Jump to content

The Anti-Buffett!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

In Queen of Versailles he claims to have been responsible for tipping the scales in favor of W in the 2000 election through means of questionable legality. So there is some political gamesmanship on display here.

 

See the movie. It's an eye-opener.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you are making him into a villain. Remember, business and the world works through incentives.  His incentive based on what he thinks policy decisions by a continued Obama term is to shrink and lay off employees.  Who are we to say he can't or shouldn't run his business based on those incentives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you are making him into a villain. Remember, business and the world works through incentives.  His incentive based on what he thinks policy decisions by a continued Obama term is to shrink and lay off employees.  Who are we to say he can't or shouldn't run his business based on those incentives?

 

I don't really understand the argument, taxes are only levied on profits, so by reducing your workforce/not growing, you are reducing your profits in the first place. 

 

Let's say he makes $2 in profits now, and pays $1 in taxes.  He could grow it to $2.5, but now that the rate is 55% instead of 50% (random numbers) he chooses to layoff people and shrink, reducing his $2 to $1.75.  Now he makes less money because of his choice rather than more money, even with the change in taxes.  If his changes did not affect the $2, then why didn't he do that in the first place?  Why not grow and reduce the fat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if that would have been possible (getting his debts sorted out) if Obama had elected to go with the Austrian approach to solving the economic crisis.

 

 

So why is David Siegel - a man who defined excess and debt in the 2000s - now saying that debt and spending are ruining the country?

 

I asked David during a phone interview last night, and he told me that this was about his workers, not himself. He said his own finances have vastly improved. He has paid off all of his major lenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you are making him into a villain. Remember, business and the world works through incentives.  His incentive based on what he thinks policy decisions by a continued Obama term is to shrink and lay off employees.  Who are we to say he can't or shouldn't run his business based on those incentives?

 

I don't really understand the argument, taxes are only levied on profits, so by reducing your workforce/not growing, you are reducing your profits in the first place. 

 

Let's say he makes $2 in profits now, and pays $1 in taxes.  He could grow it to $2.5, but now that the rate is 55% instead of 50% (random numbers) he chooses to layoff people and shrink, reducing his $2 to $1.75.  Now he makes less money because of his choice rather than more money, even with the change in taxes.  If his changes did not affect the $2, then why didn't he do that in the first place?  Why not grow and reduce the fat?

 

This CEO's way of growing is to take from his employees and line his pocket with it..."If taxes go up, I'm not paying more, so some of you will be going to cut costs!"  That's basically his argument.  If there were zero taxes, would there be zero unemployment?  I've never met someone who turned away $1000 because they may have to pay $450 in tax, instead of $350, but that's this guy's logic.  Go figure! 

 

Did tax rates stop Gates from building Microsoft, or Buffett from building Berkshire (please don't bring up float and deferred taxes, because Berkshire pays a ton of taxes regardless)? 

 

I wonder if that would have been possible (getting his debts sorted out) if Obama had elected to go with the Austrian approach to solving the economic crisis.

 

 

So why is David Siegel - a man who defined excess and debt in the 2000s - now saying that debt and spending are ruining the country?

 

I asked David during a phone interview last night, and he told me that this was about his workers, not himself. He said his own finances have vastly improved. He has paid off all of his major lenders.

 

Yes, exactly.  He saves his own ass under the "largesse" of Obama, but hey that's none of your damn business!  ;D  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting letter coming from a person who practically runs a scam.

 

Westgate Resorts's rating on Consumer Affairs website is

78% 1-star

22% 2-star

0% 3-star

0% 4-star

0% 5-star

 

(where 1 star - poor, 5 stars - excellent)

 

 

Pulled these comments on the story from Reddit.

 

 

 

Check out the reviews on glassdoor. Unpaid commission, false promises about promotion, and lack of affordable insurance.

 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Westgate-Resorts-Reviews-E253667.htm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting letter coming from a person who practically runs a scam.

 

Westgate Resorts's rating on Consumer Affairs website is

78% 1-star

22% 2-star

0% 3-star

0% 4-star

0% 5-star

 

(where 1 star - poor, 5 stars - excellent)

 

 

Pulled these comments on the story from Reddit.

 

 

 

Check out the reviews on glassdoor. Unpaid commission, false promises about promotion, and lack of affordable insurance.

 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Westgate-Resorts-Reviews-E253667.htm

I'll tell you, I know people who have owned & managed nationwide timeshare companies and it is one of the most corrupt industries which exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting letter coming from a person who practically runs a scam.

 

Westgate Resorts's rating on Consumer Affairs website is

78% 1-star

22% 2-star

0% 3-star

0% 4-star

0% 5-star

 

(where 1 star - poor, 5 stars - excellent)

 

 

Pulled these comments on the story from Reddit.

 

 

 

Check out the reviews on glassdoor. Unpaid commission, false promises about promotion, and lack of affordable insurance.

 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Westgate-Resorts-Reviews-E253667.htm

I'll tell you, I know people who have owned & managed nationwide timeshare companies and it is one of the most corrupt industries which exists.

They thrive on what Warren has said for a long time, "A fool and his money........"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did tax rates stop Gates from building Microsoft, or Buffett from building Berkshire

 

Thats a good point. Personally I believe both political parties are atrocious. But I would rather vote for the party that advocates lower taxes, lower deficits, individual liberty, less gov't intrusion;  then the party that openly advocates higher deficits, more spending and money printing, higher taxes, more gov't control over our lives.

 

Pick your poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did tax rates stop Gates from building Microsoft, or Buffett from building Berkshire

 

Thats a good point. Personally I believe both political parties are atrocious. But I would rather vote for the party that advocates lower taxes, lower deficits, individual liberty, less gov't intrusion;  then the party that openly advocates higher deficits, more spending and money printing, higher taxes, more gov't control over our lives.

 

Pick your poison.

 

Except in practice, both parties end up making decisions that lead to very similar outcomes (ie. despite the rhetoric, republicans bloat up government size - and thus money printing - via f.ex. wars, and limit individual liberties via things like the patriot act and war on drugs). So I agree with you; both are atrocious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did tax rates stop Gates from building Microsoft, or Buffett from building Berkshire

 

Thats a good point. Personally I believe both political parties are atrocious. But I would rather vote for the party that advocates lower taxes, lower deficits, individual liberty, less gov't intrusion;  then the party that openly advocates higher deficits, more spending and money printing, higher taxes, more gov't control over our lives.

 

Pick your poison.

 

Except in practice, both parties end up making decisions that lead to very similar outcomes (ie. despite the rhetoric, republicans bloat up government size - and thus money printing - via f.ex. wars, and limit individual liberties via things like the patriot act and war on drugs). So I agree with you; both are atrocious.

 

 

That is my beef with the Republican party.  They seem to say one thing, stand for one thing, preach it endlessly, and then go out and do the exact opposite! Listen to Ron Paul rant against the Republican party and you'll understand.  That's frustrating.  It seems that neither party is fiscally conservative, even if republicans claim to be, but it seems to me that the democrats are less hypocritical.  I just can not understand how Republicans claimed to be fiscally responsible, but in debates have said they would not back a plan that called for 1 unit of tax increase for every 8 units of spending cuts.  (I don't remember the exact numbers).  To me that's incredibly fiscally irresponsible.  Not raising taxes does not equal fiscal responsibility!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my beef with the Republican party.  They seem to say one thing, stand for one thing, preach it endlessly, and then go out and do the exact opposite! Listen to Ron Paul rant against the Republican party and you'll understand.  That's frustrating.  It seems that neither party is fiscally conservative, even if republicans claim to be, but it seems to me that the democrats are less hypocritical.  I just can not understand how Republicans claimed to be fiscally responsible, but in debates have said they would not back a plan that called for 1 unit of tax increase for every 8 units of spending cuts.  (I don't remember the exact numbers).  To me that's incredibly fiscally irresponsible.  Not raising taxes does not equal fiscal responsibility!

 

It all makes sense when you realize that politicians will say what they think will get them elected, not what they actually want to do once in power (if they even know -- many seem to want power for its own sake).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all makes sense when you realize that politicians will say what they think will get them elected, not what they actually want to do once in power (if they even know -- many seem to want power for its own sake).

Exactly, politics is a game and you can break it down mathematically. If 51% of people hold most dear a common ideology, and you can convince them you will fulfil their ideology, they will elect you. Then you can go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...