Respectful. Thoughtful. Honest, short critique of the side-effects of shareholder capitalism.
Hamilton, your title hurt. I have studied Buffett and followed many of his investment principles throughout my life. I have owned the stock at times (for years) and attended the annual meeting a couple times. He played the game well.
But I hear you asking, “is this the right game for widespread human flourishing?”
I had a series of life events that awakened me to new perspectives about the world, more specifically the political economy. I used to separate business and politics with a clean break in my mind. I can no longer see where one begins and the other ends, nor see daylight between the two. The way we order society is a choice, most often a choice by those with immense power in the prevailing system.
The reigning ideology of our lifetimes has been managerial capitalism driven by corporate consensus. The ideology cannot seem to address the greatest issues of our current moment in time. We have a meta-crisis upon us that will require a new ideology to shake the system and reorder the political economy.
This is now my chief concern. It has drawn me into political reform as never before in my life. It is the basis for my first substack—The Common Sense Papers. My next article will speak to the ideological turning point that we now face.
Thank you for jarring me with your title. The Buffett era must close. Something new must rise. It’s time to reboot the system for the common good!
Exactly! That’s just showing wisdom to see it. It was understandably appealing and now we see the problems. Time to use the inspiration for innovation that drove many beneficial developments on a system that gives humanity a better future than the scary dystopia we get if we do nothing.
One way our old Uncle Warren, as resolute as Trump's desk, made a good bundle was by buying up trailer parks, putting in a few asphalt driveways and fake flower pots, then raising the lot fees on the poor. And so... there you get the picture.
When money (a token measuring deservedness) is a measure of how much one (or a group) is worth, it should come as no surprise that those with the most money feel, act and claim to be the most deserving! The more money one has, the more one feels entitled to have an increasing amount of it.
I just discovered your post. I will start reading your older material! This was a good article.
I love the fact that health care completely defeated Warren Buffett. It was a slaughter, not even a close game. The three smartest guys in the U.S. room - Buffett, Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon - got together to "disrupt", "transform" and otherwise buzzword the health care economy into some new form. In three years they:
1. Filed papers to form a non-profit
2. Hired a famous doctor/journalist to run it
3. Named the non-profit
That's it. Great job, guys. Oh, and JPM then formed a consulting subsidiary to advise employers on how to buy health care, presumably relying on all the lessons they learned from filing IRS paperwork. Capitalism, shareholder or otherwise, doesn't work in health care. Buffett may have been a genius, but not genius enough to recognize that certain forms of human interaction lie outside the bounds of the marketplace.
My problem with Buffett was for all his regular guy folksiness and reputation for decency; how much was just comparatively to the loud assholes and/or just disguised miserliness? Sure, it's so "normal" to get $1 ice cream but it's not a coincidence it's also cheap. It's true he chose not to prey upon his acolytes with tooth and claw, but he was still making money off of their money. And if he's leaving his kids moderate amounts (subjective to what?) and he's not living ostentatiously, and he's clearly not saving the world...then what is the point? He's just hoarding treasure like a tiny dragon man? If he's going to give it away in his will (because no one will challenge that) why wait? Everything you say is correct but it's almost too kind. Maybe I'm more cynical than you or more idealistic? Strangely I can't decide which applies here.
Also- ordered your book through bookshop to pick up locally today.
And I have another question that's not related to this piece but labor.
I have a feeling it might be helpful for me to have an understanding of the structure of these things in the near future, so if you know the answer I'd appreciate it! I've found competing versions.
At Ports the longshoreman and associated dock workers are the labor, yes? Stevedore is used for management now? Not historically but currently? I feel like I should have learned this when they were renegotiating but somehow didn't.
Historically I'm seeing stevedore was on the boat and longshoreman was on the dock, but I don't see any stevedore labeled union, so I'm assuming the description of that term as management now is correct?
Well, I feel less uninformed if you don't know either! They're both really kind of excellent words, imo, and getting to use them is oddly satisfying. In novels they're used (to my eyes) kind of interchangeably but those are historical novels. Welp, found my hyper focus for the week!
The two major stevedore unions in the United States are the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
I was in Omaha last weekend to see a metal show (Deafheaven) and the buddy I was staying with forgot that the conference was happening so we went downtown before the show and couldn't get into any restaurants and ended up at a bar.
By their looks the BH conference-goers were still "a crowd heavy on 'Mr. Money Mustache' fans," to quote your delicious story from 2016. However, my Omaha friend did say that they spend an absurd amount on food and drink (by Omaha standards), so it's possible that (like Buffet) they do have a few guilty pleasures. He used to work in restaurants and said the servers made more money in two days that weekend than they did in the next six months.
The only thing I'd push back on from that story is that the crowd actually looked more racially diverse than the impression you give back in 2016. I wonder if that's because Middle Eastern/India/ East Asian oligarch kids have finally come around to BH? Too bad, because all of their money is about to be lit on fire by a mad king.
EXCELLENT post. It’s important to recognize why people thought it could work if you’re going to explain why it simply doesn’t. It’s an appealing idea. It’s even pulled a lot of people out of poverty and created a lot of technology and benefits we can still use. But we blew past that sweet spot a while back. Sometimes you gotta know when to quit, or change horses or whatever metaphor works here….It’s time for something new that will protect all the people of the world and give all of us the life we know we all CAN have, which is a good life, a long life under normal conditions, a peaceful life, a life where humanity can flourish.
Capitalists, of whatever moral character, will always come down on the side of capital over democracy. Any of these billionaires could conduct an experiment whereby they spend a few million to register every eligible voter in a particular state, get them to the voting booth in a presidential election year, and see what democracy looks like.
People defending capitalism as a path to a better future are as mentally challenged as those defending Israel/America in their collective genocide complicity.
Absolutely. Many Americans have been brainwashed to think socialism = totalitarian autocracy and capitalism = democracy.
Those laws and systems of which you speak must include democracy in the workplace, as well as with representative government. Not saying workers must own the means of production, but they damn sure must have a much greater role than currently held in both how companies are run, and profits are shared.
shareholders are the takers. workers are the makers. when do shareholders reap the fattest dividends? mass layoffs, mergers and aquisitions, stock buybacks, tax evasion, offshoring jobs to cheaper labor markets, benefits reductions and higher productivity with no wage increases and on and on. it's class warfare plain as day. when the working class invests in stocks they're betting against their own future
In the abstract I don’t think “investors in a thing” are inherently bad, the issue in US capitalism is that the balance of power between owners/ investors/ managers/ workers/ has become incredibly skewed.
Respectful. Thoughtful. Honest, short critique of the side-effects of shareholder capitalism.
Hamilton, your title hurt. I have studied Buffett and followed many of his investment principles throughout my life. I have owned the stock at times (for years) and attended the annual meeting a couple times. He played the game well.
But I hear you asking, “is this the right game for widespread human flourishing?”
I had a series of life events that awakened me to new perspectives about the world, more specifically the political economy. I used to separate business and politics with a clean break in my mind. I can no longer see where one begins and the other ends, nor see daylight between the two. The way we order society is a choice, most often a choice by those with immense power in the prevailing system.
The reigning ideology of our lifetimes has been managerial capitalism driven by corporate consensus. The ideology cannot seem to address the greatest issues of our current moment in time. We have a meta-crisis upon us that will require a new ideology to shake the system and reorder the political economy.
This is now my chief concern. It has drawn me into political reform as never before in my life. It is the basis for my first substack—The Common Sense Papers. My next article will speak to the ideological turning point that we now face.
Thank you for jarring me with your title. The Buffett era must close. Something new must rise. It’s time to reboot the system for the common good!
Exactly! That’s just showing wisdom to see it. It was understandably appealing and now we see the problems. Time to use the inspiration for innovation that drove many beneficial developments on a system that gives humanity a better future than the scary dystopia we get if we do nothing.
Joe, glad your understanding grows. Politics and business have always danced hand in hand…
One way our old Uncle Warren, as resolute as Trump's desk, made a good bundle was by buying up trailer parks, putting in a few asphalt driveways and fake flower pots, then raising the lot fees on the poor. And so... there you get the picture.
When money (a token measuring deservedness) is a measure of how much one (or a group) is worth, it should come as no surprise that those with the most money feel, act and claim to be the most deserving! The more money one has, the more one feels entitled to have an increasing amount of it.
I just discovered your post. I will start reading your older material! This was a good article.
Well stated HamNo
Intelligently said, dear Hamilton. Don't give up because you are the lone voice crying in the wilderness.
Hamilton is in no way ‘a lone wolf howling.’ Glad you heard this bit of yelping however.
I love the fact that health care completely defeated Warren Buffett. It was a slaughter, not even a close game. The three smartest guys in the U.S. room - Buffett, Jeff Bezos and Jamie Dimon - got together to "disrupt", "transform" and otherwise buzzword the health care economy into some new form. In three years they:
1. Filed papers to form a non-profit
2. Hired a famous doctor/journalist to run it
3. Named the non-profit
That's it. Great job, guys. Oh, and JPM then formed a consulting subsidiary to advise employers on how to buy health care, presumably relying on all the lessons they learned from filing IRS paperwork. Capitalism, shareholder or otherwise, doesn't work in health care. Buffett may have been a genius, but not genius enough to recognize that certain forms of human interaction lie outside the bounds of the marketplace.
And then Mark Cuban has done more than all of them combined.
My problem with Buffett was for all his regular guy folksiness and reputation for decency; how much was just comparatively to the loud assholes and/or just disguised miserliness? Sure, it's so "normal" to get $1 ice cream but it's not a coincidence it's also cheap. It's true he chose not to prey upon his acolytes with tooth and claw, but he was still making money off of their money. And if he's leaving his kids moderate amounts (subjective to what?) and he's not living ostentatiously, and he's clearly not saving the world...then what is the point? He's just hoarding treasure like a tiny dragon man? If he's going to give it away in his will (because no one will challenge that) why wait? Everything you say is correct but it's almost too kind. Maybe I'm more cynical than you or more idealistic? Strangely I can't decide which applies here.
Also- ordered your book through bookshop to pick up locally today.
And I have another question that's not related to this piece but labor.
I have a feeling it might be helpful for me to have an understanding of the structure of these things in the near future, so if you know the answer I'd appreciate it! I've found competing versions.
At Ports the longshoreman and associated dock workers are the labor, yes? Stevedore is used for management now? Not historically but currently? I feel like I should have learned this when they were renegotiating but somehow didn't.
Historically I'm seeing stevedore was on the boat and longshoreman was on the dock, but I don't see any stevedore labeled union, so I'm assuming the description of that term as management now is correct?
Sorry to go off-topic!
Longshoremen are dock workers, I don’t know about stevedores.
Well, I feel less uninformed if you don't know either! They're both really kind of excellent words, imo, and getting to use them is oddly satisfying. In novels they're used (to my eyes) kind of interchangeably but those are historical novels. Welp, found my hyper focus for the week!
The two major stevedore unions in the United States are the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
When the metric for success is money, it always comes at the expense of society’s wellbeing. It’s still the same old mentality of profits over people.
And money = morality…
I was in Omaha last weekend to see a metal show (Deafheaven) and the buddy I was staying with forgot that the conference was happening so we went downtown before the show and couldn't get into any restaurants and ended up at a bar.
By their looks the BH conference-goers were still "a crowd heavy on 'Mr. Money Mustache' fans," to quote your delicious story from 2016. However, my Omaha friend did say that they spend an absurd amount on food and drink (by Omaha standards), so it's possible that (like Buffet) they do have a few guilty pleasures. He used to work in restaurants and said the servers made more money in two days that weekend than they did in the next six months.
The only thing I'd push back on from that story is that the crowd actually looked more racially diverse than the impression you give back in 2016. I wonder if that's because Middle Eastern/India/ East Asian oligarch kids have finally come around to BH? Too bad, because all of their money is about to be lit on fire by a mad king.
🤮🤮🤮
There are no good billionaires.
EXCELLENT post. It’s important to recognize why people thought it could work if you’re going to explain why it simply doesn’t. It’s an appealing idea. It’s even pulled a lot of people out of poverty and created a lot of technology and benefits we can still use. But we blew past that sweet spot a while back. Sometimes you gotta know when to quit, or change horses or whatever metaphor works here….It’s time for something new that will protect all the people of the world and give all of us the life we know we all CAN have, which is a good life, a long life under normal conditions, a peaceful life, a life where humanity can flourish.
Capitalists, of whatever moral character, will always come down on the side of capital over democracy. Any of these billionaires could conduct an experiment whereby they spend a few million to register every eligible voter in a particular state, get them to the voting booth in a presidential election year, and see what democracy looks like.
People defending capitalism as a path to a better future are as mentally challenged as those defending Israel/America in their collective genocide complicity.
As long as we elect others i.e. Representatives to conduct the public’s business…. To create laws and systems that serve all…
Absolutely. Many Americans have been brainwashed to think socialism = totalitarian autocracy and capitalism = democracy.
Those laws and systems of which you speak must include democracy in the workplace, as well as with representative government. Not saying workers must own the means of production, but they damn sure must have a much greater role than currently held in both how companies are run, and profits are shared.
Co-ops Mondragon to the Grange reclaimed organically.
shareholders are the takers. workers are the makers. when do shareholders reap the fattest dividends? mass layoffs, mergers and aquisitions, stock buybacks, tax evasion, offshoring jobs to cheaper labor markets, benefits reductions and higher productivity with no wage increases and on and on. it's class warfare plain as day. when the working class invests in stocks they're betting against their own future
In the abstract I don’t think “investors in a thing” are inherently bad, the issue in US capitalism is that the balance of power between owners/ investors/ managers/ workers/ has become incredibly skewed.
And, perhaps most important what we invest in, work for, and how we do this… what is your vision?
Lizzy, if we’re only that simple.
You are a leader and a writer of truth, we need you and your ilk to lead the way out of where we as a society find ourselves. Thank you…DM
Okay. So offer an alternative.
Shareholder capitalism is the problem. It builds monumental financial architecture and little else.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/ziggurats-of-finance
We should return to stakeholder capitalism, what we had before 1980.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/why-neoliberalism-should-be-replaced/comments