Thread

Warren Buffett Steps Down as Berkshire Chairman, Names Son to Replace Him

323 points · 221 comments · saimiam

dugmartin · 1789732295 · focus · HN ↗
I guess Warren’s quote only applies to other people, not him. "It’s like choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/us/dozens-of-rich-americans-join-in-fight-to-retain-the-estate-tax.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/14/us/dozens-of-rich-america...)
1. nlitened · 1789734152 · focus · HN ↗
  As I understand, the son is there not to lead the company (Greg Abel is the CEO), but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise.
  1. yuuu · 1789734967 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought he was giving away 99% of his wealth?
    u1hcw9nx · 1789736927 · focus · HN ↗
    He has. His family manages the foundation that owns BRK stock.
    infecto · 1789737198 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn’t that the usual loophole though? He definitely continues to donate large amounts but I always question setting up a trust that the kids run.
    Grombobulous · 1789737999 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, donating your present wealth because you expect to continue receiving an astronomical amount of wealth in perpetuity through your company ownership is not all that grand of a gesture.
    Certainly better than many alternatives, but it’s not a gesture that should make the median income person feel like existing as an excessively wealthy person should be okay/legal.
    In my opinion, personal wealth/asset control above a certain level deemed excessive (perhaps $100 million then adjusted for inflation moving forward) should be taxed at 100% and put into a special fund intended to help pay for social services, healthcare, housing the homeless, etc. In the case of asset control perhaps a good method would be to distribute excessively valued ownership stakes to employees or random members of the public (e.g., many of Elon Musk’s shares in his companies forfeited and distributed to others).
    idiotsecant · 1789746516 · focus · HN ↗
    This makes sense as long as public control makes the outcome of that money better than letting the bazillionare control it. I'm not sure which way the actual truth tilts, but I suspect it's sometimes one and sometimes the other.
    Grombobulous · 1789755454 · focus · HN ↗
    In my opinion, giving one person that level of economic and social control as a concept is more of the issue than optimizing for the most positive outcome.
    E.g., the most intelligent and benevolent king in history might be better in those particular outcomes than democracy, but we should still pick democracy because the concept of giving one person too much powerful is too dangerous.
    I think our society needs to think of wealth more in these terms than it does at present.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.