Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Squanderville versus Thriftville (Warren Buffet)
fortune ^ | oct 2003 | Warren Buffet

Posted on 01/07/2004 8:35:03 PM PST by dennisw

By Warren E. Buffett, FORTUNE

I'm about to deliver a warning regarding the U.S. trade deficit and also suggest a remedy for the problem. But first I need to mention two reasons you might want to be skeptical about what I say. To begin, my forecasting record with respect to macroeconomics is far from inspiring. For example, over the past two decades I was excessively fearful of inflation. More to the point at hand, I started way back in 1987 to publicly worry about our mounting trade deficits -- and, as you know, we've not only survived but also thrived. So on the trade front, score at least one "wolf" for me. Nevertheless, I am crying wolf again and this time backing it with Berkshire Hathaway's money. Through the spring of 2002, I had lived nearly 72 years without purchasing a foreign currency. Since then Berkshire has made significant investments in -- and today holds -- several currencies. I won't give you particulars; in fact, it is largely irrelevant which currencies they are. What does matter is the underlying point: To hold other currencies is to believe that the dollar will decline.

Both as an American and as an investor, I actually hope these commitments prove to be a mistake. Any profits Berkshire might make from currency trading would pale against the losses the company and our shareholders, in other aspects of their lives, would incur from a plunging dollar.

But as head of Berkshire Hathaway, I am in charge of investing its money in ways that make sense. And my reason for finally putting my money where my mouth has been so long is that our trade deficit has greatly worsened, to the point that our country's "net worth," so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate.

A perpetuation of this transfer will lead to major trouble. To understand why, take a wildly fanciful trip with me to two isolated, side-by-side islands of equal size, Squanderville and Thriftville. Land is the only capital asset on these islands, and their communities are primitive, needing only food and producing only food. Working eight hours a day, in fact, each inhabitant can produce enough food to sustain himself or herself. And for a long time that's how things go along. On each island everybody works the prescribed eight hours a day, which means that each society is self-sufficient.

Eventually, though, the industrious citizens of Thriftville decide to do some serious saving and investing, and they start to work 16 hours a day. In this mode they continue to live off the food they produce in eight hours of work but begin exporting an equal amount to their one and only trading outlet, Squanderville.

The citizens of Squanderville are ecstatic about this turn of events, since they can now live their lives free from toil but eat as well as ever. Oh, yes, there's a quid pro quo -- but to the Squanders, it seems harmless: All that the Thrifts want in exchange for their food is Squanderbonds (which are denominated, naturally, in Squanderbucks).

Over time Thriftville accumulates an enormous amount of these bonds, which at their core represent claim checks on the future output of Squanderville. A few pundits in Squanderville smell trouble coming. They foresee that for the Squanders both to eat and to pay off -- or simply service -- the debt they're piling up will eventually require them to work more than eight hours a day. But the residents of Squanderville are in no mood to listen to such doomsaying.

Meanwhile, the citizens of Thriftville begin to get nervous. Just how good, they ask, are the IOUs of a shiftless island? So the Thrifts change strategy: Though they continue to hold some bonds, they sell most of them to Squanderville residents for Squanderbucks and use the proceeds to buy Squanderville land. And eventually the Thrifts own all of Squanderville.

At that point, the Squanders are forced to deal with an ugly equation: They must now not only return to working eight hours a day in order to eat -- they have nothing left to trade -- but must also work additional hours to service their debt and pay Thriftville rent on the land so imprudently sold. In effect, Squanderville has been colonized by purchase rather than conquest.

It can be argued, of course, that the present value of the future production that Squanderville must forever ship to Thriftville only equates to the production Thriftville initially gave up and that therefore both have received a fair deal. But since one generation of Squanders gets the free ride and future generations pay in perpetuity for it, there are -- in economist talk -- some pretty dramatic "intergenerational inequities."

Let's think of it in terms of a family: Imagine that I, Warren Buffett, can get the suppliers of all that I consume in my lifetime to take Buffett family IOUs that are payable, in goods and services and with interest added, by my descendants. This scenario may be viewed as effecting an even trade between the Buffett family unit and its creditors. But the generations of Buffetts following me are not likely to applaud the deal (and, heaven forbid, may even attempt to welsh on it).

Think again about those islands: Sooner or later the Squanderville government, facing ever greater payments to service debt, would decide to embrace highly inflationary policies -- that is, issue more Squanderbucks to dilute the value of each. After all, the government would reason, those irritating Squanderbonds are simply claims on specific numbers of Squanderbucks, not on bucks of specific value. In short, making Squanderbucks less valuable would ease the island's fiscal pain.

That prospect is why I, were I a resident of Thriftville, would opt for direct ownership of Squanderville land rather than bonds of the island's government. Most governments find it much harder morally to seize foreign-owned property than they do to dilute the purchasing power of claim checks foreigners hold. Theft by stealth is preferred to theft by force.

So what does all this island hopping have to do with the U.S.? Simply put, after World War II and up until the early 1970s we operated in the industrious Thriftville style, regularly selling more abroad than we purchased. We concurrently invested our surplus abroad, with the result that our net investment -- that is, our holdings of foreign assets less foreign holdings of U.S. assets -- increased (under methodology, since revised, that the government was then using) from $37 billion in 1950 to $68 billion in 1970. In those days, to sum up, our country's "net worth," viewed in totality, consisted of all the wealth within our borders plus a modest portion of the wealth in the rest of the world.

Additionally, because the U.S. was in a net ownership position with respect to the rest of the world, we realized net investment income that, piled on top of our trade surplus, became a second source of investable funds. Our fiscal situation was thus similar to that of an individual who was both saving some of his salary and reinvesting the dividends from his existing nest egg.

In the late 1970s the trade situation reversed, producing deficits that initially ran about 1 percent of GDP. That was hardly serious, particularly because net investment income remained positive. Indeed, with the power of compound interest working for us, our net ownership balance hit its high in 1980 at $360 billion.

Since then, however, it's been all downhill, with the pace of decline rapidly accelerating in the past five years. Our annual trade deficit now exceeds 4 percent of GDP. Equally ominous, the rest of the world owns a staggering $2.5 trillion more of the U.S. than we own of other countries. Some of this $2.5 trillion is invested in claim checks -- U.S. bonds, both governmental and private -- and some in such assets as property and equity securities.

In effect, our country has been behaving like an extraordinarily rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4 percent more than we produce -- that's the trade deficit -- we have, day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increasing the mortgage on what we still own.

To put the $2.5 trillion of net foreign ownership in perspective, contrast it with the $12 trillion value of publicly owned U.S. stocks or the equal amount of U.S. residential real estate or what I would estimate as a grand total of $50 trillion in national wealth. Those comparisons show that what's already been transferred abroad is meaningful -- in the area, for example, of 5 percent of our national wealth.

More important, however, is that foreign ownership of our assets will grow at about $500 billion per year at the present trade-deficit level, which means that the deficit will be adding about one percentage point annually to foreigners' net ownership of our national wealth. As that ownership grows, so will the annual net investment income flowing out of this country. That will leave us paying ever-increasing dividends and interest to the world rather than being a net receiver of them, as in the past. We have entered the world of negative compounding -- goodbye pleasure, hello pain.

We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits. At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders. And that's the way it has indeed worked for the rest of the world, as we can see by the abrupt shutoffs of credit that many profligate nations have suffered in recent decades.

The U.S., however, enjoys special status. In effect, we can behave today as we wish because our past financial behavior was so exemplary -- and because we are so rich. Neither our capacity nor our intention to pay is questioned, and we continue to have a mountain of desirable assets to trade for consumables. In other words, our national credit card allows us to charge truly breathtaking amounts. But that card's credit line is not limitless.

The time to halt this trading of assets for consumables is now, and I have a plan to suggest for getting it done. My remedy may sound gimmicky, and in truth it is a tariff called by another name. But this is a tariff that retains most free-market virtues, neither protecting specific industries nor punishing specific countries nor encouraging trade wars. This plan would increase our exports and might well lead to increased overall world trade. And it would balance our books without there being a significant decline in the value of the dollar, which I believe is otherwise almost certain to occur.

We would achieve this balance by issuing what I will call Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Each exporter would, in turn, sell the ICs to parties -- either exporters abroad or importers here -- wanting to get goods into the U.S. To import $1 million of goods, for example, an importer would need ICs that were the byproduct of $1 million of exports. The inevitable result: trade balance.

Because our exports total about $80 billion a month, ICs would be issued in huge, equivalent quantities -- that is, 80 billion certificates a month -- and would surely trade in an exceptionally liquid market. Competition would then determine who among those parties wanting to sell to us would buy the certificates and how much they would pay. (I visualize that the certificates would be issued with a short life, possibly of six months, so that speculators would be discouraged from accumulating them.)

For illustrative purposes, let's postulate that each IC would sell for 10 cents -- that is, 10 cents per dollar of exports behind them. Other things being equal, this amount would mean a U.S. producer could realize 10 percent more by selling his goods in the export market than by selling them domestically, with the extra 10 percent coming from his sales of ICs.

In my opinion, many exporters would view this as a reduction in cost, one that would let them cut the prices of their products in international markets. Commodity-type products would particularly encourage this kind of behavior. If aluminum, for example, was selling for 66 cents per pound domestically and ICs were worth 10 percent, domestic aluminum producers could sell for about 60 cents per pound (plus transportation costs) in foreign markets and still earn normal margins. In this scenario, the output of the U.S. would become significantly more competitive and exports would expand. Along the way, the number of jobs would grow.

Foreigners selling to us, of course, would face tougher economics. But that's a problem they're up against no matter what trade "solution" is adopted -- and make no mistake, a solution must come. (As Herb Stein said, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.") In one way the IC approach would give countries selling to us great flexibility, since the plan does not penalize any specific industry or product. In the end, the free market would determine what would be sold in the U.S. and who would sell it. The ICs would determine only the aggregate dollar volume of what was sold.

To see what would happen to imports, let's look at a car now entering the U.S. at a cost to the importer of $20,000. Under the new plan and the assumption that ICs sell for 10 percent, the importer's cost would rise to $22,000. If demand for the car was exceptionally strong, the importer might manage to pass all of this on to the American consumer. In the usual case, however, competitive forces would take hold, requiring the foreign manufacturer to absorb some, if not all, of the $2,000 IC cost.

There is no free lunch in the IC plan: It would have certain serious negative consequences for U.S. citizens. Prices of most imported products would increase, and so would the prices of certain competitive products manufactured domestically. The cost of the ICs, either in whole or in part, would therefore typically act as a tax on consumers.

That is a serious drawback. But there would be drawbacks also to the dollar continuing to lose value or to our increasing tariffs on specific products or instituting quotas on them -- courses of action that in my opinion offer a smaller chance of success. Above all, the pain of higher prices on goods imported today dims beside the pain we will eventually suffer if we drift along and trade away ever larger portions of our country's net worth.

I believe that ICs would produce, rather promptly, a U.S. trade equilibrium well above present export levels but below present import levels. The certificates would moderately aid all our industries in world competition, even as the free market determined which of them ultimately met the test of "comparative advantage."

This plan would not be copied by nations that are net exporters, because their ICs would be valueless. Would major exporting countries retaliate in other ways? Would this start another Smoot-Hawley tariff war? Hardly. At the time of Smoot-Hawley we ran an unreasonable trade surplus that we wished to maintain. We now run a damaging deficit that the whole world knows we must correct.

For decades the world has struggled with a shifting maze of punitive tariffs, export subsidies, quotas, dollar-locked currencies, and the like. Many of these import-inhibiting and export-encouraging devices have long been employed by major exporting countries trying to amass ever larger surpluses -- yet significant trade wars have not erupted. Surely one will not be precipitated by a proposal that simply aims at balancing the books of the world's largest trade debtor. Major exporting countries have behaved quite rationally in the past and they will continue to do so -- though, as always, it may be in their interest to attempt to convince us that they will behave otherwise.

The likely outcome of an IC plan is that the exporting nations -- after some initial posturing -- will turn their ingenuity to encouraging imports from us. Take the position of China, which today sells us about $140 billion of goods and services annually while purchasing only $25 billion. Were ICs to exist, one course for China would be simply to fill the gap by buying 115 billion certificates annually. But it could alternatively reduce its need for ICs by cutting its exports to the U.S. or by increasing its purchases from us. This last choice would probably be the most palatable for China, and we should wish it to be so.

If our exports were to increase and the supply of ICs were therefore to be enlarged, their market price would be driven down. Indeed, if our exports expanded sufficiently, ICs would be rendered valueless and the entire plan made moot. Presented with the power to make this happen, important exporting countries might quickly eliminate the mechanisms they now use to inhibit exports from us.

Were we to install an IC plan, we might opt for some transition years in which we deliberately ran a relatively small deficit, a step that would enable the world to adjust as we gradually got where we need to be. Carrying this plan out, our government could either auction "bonus" ICs every month or simply give them, say, to less-developed countries needing to increase their exports. The latter course would deliver a form of foreign aid likely to be particularly effective and appreciated.

I will close by reminding you again that I cried wolf once before. In general, the batting average of doomsayers in the U.S. is terrible. Our country has consistently made fools of those who were skeptical about either our economic potential or our resiliency. Many pessimistic seers simply underestimated the dynamism that has allowed us to overcome problems that once seemed ominous. We still have a truly remarkable country and economy.

But I believe that in the trade deficit we also have a problem that is going to test all of our abilities to find a solution. A gently declining dollar will not provide the answer. True, it would reduce our trade deficit to a degree, but not by enough to halt the outflow of our country's net worth and the resulting growth in our investment-income deficit.

Perhaps there are other solutions that make more sense than mine. However, wishful thinking -- and its usual companion, thumb sucking -- is not among them. From what I now see, action to halt the rapid outflow of our national wealth is called for, and ICs seem the least painful and most certain way to get the job done. Just keep remembering that this is not a small problem: For example, at the rate at which the rest of the world is now making net investments in the U.S., it could annually buy and sock away nearly 4 percent of our publicly traded stocks.

In evaluating business options at Berkshire, my partner, Charles Munger, suggests that we pay close attention to his jocular wish: "All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I'll never go there." Framers of our trade policy should heed this caution -- and steer clear of Squanderville.

FORTUNE editor at large Carol Loomis, who is a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, worked with Warren Buffett on this article.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: trade; warrenbuffet; warrenbuffett

1 posted on 01/07/2004 8:35:03 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
btttttttt
2 posted on 01/07/2004 8:35:27 PM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Do these guys look happy
at the possibility
SHE might someday be their
Commander in Chief?

Don't
Let
This
Happen!!!

Support Free Republic!
 

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Help Keep "Wonder Vermin" out of the White House!


3 posted on 01/07/2004 8:37:15 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Hi Mom! Hi Dad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
Warren, go tax yourself. (can I say that?)

Its called free trade, we give them worthless pieces of paper and they give us stuff. They are happy with the paper and we are happy with the stuff. When you trade one thing for another thing of equal value - THEIR IS NO DEFICIT!!!!

4 posted on 01/07/2004 8:41:37 PM PST by keithtoo (DEAN - He's Dukaki-riffic!!!! - He's McGovern-ous!!! - He's Mondale-agorical!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Warren Buffet is George Soros lite....both billionaires...both Bush haters....both currency manipulators....both lefties.....both zero populationers.....pro-abortioners.
5 posted on 01/07/2004 8:43:21 PM PST by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
FORTUNE editor at large Carol Loomis, who is a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, worked with Warren Buffett on this article.

In other words: written by Carol Loomis, a Democrat that wrote nearly every word. The real reason they think bonds are bad is because it isn't possible to grow Socialism with a large debt load.

6 posted on 01/07/2004 8:53:26 PM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Brilliant!

bump

ping
7 posted on 01/07/2004 8:56:56 PM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I'm about to deliver a warning regarding the U.S. trade deficit and also suggest a remedy for the problem. But first I need to mention two reasons you might want to be skeptical about what I say. To begin, my forecasting record with respect to macroeconomics is far from inspiring.

Everything after this is just chatter and worth little or nothing. Buffet is a great long term investor, but he -- like many other successful people -- are often given "gravitas" they don't deserve in other fields.

The Oracle of Omaha is not an economic sage. I've followed him for years and he has MANY more misses than hits...repeat, MANY more! However, his ability to maximize his hits (and cut his losses quickly on the misses) -- without leverage -- makes him a great investor (but NOT an expert on world economics).
8 posted on 01/07/2004 9:03:20 PM PST by Jackson Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: applemac_g4
You are the first poster who must live in thriftville.
9 posted on 01/07/2004 9:03:58 PM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The problem with Buffett's proposal is that it would create trade equilibrium. This is not necessarily desirable given the requirements of the time.
10 posted on 01/07/2004 9:07:27 PM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
applemac_g4: You are the first poster who must live in thriftville.

Clue: Apple Mac G4 lowest price: $3099.00

11 posted on 01/07/2004 9:11:20 PM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Many pessimistic seers simply underestimated the dynamism that has allowed us to overcome problems that once seemed ominous. We still have a truly remarkable country and economy.

Right up until Atlas Shrugged. Then, what's to buffet the Warrens?

/john

12 posted on 01/07/2004 9:14:03 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (I'm just a cook. And a unix sys-admin. Call for my contract rate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
btttttttt
13 posted on 01/07/2004 10:22:32 PM PST by jokar (Beware of the White European Male Christian theological complex !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
.
14 posted on 01/07/2004 11:00:10 PM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
This article needs a new bump. Read it and heed it, oh ye purveyors of free trade!
15 posted on 03/12/2004 6:28:28 PM PST by neutrino (Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate us, so long as they fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Another Nebraskan....lost in lefty the bog of looniness.
16 posted on 03/12/2004 6:56:39 PM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neutrino
bttttttttt
17 posted on 04/02/2004 1:45:30 AM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Wow! That's a lot of words.

I'll read the comments but I don't care what Buffet has to say anymore.
18 posted on 04/02/2004 1:51:07 AM PST by leadpenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
bttt
19 posted on 04/02/2004 2:12:06 AM PST by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Buffet--->

We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits. At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders. And that's the way it has indeed worked for the rest of the world, as we can see by the abrupt shutoffs of credit that many profligate nations have suffered in recent decades.

20 posted on 04/02/2004 2:23:12 AM PST by dennisw (“We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.” - Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

btttttttttttttttttt


21 posted on 05/21/2004 9:29:54 PM PDT by dennisw (Koran teaches: "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

What bothers me are the number of freepers who whistle past the graveyard. You may not like Buffet's politics, or Soros's either, but I think they both have somewhat a better trackrecord of figuring out which way things are going than the average person around here does.


22 posted on 05/21/2004 9:46:51 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

It's a great and truthful essay. Too bad more have not read it.


23 posted on 05/22/2004 3:52:25 AM PDT by dennisw (Koran teaches: "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neutrino

Hew neut! Give me an eye of a neut (newt) for the recipe.


Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

William Shakespeare
(1564 - 1616), Macbeth


24 posted on 05/22/2004 3:57:22 AM PDT by dennisw (Koran teaches: "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

btt


25 posted on 12/27/2004 5:13:29 PM PST by dennisw (G_D: Against Amelek for all generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

bttt


26 posted on 03/07/2005 7:09:06 PM PST by dennisw (Seeing as how this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world .........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
There is a fine rebuttal to Buffet's article appearing in the Capital Flow Watch web log, under the title "Warren Buffet Fears Foreign Ownership". This web log also has several other articles debunking panic attacks about the "trade deficit".
27 posted on 03/11/2005 6:22:53 AM PST by loyal_follower (Buffet Debunker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loyal_follower
I'm not smart enough to agree or disagree with Buffet, but lets look at what's happened to the dollar vs the Yen and Euro since he wrote this article (Oct. 2003).


28 posted on 03/11/2005 7:01:06 AM PST by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
Certainly the dollar has declined against the Euro, but most of America's foreign trade is with Latin America and the rest of Asia in which the foreign exchange picture is quite different. Euroland, as a whole, has a trade surplus with the rest of the world. This means that there is a shortage of euros relative to dollars in the hands of foreigners. By elementary supply and demand, the euro must appreciate relative to the dollar. But, so what? If the cost of European vacations and French wine increases for Americans, that hurts Europeans more than Americans. Americans can buy Chilean or Australian wine and vacation in Hong Kong or Singapore. The "fallacy" in Buffet's article is not that the dollar is not declining against the Euro, but his blaming this on America's "spendthrift" habits. The trade deficit, as the Capital Flow Watch article points out, is the result of foreigners willingness to accept dollars as payment for goods and services, not the result of American's savings habits. The criticism aimed at Mr. Buffet is not that he is not a smart investor, which he obviously is, but rather that he is using a phony argument to justify massive government intervention in commerce.
29 posted on 03/11/2005 7:38:50 AM PST by loyal_follower (Buffet Debunker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare

It’s Oct 2007. Got a chart update?


30 posted on 10/04/2007 3:23:54 PM PDT by dennisw (France needs a new kind of immigrant — one who is "selected, not endured" - Nicholas Sarkozy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Will common sense win out in the end, or can we actually build a upsidedown pyramid to the stars?


31 posted on 10/20/2007 5:31:57 PM PDT by winodog ( Coming Attractions: They cant legislate morality but can legislate hate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: winodog

You cannot borrow your way to prosperity


32 posted on 10/20/2007 11:44:40 PM PDT by dennisw (France needs a new kind of immigrant — one who is "selected, not endured" - Nicholas Sarkozy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

An article I missed at the time. Interesting to see how Buffet’s prediction for the dollar turned out.


33 posted on 04/14/2008 7:30:31 PM PDT by Pelham (Press 1 for English)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loyal_follower

Foreigners’ willingness to accept dollars as payment for goods and services has indeed been remarkable. And the vast inflow of foreign savings has helped drive U.S. savings down. But the costs for the US are also remarkably high. In my recent book, my coauthors and I explore the costs of the trade deficit, and possible solutions, including the Import Credits idea. The publisher’s website www.idealtaxes.com has two or three sample chapters available for viewing. Just because foreigners (and foreign governments in particular) have seen it to be in their interests to manipulate the terms of trade doesn’t mean that this is a good thing for the U.S. economy.


34 posted on 05/23/2008 10:06:48 AM PDT by JesseRichman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

A prescient blast from the past


35 posted on 06/24/2009 4:58:51 PM PDT by dennisw ("stealth tribal warfare" is what the Sotomayor nomination is about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Indeed. Even if some on our side dismiss him because they can only see his politics.


36 posted on 06/24/2009 9:40:35 PM PDT by Pelham (California, formerly part of the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson