Buffet invests in BAC

cphbravo96:

oscar_the_grouch:

Many of those that called Buffet a hypocrite for asking for a tax hike and said that he should rather "cut a big check to the governmnet" should now see that the man means well. (by the way, why is it customary in the U.S. to say "the government," which usually refers to people in power, and not "the State" which actually refers to the set of institutions the government controls? I am curious and not making a "answer-the-question-yourself-to-be enlightened-like-me" kind of remark)

It's probably because we actually have 50 states and because people tend to live in one...so referring to the "State" while conversing would generally imply the state that you are currently standing in or living in...which could be confusing when in dialogue.

oscar_the_grouch:

I doubt that relative to other things you could do with 5 billion right now, his investment in BofA will pay off any time soon. He's likely to be dead by the time this move makes sense and the profits will go to some charity.

Are you trying to be wrong???

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/buffett-s-bank-of-america-stak…

Regards

Thanks for this answer. I didn't grow up in a Federal Republic so it makes sense although there are Federal Republics, like Argentina, where they still refer to debt as "Public Debt." I understand that this is just semantics but people like Luntz and Lakoff have shown how the choice of words can induce attitudes towards policies.

As for you second question of whether I am trying to be wrong. The answer is no. And I explained just above this post why. I could still be wrong, but given that the counterfactual I had in mind wasn't Buffet not benefiting from the trade but rather him benefiting more by doing something else, the article you send doesn't really convince me either way but it does help.

Thanks again.

txjustin:

oscar_the_grouch:

Many of those that called Buffet a hypocrite for asking for a tax hike and said that he should rather "cut a big check to the governmnet" should now see that the man means well. (by the way, why is it customary in the U.S. to say "the government," which usually refers to people in power, and not "the State" which actually refers to the set of institutions the government controls? I am curious and not making a "answer-the-question-yourself-to-be enlightened-like-me" kind of remark)

I doubt that relative to other things you could do with 5 billion right now, his investment in BofA will pay off any time soon. He's likely to be dead by the time this move makes sense and the profits will go to some charity.

So at the very least, Buffet is not just thinking how he can get richer but rather thinking how he can contribute to reconstructing some of the conditions of the U.S. of his youth that made it possible for a weirdo like himself to make a killing. And I am pretty pretty sure he also saved the U.S. some cash as well.

On a related point, do any of you know of a significant bet that Buffet has ever made against a particular company? I don't know too much about specific trades but I do know that, for example, Soros broke the pound and Chanos bet against Enron but I haven't heard of Buffet short selling anything.

This is literally one of the dumbest posts I've read, ever.

Really? How about a post like this one:

txjustin:

Maxine Waters is such a piece of shit. I hope her, Harry Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee, Nancy Pelosi, etc. go to hell a lot sooner than later.

Clearly very deep thoughts that foster a sense of community here and spark a productive conversation. But you are right, wondering whether there was a better opportunity out there for Buffet and then, rather than condemning someone to burn in hell actually considering that someone could be something other than an Econ101 rational agent, sounds truly retarded.

Thanks for taking the time to comment though. It's an honor to be on the list of superlatives you must keep next to your diary.

Best, Oscar