I heard from folks in the room that the way 3G and Buffett came in to do layoffs at Tim Hortons was one of the most cold blooded things they've ever seen.
>The specific phrase was noted in a recent online discussion related to Warren Buffett, where a user commented, "Warren Buffett is a great investor but nobody in finance buys his folksy image. Everybody knows he's an animal," to suggest he is a ruthless, cold-blooded businessman, likely in reference to aggressive business tactics like mass layoffs.
Anyway I don't think he's a ruthless cold-blooded type, although he is educated and very hard working. Also sometimes layoffs happen in business.
Still, he avoided political scrutiny (say comparing to Musk or Bezos) by maintaining this image. That was wise.
Find a better dictionary.
Buffet is a bigamist. By all intents and purposes he lived with two wives. The legal status was not that of bigamy, to be clear. He married his other wife after his first wife died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
The personal section here is not exactly false, but is a great example of how one should not trust Wikipedia outright. A careful reading of it shows his lifelong relationships/marriage with two women at the same time.
Look, I'm not going to yuck his yum. Do whatever you want man. But the homely aww shucks image is very intentional. And very much against his actual life choices. Homespun he ain't.
In modern America peoples marriages breaking down and then them getting together with someone else is pretty common.
Had a wife, they split up, but didn't get divorced because he had no prenup and he was one of the wealthiest people in the country.
After she died he married again.
Say what you want, but the list of billionaires who have donated such large amounts of money while still alive (or dead) is small.
Cherry picking events like layoffs, without truly knowing how much was he involved (Berkshire directors notoriously enjoy lots of autonomy) or if the layoffs made sense, etc, seems a stretch when we're drowned with sociopath world-ruling-ambitious CEOs, from Musk to Altman, through Thiele.
How much money has he saved dodging taxes over the years[1]?
[1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
In any case, what am I looking at here? There's no tax dodging. He gets paid 100Mish per year and pays taxes on those amounts.
You don't get taxes on your stock appreciation until you sell.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2025/02/03/ame...
I don't want billionaires to donate anything, I don't want them to use their money to shape the world to their liking. I want them to pay their fair share of taxes and a functional government that properly allocates those extra funds instead of funding the bare minimum.
To take a recent example, the median income in New York City is about $79k/year (before taxes), while Bill Ackman alone essentially threw away 21.5x that in his failed attempt to influence the mayoral election.
I could've also mentioned Ackman personally calling Trump in 2020 to beg him to shut down the economy for a month and my argument would be just the same: I don't want billionaires using their money to shape the world to their liking.
Which all coincidentally tax billionaires a lot to the point there might not be billionaire, but it's not the 'fair share' that people thought of. It's not asking the rich people to pay more because they make more, but because they owned non-reproducible privileges or because they imposed a cost on our shared environment such as CO2 emission.
Don't tax what people produce, but what they took.
The tax revenue collected would be then be invested by government to boost the economy or else return to the people via the Citizen's Dividend.
I’m not the best basketball player, but I can admire the game of the best players without being jealous of them.
False in the general case - with inherited wealth, someone who starts with a lot but grows more slowly will beat a fast grower who started with nothing, at least on short time scales.
In other words, you can build a better OS than Windows today, and have better business sense than Bill Gates, but it'll still take you years to catch up to him wealth wise if you're starting at zero.
> I’m not the best basketball player, but I can admire the game of the best players without being jealous of them.
I agree with that - with any art/practice (business, programming, music, sports, etc), it's always inspiring to see the best play.
However, I'd argue that in our current business culture, many players will
1) do things I'm not comfortable doing morally - the sports equivalent of Maradonna's Mano de Dios [0] - so I'm not really comfortable using them as role models (I just tell myself I can do better by playing fair). Examples include Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, so-called libertarians with entire business that consist of "use your friends in government to get juicy government contracts and grow rich off that sweet, sweet taxpayer money" (SpaceX, Palantir), Jobs, Zuckerberg and Gates ripping off their friends and co-founders, products that are intentionally addictive (cigarette companies), etc.
2) not actually be that good but just be in a good position - many rich people are honestly just lucky. Yes, you have the serial entrepreneurs that make _several_ billion dollar fortunes like Jim Clark, you have the wise investors like Warren Buffet, but you also have people like Adam Neumann [1]or any New York real estate tycoon who got started with a small million-dollar loan from their millionaire parents/Saudi oil princes who just got lucky.
In particular, I firmly believe I've got more money-making talent than a random Saudi oil prince, even if my bank account doesn't reflect that.
Or to use the sports metaphor, I believe I'm a better player than a lot of people currently in the big leagues, even if it's taking a while for the rest of the world to realize that :)
Not true regarding SpaceX, they were just cheaper and better than the competitors. They had to sue the government to even be able to compete against Boeing/Lockheed for military contracts. Who had more friends in the government in the 2010s, SpaceX or Boeing/Lockheed? In 2014, NASA awarded two contracts to develop spacecrafts for transporting astronauts to the ISS (at the time, American astronauts flew to the ISS only on Russian Soyuz). SpaceX received $2.6B (for Dragon), Boeing received $4.2B (for Starliner). Since that time, SpaceX has made 11 operational flights with astronauts to the ISS, while Boeing has made 0 (they're still working on it). It's not friends in the government, it's delivering services faster and for a lower price.
Elon Musk is a tenderprenuer, as we call them in africa.
however what made him a billionaire was gvt contracts. I guess all i'm tryna say if you wanna be a fat cat (rich) gvt contracts is a lucrative way to do it.
Which are responsible among other things for the quasi-total eradication of polio from this planet, provided vaccines for billions (literally) people across the globe in poor countries and have been major contributors in malaria and hiv treatment, prevention and research.
Also, they provided funds to millions of small rural farmers in third world countries to improve productivity and yields.
When I traveled Madagascar, plenty of villages had water and waste infrastructure built with the aid of that foundation too.
By the way, their balance sheets are public, and audited every year.
I'm baffled by the low-level conspirationism encountered on HN, it feels more and more like reading boomer's facebook everyday.
You're saying that WB was not shy to give away money. I'm saying that he was not shy to make it.