Recs

90

How Warren Buffett Destroyed the Market

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

A few months ago, I laid out exactly how mutual fund manager Peter Lynch averaged 29% annual returns for more than a decade.

Due to popular demand, today I'm going to lay out exactly how Warren Buffett has destroyed the market for almost half a century. For the uninitiated, he has more than doubled the market's return. Put another way, if you invested $10,000 with him in 1965, you'd be sitting on tens of millions of dollars right now.

I've broken his success down to three basic principles.

Principle No. 1: There will always be opportunities, but those opportunities will change. Be flexible.
Buffett was just a pup investor in the 1950s and 1960s. He didn't have billions to invest, but he created certain advantages for himself.

Back then, information for individual investors was hard to come by. There was no Yahoo! Finance around to get financials in a jiffy, no tweeting CEOs, and no 24-hour news cycle. And that was an opportunity for Buffett. 

He'd literally do the legwork by making trips to Moody's and Standard & Poor's to read old analyst reports, to the Securities and Exchange Commission to read filings, and to company headquarters to talk with management. If you don't think that's incredible, realize that most investors today haven't taken the minute to send in a question to a company's investor relations department ... much less show up on its doorstep.

In those days, he'd invest in opportunities in small-cap companies, exploit some inefficiencies and arbitrages, and do the down-and-dirty, by-the-numbers value investing that his mentor Benjamin Graham preached. And he made excellent returns.

As he went further in his investing career, he diverged from Graham's teachings, partially under the influence of his partner Charlie Munger. He learned the value of buying great companies at good prices, rather than less adept companies at rock-bottom prices. This would serve him well as increased information availability made those early opportunities rarer.

Today, his holding company Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A  ) (NYSE: BRK-B  ) has gotten so large that the small caps he used to enjoy buying are mere drops in the bucket. He has to be more patient as he waits for huge opportunities.

That's why he's known today for his megadeals. For buying multi-billion-dollar stakes in General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) and Goldman Sachs during their darkest hours. For buying a railroad with a bigger market capitalization than Nike. And for being paid handsome, above-market premiums for insuring against a portfolio of unlikely events.  

Buffett has "skated to where the puck is" his whole investing career.

Principle No. 2: There's no extra credit for activity
Roger Lowenstein, who wrote both a biography on Buffett (Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist) and a chronicle of disastrous, short-term-thinking hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (When Genius Failed), has some good perspective on both sides of the trading activity spectrum.

When he was asked in a recent Motley Fool interview to name the most underrated thing about Buffett, he responded: "The most underrated part of his success would be his independence of character, his ability to just not do what everyone else is doing, to stand apart from it ... just not to be affected by it and not swing at pitches he is not sure about."

Now, to be sure, Buffett is far from infallible. He doesn't see everything coming. For example, he didn't foresee the magnitude of the housing crisis. He was adding significantly to his positions in Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) and US Bancorp (NYSE: USB  ) in 2007 -- right before the fall of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and subsequent bank bailouts. Also at the end of 2007, he owned 19% of Moody's -- one of the ratings agencies responsible for terribly overrating the quality of subprime loans and fueling the housing bubble. Heck, he even owned a homebuilder outright – manufactured-homes maker Clayton Homes.  

But here's what makes Buffett great. He avoided using the crazy derivative instruments the Wall Street banks, hedge funds, and insurers gloried in. Remember that Berkshire Hathaway, at its core, is an insurance company. It would have been very easy for Berkshire to get in on all the exotic stuff AIG (NYSE: AIG  ) got into. It didn't. Buffett also avoided the siren song of excessive leverage.

And then, while the market was in a panic, he didn't massively sell off his bank positions. No, he actually added to his position in Wells Fargo. 

Principle No. 3: You can't be Buffett
Well, for him, it was, "You can't be Ben Graham."

As we talked about in principle No. 1, Buffett had to evolve beyond the teachings of his mentor. Similarly, as tempting as it is, we can't blindly follow everything Buffett does.

One of the famous Buffett stories involves his collegiate days, when he supposedly read all his coursework the first week of the semester, then just breezed through the exams. Believe it or not, I've heard stories of lesser minds who have tried to imitate him. I'll let you guess at the results.  

We must pick and choose which Buffett actions we follow. For example, some of the deals he does aren't available to the public. It would be folly to buy into General Electric and Goldman Sachs just because he did. He got sweetheart deal terms on preferred shares and warrants that we don't get with the common shares.

Don't think this has always been the case, though. Back to Lowenstein for some color:

If you look at the stocks that made him, The Washington Post was selling at four times earnings; anybody could have bought it. Same thing, the ad companies, same thing Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO  ) back when he bought it in the eighties. Just on and on and on.

Even with the Internet now threatening the Post and all newspapers, Buffett bought into his position at such an opportune time (the 1970s) that it has gone up more than 50-fold. Similarly, Coke is up almost 10-fold. Price matters.

The takeaways
Buffett's an original. No investor will "be the next Buffett." But we can learn from him as we aspire to make our own fortunes.

Buffett learned and adapted throughout his lifetime, mastering the world of small-cap stocks and ratcheting up all the way to making huge acquisitions for one of the largest companies in the world. When he started investing, there were many more opportunities for information arbitrage -- i.e., profiting on information the rest of the market doesn't have access to. Today, it's more about parsing all the information readily available to us, and figuring out which pieces of data matter.

Buffett has been able to thrive throughout because he is, as Munger calls him, "a learning machine." That's something we should mimic.

But don't confuse "learning and adapting" with rapidly buying in and out of stocks, chasing the next new thing. Learning should be constant, but buying and selling should be measured and less frequent.

Fool on!

In this article, I've shown a top-level view of how Buffett has destroyed the market. For specific concepts he has used, check out Buffett's Top 10 Investing Secrets.

Jeff Fischer and team have demystified options. And they can rack up income like $1,030... $2,626... and $3,228 on a schedule you can set your watch by!
That's why we're glad to announce every single one of their closely guarded strategies is available to YOU during May and June – 100% FREE, no strings attached! Just enter your email address in the box below...

Anand Chokkavelu owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and a poster of Warren Buffett. He may be kidding about the latter. Or not. Berkshire Hathaway, Coca-Cola, and Moody's are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. Berkshire Hathaway and Moody's are Motley Fool Stock Advisor picks. Coca-Cola is a Motley Fool Income Investor recommendation. Motley Fool Options has recommended a stock repair position on Moody's. The Fool owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and Coca-Cola. The Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (24) | Recommend This Article (90)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 3:05 PM, rfwiest wrote:

    You still don't have it right. You glorify Buffett as the all-time greatest investor, when, in fact, he is an under-achiever. Over the last decade his Bershire stock has under-performed the Dow by 27%. Actually, their records are identical, but holdrs of the Dow stocks would have earned 27% in dividends, while Berkshire pays zip.

    Call me at (916) 660-9897, and I'll tell you about some of the things ehich are in my book, such as the above about Buffett; and about the celebrated commodity trader who ripped off the public for $10 million; or the co-founder of a major electronics firm who stole $400 million from his fimr; or the major NYSE brokeraqge firm which pleased guilty to rigging the U.S. Treasure market and paid a $190 million fine; or the Vice Chairman of one of the giant regulatory agencies who helped his firm embezzle 82% of the assets of one of the public funds they managed; and a couple dozen more similar stories.

    The irony is that not one single person was ever arrested in any of these cases.

    Maybe you would also like to read the REAL reason why Madoff turned himself in.

    It's all in my book.

    Robert F. Wiest

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 3:14 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    "Over the last decade his Bershire stock has under-performed the Dow by 27%."

    I bet to differ. Over the past 10 years, BRK shares are up 122%; the Dow is down 3.4%.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 3:14 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Err, I beg* to differ.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 5:00 PM, holosys wrote:

    The $64 million dollar question is whether an investor who invested $10,000 in the Dow in 1965 would have been worth more than if he invested that money with Buffett?

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Archvile wrote:

    I don't understand how this article relates to the title. How did, Buffett destroy the market?

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 5:06 PM, ibitegirls wrote:

    what you smoking Robert Wiest? let me get some of that lmao

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 5:11 PM, mtracy9 wrote:

    "Anyone who says that size does not hurt investment performance is selling. The highest rates of return I've ever achieved were in the 1950s. I killed the Dow. You ought to see the numbers. But I was investing peanuts then. It's a huge structural advantage not to have a lot of money. I think I could make you 50 percent a year on $1 million. No, I know I could. I guarantee that." --Warren Buffett

    http://shouldersofgiantsinvestor.com/

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 6:10 PM, ddepperman wrote:

    Ahem.. I remember reading one foolish article that recommended Moody's back then. I thought you quaint indeed. I was reading the daily pfennig and john mauldin and others and they got it on the head way before you did! They knew Moody was screwy. Do Due Diligence.

    Another thing you don't mention about Buffett is that he needed a source of investment capital. I can't do this but he did-->he bought Geico, insurance cos didn't pay taxes on some part of the float. So he had tax free bucks to invest. Now where's a cheap insurance co to invest in anyway, just when you need one?

    And I think--though I may be wrong--that Buffett was early on doing this: your quote, "As he went further in his investing career, he diverged from Graham's teachings, partially under the influence of his partner Charlie Munger. He learned the value of buying great companies at good prices, rather than less adept companies at rock-bottom prices." C'mon, he was already doing this early on way way before Charlie Munger appeared on the scene. Munger is a Johnny-come-lately. A good one too. And finally, when Buffett dies, the stock will plummet and not ever fully recover. So keep up on the news. Buffett is gettin' fat I see. His heart can't like that.

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 6:11 PM, RichardRussel wrote:

    I think he means as in "beaten" the market

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 9:27 PM, TMFBomb wrote:

    @Archvile and RichardRussell,

    Yup, it destroyed means "beaten" in this case.

    -Anand

  • Report this Comment On July 22, 2010, at 11:03 PM, susan400 wrote:

    Robert F. Wiest-- you don't own BRK.

    We each get waht we ask for.

  • Report this Comment On July 23, 2010, at 1:40 AM, Glycomix wrote:

    Buffett earned $34 Billion from 1955 to 1995 by investing in companies where he would make at least 20% on each trade. Hathaway still uses the methods that he pioneered.

    Mary Buffett, his ex daughter-in-law, discussed stocks with him as one of the family for 9 years, and mentioned a portion of his strategy in a nutshell is as follows:

    1. Try to shelter yourself from taxes as much as you can.

    2. Don't buy growth stocks because they often burst, and don't do momentum trades because they'll bite you even if you're good.

    3. Screen for stocks with > 15% return on equity and return on assets, who haven't had financial problems in 10 years. [You can use a combination of increase in stock price and buy-back as return on investment]. Buffett often bought stocks that wouldn't be impressive in performance, but worked well when you add up all of the unnoticed increase in value. He always wanted 20% or more return on his investment.

    4. Buy stocks with a huge competitive advantage whose underlying business is going to make money no matter what happens: They gave teh example of Coca-cola. They'll make money no matter what happens and without much outlay of funds because people all over the world prefer their drink.

    In the competitive advantage, It's difficult to compete because everyone goes to this person, or there's too much difficulty in trying to become competitive. However, it's hard to figure out who is likely to have competitive advantages. In Buffett's time it took at least 15 years for a competivite advantage to disappear. Now, it doesn't take any time.

    5. Buy stocks that are highly undervalued.

    Buffett bought an insulation company that was being sued due to lawsuits over asbestos insulation. The portion of the company that had made asbestos insulation went bankrupt. However, the rest of the company did well. Buffett sold that company at a 300% profit.

    She said in her 2003 book that TD Ameritrade will allow anyone who has $100,000 in an account to trade for free. I don't know if that's still true. However, if it is it's still true, then that's a good deal.

    All of the above strategies are additive. Buy a stock with a competitive advantage that's highly undervalued is the best choice. However, That's hard to do.

    There are other strategies that she mentioned, but they can't be put in a nutshell.

  • Report this Comment On July 23, 2010, at 3:43 AM, Glycomix wrote:

    ----------------------------------

    OBama is the one destroying that under the impitus of Rev. Wrights "Liberation Theology": the delusion that he won't go to heaven unless he implements socialism. NOT Buffett. Buffett developed a short video on the dangers of the trade imbalance in 2006,

    O'Bama increased unemployment from 8% to 10% and bankrupted small businesses by extending unemployment benefits for 2 years instead of the previous maximum of 2 months. Businesses have to fund the 1200% increase in the STATE's part of unemployment insurance. The majority of family owned businesses having to pay 12 times more for unemployment insurance went under. In a 300,000 person metropolitan area, the number of family owned mini-warehouses went from 8 to 1 after OBama moved into the whitehouse.

    Why work when you're being paid not to? I went to get my car worked on and asked the auto-body man where his workers were. He said, "I can't get them to come back. Unemployment pays as much. They want more! A private employment agency was embarrassed to find that applicants refused jobs at the salary that they'd had before because they wanted much more than they'd get from unemployment. You have to WORK at a job! How nice to have an two-year UNemployment contract!

    The $1.5trillion/year in extra debt from the "Stimulus" provided Deluxe unemployment insurance with health insurance added to the national debt at a rate of $750 Billion a year, and they added another $750 Billion for welfare and fixing potholes. The entire revenue stream stream of the US is $1,000 Billion. To pay for just this "stimulus" in the same amount of time, we'll have to increase taxes by at least 300% this year. Forget about paying for the rest of the deficit! Fifty percent of the budget now goes to pay Social Security and Medicare.

    More jobs were lost when the radical Democrats canceled the Section 179 investment credit for small businesses. That allowed small businesses to expense limited amounts of investments in the business in one year instead of 8 to 30 years. That incentive helped caused the business boom of the 1980s that Regan started.

    The Democrats destroy tax policies that create jobs and Implement policies that destroy jobs: like increasing the deficit, destroying Banks by funding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that our currently healthy factories will be at an disadvantage. Schumer Dodd and Frank fired Greenspan so that nobody would tell on them when they destroyed the banking system. By 2006, their favorite "Welfare Banks" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bankrupt by $1.17 trillion dollars( paragraph 2: $2.82T debt- $1.65 Assets = $1.17T debt) http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/07/05/Poo...

    Fannie and Freddie are the Democrat's pork-providing welfare mortgage banks. The law requires that they find and guarantee mortgages to the poor, minorities (called underserved) and to the very poor.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_0...

    The percent of the loan to be provided to each of the groups, poor, very poor and minority, was set by HUD and controlled by "Housing Advocacy Groups". HUD's 2007 goals required that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's executives guarantee 157% of the mortgages they guarantee to Minorities, or the Poor or the Very Poor. Obviously, this put a great deal of pressure on them to guarantee loans made to poor hispanics and blacks.

    http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/GSE/gse2007.pdf

    However, Schumer, Dodd, Frank and the Democrat leadership threatened or fired anyone who stood in their way: In August and October 2007, Schumer and the Democrats threatened to pass laws to increase the number of total "welfare" mortgages from 23% in 2005 to 76% in 2008. http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=280933&a...

    http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record_print.cfm?id=28...

    Yeilding to pressure the increased the percentage of the US mortgage market that would be made up of the Fannie and Freddie "Federally guaranteed" welfare mortgages. from 23% in 2005 to 76% by 2008 caused incredible pressure on the loan guarantee officers in Fannie and Freddie to make unsafe loans to meet the "goals". When asked, Lockhart said ‘Affordable Housing goals” caused Fannie and Freddie’s executives to guarantee unsafe loans. HUD Goals were too aggressive.” http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/281353-101 [16:12-17:50}

    The Democrats politicians’ increasing the subprime loans to 76% of the mortgage market put pressure on Fannie and Freddie executives to find good candidates markedly increased the subprime default rates: Housing Wire reported “Standard and Poors now expects the default rate on subprime loans issued in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to be 11 percent, 30 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.” (http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/subprime-default-rate-a...

    Banks bought subprime loans because the Clinton-Revised Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) caused any loan denied to a minority to be seen as "prejudiced." They were threatened by the Federal Reserve's regulators Fannie and Freddie.

    The Democrat's subprime mortgages almost destroyed the world's banking system; it cost the world's banks $1Trillion in subprime loans by buying (guaranteeing) and turning subprime and Alt-A mortgages into securities called "Mortgage Debt Obligations', also called Mortgage-Backed Securities by the newspapers. [Click on 'PRINT' above the title to read the article at the following website]: http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNL554155620091105?rpc=44

    It wasn't enough for Dodd, Schumer, and Frank to destroy half of US banks though manipulating laws. The 2010 Financial Reform act requires that banks again make unsafe loans to minorities. The same practice that destroyed banks before. One of the causes of the current depression is that the subprime loans that Banks were required to make to minorities put them on the verge of bankruptcy. They can afford to make few loans even to creditworthy commercial customers.

    We need to get the multiplier effect to work on our behalf in improving the economy: we need to give tax breaks to companies that manufacture goods in the US. They should get twice that tax credit if they export the goods . The greater percentage of the product that's produced in the US, the more the tax incentive should be given. Perhaps American businesses could implement the German tradition of hiring "apprentices" who are being paid less to learn a complex job for as much as seven years. (Benjamin Franklin in his Autobiography mentions this as the tradition in America in the 1700s.) Later they'll be paid amazing amounts of money as their skills produce the quality needed.

    According to the Economist in April 2010, the US had the highest trade deficit with a $500 Billion trade deficit in 2009. That's more than the next 15 trade deficit nations added together.

    CNN and MS-NBC elected this congress. The 2006-2008 and 2009 Democrat congress destroyed GM by not allowing them to get rid of contracts that required them to pay workers 95% of their $100,000 salaries when they didn't work. As a result they went Bankrupt and OBama sold the company to Fiat.

    The Chevy Volt is the only electric car that can be charged at a socket or by its gas engine and cost a tenth of what other electric cars costs. OBama and congress sold this priceless American competitive advantage to Fiat for worthless Italian Lira. According to the Motley Fool, Italy has many times the debt level that Greece has!

    Pelosi and the Democrats don't t want oil being produced in the US as shown by OBama's Caribbean oil-drilling moratorium and preventing drilling in Alaska. How will we drive without oil? If the national debt and trade deficits increase at the current rate, $500 dollars may not purchase a gallon of gas by 2016. (If you don't believe it, click and watch the video at the end of this posting.)

    The entire tax revenue stream of the US is $1 trillion% and medicare entitlement debt alone is increasing at the rate of $2 trillion a year.* Fifty percent of medicare benefits aren't paid for by tax. Instead of paying for the Medicare benefits with taxes or cutting benefits, %http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulintax.pdf

    What does OBama and Pelosi and the Dems do? Despite the American ship of state being so overloaded with debt that it's sinking, OBama, Pelosi and Reed added more debt! "Let's be sure to sink it NOW!"

    The only thing reason that we're not sinking already is that people all over the world have used the US dollar as a stand-by currency in case their currency fails. Until the 1960s, the US didn't spend more than it made. The tendency to spend as a "temporary measure" crept up on us. We added without paying for the previous debt.

    OBama and the Democrats who run congress without any check or balance, ignored that problem and added more debt. In 2009 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the radical Democrats added $10 trillion in welfare programs: the CBO estimated that congress' new programs will increase the debt by $9.2 trillion. Our debt is about to sink us. The Adjusted Gross Income of everyone in the US is only $8 trillion a year in the best year (2006).

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08fallbulintax.pdf

    Subtract $1T for taxes and we only have $7 trillion in income. How much of that needs to be spent on food, shelter, medicine and automobiles, and other necessary expenses. How much do we have left in the "net income"? Can we afford to have our taxes raised by 700% to 800% to pay our debts? What can we cut?

    As our national debt quickly approaches unpayable levels, we might go into a hyperinflation. Many Latin American nations suffered a hyperinflation in the 1980s when they spent more than they could raise in taxes. The resulting hyperinflation embitters and destroys the savings of the middle-class and causes the poor to starve. In Bolivia the price of food doubled every 90 minutes in 1985.

    Please click on and watch the following 9 minute VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ittBp7z-TbM

    * The 2 trillion/year increase in medicare debt comes from the following: The report of the Medicare trustees on how much we owed as reported in May 2009 (1) subtracted from the amount owed in Feb 2005 (2) divided by the years and fraction of years between the two reports.

    [($37.7trillion - $29.2trillion)/2.25 years.]

    (1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html

    (2) http://www.ncpa.org/speech/medicare-now-and-in-the-future

  • Report this Comment On July 23, 2010, at 4:08 AM, sydisquid wrote:

    the quote is "skate to where the puck will be", not skate to where it is. The idea is being able to anticipate where the action will be. If you go to where it is now, where the puck is, you'll get there too late.

  • Report this Comment On July 23, 2010, at 12:31 PM, shivy1 wrote:

    Just some advice to Anand, be careful on your titles, next time just say beaten. Great article, though everything you said has been repeated alot.

    -Tony

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Chowboy100 wrote:

    Shut your jibba jabba Glycomix!

    You make me mad sucker!

    What the.........!?

    Get a life man.

  • Report this Comment On July 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, prettymeadow wrote:

    What we need to do is to go back to the pre Reagan era tax rates. To a time in the 50's and 60's where you didn't need 3 jobs to make it. The wealthy were still wealthy but instead on draining their businesses, they reinvested in them to make them grow. Instead of shipping jobs overseas we had a stable or even growing middle class. Back then the rop tax rates were 91% and America was booming. This trickle down economics doesn't work and this 30 yr experiment needs to end. The gap between the rich and poor is now a giant chasm and there is even a chasm between the mearly wealthy and the uber wealthy. This madness needs to end. We need the tax revenue to pay for the infrastructure projects that have been put on hold since the Reagan era. Our electrical grid needs a major overhaul. Our bridges and roads need major repair. The only way to do the things that need to be done is to raise taxes on the very wealthy. Don;t worry about the "lost jobs" that you think will happen or that the wealthy will relocate else where. (Let them try living in Somalia or any other tax haven without getting killed) If they want Americans to buy their goods and services they will likely stay here. Besides most of thier money is made with dividends which is taxed at a much lower rate than regular income.

    Warren Buffet has even commented on the fact that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. That needs to change. He can afford to pay a million times more than his secretary pays in taxes. Have you been paying attention to what corporations actually pay in taxes? It's not much if anything at all. for instance Exxon/mobile paid $0 that is ZERO DOLLARS in federal taxes Dow paid $4.00 dollars in federal taxes. I personally paid 720 times more in taxes than Dow chemical but I'm sure I didn't make more than a mere fraction of 1% of the income Dow chemical made. Especially since Dow made $12.5 Billion dollars last year.which 390,000+ times more than I made.

    The tax rates are unfair to the poor and middle class because we don't get land and more $ forked over to us in the amounts large corporations and wealthy individuals do. I would definates like to see a return to the tax rates of the the 1950's and 60's.

  • Report this Comment On July 26, 2010, at 6:04 PM, dollarfor40cents wrote:

    @prettymeadow, that's all and nice until you are on the other side of the coin. Until you watch the fruits of your blood sweat and tears being stolen and redistributed. You can only rob the producers for so long until a tipping point is reached, they take money elseware.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2010, at 3:13 PM, allied35 wrote:

    Wow, it's amazing how some Americans like Glycomix blame the the entirety of the US's problems on Obama and the Democrats; as if Bush didn't cut taxes and then spend like a crack-head with a stolen wallet!

    "OBama and congress sold this priceless American competitive advantage to Fiat for worthless Italian Lira." -Glycomix

    Haha, Lira huh?

    Here's a little history lesson:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/

  • Report this Comment On July 29, 2010, at 4:18 PM, aviator7 wrote:

    @allied 35. What did you expect? It's PBS! (taxpayer funded).

  • Report this Comment On July 29, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Sleddawg63 wrote:

    Sorry the 50's and 60's are never coming back. Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat" lays this out in plain terms. If you are unskilled then you are basically doomed. In Canada, the City of Windsor just lost two auto parts plants in two days...one from bailed out GM and the other from non-bailout Ford. This is a prime example of a flat world. Somewhere there is a non union labourer who could only hope to get health care doing the job for pennies on the dollar.

    Even more startling is that our home town newspaper outsources it's creative ad work to India. Yep, India. If a small town paper is doing that, who knows what the big boys are doing.

    We cannot hope to turn back the clock, we can only anticipate that it will keep ticking forward and adjust ourselves accordingly.

  • Report this Comment On July 30, 2010, at 11:52 PM, weihou258 wrote:

    do I subscribe to a wrong political service ?

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2010, at 4:04 AM, alanruud101 wrote:

    Regarding the title of this article: The only reason I clicked on this (and probably most everyone else), was because I was thinking "How in the world did Buffett DESTROY the market". GENIUS title...!

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2010, at 7:23 PM, TMFBomb wrote:

    @alanruud101,

    Hopefully you came for the title but stayed for the content... :)

    -Anand

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1242712, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/19/2013 9:50:59 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 1 day ago Sponsored by:
DOW 15,354.40 121.18 0.80%
S&P 500 1,667.47 17.00 1.03%
NASD 3,498.97 33.73 0.97%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/17/2013 4:01 PM
KO $42.97 Down -0.12 -0.28%
Coca-Cola CAPS Rating: *****
USB $34.67 Up +0.36 +1.05%
US Bancorp CAPS Rating: *****
WFC $39.88 Up +0.62 +1.58%
Wells Fargo CAPS Rating: ****
GE $23.46 Up +0.19 +0.82%
General Electric C… CAPS Rating: ****
AIG $45.23 Up +0.32 +0.71%
American Internati… CAPS Rating: ***
BRK-A $169400.00 Up +2097.00 +1.25%
Berkshire Hathaway… CAPS Rating: ****
BRK-B $113.02 Up +1.48 +1.33%
Berkshire Hathaway CAPS Rating: *****

Advertisement