Warren Buffet ( over hyped-over rated)

Discussion in 'Economics' started by NY_HOOD, Aug 26, 2008.

  1. NY_HOOD


    i'd like to the see the money this clown would of made if he started trading last year. any idiot could of made money in the 1950's when there were virtually no short term traders and information was'nt disseminated at lightspeed due to the internet. I need to be on the cover of Forune,not him.i'll have my brazillian secretary who has no morals call Buffet to set me up with a meeting with him. i'm going to entice him to buy POT and short RIMM and buy MOS and short AAPL.OR MAYBE I WON'T,MAYBE I WILL CONVINCE HIM TO INVEST IN SOME PROPERTY I BOUGHT IN THE EVERGLADES. I am planning on building the first "white trash resort".
  2. Buffett is quite consistent, compared to most "super" traders who may make 300% one year, and blow up the next year.

    You can't expect Buffett to trade short term when he manages billions.
    Managing billons is completely another thing.
    Someone who manages 10 Billion+ and manages to get 10% per year is a king.
  3. Brandonf

    Brandonf ET Sponsor

    If any idiot could have done it why havent all of our grandparents left us multi billion dollar estates?
  4. Exactly. That's why everyone who started participating in the markets during those earlier days is now a multi-billionaire.
  5. Why I don't understand with Buffet is why does he waste his time sitting on TV answering ridiculous moderator and viewer questions? He seems to have become a media whore, very weird.
  6. This is one of the most stupid posts I've even seen. If making money was so easy then, why did NOBODY else invest/trade their net worth up to $62 billion? Or anywhere near that? You don't belong on the cover of Fortune, you belong on toilet paper.
  7. Covert


    I don't think anyone will argue that this should be placed in the "Hall of Stupid Posts". Really stunningly asinine, but let's scratch below the surface.
    Buffett is NOT the same investor he was in the 50's or even the 90's. He took advantage of the low tax rates of the 80's and 90's and amassed a massive fortune. Truth is, his recent returns have been quite ordinary indeed. Does that mean he's not been great, and won't be great in the future? Not at all, but he does seem to have become much more interested in Democratic politics than he ever was before. Could be that he's taken his eye off the ball. For a guy who owes most of what he has to supply-side policies, he sure has adopted a populist stance in the last 2 years. Could it be that he's content with his place in life, and now he's set on securing his legacy?