That is an enormous understatement. At 94, Buffet has witnessed history and has represented a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship. These things were not and are not hallucinations.
But for many, it seems, the lessons about co-operation, stable economic growth. the sane application of democratic principles, and the rule of law must be learned again.
It's the end of an era bona fides and respect for truth and accountability as the structural integrity of democratic society.
I will say that his pragmatism seemed to fall apart pretty quickly when the rubber met the road - unless I’m misinformed (which I may be).
Berkshire was a key player in the rail workers strike of 2022 and Warren didn’t seem to want to give an inch to the working man when given the opportunity to do so.
They stood clearly and simply for good moral judgment, fair systems and looked at the bigger picture to carry most people forward. They also based all their decision in facts, truth and science. They learn't their trades (economics & politics) over time and weren't afraid to adapt as times changed.
Their slow and steady presence did more for equality and fairness than many others. We will need to find these values again after the current times have played out.
> a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship
Please point out one case in which he wasn’t firmly on the side of capital over societal advancement. As far as I can tell he is deeply invested in oil and keeps shilling Coca Cola (and that’s probably only the surface).
> At 94, Buffet has witnessed history and has represented a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship
How exactly did he "represented a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship"?
> But for many, it seems, the lessons about co-operation, stable economic growth. the sane application of democratic principles, and the rule of law must be learned again.
Who are these "many" that need to be taught about those "democratic principles" and the "rule of law". How are these related to Buffett?
> It's the end of an era bona fides and respect for truth and accountability as the structural integrity of democratic society.
My father is 98. His health has declined gradually but visibly over the last 10 years. He's taking a mouthful of pills each day to keep himself alive. However, he's able to get up, walk, use the bathroom, feed himself etc. He can remember things that happened 5 minutes ago, last week and in his childhood. He keeps up to date with all the family affairs, and watches the news. Also my mother (his wife) is still alive and healthy, and they don't hate each other.
That's more than most people can expect if they even make it to their late 80s.
Frankly I'm astonished at people like Warren Buffet and David Attenborough (a hero of mine).
I met a lady in her 90s who looks and acts the same age as her daughter, who is in her 60s. She lives independently, talks quickly, walks without a cane, and has a generally youthful appearance and demeanor.
I asked what her secret is to aging so well. "I don't know, just don't have any health issues, I guess", she said.
Maybe if you can make it that long without encountering Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, or various other major issues... then you basically have a decent shot at still being fine and healthy at 94.
I’m not sure if it’s originally his but a small talk by him about getting a car made an impression on me and since watching it it’s become a good motivator to stay in shape.
The interesting thing about this is that Buffett himself has never really had a reputation for taking care of his body in terms of getting exercise or eating well.
At 94, there have probably been a dozen contradictory versions of what "eating well" meant to a large consensus of people. There should be a lot of skepticism for any particular version of "healthy" is when it comes to diet.
"Variety and moderation" is probably good enough advice for most people without specific health conditions.
I saw him at the Berkshire meeting about 25 years ago and he did walk very briskly. He probably figured he could exercise that way and get places quicker. He was always good at thinking that sort of stuff out.
> “It’s a big mistake, in my view, when you have seven and a half billion people that don’t like you very well, and you got 300 million that are crowing in some way about how well they’ve done - I don’t think it’s right, and I don’t think it’s wise,” Buffett said. “The United States won. I mean, we have become an incredibly important country, starting from nothing 250 years ago. There’s not been anything like it.”
I’m a bit slow in this field. Could someone explain how this quote relates to tariffs? I’ve re-read it three times now, looking for the connection to a tax on imported goods, but I just can’t see it.
I think it’s saying that the US population is crowing about how well we’ve done, and so we should be able to tax whatever imports we want? But what an odd way to say that if so. How well we’ve done seems completely unrelated to tariffs.
Then the quote caps off with some back-patting about how we’ve only been around 250 years, and that our rise is unprecedented. Again seemingly unrelated to tariffs.
Part of the justification for tarriffs is that America is somehow being 'taken advantage' of by the rest of the world and the tarriffs are the rest of the world finally paying their fair share. The reality is that (until now) America has had a uniquely privileged position in the world economy that got America, in general, very beneficial trade deals.
He's commenting on the attitude driving the tariffs.
Good question, and I think the misunderstanding is Buffett is speaking against, not for, tariffs here. I’m surprised none of the responses have spelled that out clearly yet.
He’s saying tariffs are making 7.5 billion people dislike us even more, and that jeopardizes our unique position in the world.
Buffett actually does share a fear of trade deficits, though. His proposed solution, as an alternative to tariffs, were "import certificates"-essentially a marketable credit required to import goods. These would be earned via exports by exporters, be freely priced and traded, and would essentially bind import levels to export levels.
That sounds awful a lot like we had it back in the Yugoslavia days. It wasn't exactly free market, as you might know. Companies that exported stuff had credits attached to them and with that quota they could then import goods. They couldn't trade those credits. You then had absurd situations like a company that sells agricultural stuff and has stores for those was also selling, for example, commodore 64 in their stores since that's what they imported.
Net capital inflows into the U.S. = U.S. trade deficit.
The balance of payments is simply: Sales of assets – Purchases of assets = Purchases of goods – Sales of goods
If you balance the trade, it means foreigners must stop investing into the US.
Sounds like it would achieve a similar effect, but would be far more complex to implement and yet would still have the effect of being a tax on imports while not actually generating any revenue for the federal government.
> A common response I’ve seen to this is Warren Buffett repeatedly expressing concern about the trade deficit. Buffett’s main concern has always been that we’re sending pieces of paper abroad that give foreigners claims on US assets. And this is true, but I’d argue it’s been a massive net positive on the whole. First, as a percentage of total ownership, foreign ownership of US securities is actually flat since 2008. So despite 20 years of a persistent current account deficit there hasn’t been a huge change in foreign ownership as a percentage of the total. But the current account deficit also reflects the way many firms in the USA outsource their comparative advantage. And that accrues to US firms (and households) as increases in net worth. This is a big reason why corporate profit margins have expanded so much in the last 30 years. Global competition has made US firms more efficient and that’s accrued to Americans as a huge gain in net worth. So this isn’t a situation where we’re just sending Dollars abroad for no good reason. We’re doing it in large part because that is investment in our businesses that has added value to those very firms and their owners. Could that all reverse? For sure. And weirdly, the thing that would cause it to reverse is ultra protectionist measures thereby reducing demand for US Dollar assets and reducing investment in US firms.
Change in general, should always come gradually , that way the inevitable consequences rear their head early. Its the bold paintstrokes that topple the world on its side.
Obamas biofuels come to mind triggering the arab spring by raising bread prices.
> Obamas biofuels come to mind triggering the arab spring by raising bread prices.
Why do you call them "Obama biofuels" when biofuel mandates were passed while Bush was president?
Standards for biofuels appeared in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [0] (mandating 4 billion gallons of biofuel by 2006, 7.5 billion by 2012) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [1], aka the Clean Energy Act of 2007 (mandating 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022). Bush signed both laws.
I assume that corn-state representatives were pushing for more biofuels, since farmers want to sell more corn, regardless of how green anything is, or is not. At the time Obama was one of many in congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who voted in favor of these laws.
I would agree with you that biofuel production exacerbated food supply issues leading into the Arab Spring.
I always run across great quotes from Warren Buffett, but I never spent any time actually reading any of his writings or anything written about him. What's the best place to start to absorb some of his wisdom? Anything that's applicable to startups, tech, and life in general, beyond being the CEO of a holding company?
Not to diminish any of his accomplishments, but read his quotes and story as being a product of his time. He famously missed out on a lot of solid tech investments because of his background as a value investor. Value investing doesn't exist the same way it did when Berkshire started making a name for itself. Tech investing also isn't them same as 1997, 2004, or 2010.
It's not that he missed out on it, both Buffett and munger said that they didn't really understand technology so they didn't feel a reason to go there. They felt they better understood insurance and railroads and candies and whatnot and they made Bank doing it.
Yeah, looking at the NASDAQ from 1997 is a good reminder of everyone's selection bias. Saying Buffett missed out on the winners (with 20/20 hindsight) is forgetting that he also missed out on a lot of losers.
Here's some of the now lesser known NASDAQ tech stocks that were doing well in 1997:
You are, and you're doing so naively, because one of the reasons Buffett has been successful is that he stuck to things that were in his circle of competence.
For Buffett I recommend Essays of Warren Buffett. Regarding Munger’s Almanack, I wrote a nice summary just before his death:
”A real estate investment of $24 by the Dutch to buy the island of Manhattan would today be roughly equivalent to $3 trillion. Across 378 years, that’s about a seven percent annual compound rate of return…”
It's a great book (I think), reading it now. It's the only book this far that I've brought with me to the gym (because I wanted to continue reading it, in between the exercises)
I still remember the feeling I got when I first read the first paragraph and especially this phrase:
"For one thing, if (a) you had taken 225 million orangutans distributed roughly as the U.S. population is; if (b) 215 winners were left after 20 days; and if (c) you found that 40 came from a particular zoo in Omaha, you would be pretty sure you were on to something."
Compared to anything in finance I've read up until then, it felt like I just found the right guy.
"The Intelligent Investor", by Benjamin Graham. He was Buffett's mentor, and contributed to that book. It's straight value investing. Never buy a startup.
There are biographies of Buffett. I read one of them years ago. It goes into great detail about the early deals that got him started. I never did quite understand the deal that moved him into the big leagues, the takeover of GEICO insurance.
I downloaded his letters to shareholders to an ebook reader, starting I believe in 1971 or so. Read all of it to the present, about 1500 pages (there's a lot of repetition)
What sticks out the most is what a clear thinker he is.
For his personal background, the history of his companies, and insight into his overall investment philosophy, the Aquired podcast did a three part series on Berkshire Hathaway back in 2021. They also interviewed Charlie Munger just before he passed away. They’re good overviews and enjoyable listens.
Buffett worked, at least informally, with the Obama administration on some financial policy issues. And he is a proponent of greater taxes on the very rich. Here's one short video (2:46) in which he talks about it:
If the US government really wanted to bring back industrial manufacturing, tax policy is one obvious route - eg a 2/3 tax on billionaire and corporate wealth, such as on the huge pile of cash Buffet-Berkshire is sitting on, but then offer a way out - invest that cash in domestic manufacturing and R & D and it won't be taxed.
This could motivate the private sector to go back to the Bell Labs model, too.
that doesnt really work if they have to compete on price with foreign producers that have lower labor costs, looser environmental regulations, deeper supply chains and better process knowledge. might as well eat the tax (waiting for monopolistic opportunities) or light the money on fire
I bet he does. He has money outside berkshire and I'm sure the thought of spending hours every day investing his own money in smaller things, taking more risks etc sounds like fun.
I would assume this means that he is not in great health. Hopefully I'm wrong and he just decided that 85 years or so of hustling for dollars was enough.
Had to look this up because I am not rich enough to be on a first-name basis with my close personal billionaire friend Charles Thomas Munger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger
> Had to look this up because I am not rich enough to be on a first-name basis with my close personal billionaire friend Charles Thomas Munger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger
It's almost certain that the GP isn't either, and is only parasocially on a first name basis.
It's kind of a damn shame a man like that was not tapped for any major economic position in the government. I don't know how men like Peter Navarro got so far. In a sense, all the money in the world didn't actually fulfill his true potential, and I say that with the utmost respect.
He was asked by Schwarzenegger for advice on California economic policy. Warren did his research, and astutely suggested they should try to scrap Proposition 13 (IMO it's among California's worst policies, but it's a political third rail). I don't think he was asked for economic policy advice ever again :)
I'm sure he's full of good ideas. I think they were just a bit more ambitious than the last 40 years of politicians were willing to stomach or advocate for.
Warren Buffet has warned about the trade deficit problem since 2003 and has proposed an alternate solution called "import certificates" where exporters could earn them and sell them to the importers who must use them. This would result in an even trade balance. He admitted it's essentially a tariff by another name but a more fair and systematic one. In other words, he aligns with Peter Navarro in the problem but differs in the solution.
Not convinced working for government is the best use of your potential, though considering he owns 5% of all US Treasury Bills, I wouldn't say his impact is any less than being a government employee.
> I don't know how men like Peter Navarro got so far.
It’s a weird story. IIRC in the run for president before trumps first term he sent Jared Kushner to find out about trade. Kushner browsed Amazon, looking at book covers, and picked Navarro’s book because he liked the title… and the rest is history
Readit News
That is an enormous understatement. At 94, Buffet has witnessed history and has represented a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship. These things were not and are not hallucinations.
But for many, it seems, the lessons about co-operation, stable economic growth. the sane application of democratic principles, and the rule of law must be learned again.
It's the end of an era bona fides and respect for truth and accountability as the structural integrity of democratic society.
Berkshire was a key player in the rail workers strike of 2022 and Warren didn’t seem to want to give an inch to the working man when given the opportunity to do so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_...
They stood clearly and simply for good moral judgment, fair systems and looked at the bigger picture to carry most people forward. They also based all their decision in facts, truth and science. They learn't their trades (economics & politics) over time and weren't afraid to adapt as times changed.
Their slow and steady presence did more for equality and fairness than many others. We will need to find these values again after the current times have played out.
Please point out one case in which he wasn’t firmly on the side of capital over societal advancement. As far as I can tell he is deeply invested in oil and keeps shilling Coca Cola (and that’s probably only the surface).
How exactly did he "represented a vision of betterment, a just society, and sound economic stewardship"?
> But for many, it seems, the lessons about co-operation, stable economic growth. the sane application of democratic principles, and the rule of law must be learned again.
Who are these "many" that need to be taught about those "democratic principles" and the "rule of law". How are these related to Buffett?
> It's the end of an era bona fides and respect for truth and accountability as the structural integrity of democratic society.
What?
You're splitting. Psychiatrically binarizing things into two possible states - a psychiatric pathology fueled by online propaganda in this context.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
He's literally older than chocolate chips!
[1] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_chip
Dead Comment
That's more than most people can expect if they even make it to their late 80s.
Frankly I'm astonished at people like Warren Buffet and David Attenborough (a hero of mine).
I asked what her secret is to aging so well. "I don't know, just don't have any health issues, I guess", she said.
Maybe if you can make it that long without encountering Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, or various other major issues... then you basically have a decent shot at still being fine and healthy at 94.
I really hope I could be productive at 90. Heck, I hope I'm productive at 70.
This seems like a good moment to share it.
https://youtu.be/0fMRHpguTPM?si=75lLHzDynMCKhT9H
"Variety and moderation" is probably good enough advice for most people without specific health conditions.
> “It’s a big mistake, in my view, when you have seven and a half billion people that don’t like you very well, and you got 300 million that are crowing in some way about how well they’ve done - I don’t think it’s right, and I don’t think it’s wise,” Buffett said. “The United States won. I mean, we have become an incredibly important country, starting from nothing 250 years ago. There’s not been anything like it.”
I think it’s saying that the US population is crowing about how well we’ve done, and so we should be able to tax whatever imports we want? But what an odd way to say that if so. How well we’ve done seems completely unrelated to tariffs.
Then the quote caps off with some back-patting about how we’ve only been around 250 years, and that our rise is unprecedented. Again seemingly unrelated to tariffs.
He's commenting on the attitude driving the tariffs.
He’s saying tariffs are making 7.5 billion people dislike us even more, and that jeopardizes our unique position in the world.
Net capital inflows into the U.S. = U.S. trade deficit. The balance of payments is simply: Sales of assets – Purchases of assets = Purchases of goods – Sales of goods
If you balance the trade, it means foreigners must stop investing into the US.
Deleted Comment
https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf
Though he makes the distinction between "import certificates" and Trump's version of tariffs.
> A common response I’ve seen to this is Warren Buffett repeatedly expressing concern about the trade deficit. Buffett’s main concern has always been that we’re sending pieces of paper abroad that give foreigners claims on US assets. And this is true, but I’d argue it’s been a massive net positive on the whole. First, as a percentage of total ownership, foreign ownership of US securities is actually flat since 2008. So despite 20 years of a persistent current account deficit there hasn’t been a huge change in foreign ownership as a percentage of the total. But the current account deficit also reflects the way many firms in the USA outsource their comparative advantage. And that accrues to US firms (and households) as increases in net worth. This is a big reason why corporate profit margins have expanded so much in the last 30 years. Global competition has made US firms more efficient and that’s accrued to Americans as a huge gain in net worth. So this isn’t a situation where we’re just sending Dollars abroad for no good reason. We’re doing it in large part because that is investment in our businesses that has added value to those very firms and their owners. Could that all reverse? For sure. And weirdly, the thing that would cause it to reverse is ultra protectionist measures thereby reducing demand for US Dollar assets and reducing investment in US firms.
* https://disciplinefunds.com/2025/04/24/three-things-you-gues...
Why do you call them "Obama biofuels" when biofuel mandates were passed while Bush was president?
Standards for biofuels appeared in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [0] (mandating 4 billion gallons of biofuel by 2006, 7.5 billion by 2012) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [1], aka the Clean Energy Act of 2007 (mandating 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022). Bush signed both laws.
I assume that corn-state representatives were pushing for more biofuels, since farmers want to sell more corn, regardless of how green anything is, or is not. At the time Obama was one of many in congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who voted in favor of these laws.
I would agree with you that biofuel production exacerbated food supply issues leading into the Arab Spring.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Securi...
All this with low risk holding lots of cash. He has not missed anything.
Yeah, looking at the NASDAQ from 1997 is a good reminder of everyone's selection bias. Saying Buffett missed out on the winners (with 20/20 hindsight) is forgetting that he also missed out on a lot of losers.
Here's some of the now lesser known NASDAQ tech stocks that were doing well in 1997:
From: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/tech-stocks-and-nasd...And nobody ever went wrong by buying IBM
https://www.stripe.press/poor-charlies-almanack/cover
”A real estate investment of $24 by the Dutch to buy the island of Manhattan would today be roughly equivalent to $3 trillion. Across 378 years, that’s about a seven percent annual compound rate of return…”
https://www.lostbookofsales.com/notes/poor-charlies-almanack...
> “In terms of managing money, there wasn’t anybody better in the world to talk to for many, many decades than Charlie.”
Buffet gets all the press, but he acknowledges Munger as a huge part, if you listen.
https://business.columbia.edu/cgi-finance/chazen-global-insi...
"For one thing, if (a) you had taken 225 million orangutans distributed roughly as the U.S. population is; if (b) 215 winners were left after 20 days; and if (c) you found that 40 came from a particular zoo in Omaha, you would be pretty sure you were on to something."
Compared to anything in finance I've read up until then, it felt like I just found the right guy.
There are biographies of Buffett. I read one of them years ago. It goes into great detail about the early deals that got him started. I never did quite understand the deal that moved him into the big leagues, the takeover of GEICO insurance.
https://www.amazon.com/Essays-Warren-Buffett-Lessons-Corpora...
What sticks out the most is what a clear thinker he is.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7aFD7bbigjgjUt0L2LWk...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJzTsTU1xL8
This could motivate the private sector to go back to the Bell Labs model, too.
Dead Comment
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/03/warren-buffett-to-ask-board-...
On one hand, he doesn't sound that great (in terms of subtle overall health markers in his voice) when he talks.
On the other hand, he's 94 and most people (especially men) don't make it into their 90s, so...
It's almost certain that the GP isn't either, and is only parasocially on a first name basis.
I'm sure he's full of good ideas. I think they were just a bit more ambitious than the last 40 years of politicians were willing to stomach or advocate for.
Well I don't think him sitting on billions of dollars at 94 is better from a societal perspective.
It’s a weird story. IIRC in the run for president before trumps first term he sent Jared Kushner to find out about trade. Kushner browsed Amazon, looking at book covers, and picked Navarro’s book because he liked the title… and the rest is history
Oh god, you're not:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328969-report-ku...
I feel impotent, what is there to be done?
[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DINJlumRqed/