Commentary - 05/05/2008

Buffett: Sage of Omaha Just Another Agent

I know I won't win any popularity contests by not speaking gloriously of Warren Buffett. Like it or not, he is just another agent for the foreign money power that seeks to control the rest of us. That fact that he talks of going after "family-owned" European companies speaks volumes. For a reference, here's a recent article:
Warren Buffett bets his bottom dollar on European businesses

Warren Buffett has fuelled suspicions that he is set to turn his sights on British companies by declaring he is now particularly focused on buying European businesses.

While family-owned companies in mainland Europe are at the top of his list, the investor indicated that his business may also focus on groups whose main operations were in pounds or euros.
. . .
Warren Buffett refused to tell Berkshire Hathaway shareholders who will succeed him.

One of the signs of an agent is that it's not their money. That's why they have to leave their billions to a foundation. The agent's handlers then control the use of those foundations' funds.

Another sign of an agent is just how successful they are in spite of the odds. The Motley Fool has a recent article titled "Warren Buffett Is a Better Investor Than You."

The headline here isn't newsworthy. We know Warren Buffett is a better investor than the rest of us. His incredible long-term track record at Berkshire Hathaway, and his avoidance of both the 2000 tech meltdown and the current subprime crisis, prove that.
Well, I ask you, is another human being really that much smarter than you, or is he simply carrying out marching orders from those currently controlling the Great Casino. Men such as Jack Welch, Sandy Weill, and others are simply agents. If fact, there's a new one to watch: Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase:
Mr. Dimon had been at Mr. Weill’s side since 1982, helping him cobble Citigroup together through a series of unprecedented mergers in the 1990s.
Imagine that -- "unprecedented mergers." Wonder where the money came from. More on Jamie Dimon at Wikipedia.

Anyway, just how does one identify an agent? Going back into the past, here's an example: Jay Gould

Jay Gould's railroad system belongs to the Money Kings. In 1873, Jay Gould could hardly have been worth more than his partner, Jim Fisk. In the hard times that followed 1873, nobody in America could make much money. Yet, in 1878, Jay Gould came out West with forty million dollars, as it was given out through the newspapers, and bought ten thousand miles of railroads; and the American people were made to believe that it was his money, and that he himself owned, in his own right, the railroads of the Gould system. His wealth was regarded as enormous. He was reputed the richest man in America. His wealth has been estimated as high as two hundred million dollars.
Here's what they're saying today about Warren Buffett:
The world's richest person, who runs Berkshire Hathaway Inc said at a press conference the Federal Reserve brought markets back from a precipice in March in helping broker JPMorgan Chase & Co's purchase of Bear Stearns Cos, which was on the brink of bankruptcy.
Going backward in time again, another agent from the past was Cornelius Vanderbilt
At his death, Commodore Vanderbilt was reputed to be worth one hundred million dollars. When, in his will, he divided out only three and one half millions among his children, that fact confirmed me in my belief that he was an agent of the Money Power, and that the three and one-half million dollars was all he was really worth; and that, in giving the rest of the property, including the railroads, to his son Wm. H. Vanderbilt, he simply transferred the agency to him. This view was confirmed by the fact that Wm. H. Vanderbilt, immediately after his father's death, went to London, as I believed, to see his principals, and have his agency confirmed.
Amazingly, here's what being said about the Buffett estate:
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations.
But Gould and Vanderbilt was then, how about someone more recent? Okay, here's one about Armand Hammer made by none other than Buffett's partner: [Wikipedia]
"Last night, referring to some of our modern business tycoons – specifically, Armand Hammer – I said that when they’re talking, they’re lying, and when they’re quiet, they’re stealing. This wasn’t my witticism; it was used [long ago] to describe the robber barons." - Charlie Munger, 2004 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting
Another example was explained here in the New York Times:
Mrs. Hammer, a painter, died in California last December at the age of 87. She left her $15 million estate to her niece, Joan Weiss of Los Angeles, and named Mrs. Weiss's husband, Robert, as her executor.

But in papers filed last week in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, Mrs. Weiss claimed that but for Dr. Hammer's manipulations, Mrs. Hammer's estate would have been vastly larger. Mrs. Weiss claimed that the bulk of what she estimated to be Dr. Hammer's $400 million fortune was either directly attributable to Mrs. Hammer's separate assets or was community property belonging to them both.

There are many other examples, but unfortunately we usually have to wait until these agents die and then track where the money goes. The only other way is to pay attention to the huge foundations that are created, such as Warren Buffett's and Bill Gate's. God know what the real money will be used for!

The Telegraph.UK recently ran this story:
Warren Buffett equivalent is needed in Britain

As 30,000 investors descended on Warren Buffett's annual shareholder jamboree in Omaha in the midwestern US state of Nebraska yesterday, they had only one thing on their minds: money.
That reminded me of this quote:
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars;
the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
H.L. Mencken

Perhaps this is the reason: Sometimes The Dragon Wins

© 2008 by Edward Ulysses Cate
Help Support This Site
Commentary Index: