Month: November 2010

A couple of Buffett’s quotes

Chasing my previous post. These quotes are from the 1980s but even more relevant today.

On a hypothetical shipwrecked 25 brokers stranded on an uninhabited island:
Faced with developing an economy that would maximize their consumption and pleasure, would they, I wonder, assign 20 of their number to produce food, clothing, shelter, etc., while setting five to endlessly trading options on the future output of the 20?

And another one:
We have “professional” investors, those who manage many billions, to thank for most of this turmoil. Instead of focusing on what businesses will do in the years ahead, many prestigious money managers now focus on what they expect other money managers to do in the days ahead.

Jedi Master has spoken

Many of you know my stance on taxes – I don’t think that progressive taxation is the end of the world. But when one of the richest men on the planet says that he and the ones like him are not taxed enough there must be something to it. Buffett Tells ABC Rich People Should Pay Higher Taxes Or as Fox News would conclude – a hidden socialist agenda.
I read a book about Buffett recently. His genius is simplicity. The way he succeeds is he gets the same information as everyone else – from annual reports – but he knows what information is important. He just knows how to ask the right questions. All of those Efficient Markets Theory apologists that question his record are a bunch of Ph.Ds that claim to know the future by looking at the charts of past events. There are still a bunch of those being employed by big banks to this day as market technicians. But in essence, they are no better than astrologists.
Despite having grown up in a very conservative family (his father was a member of the John Birch Society) he nonetheless learned to think for himself and has become known for his support of progressive causes throughout his career. But he does not let any sort of ideology guide him. All that matters is economic sense and right now that means to lower taxes on middle class and raise them on the top 1%. That also means that without Uncle Sam coming to rescue in 2008-2009 there would be no Ford, GM and Citi anymore and millions more would be unemployed. Pretty Good for Government Work

Of course, our fiscal conservatives love to point out, in horror, to France and Germany with their constant strikes that paralyze railroads and airports, etc. implying that this is what we’re going to turn to if we raise taxes on the rich, but, frankly, it’s like comparing apples and oranges: the unions in this country are so neutered that the only thing they can do these days is give concessions to the employers. Unions Yield on Wage Scales to Preserve Jobs Trust me the strike in this country would be suicidal for workers and unions. Employers would just move operations elsewhere. The diminished union influence is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons why middle class is disappearing here. The top 1% controls about 23% of the wealth in this country. And the rest are living paycheck to paycheck while voting Republican and fearing Socialism.

Obama keeps tax cuts for the rich

First of all let me congratulate those destitute 1% of the population who were scraping by paycheck to paycheck and who can now breathe a sigh of relief. I heard so many frightening stories about how the 3% increase of their tax rate will slow the economic recovery. Now these 3% will sure trickle down to the rest of the population. But enough sarcasm – I’m really happy for them. Maybe now they will finally stop complaining that Obama administration treats them unfairly. From my previous posts you probably know that the abundance of complaints and general thinness of skin (real or assumed) on Wall Street (who else is in the top tax bracket?) is my favorite topic. The amount of wimps in the top bracket is breathtaking. Makes you wonder how is it that they made it to the top?

I think it all comes down to the fact that being viewed as a victim has become fashionable in this country. It’s a foolproof PR strategy. Moreover, it’s convenient – you get to blame a third party (Obama, government, stiff regulations, communists, etc.) for all of your misfortunes.
Obama, unfortunately, got himself in the position where he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. One part of the country thinks that he’s in bed with Wall Street, the other part of the country is convinced that he’s out to destroy capitalism, and media doesn’t bother to notice the controversy. For their own convenience certain news sources can criticize Obama for having too many Goldman guys in his administration (alluding, of course, that he’s conniving against the working man) and in the same breath accuse him of socialistic tendencies. I fault Obama for not fighting back hard enough against this nonsense. He’s in dire need of some pit bulls and a Fox-like echo chamber with talking heads. If there’s one thing I admire about the Republicans is that they are masters at propaganda. Their mantra that repetition makes it true really works: death panels, Obama’s Kenyan birth, middle class tax increases – all of it stuck.

Now that Obama kept Bush’s tax cuts do you think that he’s going to be thanked by the business community? Fat chance! Investors Show Obama No Respect in Global Poll as Profits Surge As I described above it’s convenient to always be pissed off about something. Investors made money this year, profits surged – but they’re still not happy. If they are not pissed off at Obama they really have no one else. They need him as a human receptacle of all kinds of misdirected anger. Especially now that the Congress is Republican.

To Obama I say – may the force be with you!

Elections 2010

Well, I don’t know about you but I’m quite pleased with the outcome of the elections. First, Harry Reid held on to his seat. It’s not that I particularly like him, but think of the possible alternative the “2nd amendment remedies” Sharron Angle.
Second is that Democrats lost with much smaller margins than the polls showed. The Rasmussen polls consistently had Dem Senate candidates in Pennsylvania and Illinois behind by 5-6% margin but they lost by a razor thin margin. This makes me question whether Rasmussen polls are biased against Democrats. In other words, I didn’t really see a tsunami. I saw a lot of independent voters expressing their displeasure by smallest of margins and knowing their fickle nature I don’t see why they wouldn’t change their mind and vote the other way 2 years from now.

My predictions about the elections and the markets that I made on July 19th were quite right.
some-predictions-for-the-near-and-not-so-near-future
The market rallied about 10% since then.

Now, show us how it’s done, guys!