Warren Buffet to Uncle Sam

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

MrJayremmie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
3,438
Likes
27
Points
48
WOW! Very interesting piece. Here it is...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=2&hp

DEAR Uncle Sam,

My mother told me to send thank-you notes promptly. I’ve been remiss.

Let me remind you why I’m writing. Just over two years ago, in September 2008, our country faced an economic meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pillars that supported our mortgage system, had been forced into conservatorship. Several of our largest commercial banks were teetering. One of Wall Street’s giant investment banks had gone bankrupt, and the remaining three were poised to follow. A.I.G., the world’s most famous insurer, was at death’s door.

Many of our largest industrial companies, dependent on commercial paper financing that had disappeared, were weeks away from exhausting their cash resources. Indeed, all of corporate America’s dominoes were lined up, ready to topple at lightning speed. My own company, Berkshire Hathaway, might have been the last to fall, but that distinction provided little solace.

Nor was it just business that was in peril: 300 million Americans were in the domino line as well. Just days before, the jobs, income, 401(k)’s and money-market funds of these citizens had seemed secure. Then, virtually overnight, everything began to turn into pumpkins and mice. There was no hiding place. A destructive economic force unlike any seen for generations had been unleashed.

Only one counterforce was available, and that was you, Uncle Sam. Yes, you are often clumsy, even inept. But when businesses and people worldwide race to get liquid, you are the only party with the resources to take the other side of the transaction. And when our citizens are losing trust by the hour in institutions they once revered, only you can restore calm.

When the crisis struck, I felt you would understand the role you had to play. But you’ve never been known for speed, and in a meltdown minutes matter. I worried whether the barrage of shattering surprises would disorient you. You would have to improvise solutions on the run, stretch legal boundaries and avoid slowdowns, like Congressional hearings and studies. You would also need to get turf-conscious departments to work together in mounting your counterattack. The challenge was huge, and many people thought you were not up to it.

Well, Uncle Sam, you delivered. People will second-guess your specific decisions; you can always count on that. But just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic — and, overall, your actions were remarkably effective.

I don’t know precisely how you orchestrated these. But I did have a pretty good seat as events unfolded, and I would like to commend a few of your troops. In the darkest of days, Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner and Sheila Bair grasped the gravity of the situation and acted with courage and dispatch. And though I never voted for George W. Bush, I give him great credit for leading, even as Congress postured and squabbled.

You have been criticized, Uncle Sam, for some of the earlier decisions that got us in this mess — most prominently, for not battling the rot building up in the housing market. But then few of your critics saw matters clearly either. In truth, almost all of the country became possessed by the idea that home prices could never fall significantly.

That was a mass delusion, reinforced by rapidly rising prices that discredited the few skeptics who warned of trouble. Delusions, whether about tulips or Internet stocks, produce bubbles. And when bubbles pop, they can generate waves of trouble that hit shores far from their origin. This bubble was a doozy and its pop was felt around the world.

So, again, Uncle Sam, thanks to you and your aides. Often you are wasteful, and sometimes you are bullying. On occasion, you are downright maddening. But in this extraordinary emergency, you came through — and the world would look far different now if you had not.

Your grateful nephew,

Warren

Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

Thoughts?
 
Buffet and the rest of the hedge fund/Wall Street crowd are doing great. Meanwhile, the Average Joe is still losing their house as people like Buffet and the banks he helps support buy up their assets. Buffet has upped his stake in Goldman Sachs to $7.5 Billion. Since Goldman is going to be one of the first of a relatively few beneficiaries of Bernanke's new money printing scheme, Buffet stands to profit handsomely.
 
Last edited:
Buffet and Berkshire benefitted tremendously from the bailouts. The rest of us? Not so much.
 
He looks like an asshole for writing that when people are still jobless and getting evicted.
 
Kind of unrelated--but if you listen to it check out Act Two as well, as it happens to be about the origins of the NBA flop, and how Vlade Divac didn't necessarily invent it. An interviewee argues it actually stems from changes in hand checking rules.
 
I think what he was saying was the Uncle Sam averted an enormous collapse of our economy, and that even though many will find ways to criticize (hence this thread), they did a fine job in that sense.

I'm not saying I don't agree with others in this thread, though. Wall Street got handouts and are going along, without financial regulations, like nothing ever happened. Fuck 'em.

He looks like an asshole for writing that when people are still jobless and getting evicted.

Aren't people always jobless and getting evicted?
 
the "enormous collapse" was just a theory by "analysts" who failed to see it happening the first time around. it could have been better if large companies failed, but instead they are treading water and remain insolvent.
 
the "enormous collapse" was just a theory by "analysts" who failed to see it happening the first time around. it could have been better if large companies failed, but instead they are treading water and remain insolvent.


I think if nothing was done there would have been a huge panic. People are risk averse
 
the "enormous collapse" was just a theory by "analysts" who failed to see it happening the first time around. it could have been better if large companies failed, but instead they are treading water and remain insolvent.


That is a big risk to take.
 
Its even riskier to let companies that do not work, rife with corruption or cannot function on their own to continue to operate.
 
TARP was shitty crony capitalism. What should have happened was the insolvent banks should have gone into receivorship and something akin to the Resolution Trust Corporation should have been set up to clean up the mess. The equity holders in those companies lose everything instead of getting saved. Investment banks used to be small and nimble. They had to comanage offerings because their balance sheets couldn't handle the size and exposure. The repeal of Glass-Steagall change all that. Investment and Commercial banking needs to be separated again so the US Taxpayer doesn't have this kind of exposure ever again. The GSEs also need to die.
 
the "enormous collapse" was just a theory by "analysts" who failed to see it happening the first time around. it could have been better if large companies failed, but instead they are treading water and remain insolvent.

The "enormous collapse" was code for the worth of hedge funds, ridiculous mortgages, and other versions of imaginary wealth that were practiced by banks and abetted by the Dodds and Franks. Mom and Pop America who weren't over their heads in credit trouble were always going to be fine. I imagine that most of the posters in this board are in that camp.

OHOH, Buffet should be giving W. Bush blowjobs for signing TARP, because Warren maybe be living in a trailer today had he not been bailed out and his bills started to become due.
 
Last edited:
TARP was shitty crony capitalism. What should have happened was the insolvent banks should have gone into receivorship and something akin to the Resolution Trust Corporation should have been set up to clean up the mess. The equity holders in those companies lose everything instead of getting saved. Investment banks used to be small and nimble. They had to comanage offerings because their balance sheets couldn't handle the size and exposure. The repeal of Glass-Steagall change all that. Investment and Commercial banking needs to be separated again so the US Taxpayer doesn't have this kind of exposure ever again. The GSEs also need to die.

I'm OK with most of that plan, but why would a RTC type thing need to be set up?

Let the guys who buy the failed banks assume the assets.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top