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?
    Waterluvian · 1789739929 · focus · HN ↗
    Most of them seemingly have control problems where even if they do, it is in the form of a giant money pile still under their control that they give away the returns of, usually also completely under their control.
    toomuchtodo · 1789740361 · focus · HN ↗
    What's interesting is they cannot, but their ex partners go much further in their giving (Melinda French, MacKenzie Scott, for example).
    Waterluvian · 1789741152 · focus · HN ↗
    I wonder if there's a survivorship bias there: those who can and do reject the status quo.
    toomuchtodo · 1789741318 · focus · HN ↗
    My hot take is that men with extreme wealth and power are desperate to keep it as part of their identity, where the women I mentioned do not have the same character and personality flaws, and therefore use it as a tool to do good because they are not optimizing for status, power, and wealth: they are optimizing to do good. Doesn't always hold, there are exceptions.
    "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority." -- Lord Action
    IncreasePosts · 1789744344 · focus · HN ↗
    I think more likely is that bill and Jeff built their wealth through their businesses, which they are still directly involved in. Giving away their wealth would be equivalent to giving away the business they built from the ground up
    I think there's also a question of efficacy. Bill and Jeff are really good at turning $1 into $10. Melinda and Mackenzie? Not so much. If bill or Jeff wanted to maximize the amount they can give, the best strategy would be for them to continually earn until they die, and then donate it.
    soperj · 1789760003 · focus · HN ↗
    That's what it's about though. The amount THEY can give, not the benefit to humanity.
    It's not like Bill and Jeff actually built any of these products themselves. Microsoft bought DOS. Right place, right time for that Nepo baby. Bezos at least had a normal family.
    IncreasePosts · 1789842505 · focus · HN ↗
    Bezos didn't build Amazon? First I heard of that

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.