Why Buffett supported the bailout
We now know why Buffett supported the bailout bills: his companies benefit from it.
It’s all clear now:
Financier Warren Buffett has been lauded for his plain-spoken denunciation of the greed and foolishness behind the economic crisis. He has pushed the massive federal bailout of imploding banks as the essential response to an “economic Pearl Harbor.”
When Buffett speaks, people in high places listen. The famous investor is so highly regarded that in a debate last fall, both presidential candidates said they were considering him for treasury secretary.
A Bee examination of regulatory records shows that Buffett, the world’s second-wealthiest person, also quietly has become a top beneficiary of the banking bailout he so vigorously advocated.
Just 28 companies received more than 90 percent of the funds so far disbursed to financial firms by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., did not directly receive any of that aid. But Berkshire is the largest shareholder of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., which got $25 billion – 91 percent of TARP funds invested in institutions headquartered in California
How convenient. I’m pretty sure it’s all coincidental, of course. Buffett would never even dream about pushing for legislation that would benefit him, would he?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Frankly, Buffett is so wealthy that such alleged machinations seem unlikely. However, I’m surprised he was not more forthcoming about the apparent conflict of interest.
Eh, I find all this this not so surprising. It’s the same reason T. Boone Pickens is promoting solar and wind power. He’s going to get something out of it.