Maybe he was a member of this board?????

[RichardGibbons]

The part of my message you deleted was:

 

that is, if he really believes that

 

It's typically a mistake to edit the caveat out of another's post and then advise them about reasonable alternatives.  How ironic, in a sense, that is.

 

Sorry, my mistake.  You seemed to write 10 about messages about how Buffett hated artists, using phrases such as "Buffett's theory of artists being a waste of capital".

 

So, I thought you were confused about what Buffett was actually saying and were seriously suggesting that Buffett hates artists.  Because of the preponderance of dialog about the artists/capital allocation, I didn't realized that your caveat was your key point.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[ERICOPOLY]

The part of my message you deleted was:

 

that is, if he really believes that

 

It's typically a mistake to edit the caveat out of another's post and then advise them about reasonable alternatives.  How ironic, in a sense, that is.

 

Sorry, my mistake.  You seemed to write 10 about messages about how Buffett hated artists, using phrases such as "Buffett's theory of artists being a waste of capital".

 

So, I thought you were confused about what Buffett was actually saying and were seriously suggesting that Buffett hates artists.  Because of the preponderance of dialog about the artists/capital allocation, I didn't realized that your caveat was your key point.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

I didn't bring up the topic, Richard.  Read back and see.  Somebody raised the point that Buffett would not hire 10,000 artists because it would lead to people not working on cancer research.  I argued against that point, saying how it wouldn't happen (with a variety of colorful illustrations). 

 

I don't even know if Buffett ever said it at all (the point still stands at face value no matter whether true quotation, misquotation, or mythology) -- it's irrelevant if Buffett really said it at all, or if it was misattributed to Buffett.

 

Then to the rescue of Buffett, you leap into it and stick your foot in your mouth.  And here we are  ;)

[LC]

I raised the point, Buffett did in fact say it (there is a Youtube video), and it is obviously an extreme example being used to illustrate the fact that money can sway people from more productive purposes to less productive ones.

 

My point was that there is a line when that level of "swaying" becomes harmful to society...feel free to disagree but let's not turn this into the Apple thread.

 

Edit: To prove my impartiality, I just posted an interview with Alice Schroeder which is quite critical of Buffett. Just saying :D

[ERICOPOLY]

One of Buffett's better quotes was when he pointed out that his gift of $50billion means nothing to him because he suffers no loss of utility.  Instead, it's a bigger deal when a person gives away money that causes some sort of sacrifice -- like if you worked for a living, haven't yet saved enough for retirement, and gave away $100. 

 

That $100 still has utility to you, as you need to keep on working to replace it.  But Buffett's $50b gift is pretty meaningless to him -- it changes nothing in his life.  At least that's how he phrases it -- it might just be false modesty, hard to say.

 

He makes this point in the recent talk he did with Brian Moynihan at Georgetown.

[LC]

I think that quote needs to be put in context.

 

Is he simply trying to teach an economic fact of the decreasing utility of money, or if it is some type of justification for his choice?

 

I've always felt that argument comes takes an "uncharitable" point of view by focusing on the utility of the person with the funds and not the recipient of the funds.

[no_free_lunch]

Life expectancy would improve by 3 years.

 

The real problem isn't cancer -- it's that our cells divide 20 times and then die (I think it's 20, could be wrong on the number).

 

I know I am taking this too seriously, but nevertheless, how do you know there isn't a link between cancer and immortality?  I mean I am certainly no expert but I do know that cancer is related to mutations in our cells.  It is entirely possible that the limit on cell division is to try to stop this run-away explosion that is cancer.

 

Telomere shortening may also prevent the development of cancer in human aged cells by limiting the number of cell divisions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit

 

This paper presents a new theory of the Hayflick limit and its role in cancer.  The Hayflick limit is identified as a fail-safe mechanism that limits to harmless size descendent clones of cells in which normal proliferation controls have broken down.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519382903642

 

Science works in twists and turns, with unexpected outcomes.  I wouldn't discount what could be learned here and will have to be learned about cell biology in order to defeat cancer.  There could be substantial ripple effects.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I think that quote needs to be put in context.

 

Is he simply trying to teach an economic fact of the decreasing utility of money, or if it is some type of justification for his choice?

 

I've always felt that argument comes takes an "uncharitable" point of view by focusing on the utility of the person with the funds and not the recipient of the funds.

 

His comments begin at the 17:35 mark and ends around 18:40

 

 

[LC]

Thanks...that is exactly how I would expect Buffett to talk about this situation.