes several Q's before the slowing is felt.

    Talk about sending a message to the market that your revenues and earnings are going to be solid. He better have that same message on his earnings call later this month.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Someone should send him this link: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. @reflectionephemeral

    > When we talk about tax rates, we're talking about the policies the government pursues that apply to the country.

    We're also talking about coercive confiscation of other people's money. The point is that Buffett should be the first to pony up and set an example if he wants other people to do so willingly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @reflect: Take my neighbors property but hands off mine! I love the disingenuous caring people like you that care about what's going on right up to the point that it costs you money out of your own pocket. The one thing that at least still rings true for nearly all American's, whether on the left or right, is our hatred of paying taxes. I guess that is at least some small victory. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. @anonymi: Yep, raising taxes is a coercive measure. We have to stop at red lights, vaccinate our kids, and keep our pants on in public. Society is truly tyranny.

    Heading back into the realm of policy after your detour into psychology, the point remains that there is no evidence in US or world history to support the proposition that the Bush Jr. marginal income tax levels on the highest incomes are good for the economy or the deficit. Therefore, we should return them to surplus-era levels.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @reflection If the HPV vaccine kills or injures my daughter like the 2 dozen or so deaths and several thousand adverse reactions should I rejoice somehow that society at large has benefited?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @reflectionphemeral: Applying your same perverted logic, there is also no indication that the balance of the tax cuts for the bottom 95% did anything either,so we should pull them back too since that will mean another $3T over 10 years of revenue or a cut in the deficit by 1/3. After all the bottom 90% had not problem paying at that tax level in those good ol' surplus days.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @anonymous: That is true in theory, but what we've seen in reality is that the income of about the bottom 80 percent has been stagnant in the past decade plus. See, e.g., http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html

    So hopefully we can return to Clinton-era prosperity for all, and perhaps Clinton-era marginal income rates, soon enough. But in this economy, with this background context, right now isn't the time to revert all rates to surplus-era levels.

    @Sam: I don't believe that the rumors about the HPV vaccine are true. See, e.g., http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/michele-bachmanns-hpv-vaccine-safety-retardation-comments-misleading/story?id=14516625

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Reflect --

    You don't get it. I'm too tired to explain why. I would recommend that you read Bob Higgs' writings on the post-WWII economy and Peter Schiff's material on the allegedly high tax rates from the 40s to the 70s. Your history is all wrong; your logic is all wrong. I'm just too exhausted to pick apart all of your points, as doing so would take me all night. Bottom line -- stop being a thief! People have the right to keep what they earn regardless of what you or Warren Buffet says about it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Buffet wants to moan about "paper-shufflers" he should look no further than the millions of government bureaucrats employed to enforce and process the hundreds of thousands of pages of value-destroying regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @reflectionphemeral: If you check out real wages during the Clinton years, they actually rose into late 2000s, so would that mean that higher taxes on everyone is good for real wages? I don't think it does, but if we are going to make arguments based on correlation alone, it is as valid or invalid as the argument you are trying to make. Secondly, if a theory does not work in reality, then it is not a valid theory. I think you invalidated your argument right there.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "No one person can, in a burst of civic responsibility, significantly affect the deficit through donations."

    Fuck that. He can donate his entire fortune to the government if he is so tax-horny.

    "We can, however, add about $700 billion in revenue by returning to surplus-era marginal rates on income earned over $250,000."

    Why should "we" do that?

    " And there's no reason to think, given our postwar economic performance,"

    Utter rubbish/non-economic thinking, since you're not showing any causal relation here. That performance would have occured in spite of, not because of, taxes.

    "that these rates would inhibit economic growth. So, let's do it. "

    No.

    "anonymi: Yep, raising taxes is a coercive measure. We have to stop at red lights, vaccinate our kids, and keep our pants on in public. Society is truly tyranny."

    Government coercion =/= society. Reserve this rhetorical trick for idiots. Nor are the things you mentioned even considered widely to be goods.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The man is a disgrace to his father's legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who's that maniac?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Buffett is the fat hog the WS Occupiers are looking to roast and yet he still appears to love being in the media lime light as he thinks he's a darling of the Left. Would love to see Buffett stroll out and visit the occupiers.

    ReplyDelete