Warren Buffett on the Economy, Healthcare, Obama, at Sun Valley Conference

Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett speaks on the economy, health care, and president Obama, in an interview with CNBC at Herb Allen’s annual Sun Valley conference last week.  The annual conference is by special invite only and consists mainly of CEOs from a large range of businesses and industries.  Below is a quick & dirty summary.

Consumer sales are still weak.
– “It’s still very, very soft”.


Consumer economy hasn’t picked up yet.
– “there’s nothing in the figures today that tells me what’s going to happen tomorrow.  What they do tell me is that today it hasn’t picked up yet.”


Global economic downturn will eventually end, but don’t know exactly when.
– “And it’s a tough period now.  On the other hand, this movie will have a good ending.”  ” I don’t know how long the movie will be.  I know the ending will be good but I don’t know whether its a two-hour movie or a four-hour movie.”


Stimulus not meant to end the recession quickly.
– “But the stimulus was never designed to act fast.  People hoped it would start trickling in.   In general, I think, and this is no criticism of the administration because I believe in the stimulus and would probably believe in another one, they may be overrated in terms of their ability to end the recession fast.”
– “I think they’re useful, but I think that anybody who looks on them as a panacea is making a mistake.”


Another stimulus may be needed. But again don’t expect it to fix the problems immediately.
– “I think there probably should be.  But I wouldn’t expect miracles out of it.”


The problem was from over supply of houses.  The solution is to reduce the inventory of houses. That won’t happen fast.
– “We formed a million, three-hundred thousand households a year, surprise, we had too many houses at a point.  You can’t work that off in a day, or a week, or a month.”
– “If you want to end the recession as soon as possible, you do nothing to encourage new housing construction.  Very tough on the home builders but that is the prescription for getting supply and demand back into balance.”


Low interest rates will help.
–   “Well, you want low interest rates.  The more affordable houses are, I mean people have to have a job too, but low interest rates are a boon to housing in that they mean people qualify for owning housing of a given type that wouldn’t otherwise.  But we still have too many houses.”


President Obama is a leader people believe in, communicates well to the people.
–  “Plus he communicates extraordinarily well so they can understand what he’s doing and why he’s doing it and what the timetables may be and all that sort of thing.  So we have the right person in the White House.”


High inflation likely down the road, but it’s better than not having the economy recover.
– “We’re going to apply a lot of medicine, and we’re likely to get a lot of inflation down the road.  But it’s better to have the patient recover than to sit there and say I’m worried about the after-effects of the medicine so we’ll just ignore it.”


Jobs are important to reduce unemployment, but the government has less influence on the economy & unemployment than people think/like.
– “And the country is becoming unemployed to a degree.  And it’s very important the economy gets, comes back.”
– “Government has less influence on how fast that happens than a lot of people would like to hope that it would.  But government is a player, but it has no silver bullet.”


US health care system costs increasing faster than GDP is serious and large problem, but doesn’t know what the solution is.  The problem is complicated, with a lot of associated parts and issues to look at.  Tax bill proposals that are being talked about to offset health care is going to be difficult to make perfect.
– “But it’s obviously a huge problem when it’s using up whatever it may be, some people say it’s as high as 17 percent of GDP.  But we can’t go on with health care accelerating at a faster rate than GDP.  We’ve done it for a long time, but we need a solution, and there are better people, people better qualified than I.”

– “there will be so many tradeoffs involved, it won’t be a perfect bill.  Nobody could design a perfect bill.  So, you can’t really look at one part of it until you’re looking at other parts of it.”
– “But the problem you have is you have a health care situation now where more than two-trillion dollars a year is being spent.  That means two-trillion dollars is going to somebody, whether its doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, you name it.  Everyone is going to look at that bill and they’re going to say, ‘Am I getting more or less?’  It’s like a tax law change.  Every line in the tax code has a constituency.  Well, every dollar in medical expenses has a constituency, and that’s the tough thing at the end.  It will take a lot of leadership and some statesmanship on the part of people to get something.  But it is a question that needs to be addressed.”


Rich under-taxed compared to middle and lower class.  May need to increase taxes to cover the trillions in spending.  Better to adjust the tax on more wealthy individuals, to some degree.
– “I think that on balance the rich have been under taxed compared to the middle class and the lower class.  I mean, over the last decade in particular, the tax law has been tilted in favor of guys like me and we don’t need any help. “I think it should be more progressive the higher up you go.  But I think it’s ridiculous when my tax on capital gains is less than the payroll tax on what you’re earning today.”
– “Nobody likes having their taxes increase.  I don’t like having my taxes increase.  But on the other hand, we’re raising 2.3, something like that, trillion.  We may spend four-trillion.  There’s going to have to be some adjustment made someplace and I think it’s better to adjust it, to some degree, on guys like me rather than on the people who gave me breakfast this morning.”


Taxes will increase in the future, to cover the current spending.
– “they will go up over time because we’re not going to bring spending down from four-trillion to 2.3 trillion, and we’re not going to take up revenues unless we …. it will be helped some when we get a recovery, but we’ll need somewhat higher taxes someplace.”


I recommend reading the full transcript of the CNBC interview.  It can be found on CNBC’s website along with the video:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31836625

I also found that Alice Schroeder’s book  The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life,  revealed some rather interesting details of Warren Buffett at one of Herb Allen & Co’s past Sun Valley conferences just prior to the tech bust.  Its a highly recommended read!

.

Feel free to post questions, comments, or topic suggestions.
Don’t forget to rate the article!
Subscribe to my articles here:  RSS Feed

Thanks & Happy Investing!
The Investment Blogger © 2009

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Warren Buffett on the Economy, Healthcare, Obama, at Sun Valley Conference

  1. based on your interview, Mr. Buffet is of no use in determining health care solutions.

    He also knows little of what he speaks when he says that President Obama is a great communicator ….to the contrary, the more Obama speaks publicly about “his Plan” (which apparently only exists in his mind) the more confused most people get.

    Why didn’t you ask Buffet about his view as an insurer? Berkshire Hathaway owns GEICO and GENERAL RE (one of the -if not the- largest reinsurers. Why isn’t Buffet leading the way to provide health care insurance premium CHANGE?

  2. There may be some slight confusion, but I want to make it clear that the interview is not mine, it is one conducted by CNBC. The link is provided in the article for readers to follow up.

    You are correct that Buffett is of no use in determining health care solutions. He stated that “there are better people, people better qualified than I”. He is useful in outlining economic issues that the problem presents and that any healthcare solution will need to deal with.

    I guess its his opinion that Obama is a great communicator.

    Again, to be clear CNBC conducted the interview, and I just summarized it. GEICO and General RE provide mainly auto and re-insurance. They work quite differently than healthcare insurance. There is too much to write here on how the they are different in business/operation way. GEICO and General RE should not be compared to health care insurance providers.

    Hope that helps answer some questions. Feel free to ask more.

  3. Sorry I misread and assumed it was your interview.

    My point about Buffet is that since everyone thinks he is so smart why isn’t he every asked about solutions for the health care problems?

    Why doesn’t someone ask Buffet why BERKSHIRE doesn’t set up a health care subsidiary and offer coverage to the poor and those high risk (pre-existing conditions) among the population?

    GEICO offers more than just auto insurance. They do sell Life and other coverages.

    From GENERAL RE’s Website:
    “As a professional Life/Health reinsurer we provide products and services that support our clients in their risk management tasks helping them to achieve their corporate goals:”

    Does anyone wonder why a multiBilllionaire who made his fortune from Capialism, is so supportive of a declared leftist?

  4. No worries, just wanted to make sure you were aware it was an interview from CNBC.

    Buffett knows that his is knowledge is limited to only certain areas. But people think his knowledge can be extended to other things such as national health care initiatives. I would agree with you, I don’t think he would be of much use there.

    GEICO does sell other insurance, but doesn’t seem to have health care insurance though (or I cant seem to find any info on it). Thanks for pointing out that General Re also does health re-insurance (I actually never noticed that).

    Re-insurance is a bit different than regular insurance though. If the risks are properly determined, it is highly profitable (and more profitable than regular insurance). General Re usually does well in determining the risk and pricing the policies. But with re-insurance the policy premiums are high because of the higher risks, so unfortunately only people able to afford the high premiums will have such coverage.

    My personal thoughts on why Buffett doesn’t setup a healthcare insurance subsidiary are that health insurance is more susceptible to abuse in claims. Here in Canada people milk both public and private health insurance coverages. Such abuse or over-abuse leads will not be very profitable. Another reason may be that because healthcare reform is coming soon, there will be heavy government oversight and intervention, which may again reduce the profitability. Health care to the poor will likely have to be a role for the government. I hope they can do a good job. In Canada, the public health care system is so screwed up that the poor can’t actually get proper care, but the people who abuse the system and don’t really need it are able to. I hope the US doesn’t end up with the same result.

    It is indeed interesting why Buffett is so supportive of a declared leftist. Its even more interesting because he grew up supporting the right. It could be because he’s in his golden years and it won’t really affect him anymore. Any thoughts on why you think he is so supportive of Obama and the left?

  5. Ever since Buffet, Bill Gates and yes, even George Soros, Three of the world’s wealthiest, through their support to Obama I have been wondering why. Being sick and tired of the Bush Administration seemed like a rather dumb reason sos I dismissed that as a key. Being antiCapitalist also made no sense to me. Soros it turns out was perhaps the one person who is most responsible for Obama’s defeat of Hillary in the primary. He financed Moveon.org’s help in creating Obama’s campaign – Hundreds of thousands of volunteers and tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

    Soros remains an enigma to me…. he has contributed $billions to rid the world of Totalitarian leftist regimes and to support democracy; yet he openly and eagerly supports Obama – who by his own admission was mostly influenced by radicals of the left during his early life, in college and law school, and as we know during his years in Chicago palling around with avowed Marxists and extremists.

    To me it is inexplicable as to why Buffet, Gates, Soros and other well known extremely wealthy individuals are supportive of taking the USA down the path to Marxism.

    ==========
    Buffet’s financial success makes it difficult to disabuse his supposed acumen. But keep in mind he invested $5 billion into GM just shortly before he bottom fell out of it.

  6. I would have to agree, why Soros also supports Obama is very puzzling given all that he has done and experienced.

    It will be interesting to see what happens the next few years into the Obama administration and watch their reactions and behavior along the way.

    I don’t live in America, but there are so many things about the US that make it great, like how someone can become successful through hard work and smarts. I would hate to see it become so socialist. In Canada, we are well on our way to becoming like France. The next step after that is something I don’t like to think about.

  7. Maybe the reason Buffett, Soros, Gates support Obama is because Obama, like them, believes in capitalism and free markets with qualifiers. Obama is not a socialist, but he doesn’t believe that government is pernicious in and of itself. We don’t need extremes in my country (US). A balance of free market with government regulation is not bad.

    1. Perhaps, it was that Obama was the strongest candidate running at the time as well (out of both Democrats and Republicans).

      I agree that the US doesn’t need extremes. Government regulation is necessary and not a bad thing. Society does need rules to keep everyone in check and ensure abuse is kept minimal.

      My concern is that too much regulation, or regulation that is too generic/broad may be bad. It has to be done correctly, and not just as a knee jerk reaction, which initially it was going to be. Some areas such as the financial system need more oversight, but a solution should not be hastily crafted. It is a complex industry with many small and large companies. The hard part is to be able to apply just the right amount of regulation to allow the markets to be free, and also minimize abuse and systemic failure.

      The US seems to be at the turning point, and now headed in the other direction. Hopefully it doesn’t end up at the other extreme. The right balance needs to be found eventually.

  8. Several things…firstly, “free markets with qualifiers” is an oxymoron. “Free market” means an economic system with an absence of artificial controls imposed by humans. The USA lost its “free market” status decades ago when Congress and SCOTUS began imposing a variety of regulation – most of which is idiotic primarily because those creating the regulations are truly neophytes and fail to comprehend the unintended consequences of their efforts.

    The only reason the system works at all is that other nations have similar or worse regulatory schemes and as well, inexperienced persons operating them.

    Your take on Obama flies in the face of his own words and dismisses the influences on his life. From his earliest days in Hawaii, he was greatly influenced by Franklin Davis, an avowed Marxist. He sought out and befriended radicals (students and faculty) during his student days at Occidental College and at both Columbia and Harvard Universities. He said this in his own biography. What he didn’t admit is that he befriended William Ayers when Obama was a Lecturer (not a professor) at Chicago University’s School of Law.

    And there’s plenty more in his background that reeks of his admiration of Marxism. Apparently because he now says that he isn’t a socialist you (and many others) just believe him. Frankly I wish your view was correct, but sadly I know it is not.

  9. Investment Blogger …. admittedly the field in both parties was disappointing.

    If Obama was the strongest candidate it speaks more to the media’s failure to apply the level of scrutiny to him that they gave to presidential candidates in the past.

    Any neutral observer of Election 2008 (and the campaigns leading up to it, would conclude that Obama not only received a “free pass” from the media, he was openly endorsed or supported in media commentary as well as in their coverage of the news.

    Democrats deny this, but “facts” is facts!.

  10. I understand your concerns, investment blogger, about too much regulation because I share it. I want a robust capitalist system as well, with sensible regulation. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your content.

    Timeout 77, I find it interesting that you describe free market as free from controls by humans, when humans are at the heart of the free market. These controls, through purchasing and production decisions made by humans, artificial, irrational or otherwise, are the machinations of the free market. Now, should we encourage a human element in these production and purchasing decisions that is thoughtful of consequences or not. Too much regulation is a bad thing, I agree. But markets left to themselves with no oversight at all is equally bad. I’m really looking for some balance here, and don’t support an ideological position at either extreme.

    Equally troublesome to me is that you brand Obama a “Marxist” based on his early life. Look, I am in my 50’s and have had many experiences that have matured my outlook on life. Should we be judged based on our college experiences and identifications? We all evolve (hopefully) through contacts with a myriad of individuals and exploration of many concepts.

    You are very free with your use of labels such as “idiotic” “neophyte” and the before mentioned “marxist”. You also include me in a category of people who believe Obama is not a socialist only because he says he is not a socialist. You would be more persuasive if you respected the fact that some people have a different opinion than you do and argued for your position based on the merits of your ideas. Something along the lines of an intellectual free market with appropriate controls to encourage polite and relevant discourse.

    Thanks, Beverly

    1. free from control by humans was my way of describing government regulation. A true free market is not burdened with excessive government controls as we now have.

      These days the phrase “Free Market” is basically nothing more than an expression.

      My exasperation at regulation is from personal experience with the SEC (and NASD) from my time as a registered representative and Principal – part owner of several licensed brokerage firms.

      Unless you’ve been personally involved with regulators and government regulation you have no concept of the damage caused.

      I don’t argue that all regulation is bad, merely that much of it makes absolutely no sense. Treating a small brokerage firm with the same grotesque regulations applied to a national or international firm is absurd, yet done all the time.

      I don’t condone illegal actions by anyone. I support logical rules and regulations designed by people with actual experience.

      I was in the US Army and witnessed first hand the effects of insane government regulation and the bureaucratic nighmare they create.

      During my College years I worked one summer for the USPS and witnessed first hand the effects of insane government regulation and the bureaucratic nightmare they create.

      Before getting into the Investment banking field I practiced commercial law for a few years and witnessed first hand the effects of insane government regulation and the bureaucratic nighmare they create.

      Obama’s entire educational experience is from the leftist viewpoint. His contact and study with Saul Alinsky (an avowed Marxist) in Chicago is not a secret. He is proud of it. Everything about Obama reeks of Marxism – including his elitism.

      He admittedly spent 20 years in the Church where Reverend Wright preached based on black liberation philosophy – supported by Louis Farrakhan, noted leftist and bigot.

      Obama has NOT evolved from his experiences and contacts.

      Hence his embracing Castro, Chavez and every other leftwing dictator, while contemptuous dealing with the UK and Honduras, and his questionable strategy of dealing with the MidEast’s poblems.

      If you have substantive evidence supporting your conclusion that he is not a socialist (other than his denials) I’d like to know what it is.

      As to having different opinions than mine … it goes without saying that others have them. I didn’t criticize having different opinions, but when the facts are so obvious that logical conclusions should not be avoided simply because of political partisanship.

      Sorry, didn’t mean to abuse the soap box, and I certainly don’t want to make this personal.

  11. I am not going to try to prove that Obama is not a socialist, but if he were, he would not have economists and advisors such as Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geitner on his team. I don’t think that Warren Buffett would have complimentary things to say about Obama either. Whatever you think of these gentlemen, they are not socialists. I do agree that he is to the left of center on economic and healthcare issues, but that doesn’t make him a socialist either. The actions that Obama has taken to stem a complete financial meltdown are not born out of a “socialist” agenda, but because after conferring with many economists he concluded that to avoid something worse (including, by the way, political instability which is very harmful to markets) there needed to be government intervention. It will take us a long time to get out of this mess, but things are slowly getting better. There are not long lines around banks, people are getting loans again, businesses are running, layoffs are down, there is actually quite a bit of entreprenurial activity (not possible under a planned socialist economy), and people are feeling more confident. Yes, there is pain, the unemployment rate is too high, and people are still suffering. But things are getting better. How would you have conducted the economy after September 2008 or before it for that matter?

    I actually think I agree with you that excessive regulation is burdensome, but inadequate regulation and enforcement is proving to be really burdensome to the American people and the world at this point in time.

    Living in the US (as I guess you do) has been a little scary these days, what with all the town hall rages, etc. Thoughtful discussion is all too rare and an exploration of the pertinent issues is lacking. I welcome the chance to have a discussion based on ideas.

    By the way, you stated that Obama is Marxist – even down to his “elitism”. Since when is elitism Marxist? Elitism is very American when you think about it. We have elite military units, elite athletes, etc. In my mind, getting as much education as possible, doing your very best and trying to improve your life is pretty much the American way. When I hear people complain about elitism these days, usually they are complaining about people who are educated or have a broad range of world experience or are rich. Since when is that bad? I have yet to hear a parent in this country say “You know, I want my child to have less education than I have.” No, most of us want our kids to learn, grow, be challenged and compete with the best of them. Speaking of Marxism, Communist China sneered at elitists too. The intellectuals were made to recant their education and views. They were also placed in retraining camps to learn to be less elitist. Usually intellectuals are an easy target of totalitarian regimes, including those that are Marxist. I really think we ought to celebrate a healthy elitism in this country. So what are we in this country, Marxist or Elitist? I would like to know.

  12. Turning the country “socialist” is the goal, but that doesn’t mean it has to be done in one fell swoop. The strategy he (and his backers) are pursuing is one of incrementalism. A little bit at a time.

    Looking at each action individually may not indicate the agenda, but when taken as a whole, it becomes clear.

    The problem wih elites is NOT that they are rich or smart, or socially acceptable, but that they think and act as if they are better than the common man. I find that objectionable. You may like that attitude, but that’s your choice, not mine.

    The people appointed by Obama to run the various government agencies is another key to his agenda.

    Marxism and Elitism are not mutually exclusive. The history of the US Communist Party and its supporters shows that many were highly educated intellectuals. People who couldn’t imagine that the Soviet leadership could be murdering their own people surreptitiously (later of course proven by the facts).

  13. Okay, so you think that we are on a slippery slope, but I disagree. The good thing about America is that the pendulum usually swings a little left and a little right at different times, but over all we are pretty centrist.

    The idea of incrementalism can be applied to the right as well. Did you worry about incrementalism when George Bush ignored the Constitution to spy on US citizens. You could argue that it was for national security, but did it give you pause as to what might come next? Did the great volume of signing statements concern you, giving him the ability to ignore parts of legislation that he didn’t like. Again, maybe it didn’t amount to much, but did it make you think twice? Did it concern you when the government (Republican legislatures and the President) got involved in the very personal medical decision of the Schiavos down in Florida? After all, since when should a supposedly “small” government administration intrude on it’s citizens personal lives? Did it bother you when George Bush instituted the faith based initiative when it could be a slippery slope to removing the separation of church and state from our founding principles? Again, maybe not a big thing all by itself… Coming from a small government perspective, did it concern you when the federal government promoted the Marriage Amendment to prevent loving couples from marrying because they happen to be gay? I would think that small government doesn’t just apply to economic policy but the idea that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives as well? And incrementalism could be argued to have come from the previous administration as well of the current President.

    As for the term elitist, I don’t like people who look down on others either. In fact, the “common” man or woman is a group that I should fit quite easily into. I am happily married for twenty years, have three children, live in rural southeast US, work hard, pay my taxes, write letters to the editor, drive safely, go to church, drink a little wine with dinner, stay out of trouble, support my schools and my community, etc.

    Unfortunately the people that charge elitist would probably lump me into the elitist camp because I believe in pursuing education, in being open minded, and in exploring different cultures and perspectives. I am not content to believe what everyone else believes without great scrutiny, including people that seem to think like me. I have wonderful arguments with people that, like me, agree with the President on most things. This would include my husband. Disagreement is healthy, but labeling just shuts down discussion.

    With respect, I really want to challenge you on this because we seem to be becoming a country that looks down on people that want to improve themselves or that can see the other side of an issue. There may be a few snobs out there, but they are just as frequently people with a high school education who look down on me because I have a college degree. Or religious dogmatists who look down on me because I don’t take a fundamentalist view of the bible. Or creationists who want my kids to stop studying Darwin in biology. These are just examples, but if we describe elitists as people who look down on others, aren’t they being elitist too? Don’t they, too, think they are the experts for the rest of us?

    So, just to make sure you understand, I do not like snobbery, but I am adamant that people learn as much as possible about the world around them from a variety of sources, both left, right and in the middle. If that makes someone elitist, so be it.

    Now, I am not telling you that you do not make informed decisions because I do not know what you read, where you get your facts, etc. You seem like an intelligent person, but I am only objecting to your use of the word “elitist” as a perjorative aimed at people who hold different political or cultural views than you do. And I also object to people that ignored the previous 8 years and only recently became concerned about “big” government.

    We have got to stop labeling people negatively because they disagree with us or are to the right or left politically than we are. And we, as Americans, cannot afford to ignore the abuses of power by those that are members of our political party. Were you as critical of Bush when he turned a surplus (handed over by Clinton against the objections of Republicans who wanted tax cuts) into raging deficits. I don’t remember any loud protesting or tea parties when Bush was turning black ink into red. I don’t remember any protests when Bush and the Republicans pushed for and got the vast entitlement program of Medicare part D. The money that George Bush spent on tax cuts, war and entitlement spending could come in handy right now. Where was everybody when this was happening? Did you criticize George Bush for these things. Maybe you did. But I don’t remember hearing much from the right about fiscal irresponsibility, small government, or goverment abuse of power then. Are they just made because a Democrat is in power?

    Beverly

  14. Your conduct as you describe it is not elitism.

    I didn’t intend nor do I think I did, to use elitist as a pejorative. I also was not saying that education is bad.

    Terry Schiavos was dead and he politicians should have kept out of it. But the case merely proved that most politicians, no matter how smart they may be, are in reality stupid…they never know when to fold up and go home.

    I am not a believer so don’t look to me to defend the Right’s injection of religion into politics. I thought that the Bush faith based initiative was designed to fund organizations that were providing charitable aid to the poor…if it was abused, why would that surprise anyone? Theoretically these programs supplemented government programs.

    I favor smaller government…but frankly came to the conclusion years ago that the population of the USA was too large for smaller government to handle. We had passed the point where we can effectively reduce the size of government, so clammering for smaller government was useless. The people have come to expect uniformity among the states so eliminating the feds wouldn’t work.

    The famed “Clinton Budget Surplus” was nonexistent … it was strictly an accounting gimmick that the media glommed onto and made “fact” by repetition.

    Government is notoriously inefficient and the so-called spying on Americans was minimal and of no consequence. I have yet to meet anyone who’s library records have been compromised.

    And the use of technology to catch those who plot against us is what government is supposed to do. When, as and if they abuse it, appropriate action can be taken to redress any violation.

    Frankly, for decades the IRS and DEA have conducted more intrusive, and seemingly violative invasions of ciizen privacy than did the FBI or Homeland Security pursuant to the Patriot Act.

    Have a great weekend ……………

  15. Thanks for the comments and a very interesting discussion. It its very appreciated. Unfortunately my knowledge of US politics and history is limited to very specific areas, but I did enjoy reading and following the lively discussion!

    Just a general comment…I find that the politicians these days may not be as stupid as they seem, but rather they tend to be easier influenced and affected by the pressures of the media, general public (who apply pressure based on misleading and often incomplete information), as well as industry. I think that has contributed to making the pendulum swing more wildly in recent years as well.

    Also, the world has become much more complicated, issues have become more sensitive, and conflicts are growing due to increased in extremes as well. However, I hope that each time society tips one way, it goes back the other way and eventual find a balance to all the issues.

    You both have very interesting points. Again thank you for sharing. Please feel free to comment more in the future!

    Have a great weekend!

  16. Thanks, investment blogger. Yes, I find it very interesting in America these days, too. I hope that we, as you suggest, can find our way back to some middle ground again. I agree that the pendulum has swung more wildly in recent years. But in order to find a middle course, we have to lose our fascination with extreme views, talk, language, etc. Maybe a little more pragmatism and a little less ideology.

    By the way, I’m glad I accidentally bumped into your blog. I will keep coming back to see what’s being discussed.

    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s