Charlie Munger Article

[srblanco7]

CNBC posted this article which shared some perspective from Charlie Munger ( https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/27/char...arlie%20munger ) who says we should all be more content and that much of the cause of this lack of contentment is due to envy resulting from social media sites.

As I'd consider him to be a respected voice in the investment community (and without this going political) am interested in the forum's perspective on Munger's offerings.

My initial reaction was that he seems to be on a somewhat different page than Warren Buffet as it relates to wealth inequality. Much of the rest - the envy resulting from curated social media postings, and the fact that within a larger historical context we're much better off - I agree with.

[riverwed070707]

Generally agree both things can be true: his take screams justifying wealth hording and the systemic inequalities in our society that keep people poor but also, as I suspect all in this group would agree, our society has a spending problem and keeping up with the Joneses is a reality that people would be better off letting go of. Article didn't go into detail about what he thinks people should stop complaining about. Having worked for a BRK company most of my career and attending all of the shareholder meetings, I can only imagine his response being some complaint of people having fancy phones, spending $100 a month on internet and buying fancy cars when the reality of the times is we actually need smartphones and internet to function in society - they are a necessity, not a luxury - and you can't buy a reliable used car for $1200 anymore meanwhile wages are stagnant and the pay gap is growing every year.

[kork13]

I'm not familiar with Charlie Munger (except by reputation), so I can't speak to his content or advice. But I do agree that social media has an overall detrimental influence, on an individual & societal level. It encourages self-centeredness, short attention, echo chambered viewpoints, and self-criticism. It enables the vocal micro-minority, social division, destabilizing 'viral' influences, and on and on. I only use Facebook to occasionally keep up with friends that I know well. But even to just do that, I have to wade through a pile of junk that I have to very intentionally ignore.

[james.hendrickson]

CNBC posted this article which shared some perspective from Charlie Munger ( https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/27/char...arlie%20munger ) who says we should all be more content and that much of the cause of this lack of contentment is due to envy resulting from social media sites.

As I'd consider him to be a respected voice in the investment community (and without this going political) am interested in the forum's perspective on Munger's offerings.

My initial reaction was that he seems to be on a somewhat different page than Warren Buffet as it relates to wealth inequality. Much of the rest - the envy resulting from curated social media postings, and the fact that within a larger historical context we're much better off - I agree with.

Munger is dead wrong on this.

I'l tell you why. High degrees of wealth allow the rich to impact the political process. In effect, they engage in "regulatory capture" where their wealth grants them access to political power. Inevitably they bend the rules to suit their own interests usually at the expense of the health of society as a whole. This is a recurring theme through history. For example, the over-concentration of wealth leads to private monopolies, price manipulation, wage manipulation, and other abuses. This is an identifable and recurring theme since the beginning of human history.

The major problem is eventually that these abuses undermine support for existing insitutions, cause riots and rfuel evolts demanding change. And change is where the real danger comes in. Change is expressed in two ways - either through new laws preventing wealth accumulation or through violent revolution. There are numerous examples of this - the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution and The Iranian Revolution of 1979.

So, frankly if the US Congress were smart about it it, they'd financially decapitate the top 1% of the 1% and reinvest the takings into public infrastructure.

[myrdale]

So, frankly if the US Congress were smart about it......

I like the joke "If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress?"

All joking aside, I have no knowledge of Munger. I agree with the idea that social media is a poison. It is a popularity contest of high light reels of peoples lives. Also I agree with Dave Ramsey in the statement that "average" in America is pretty bad financially. Is it education or IQ or personal philosophy that lead the majority of people astray financially, I don't know?

The top 1% of earners are part of human nature. This is as old as the bible. To paraphrase "To those who have everything, more will be given. To those who have little, all will be taken away." I've started reading Thomas Swell's book Basic Economics, and the major takeaway I have so far is government intervention seldom solves the problem, and more often makes it worse.