The Oracle of Omaha? Or a Con Man?
From
MiXue fan@user11874@newsgrouper.org.invalid to
alt.philosophy.taoism on Sat Jan 3 04:06:20 2026
From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism
Just Now, the Smartest Person in the World Retired
The Oracle of Omaha? Or a Con Man?
As usual, let's start with the summary. The person who might be the smartest in the world retired yesterday. You may have seen the news. Yesterday, December 31, 2025, Warren Buffett, known as the "Oracle of Omaha," announced his retirement, with his deputy Greg Abel taking over. In fact, everyone has long known about this, because last November, Buffett publicly stated that he would retire at the end of the year. Later, to build his personal brand, he wrote four sentences that look like life maxims:
The second half of life can be more wonderful!
Don't blame yourself for past mistakes; look forward.
It's never too late to make progress.
Find the right role models and follow them. If you want to become someone, learn from people like that.
......
I won't comment on these maxims of his. There are simply too many people in this world who show off, and far too many who can write such spiritual chicken soup|o-C-othere's no need for it. Speaking of which, those who are familiar with us must be saying: Didn't you say Buffett was a con man in previous videos? Why are you changing your tune now, calling him possibly the smartest person in the world? Actually, these two are not contradictory at all.
Here, let's get to know what kind of person Buffett really is. First, his family background. Many videos about Buffett like to say that Buffett had it tough|o-C-ohe came from a humble background and struggled his way up to the upper class through his own efforts. Is that true? No, just like how for a long time, videos told us that Bill Gates was a self-made man who coded in a garage and raised investments. Years later, we found out it was all a myth, all fake. His father was a top American lawyer, his mother was a bank president and also the chairman of the University of Washington, and she had close ties with IBM. When Bill Gates started his business, his mother not only raised money for him but also helped him find business opportunities; his cooperation with IBM was secured through his mother's connections.
Buffett is no different. Let's start from 1951. That year, after graduating with a master's degree, he went to work at his father's stock brokerage firm as a broker for three years. Two things to note here: First, how many Americans back then could smoothly finish high school, college, and then go on to get a master's degree? Second, his father owned a stock brokerage firm|o-C-odoes that sound like a self-made man from a humble background?
At this point, some people might think: So his father was just rich and ran a stock brokerage firm. That doesn't affect his status as the Oracle of Omaha, right? Wrong! His father was not only wealthy but also influential. In 1942, Buffett's father, Howard Buffett, was elected to the U.S. Congress and was re-elected, serving for ten years until 1952. During that period, his father actually held public office while running a stock brokerage firm. Does this remind you of Nancy Pelosi, the famous "Congressional Stock God" of recent years?
What does having such a father mean? An inheritable network of power at the highest level, a complex and profound intangible legacy. Therefore, if Buffett is called the Oracle of Omaha but we don't mention his father who served ten years in Congress, we can't possibly explain how Buffett later became the Oracle of Omaha. By the way, Buffett is probably very grateful to his amazing father|o-C-ohis eldest son is also named Howard Buffett. In American customs, this is a sign of great respect for his father.
Now that we've talked about his background, let's discuss how Buffett became the Oracle of Omaha. First, with his father's protection, he worked for three years and made a fortune. Then he went to work under Benjamin Graham, a good friend of his father and his master's supervisor, a famous economist, to do investment work for another two years. As soon as he started his career, he was mentored by his father, who was among America's top elite, and his father's friends. Even though Buffett was an employee, could his income have been low? Of course not. By 1956, Buffett had assets of $140,000. What does that amount mean? At that time in the U.S., a two-income family had an annual income of only $3,210. A car cost $1,510, and a house cost $8,450. Just five years after graduating with a master's degree, he had earned the equivalent of more than 40 years of income for an average family.
Is this something a self-made man, an ordinary person, or someone from a humble background could achieve? With top-tier connections from his father and mentor, was Buffett about to soar to great heights? Surprisingly, no|o-C-oinstead, he struggled for decades afterward. Why? In 1962, he bought a company whose name is now legendary in the investment world: Berkshire Hathaway. But don't be impressed yet; let's first talk about what Berkshire Hathaway was like in 1962. Here's a brief background: In 1790, a man named Samuel Slater founded a textile mill in Rhode Island, USA. Later, this company changed hands many times and gradually became known as Berkshire. In 1888, a man named Horatio Hathaway also founded a company, named Hathaway, which retained its original name as it was not sold multiple times. In 1955, due to poor performance, the two companies merged to form Berkshire Hathaway. But its performance remained poor, with years of losses and near bankruptcy. Just then, a "blind" guy came along and bought a large number of the company's stocks at $7.5 per share. Who was this blind guy? Warren Buffett.
He later said that he had long known the company would go bankrupt, but after a company goes bankrupt, it releases certain capital, someone would repurchase the stocks, and the stock price would rise|o-C-oallowing him to sell and make a huge profit. But he only said this after becoming the Oracle of Omaha. The truth is, in the following years, even though the company's operating conditions got worse and worse, Buffett was extremely stubborn and continued to raise funds to buy more stocks. As a result, by May 1965, he had bought so many stocks that he gained control of Berkshire Hathaway.
Taking control of a failing company at a high cost is definitely not a good thing, but what did Buffett do back then? He refused to give up until he hit the wall. He raised funds everywhere and struggled to keep the failing textile company afloat at a loss for ten years. After ten years, for some reason|o-C-operhaps feeling that losing money with just one failing textile company wasn't enough|o-C-ohe bought another failing textile company in 1975 called Wombat Mills. The result was even worse: both textile companies were losing money.
No matter how solid the foundation his father had laid for him, he couldn't afford such continuous losses. A few years later, he had to close Wombat Mills, and a large sum of money went down the drain. But did it end there? No! It has to be said that Buffett had a real fondness for the textile industry in his early years. He later invested in another company called Blue Chip Stamps, which specialized in textile printing. Predictably, this company also lost money and eventually went bankrupt. How much did this series of failures regret Buffett? Even in 2010, when he was already the Oracle of Omaha, he still muttered like Xianglin's Wife in an interview with the media: "I was so stupid, really." He said that buying Berkshire Hathaway and clinging to the textile industry was the stupidest deal of his life, and he stuck with it for 20 years.
What can we learn from this? Without a father who served ten years in Congress and a wealth of connections left over from his father's political career, if he were an ordinary American, he would have been ruined ten times over. But just then, Buffett's luck changed.
In the 1980s, a fundamental change quietly took place in American society, completely altering its social structure and economic operation model. What happened? Ronald Reagan came to power. After taking office, he said that the United States would pursue free trade, privatization, and reduce government intervention. To put it nicely, this was globalization; to put it bluntly, the American elite decided that the U.S. would henceforth use capital to harvest the world. Simply put, the United States would center on financial capital, and national policies would serve the interests of financial capital and the financial bourgeoisie.
Therefore, starting from the 1980s, American manufacturing began to shift heavily overseas, American capital flowed massively abroad, and the U.S. started deindustrialization. What were American companies doing? Instead of using profits to expand production or upgrade technology, they repurchased their own stocks. The higher the stock price, the better the company was considered to be run. But finance is often full of inside information, and inside information is often hard to define. The most basic form is knowing a company's operating conditions in advance|o-C-ofor example, who it is going to acquire or how its annual report will be|o-C-oand then buying stocks. That's definitely insider trading. But more advanced insider operations are hard to define.
For example, in 1991, when Iraq annexed Kuwait and the U.S. decided to send troops, whoever knew first would definitely make a fortune! But is that insider information? It's hard to say. Then there are the "Congressional Stock Gods" in the U.S., who quietly buy stocks while deliberating on how much money to allocate to which companies. Once the bill is passed and the stock prices of those companies rise, they make money.
So if we look closely at Buffett's life, we will find that after he dived into the textile industry in 1962, he struggled for more than 20 years. Then, in the 1980s, he suddenly had an epiphany and turned to investment|o-C-oand he often won, gradually transforming from a failed investor into the Oracle of Omaha. How did this happen? Roughly in three steps.
Step one: At that time, Reagan was promoting globalization and encouraging American companies to move overseas. Buffett followed suit, even pushing the trend forward. For example, when Dairy Queen ice cream entered the Chinese market around 1992, he bought its stocks around that time. By 2012, Dairy Queen had opened 500 stores in China alone. He also bought Brown Shoe Company, which later also launched a major industrial transfer. I won't go into more details, but when it comes to this, some people might say: This doesn't seem like a big deal! The U.S. government was promoting it. If you think that, you're wrong. American politicians need votes; publicly, they will say they serve financial capital, but they will never utter a word about promoting the transfer of American manufacturing. Once American voters hear about manufacturing transfers, they immediately think of unemployment, and that politician will have no chance of staying in office. Therefore, such words and the purpose of policy-making can only be discussed privately, and not many people know or understand them. This is called the fog of history. Whoever can see through this fog in advance will be faced with mountains of gold and silver.
But as long as you know or understand, it becomes much easier to choose companies, and money will roll in. Is this insider information? It can be said yes, or no. After understanding this, would anyone still chase after low-level internal company information? Definitely not. He just needs to identify a few companies in advance, buy their stocks, and hold them for the long term|o-C-omoney will naturally come. What's this called? Value investing, long-term holding. Of course, it's also called being a high-level con man. But to do this, it's extremely difficult. One must have close ties with the highest levels of power to know what's behind the fog. Therefore, having a father who served ten years in Congress, along with a bunch of uncles, aunts, and social connections, is crucial.
Step two: With the transfer of American manufacturing, many regions around the world also developed, and local consumer markets emerged|o-C-oanother opportunity to make money. Buffett's more classic cases emerged, such as his bold investment in Coca-Cola and Gillette. For many people, these investments seemed bold, but for Buffett, they were definitely not. Because a lot of information would automatically come to him; it would have been hard for him not to be a high-level con man. Moreover, the collapse of the Soviet Union happened at that time. As long as you had money and the support of politicians in the U.S., it was like gold was everywhere|o-C-omaking money faster than robbing.
Then came step three: around 2010 and the following years, suddenly, the Oracle of Omaha was no longer so divine and stumbled repeatedly. Why? Because China rose. For example, his investment in acquiring DC Solar from 2011 to 2018 coincided with the rise of China's photovoltaic industry. The company couldn't compete and even resorted to a Ponzi scheme, causing Buffett to lose more than $300 million. Things only got worse after that. For example, in the first quarter of 2020, Berkshire Hathaway lost $49.746 billion, and lost more than $45 billion in the first half of 2022.
Even more blindly, he reduced his holdings in BYD|o-C-oa company that is now the world's largest new energy vehicle manufacturer. Then, something even more amazing happened: Buffett is an investor, but in recent years, he has stopped investing and started withdrawing capital. This November, they released figures showing that they had $381.67 billion in cash on hand and had not repurchased any stocks for nine months. Since then, apart from issuing bonds in Japan to use Japanese money to invest in Japan, there have been basically no major moves.
At this point, some people might say: This at most proves that Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, is no longer divine now; it can't prove that he's a super con man. But no, there is proof|o-C-oand he said it himself. In 2011, he said: "I'm lucky to have been born in America. If I had been born in another country or another era, my talents might have been useless." Although this is still a bit veiled, it's already quite straightforward. In a 2015 interview with Forbes, he said: "The biggest luck of my life is being born in America." At the 2017 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders' Meeting, he said: "Being born in America is like winning the ovarian lottery." That's too straightforward.
Because we now know that most people born in America do not win the ovarian lottery; instead, they face a line of execution. Only people like him|o-C-othose with a father who served ten years in Congress, who knew the top-level inside information in advance and could see through the fog of history|o-C-ocan win the ovarian lottery. So what can we say? The second half of his life is a story of a super con man. In fact, in American society, there has never been a shortage of discussions about him being a super con man. Even his long-time partner Charlie Munger tried his best to defend him just ten days before his death at the age of 99, saying he was not a con man.
Now, another question arises: If he is such a person, why do we still call him the smartest person in the world? How old is Buffett now? 95. What's the difference between stepping down now and his old partner Munger passing away in office? In terms of age, there doesn't seem to be much difference, but in reality, there is. Because after these years, Buffett must clearly know in his heart that the era and background that made him the Oracle of Omaha are long gone|o-C-ojust like how he struggled with the textile industry from the 1960s to the 1980s for 20 years, working tirelessly, getting into a mess, and constantly teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Since the days ahead are bound to be downhill, why not retire? So he retired. A man born into an extraordinary family, whose father once worked at the highest level of American power for ten years, dedicated to obtaining various information and seeing through the fog of history in advance, thus amassing enormous wealth|o-C-osuch a person is smart, but not the smartest. However, realizing that the situation is unfavorable, making a timely exit, and being able to hand over what he has|o-C-othat is the smartest person. This latter point is where Buffett truly excels. Old Buffett, rest well. Your era is over. The era of American financial capital dominating the world is also coming to an end.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
From
eye@user8028@newsgrouper.org.invalid to
alt.philosophy.taoism on Sat Jan 3 12:37:02 2026
From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism
aye posted:
MiXue fan posted:
The era of American financial capital
dominating the world is also coming to an end.
Seems to be in the author's view,
so-called American financial capital
continues to dominate the world.
Zz wasn't always happy.
Perhaps fish are similar.
There was a time when Zz lost his De,
unless it wasn't. He'd been wandering,
with a bow and arrow in a park, a park
that was a preserve of some sort.
A form of Gemini says:
<< In the story, Zhuangzi visits a park
and becomes so engrossed in observing
the interconnectedness of liferCo
a bird pursuing a mantis that pursued a
cicadarCothat he completely forgets himself
and his surroundings. This experience is
described as figuratively "losing his self"
or "losing his De" (virtue or inner nature). >>
Of interest could be a contrast.
To be without a mind, forgetting,
being spontaneous and all that, may
be how to be, generally speaking yet,
such a dao might not be the Dao at each
and every time nor instance.
The bot continues to articulate the tale:
<< In witnessing this natural chain of predation,
Zhuangzi sees a reflection of human entanglement
in worldly affairs and concerns. He realizes he too
has become entangled by his desire to shoot the bird. >>
A natural born killer, perhaps he was.
Or, maybe he learned to kill and to kill
would not be considered a natural skill.
To shoot the bird reminds me of
what is called flipping the bird.
Tis an odd tale. Kinda funny.
Not unlike the happy fish
and how he, Zz, knew they were.
To iron out wrinkles, irony
could be a form of doing.
- thanks! Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
From
aye@user8028@newsgrouper.org.invalid to
alt.philosophy.taoism on Sat Jan 3 12:51:52 2026
From Newsgroup: alt.philosophy.taoism
eye posted:
To iron out wrinkles, irony
could be a form of doing.
https://tinyurl.com/3t2xx84c
Looking for how an other website has
a few words to say about the incident.
<< Losing the Child Heart: Zhuangzi, the Bird, the Mantis, and the Cicada >>
Aye noticed how a word was used.
And the word included, immortal.
An author at the site wrote:
<< adhere to our child-like heart
if we expect to obtain the state of an immortal. >>
Reminds me of returning. Of being,
rather than being a time being,
yet not non-being either.
The writer at the site writes:
<< this child-like heart can return of its own accord.
There is so much that can be said here about cultivating
yourself because Taoism is entirely all about cultivating
onerCOs true self, true nature, and child-like heartrCo
all aspects of immortality. >>
Aye may prefer, instead of the word, immortality,
not-mortality. At times yu and wu contrast. Yu
connoting a sense of with or having. Wu
meaning without or not having.
Without mortality, without any concern
nor care, the world could be viewed
as taking care of its own self.
People who want to be first might
use various techniques to fight
and swim against a form of nature.
The article concludes:
<< Like Zhuang Zi, do something to lose your excessive obsession
with the acquisition of material gain and create unrestrained
satisfaction of your Six Sense Desires. As my teacher always advised,
rCLThe Taoist Way is to learn to be moderate, never excessive, and then
you can more easily arrive at immortality.rCY >>
Aye wonders. A grasping at immortality, a goal
of attaining such a state, without wu-wei or
wu-xin, forgetting about all that may be
a dao that flips to being the Dao.
Seeing as how a duality,
in this case mortality and immortality,
has its polarities, transcending the two,
if not forgetting about them entirely
makes a bit of sense in my view.
- thanks! aye. Cheers!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2