Why are you a liberal?

[Guest deepValue]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

[Myth465]

I dont think you have followed Munger's lead, honestly it appears that you have done just the opposite. I could never in a million years imagine Charlie Munger phrasing such a question to his dear friend Warren Buffett or anyone else.

 

I understand Lloyd Bentsen alot more after reading this.....

 

Plenty of sites and people have mounted worthy arguments (Buffett has explained where he stands on this issue and more importantly why), but I think your mind is made up...

[mhdousa]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

SouthernYankee, is that you!?!?  We missed you!

 

[Guest deepValue]

I dont think you have followed Munger's lead, honestly it appears that you have done just the opposite. I could never in a million years imagine Charlie Munger phrasing such a question to his dear friend Warren Buffett or anyone else.

 

I understand Lloyd Bentsen alot more after reading this.....

 

Plenty of sites and people have mounted worthy arguments (Buffett has explained where he stands on this issue and more importantly why), but I think your mind is made up...

 

I have explored Classical Liberalism and now I want to figure out what's wrong with it. I don't find Buffett's shallow arguments convincing, though I can understand why some people might think a strong central government is simply the most practical way to direct society.

 

I was just hoping to get some intelligent insight from a moral or economic perspective. Since you seem to be familiar with 'plenty of arguments' on the issue, can you direct me to a particularly good one that addresses some of the concerns that a dirty ideological bastard like myself might have about strong central governments?

 

[Guest deepValue]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

SouthernYankee, is that you!?!?  We missed you!

 

Nope, but this SouthernYankee guy seems like an intelligent fellow.

[racemize]

However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

If you want to have an intelligent conversation about something, I don't think it is wise to start it out with a very condescending insult to the people you want to have the conversation with.

[Alekbaylee]

LOL! +1

 

SouthernYankee, is that you!?!?  We missed you!

[Liberty]

These labels are meaningless to me. I'm whatever I am -- in practice, lefties think I'm a righty and righties think I'm a lefty. Whatever, keep 'em confused :)

[Guest deepValue]

/end thread. Can't even get a book recommendation.

[onyx1]

Try this

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307377903

Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I saw the author interviewed recently and he had some very interesting insights. Among them is our value systems dictates our politics in that, for example, liberals place compassion and fairness very high on their list of priorities, while conservatives place the importance of maintaining traditions high on their list.  Just one of many examples he gives to explain how political leanings are not intellectually driven.

 

[mhdousa]

/end thread. Can't even get a book recommendation.

 

Try this one:

http://amzn.to/pnZzt

[moore_capital54]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

I believe you are mistaken if you believe that smart hedgies are for the most part democrats. My experience is that an overwhelming majority are republican. Many hedgies jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 IE: Loeb but have since realized that was the biggest mistake. In my experience, 9 out of 10 successful people I know are conservative and/or republican/libertarian leaning.

 

I generally don't like ZH because they are too negative for me and I find influence people to be bearish on markets. But yesterday I was sent a very good piece from ZH:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-mitt-romney-also-said-glimpse-endgame

 

This situation may have reached the tipping point where it cannot be reconciled without massive inflation. The most ironic part of all this is that in the end the nannystate will have punished the lower classes more than anything as the price of their basic goods/services/energy will rise in real terms to levels which don't correlate with their levels of productivity. The rich will have no problems buying groceries when prices double...

 

 

[dowfin1]

or this one

http://www.amazon.com/50-Things-Liberals-Love-Hate/dp/1451679254/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348154065&sr=1-1&keywords=liberals+love+to+hate

[txlaw]

I dont think you have followed Munger's lead, honestly it appears that you have done just the opposite. I could never in a million years imagine Charlie Munger phrasing such a question to his dear friend Warren Buffett or anyone else.

 

I understand Lloyd Bentsen alot more after reading this.....

 

Plenty of sites and people have mounted worthy arguments (Buffett has explained where he stands on this issue and more importantly why), but I think your mind is made up...

 

+1

 

Not worth even responding.  Definitely not following Munger's admonitions against falling into the ideological pit.

[bmichaud]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

I believe you are mistaken if you believe that smart hedgies are for the most part democrats. My experience is that an overwhelming majority are republican. Many hedgies jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 IE: Loeb but have since realized that was the biggest mistake. In my experience, 9 out of 10 successful people I know are conservative and/or republican/libertarian leaning.

 

I generally don't like ZH because they are too negative for me and I find influence people to be bearish on markets. But yesterday I was sent a very good piece from ZH:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-mitt-romney-also-said-glimpse-endgame

 

This situation may have reached the tipping point where it cannot be reconciled without massive inflation. The most ironic part of all this is that in the end the nannystate will have punished the lower classes more than anything as the price of their basic goods/services/energy will rise in real terms to levels which don't correlate with their levels of productivity. The rich will have no problems buying groceries when prices double...

 

The ZH piece is just as patently absurd as all of its other ludicrous claims. Japan has had a massive debt problem for YEARS and there has been no such endgame. Do we honestly believe that without the Fed conducting QE that the USA would not be able to issue virtually unlimited amounts debt into a marketplace starved for "risk-free" assets?

 

Let's hope Romney doesn't truly think this way....

[txitxo]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

  Imagine that Warren, Charlie, Paulson, Simmons, Klarman and Soros had been born in a hut in the middle of the Congo rainforest ~70 years ago. The difference between the life they would have had there and the one they have had in the US is called civilization. The price of civilization is called taxes. 

 

[hyten1]

folks i don't think any disagree that we need taxes

 

the question is how much

[racemize]

please don't feed the trolls.

[moore_capital54]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

  Imagine that Warren, Charlie, Paulson, Simmons, Klarman and Soros had been born in a hut in the middle of the Congo rainforest ~70 years ago. The difference between the life they would have had there and the one they have had in the US is called civilization. The price of civilization is called taxes.

 

You need to brush up on your history. Civilization didn't start in 1971, it started way before that. The idea of issuing money with no backing to support irrational promises and obligations to the electorate started then.

 

As for your birth argument, what matters is not where they were born what matters is how these super successful and special people view the world from the unique prism they have and with the exception of buffett the overwhelming majority understand what it took for them to have experienced the upward mobility they have. Essentially, small government, prosperous and productive civilization where risk takers are both rewarded and punished based on the fundamental principles of capitalism.

 

Bmichaud, I have known you long enough now to not be drawn into your arguments. You are still forming your opinions of the world and I have now seen you jump around maybe 10-20 times on ideologies and beliefs. I wish you the best of luck but I have no energy or time to be drawn into these debates. We are actually printing money right now with our TSX V book almost back in the black after this monster week (which i predicted here a few weeks ago). The only reason I responded to the poster was that I have previously experienced such beliefs by people who somehow think the majority of capitalists or wealthy people are democrats. That is ismply untrue, it's definitely true as it pertains to 2nd and 3rd generation heirs but the overwhelming majority of first generation, self made businessmen and women are conservative/libertarian/republican.

 

 

QE3 is behind us, QE4 may be next, what is the real catalyst though will be 150 oil and super inflation which should start imminently.

[smathew]

I like this book which does a good in job explaining liberal vs conservative philosophy .

 

http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348157519&sr=8-1&keywords=conflict+of+visions

 

"Sowell, an economist and author (The Economics and Politics of Race, etc.), presents a provocative analysis of the conflicting visions of human nature that have shaped the moral, legal and economic life of recent times. For the past 200 years, he writes, two visions ofor "gut feelings" abouthow the world works, have dominated: the constrained vision, which views man as unchanged, limited and dependent on evolved social processes (market economies, constitutional law, etc.); and the unconstrained vision, which argues for man's potential and perfectability, and the possibility of rational planning for social solutions. Examining the views of thinkers who reflect these constrained (Adam Smith) and unconstrained (William Godwin) visions, Sowell shows how these powerful and subjective visions give rise to carefully constructed social theories. His discussion of how these conflicting attitudes ultimately produce clashes over equality, social justice and other issues is instructive"

[txlaw]

QE3 is behind us, QE4 may be next, what is the real catalyst though will be 150 oil and super inflation which should start imminently.

 

Not getting drawn into the original thread topic, but I find this statement intriguing.

 

It will be interesting to see if you're right, Moore.  If I made such bets, I would bet that inflation will remain fairly tame in the US (between 2 and 4%) and that oil will never reach $150, though WTI might go above $100 if tensions flare up even more in the Middle East (e.g., Israel bombing Iran).

[ERICOPOLY]

  Now that I got me some Seagram's gin

Every body got their cups, but they ain't chipped in

Now this type of shit, happens all the time

You gotta get yours before I get mine

 

-  Snoop Dogg.  Obama supporter

 

For you Southern conservatives, the full text has been interpreted to your drawl:

 

[bmichaud]

The vast majority of the people I meet in the hedge fund community are liberals (in the modern sense of the term; i.e., Democrats). Hedgies tend to be smart people who can act against the crowd if the facts warrant such a position. However, I am having a difficult time understanding why so many smart people (that no doubt understand the power of incentives) support social welfare programs and other freedom-limiting actions of the federal government. It seems like liberals (and I include establishment Republicans under this label) either have not thought through their positions or are operating on loose principles.

 

Although I wholeheartedly disagree with his politics, I try to heed Charlie Munger's warning about falling into a specific ideology without thoroughly examining the counterpoints. If you have the inclination, I would appreciate a defense of modern liberalism and the reasons why we are better off living in a collectivist society rather than one that promotes freedom of the individual. Book recommendations in lieu of an argument are also appreciated.

 

  Imagine that Warren, Charlie, Paulson, Simmons, Klarman and Soros had been born in a hut in the middle of the Congo rainforest ~70 years ago. The difference between the life they would have had there and the one they have had in the US is called civilization. The price of civilization is called taxes.

 

You need to brush up on your history. Civilization didn't start in 1971, it started way before that. The idea of issuing money with no backing to support irrational promises and obligations to the electorate started then.

 

As for your birth argument, what matters is not where they were born what matters is how these super successful and special people view the world from the unique prism they have and with the exception of buffett the overwhelming majority understand what it took for them to have experienced the upward mobility they have. Essentially, small government, prosperous and productive civilization where risk takers are both rewarded and punished based on the fundamental principles of capitalism.

 

Bmichaud, I have known you long enough now to not be drawn into your arguments. You are still forming your opinions of the world and I have now seen you jump around maybe 10-20 times on ideologies and beliefs. I wish you the best of luck but I have no energy or time to be drawn into these debates. We are actually printing money right now with our TSX V book almost back in the black after this monster week (which i predicted here a few weeks ago). The only reason I responded to the poster was that I have previously experienced such beliefs by people who somehow think the majority of capitalists or wealthy people are democrats. That is ismply untrue, it's definitely true as it pertains to 2nd and 3rd generation heirs but the overwhelming majority of first generation, self made businessmen and women are conservative/libertarian/republican.

 

 

QE3 is behind us, QE4 may be next, what is the real catalyst though will be 150 oil and super inflation which should start imminently.

 

I'd be interested in seeing an outline of said flip-flops - I've been 100% consistent with my view that we are A) not at risk of default, B) not at risk of hyperinflation and C) not dependent upon the Federal Reserve for "funding". It would be one thing of the Fed was actually pinning the yield curve to a certain rate structure such as post-WW2, but with the Fed not naming a "price" for Treasury debt, if you will, the market is free to assign any rate it wants to our debt based on credit and inflation risk. If hyperinflation was "imminent" as you say, wouldn't the 30-year bond be slightly higher than 3%?

[PlanMaestro]

QE3 is behind us, QE4 may be next, what is the real catalyst though will be 150 oil and super inflation which should start imminently.

 

What is super inflation? When is imminently? What odds are you giving?

[Buckeye]

You should read "Why democrats and republicans are bankrupting our nation," or something to that effect, by Peter Peterson. It's a great unbiased read on the situation and will leave you equally hating both parties, and probably more in the camp with Liberty.  :)