JONTILLMAN.COM | part of the problem since 1976

I wrote a rather nasty screed a couple of months ago in which I attempted to go off in too many directions in one post, I have now been called to task by the author. Since Neal was kind enough to reply at length, and not wanting to have this conversation buried in the comments section, I will reply to his comments here.

First, let me apologize for my complete incompetence with Trackbacks. Now I have gone from not sending one to sending too many…

Neal says:

First of all, the purpose of my article was to point out that Buffett contributed a vast amount of good to society by way of his investments. By following his own self-interested code, that,

it was never about the money - it was about something else, something [Buffett] loved doing, something [he was] so passionate about that [he] wanted to do it all the time.

Buffett ended up contributing a vast amount of wealth to the world. To me, it is this accomplishment that should be lauded over and above his philanthropy. It’s not that Buffett shouldn’t have the right to give it all away. It’s not that he shouldn’t give it all away. He has the freedom to do that which he wants. He has the obligation to himself to do what he wants.

True enough, as far as it goes, but we should be aware that both of us are judging Buffett by our own philosophic standards, not by his own - and our not being able to reconcile our expectations and his actions, or one statement he has made (that he would keep his wealth under his control rather than donate it) to another (that there should be no repeal of the estate tax) arises from our incomplete understanding of the man rather than from his incomplete understanding of Capitalism. If the motive were the generation of wealth (which presupposes that wealth generation is the only way, or at least the best way, for Mr. Buffett to contribute to society), then yes, stopping that generstion of wealth is a bad thing.

This line of reaosning also misses the point, I think. Buffett has announced his intentions to donate his personal fortune, not to close down Berkshire-Hathaway. As long as that firm remains, and operates by the principles Buffett built it on, it will continue to contribute a “vast amount of wealth to the world“. therefore, the removal of Buffett’s personal monies (sizable though they are) does not stand in opposition to his wealth generation machine, but as a consequence of it.

I am further confounded by Buffett believing that other wealthy individuals who would rather have their wealth passed on to their progeny (or whoever they so desire) must either donate it to charity or pay it out in large portion to the wasteful U.S. government. That’s a damn snobby view to have: Buffett knows best for everyone else and therefore all should succumb to his view (Such is the basic paradigm of anyone who would argue that the government impose taxation on others).

How exactly is that any different than saying that you know better than Mr. Buffett?