When I first read about the resignation of Warren Buffet's possible successor, I thought that Mr. Buffet's excuse and/or justification rang pretty hollow. Apparently, I am not the only person who thought so...Same thing happened within the last 12 months when Goldman was under intense scrutiny for its business operations following a multi-billion $ tax payer bailout (and some serious gaffes from its CEO). No less a savior than Warren Buffet came to Goldman's rescue (for the second time, I might add...at the height of the financial collapse, Mr. Buffet provided Goldman with $5 billion in capital in exchange for some period advantageous business terms---the Treasury Department should have been paying attention).
Its not surprising that Mr. Buffet would defend his businesses (and, in some case, the folks that work for him). I think (for me, at least) what's a little unsettling is that Mr. Buffet is considered my most to be a straight talker (I don't know him, so I can't say that I share that view). However, in the instances outlined by this op-ed columnist (and, the Goldman scenario), Mr. Buffet did what [most?] people tend to do---they throw objectivity out the door for the sake of self-serving statements or positions (whether those protections are in protection of themselves or their businesses interests). For one the country's (and, indeed, the world's) wealthiest men, this appears a little unseemly...Why risk your credibility to defend what in many cases (at least those that have been outlined) appear to be indefensible? I think this is a pretty straightforward question.
Its not surprising that Mr. Buffet would defend his businesses (and, in some case, the folks that work for him). I think (for me, at least) what's a little unsettling is that Mr. Buffet is considered my most to be a straight talker (I don't know him, so I can't say that I share that view). However, in the instances outlined by this op-ed columnist (and, the Goldman scenario), Mr. Buffet did what [most?] people tend to do---they throw objectivity out the door for the sake of self-serving statements or positions (whether those protections are in protection of themselves or their businesses interests). For one the country's (and, indeed, the world's) wealthiest men, this appears a little unseemly...Why risk your credibility to defend what in many cases (at least those that have been outlined) appear to be indefensible? I think this is a pretty straightforward question.
No comments:
Post a Comment