Another reason to hate Warren Buffett

[Hannah Bell]

Warren Buffett may be congratulating himself for all the good press he is getting for the gesture (note: his request to other filthy rich capitalists to put their money into "philanthropy")--but this has to be seen in the context of what's been called the "single worst day of Buffett's life," from a p.r. standpoint, which happened just back in June when he had to testify in front of Congress about his association with the ratings agency Moody's.

Buffett's gigantic investment company, Berkshire Hathaway, is the single-largest shareholder in Moody's, which, along with the other ratings agencies, played a key role in enabling the Great Recession. They are the ones who gave assurances that the toxic investments devised by the investment banks were safe. Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and the rest of the gang couldn't have sowed the wholesale destruction that they did without the assistance of the ratings agencies.

Grilled about Moody's by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Buffett argued that the ratings agencies weren't to blame, because everybody was fooled by the housing bubble--"Look at me. I was wrong on it too"--as if the whole job of the ratings agencies wasn't supposed to be that they did their homework and weren't fooled when everyone else was. But Buffett went further, rejecting the idea that Moody's should even have new management. Having directly profited by investments in a company that played a major part in touching off the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Buffett defended the status quo.

Anybody who's lost a job or taken a pay cut or seen their community blighted in the current crisis can, in part, thank Warren Buffett and his investment strategy.No matter how much he "gives back," it will never be as much as he has taken away. He's not a role-model. He's a con man relentlessly looking for new hustles, no matter what the cost to society. His "Giving Pledge" is just another con.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/08/19/another-reason-to-hate-buffett

[dkf]

1. That isn't giving back...its refusing to help the govt pay its debts!

The rich are leaving this monstrous debt to us middle class schmucks.

[Herbert Walker]

2. Another reason...

...He also denies man-made global climate change. (Must cut into his profits)

[unblock]

3. it's all relative.

as filthy rich people go, buffett is one of the better ones.

for the most part, he makes his money in legitimate, sound, conservative companies. not exclusively, but for the most part. plus his personal commitment to will away not just half his wealth but nearly all of it (i think he's leaving each kid $5,000,000, which is huge by mortal standards but puny by ultra-rich buffett standards) is FAR better than, say, what sam walton did in leaving his rotten kids super rich and in full control of wal-mart. sam walton was a more-of-less decent discounter (again, relatively speaking); the importing everything from china crap and the rotton treatment of workers really blossomed under the kids.

so it's not that he's good in an absolute sense. no one becomes rich or powerful without committing big crimes, as the saying goes. but buffett hasn't completely lost perspective like most of his peers have.

[Hannah Bell]

4. lol. aig: associated with spies since its founding.

& he's not giving away his money.

[unblock]

5. well at least the hadline of this story says he IS giving away his fortune

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/index.htm

true, it's "only" 85% of it, and also true that it's being funneled through charitable organizations such as the gates foundation, which exerts its own brand of pressures. but at least he's not just plowing it into his kids' bank accounts.


and as i indicated, sure, he's an investor and some of the companies he invests in aren't, well, ideal.

as i said it's relative. try finding a better multi-billionaire. you won't find too many. even oprah has attracted a slew of legal complaints.

[Hannah Bell]

6. that's for the rubes. tax-free foundations controlled by the funders = tax-free investment fund,

tax-free operations fund.

the rubes don't get it. they think these are "nice" people.

they're the fucking richest people in the world, you think they did it by being "nice"?