> Walsh said that the idea was neither to "demonize"
> nor get "dewy-eyed" about Buffett * * * [H]e
> was complimentary about Buffett's personal qualities -
> but he did offer the reminder that Buffett occupies
> a particular role in the system which can be quite
> destructive and at odds with his better instincts,
> and that this has be to taken into account alongside
> his more positive contributions. * * *
What Walsh said in this respect was notably less than a "reminder" and instead more of a far from proven conclusory contention. F'r'instance, he did not address (much less analyze) and so certainly did not refute what might be an alternative to the "quite destructive, etc." characterization at least on the "macro" level -- namely, whether Buffett's business practices, over-all, may have been and be comparatively unusual in having contributed materially, creating more an better jobs, etc., etc., even after accounting for the effects of job losses associated with some of the mergers/acquisitions in which he was involved. But the most that can be fairly said in this respect (one way or t'other) based just on Walsh's article and the other comments so far in this thread is that the jury is out on this issue.
> I'm not sure the Sage of Omaha wouldn't agree.
Also, if he bothered to respond at all, he might have a more nuanced and substantive response than Walsh's silly little article.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk