Consider: In the crash the auto industry was going tits up. The biggies were going to flush a big chunk of change down the toilet. But that was the tip of the iceberg. There were thousands of small companies supplying parts to the biggies that would have been flushed as well. They weren’t listed on the stock market, but they were damn well tied to it. Think about all the small mom and pop businesses that catered to those parts suppliers. They would have been affected as well. It’s dominoes and if a fortune 500 business goes down, it takes a shitload of those small businesses with them.
The point I’m trying to make is that it is all interconnected and whatever the “good” fix, you need to also see who is going to be hurt - including the guy running the hotdog cart.
So here’s what i meant. In the context of Buffet, I was talking about stock companies. Although Buffet may buy privately held or closely held companies as well. I meant pretty much what phyllo said - healthy companies. With no regard to how they treat their employees. In this way, buffet helps the economy, although he may not help society as a whole. or he might.
But back to income disparity. By some measures - and I have not done the math myself, you need to earn roughly $32,000 per year to be in the top one percent income in the world.
Yeah, the top one percent in the world. Adjusted for the cost of living.
Now, i think that’s a bit misleading but the point stands. Americans do not walk miles for enough food and firewood to stay alive. Poor people in america own more than two shirts and a goat.
That’s not to say we can’t do better. But income disparity is not the real problem. If i could convince you that it’s possible that no worker in this country earn less than 60K but only if the income of the top ten percent doubles, would this be bad? I’m not going to try to convince you, but what about it?
The fact is that there will always be poor people because poverty is measured against wealth. Not against failure to subsist.
Some of the one percent are entertainers, including athletes. Some are doctors. Some are entrepreneurs. Is this a problem?
A company can be profitable by painting radon paint on watches and aircraft instruments. The women doing the painting die of cancer. The people who repair the instruments die of cancer. Disposal of all that radioactive stuff is a dangerous and complicated problem.
The company is ‘good’ because it generated a profit.
I think you’re dramatically undervaluing financial discipline and the ability to organize in a speculative environment.
Like a person who thinks a doctor is just a dumbass who only writes prescriptions and is therefore overpaid. You don’t seem to have a clue as to the complexity of what funds like Berkshire Hathaway do.