Willl Warren Buffett be the next Secretary of the Treasury?

he wouldn't do it for the money, I think

What else? The fame? Hes the richest man in the world he doesnt need fame! The power? He wouldnt gain power. In fact, he would lose a lot of power due to the breacrucy he would have to go through. Then why?

Sorry for that third l. I hate when I do that.

Huh?

Warren buffet is a very successful man who has loved making money since he was 7 years old. There is one thing this man has not been able to do even thos he has made millions of dollars; put his name on the money. As Secty of Treasury he will have his signature on every dollar printed. For a man like warren that is a whiole lot more important!

40% starting odds? I think not....
I wish i could flag this.... but i'll leave it to someone else... no indication he even wants to, or that someone would want him too... PS: he would have to surrender a lot of potential wealth to serve.... NO WAY!!!

I WOULD like to see this evidence that both candidates think he would be interested...

Yeah! I dont think McCain and warren have even spoken outside of a congressional hearing!

@TOCM

It's common knowledge that they have both expressed interest in Buffet. I find it interesting how harshly you criticize the starting odds when it is obvious you are not informed. If you want to find info on the subject try www.google.com.

Sorry, i never thought to check there... and yet, i have no money on this question...... strange, your hostility....

I wish i had an actual link....

(busy playing poker.. what is google?)

For what it's worth, I believe the starting odds were something closer to 33% not 40%. Quite a difference.

@theonecalledmichael
<<<PS: he would have to surrender a lot of potential wealth to serve.... NO WAY!!!>>>
Warren already has given, or plans to give away ALL of his wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Philanthropy

Both candidates have referred to mr buffet numerous times. Mr Buffet is not a dumb man, but a brilliant man. Secretary of Treasury do not give up their money; they just like other cabinet members hire someone to manage their money. Warren already gave away 90% of his substantial wealth to the Gates Foundation. AS the Secty of Treasury Mr Buffet has the knowledge, the moxie and ability to pull the USA out of this downward finacial spire we have put ourselves in as well as the world. did you read the news saturday? He said buy american stocks he is! Do you think he does not know that by saying that hundreds of millions of people will buy. Point is not whether Buffet wants the job, point is, is Obama/mccain smart enough to appoint him. I do not doubt Obama; mccain however...

Buffett has committed to a truly patriotic act by giving all of his money to the Gates Foundation, but if he is a true patriot, he will take this post, and save his country.

There is no doubt that Buffet is brilliant, and he is brilliant at what he does, but the reason he is so good is because he understands how a company's managment works, how he can improve it, and when to buy! That doesnt mean he knows how to be a good treasuerer. He is a brilliant stock trader but other than that... im not sure what he can hope to add to the economy.

That may be the most ridiculous comment you have ever made on hubdub dragon ; )

@Mork true...well said...but dragon you are so funny ; )

Just because he was good at being a stock trader doesnt neccessarily mean he will be good as a treasurer. Thats like saying just because general Padilla was a good general that hes ready to be president of the us.

No, dragon's best comment ever was: "We make the money therefore we cant be broke"

lol @kruijs

Thats true though. Are you saying we dont make the money?

buffet might be a good sec of treasury, but i doubt he takes/wants the job. he's simular to ross perot in that he's use to having things done his way. he'll have to many people over him, not to mention he has to deal with congress. govt work is totally differnt from private sector work. he might even fail at the job.

Yes, we print our own money. However, currency does not value in and of itself. It merely represents something of value: in basic terms, the strength of a country's economy/size of its GDP. Printing more money increases the amount of paper, but not the GDP which means that each piece of paper is worth less. Look at is this way: If you have ten $1 bills, your wallet will be fatter than if you have one $10 bill, but you still only have 10 bucks.

http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/files/2008/10/zero-dollar.jpg

"the strength of a country's economy/size of its GDP." I believe you meant to say its GOP. :) And that is out of context. If you read where it was said you might understand it better.

Actually, I understood it prefectly. You were correct that we could print more money to pay off our debt. That might reduce or eliminate the debt. However, if the dollar is worthless, we would be no less broke than we are now...just ask Mexico.

@dragon:
If you didn't understand so far, maybe this will help:
"Economists like to reference Robinson Carusoe’s (sic!) island, Caruso and Friday are on the island. Caruso fishes and Friday picks bananas. They work out an exchange. But put some more people on the island and you need money to have an easy exchange between fish, bananas, and coconuts. So one day a “Federal Reserve Banker” comes along and prints some paper “dollars”. The marketplace finds the right price for fish in terms of bananas, coconuts, or “dollars”. Now suppose our Federal Reserve Banker prints double the dollars. Just lots more “dollars”. Twice as many in fact. Now just printing more “dollars” doesn’t do anything to increase the wealth of the islanders. There are not twice the fish, bananas, or coconuts. Rather quickly the market price will double the price of fish, bananas, and coconuts. Increasing the money supply doesn’t make everyone rich. It just increases prices. Why do it? Because the printer are unjustly enriched. He gets to spend those dollars before the prices adapt. Money that has nothing backing it of value (i.e., gold; silver; or even tiki lamps) is just paper. Worthless the minute that the fraud is discovered.
(...)
So, sooner or later, the Arabs will get tired of getting pictures of dead presidents for oil. Ditto the Japanese for Toyotas. And the Chinese for plastics.

One needs to NOT hold paper money! But what should one “hold”. Things that appreciate in value (i.e., collectables). Real estate. Things that earn value (i.e., stocks that are recession / depression proof). Commodities. And precious metals. Debt in a recession is bad."
http://reinkefaceslife.com/2006/12/29/money-printing-press-money-impoverishes-us-all/

And you should really read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy

Also, dragon, I totally agree with you that the value of our dollar is strongly linked to the size of our GOP.

Do not underestimate the power of the ego!
As I stated on the other buffet predictor, Mr Buffet had made trillions, is worth billions, this man in all that he has accomplished (he has been making money since he was 7 years old, filled out his first tax return at age 12) this man who can make money blindfolded has one thing that he has not been able to accomplish. his name has never appeared on a single dollar he has made. As Secty of Treasury Mr Buffet's name will appear on every dollar printed. That alone will get him to say yes.
What can he do?
Stock trade? he is much more than a stock trader. Read todays (10.20.08) Ny TimesOPED piece; Warren can turn the economy around....and Warren is known for his ethics!! his honesty!! Something we need in washington.

Good arbitrage here. Bet no here, for 100, and bet Buffet here http://www.hubdub.com/m19506/Who_Will_Be_The_Next_Treasury_Secretary, for 10. If somehow he is Treasury secretary, it's a scratch. If he isn't, you just make 10 less that the payout, currently 35.

I think they should ask Paul Krugman:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html
He's been very astute about the whole Bush Economic disaster thing.

Your taking what i said out of context Kruijis! I admit what your saying is technically correct but if you saw where it was used and when you would think it was apporpiate. As for you smidge, we as the us will always have an alternative if the deficit gets to large. We will do what china did (and occasionally does) what Spain did, and what france did. We will lower the value of our dollar by prinitng out large quanitys of cash and making our dollar worth less ergo our debt worth less. Its not a great solution, there are examples of this failing all over the world (Zimbabwe for one) but it is always an option.

Ah yes paul. Next thing you know hes going to start blaming the tornadoes on bush to. For all his apparent "genius", he doesnt seem to realize hes fallen for one of the biggest scams in political history. The congress scam. Theyve managed to convince people left and right that everything, from evacuations to economys are directly under bushes influence.

I already told you, dragon. Congress has been a Repugnican majority for 16 of the last 18 years.
Go ahead, you can blame them, too.
51-49 is *barely* a majority...but it's a start :p

And, like jenni asked you before, if the President isn't that important, why do you care who's elected?

Let me put it this way. Ever since the democrats have had a majority, however small (and i think its bigger than that) the economy has gone down the tubes. Now i admit that this is not there fault. However there actions to improve the situation have been..... none. Even this bailout plan was done by the treasury as opposed to the congress. Plus ever since the democratic congress got in bushes approval ratings have been sinking.
I think the president is important somewhat. He plays a important role in diplomacy and a symbol of the american people, not to mention it really helps to have a president who can unify across the aisle. I just dont think Hussien has the ability to do that.

Why can't Barack Obama - or Hussien as you deprecatingling and wrongly call him (his middle name is Hussein, but your strength has never been spelling other one's names) - "unify across the aisle"?
Why do polls show more confidence in him as in the other candidate? Maybe he might not be able to "unify" those who are afraid of a black man.

To narrow this "somewhat importance" of the US president on the current case:

Bush's cabinet has included figures that were prominent in past administrations, notably former Secretary of State Colin Powell who had served as United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had served as White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford; Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, served as Director of Central Intelligence under George H.W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney served as Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush.

Bush places a high value on personal loyalty and, as a result, his administration has high message discipline. He maintains a "hands-off" style of management that he believes prevents him from being tangled by intricacies that hinder sound decision-making. "I'm confident in my management style. I'm a delegator because I trust the people I've asked to join the team. I'm willing to delegate. That makes it easier to be President," he said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC in December of 2003. Critics allege, however, that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes[10] made by loyal subordinates. There has been only one non-Republican present in Bush's cabinet: Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the first Asian American cabinet secretary, who had previously served as Secretary of Commerce under Bill Clinton, is a Democrat. Mineta resigned from Bush's cabinet on July 7, 2006 to pursue "other challenges".[11] Mary Peters, a Republican, was nominated and confirmed to succeed him as Transportation Secretary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration#Administration_and_Cabinet

So one of his somewhat importance is to build and arrange the government. OK, that might be not so important when you look at those who are connected to him and take affect on the decisions (and orientation of these) he draws.

Notice that Barack Obama proves to be highly popular among people who won't have to live with him

Ahhh, yes, perhaps that's why it took so long for Michelle to finally feel proud...

@ kruijs Excellent points :)

As far as Congress went...well, it took a few indictments to ease the death-grip control that the Bush "administration" had on 'em.

"DeLay's iron-fist ruling style was said to be an integral part of the GOP's successes. Unprecedented party loyalty, powerful connections to big business and lobbyists on K Street, fundraising prowess and backing from the White House and Senate leadership reinforced the perception that DeLay and his cronies were untouchable. Lawmakers who didn't vote with the leadership were thrown off committees. Those who didn't meet annual fundraising requirements were blocked from ascending the party ladder. Lobbyists who didn't identify as Republicans were told to take their business elsewhere. The arrogance of power now seems to have come full circle, with DeLay and Frist as prime examples."
http://www.alternet.org/story/26153/?page=2

@kruijis you want to know why he cant unify across the aisle? Because he is no negotiating, 100%, democrat. He cant negotaite across the aisle because never in the past has he negotiated across the aisle. And on the job experience is not something we need right now. Whereas McCain has 30+ years of experience working across the aisle. Hes the most liberal republican in the senate! And "That one" is the most liberal, liberal in the senate.

oh, ha, the "he is unexperienced" card.

well, since more people will elect him as people will elect McCain (as polls predict), I think this means that more people trust him becomming a "good" president than people trust McCain becomming a "good" president (good as subjective as there are hopes people associate with a new president). so, again, if more people trust him than McCain, why shouldn't he be able to "unify" at least as good as McCain?

Even Bush - who has been controversial since the start - was able to create a very strong "unity" amongst all Americans (liberals, republicans, rich, poor, black, white, just name it). Nobody was criticizing, all stood patriotically, nobody dared to ask.

All he had to do was start a war (or two).

Perhaps McCain needs a walking stick to get across the isle

lol

Yeah, a few years ago John McCain thought about changing parties from Republican to Democrat. John Kerry even considered him for a running mate.

Barack Obama actually did change parties from the communist "New Party" to Democrat. He has never been middle of the road on anything. He won his first seat using the illegal process of "electoral fusion" which was soundly reprimanded in the courts.

I still don't understand why someone must be exact "middle of the road" to do a good job !?

as long as you are either democrat or republican, you can never be "middle of the read" - you are either too liberal or too conservative (just depending on democratic or republican point of view)

I don't know much about US electoral processes. but if it has been illegal, shouldn't it have been retracted?

@kruijs

But this guy wants to be President - he will have to take the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. He is clearly not in a position to do that, when he would have the most radical position on abortion, including infantacide, in the history of presidential canidates, he has a decidedly anti-second ammendment stance, ties to terrorists, the comunist party, and ACORN!

Here is someone who wont even release his birth certificate - he can't be trusted to govern with any transparency.

I do agree that "middle of the road" is not a good thing, but I was just commenting on curios remark about getting across the isle :-)

It's quite astounding how well the mud-throwing works out this time.

Although I'm not here to defend Barack Obama for anything, I just want to take position whenever I do not agree with statements people make.

1) notable: "the most radical position on abortion, including infantacide"
Obama: "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

2) notable: "a decidedly anti-second ammendment (sic!) stance"
2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Do the US people need to secure their own free state?! In western Europe, it's something which police can do for the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

3) notable: "ties to terrorists"
"Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, a Northwestern University professor who also was part of the Weather Underground (which embraced bombing in its effort to end the Vietnam War), spent years on the run. After Ayers surrendered in 1980, charges against him were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. Obama has deplored Ayers’ conduct but pointed out that it took place decades before the two met."
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/22/nation/na-ad22
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9730.html

4) notable: "the comunist party"
"Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)."
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

5) notable: "and ACORN!"
"Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

In my opinion, issues 1) and 2) are fair political points. Nothing radical in my eyes. Nothing which would disqualify someone for being president.

Points 3), 4) and 5) made me think. What if this is true? What if he is really that radical, militant communist guy as you suggestively describe him by these "facts"? Wouldn't the US be doomed with such a president? I admit that these connections existed. But is Obama automatically such a thread? Almost undoubtedly he will be influenced politically. And as such, would that be dangerous for the US? Actually, I don't think so.

What concerns me most: is that I see people stoking fears using suggestive, irrational assertions and overstatements (and pictures).

Just compare this:
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm172/dtothep_bucket/136312.jpg
with this:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/images/advirtisement%20for%20Der%20ewige%20Jude.jpg

@kruijs:

That is why he is so popular where you live. In America, these have historically been important points in elections and public opinion.

To sort get back to the discussion on the economy; We never really know what is going on when it is going on.
Earning reports are not up to the minute they are usually talking aobut something that happened at least a month ago; Everything is a historical measure except the stock market. Historically the stock market is a barometer of what is going to happen within 6 months or a year. With the electronic trading and up to second abilties..that time has shortened to appx 3-4 months.
Yes we are in a DEPRESSION; we passed recession aobut 8 months ago.
Wall Street was caught with their pants down and their fingers in the till (check todays headlines about the banks we are bailing out and the compensation packages. Now also remember that as the financial sector has automated, strange things were developed that corporations thought would help stabalize their stock prices. they advertised to ma and pa kettle that if they bought 1 share of stock from a broker they could then invest at no commission in their company thru the mail..Well they did not mention that when ma and pa want to sell they need to also do it by mail which takes up to a week or so. So a lot of what you are seeing now is mom and pop selling. the sell orders have finally come thru. The wise investor who knew the value of paying htat brokers fee. Is buying like crazy..cause the market like the south will rise again.
Now to say the democrats screwed the economy since they went into the majority 10 months ago is really giving the politicians to much benefit of the doubt. One it takes a year to replace a lightbulb in a governemnt building. Nothing can be done that quickly.
What we are experiencing right now with regard to the economy is from 4 years of going into debt over a war that some yahoo declared cuz his daddy was insulted. This deficit is costing us lots and lots of money....cuz we are paying interest to someone....the yahhos friends and lots of other yahoos all pushed the price of oil up so they could make lots fo money and blame the war and a couple hurricaines when in fact it is simply a bunch of yahoo's buying oil futures that are pucshing the price up.
The people loosing money of course are ma and pop kettle; cause they think they got "insider info" when in fact theyare merely jumping on the bandwagon of the band that left town 3 weeks ago....

@notable
which do you refer to?

All of them: 1,2, & 4 and, by extension, 3 & 5

Well, I don't think that 3), 4) and 5) would make someone really popular anywhere in the western civilizations.
And 1) and 2), as I said before, are legit political positions.

Buffet would be an excellent choice at this point in time. His signature on American currency would be a great sign of confidence and commitment to economic recovery.