In February, Warren E. Buffett was among those who received a Medal of Freedom from President Obama at the White House. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
By SUSANNE CRAIG and BEN PROTESS October 2, 2011, 9:36 pm
When it comes to business, everyone on Wall Street wants a piece of Warren E. Buffett. His presidential politics, however, appear to be another matter altogether.
On Friday evening, Mr. Buffett was the host of a fund-raiser for President Obama at the Four Seasons restaurant in Manhattan, typically a magnet for the who’s who of finance. Democrats had bet that the star power of one of the world’s richest men would draw an overflow crowd of Wall Street’s elite for an affair that ran $10,000 a plate, or $35,800 for one-on-one time with Mr. Buffett.
Yet organizers had trouble drawing the biggest guns of finance. The president’s campaign reserved space for 130 guests but only 116 (including Democratic staff members) attended, according to people with knowledge of the matter but not authorized to speak on the record. And there were few marquee names on the guest list. James Chanos, the hedge fund executive, was among the better known of those who attended.
The event — which included on the menu some of Mr. Buffett’s favorites, like Cherry Coke and Dairy Queen ice cream — was considered a sell-out success by the Obama campaign. It easily raised more than $1.5 million for the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Still, the turnout, strong but less than overwhelming, reflected the president’s broader struggles in attracting big-name support from those on Wall Street, whom he referred to as “fat cat bankers [ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/obama-decries-fat-cat-bankers/ ]” in 2009. One person who attended described the atmosphere as subdued and said the event seemed to attract more Buffett followers than Obama supporters.
Mr. Buffett, a major investor in many of the nation’s biggest banks, remains undeterred. As others in business have moved to distance themselves from Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett has found himself in a lonely role as the president’s ambassador among the moneyed set. He is endorsing not just Mr. Obama but also a policy like the so-called Buffett rule [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/21/buffett-rule-facts-and-fictions ], which would increase taxes on the rich, as well as the view that America is exiting, not re-entering, a recession.
“I have always had people disagree with me on politics,” Mr. Buffett said in an interview. “You can go through life and just basically opt out of that field. I don’t blame anyone particularly, but I don’t want to do that. If I have views I will talk about them.”
Mr. Buffett’s more public embrace of Mr. Obama has cast a spotlight on this unlikely alliance between the Omaha-born son of a stockbroker turned Republican congressman and Mr. Obama, the Harvard-educated lawyer who forged his political career in Chicago.
Mr. Buffett said he first met Mr. Obama roughly six years ago, at a lunch arranged by the billionaire’s daughter, Susie. The pair broke bread at Kiewit Plaza in Omaha, where Mr. Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, is situated. At the time, Mr. Obama was only months into his freshman term in the Senate.
Mr. Buffett spotted a rising star, prophetically telling The Chicago Tribune in 2005 that Mr. Obama “has as much potential as anyone I’ve seen to have an important impact over his lifetime on the course that America takes.”
Another presidential hopeful, Hillary Rodham Clinton, also impressed Mr. Buffett. “I didn’t think both of them would run,” he recalled in the interview with The New York Times. During the contentious 2008 campaign, he lent his name — and wallet — to both candidates. In 2007, he headlined an event for Ms. Clinton in New York and another for Mr. Obama in Omaha.
As president, Mr. Obama has been known to tap Mr. Buffett for advice on the economy. In July 2010, during a meeting at the White House, Mr. Buffett even got a new tie. Mr. Buffett said he wore a tie that “looked like it had gone through a lawn mower.” Mr. Obama, noticing its condition, gave Mr. Buffett a new tie, replete with presidential seals.
A few weeks later, Mr. Buffett was back at the White House for a meeting that was also attended by Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft and an old friend of Mr. Buffett. Mr. Obama was quick to compliment Mr. Buffett, saying he was “looking sharper,” according to Mr. Buffett. Mr. Buffett laughed and pointed to Mr. Gates, who was wearing the old tie. Mr. Obama went and got a new tie with presidential seals on it for Mr. Gates. “This tie is very useful,” Mr. Buffett said of the frayed tie he now keeps in reserve in his closet for friends who may be visiting the White House.
This summer, Mr. Obama called Mr. Buffett from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard to discuss ways to spur the economy. And after Mr. Buffett wrote an Op-Ed article [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html ] for The New York Times, saying that politicians should stop “coddling” the “mega-rich,” the White House introduced plans to raise taxes for the wealthy.
Still, Mr. Buffett cautions against reading too much into the relationship. “We are not at all close,” he said. He estimates he has talked to Mr. Obama one-on-one just a handful of times, and no call has lasted more than about eight minutes. Mr. Buffett does not remember ever making a call to Mr. Obama. And Mr. Buffett does not personally solicit donations for the re-election campaign.
Mr. Buffett did agree to headline two fund-raisers for the president. The next one is scheduled for late October at the Chicago-area home of Byron Trott, a former Goldman Sachs executive known as “Buffett’s favorite banker.”
The fund-raisers are the Obama campaign’s latest efforts to restore the president’s relationship with Wall Street — once a heavy-hitting donor base. Earlier this year, Mr. Obama dined with financial executives [ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/on-obama-wall-st-shows-reluctance-to-commit/ ] at the opulent Upper East Side restaurant Daniel. The president also counts several bankers among his friends and fund-raisers, including Robert Wolf, the president of UBS’s investment bank.
But the campaign has received a tepid response from other deep-pocketed donors on Wall Street, some of whom have shunned the president’s push for regulation and his talk about lavish bonuses. The nation’s biggest banks, which cut many large checks for Mr. Obama’s 2008 run, are mainly on the sidelines for now.
“In the last election, people were tripping over themselves to get on the Obama bandwagon,” said Michael J. Driscoll, a former senior trader at the Wall Street firm Bear Stearns who now teaches at Adelphi University. “Things have changed; Wall Street is not happy being under attack by the administration.”
Republican candidates hope to lure away Wall Street’s money. Last week, the Republican contender Mitt Romney, a former private equity executive, met privately with JPMorgan Chase’s chief, Jamie Dimon, once a big-name supporter of Mr. Obama. Mr. Dimon has not yet endorsed any candidate. Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge fund manager who previously donated to Mr. Obama, has shifted allegiance to Mr. Romney.
Mr. Buffett said he was not surprised that Wall Street’s sentiment had shifted so much against the president. “People need to face up to the country’s problems. Once what you start pointing and explaining what your part is in it, you start losing a few people,” he said, laughing.
Still, he says he believes Mr. Obama will win the next election, and may even get some help from an improving economy, an idea that goes against the view of many in America.
“We are coming out of this one, I am virtually certain,” Mr. Buffett said. “I see figures on 70-some companies daily. I have a lot of information coming in and basically everything to do with home construction is as bad as it has ever been, and everything else is getting better.”
“There are no double-digit investment returns anywhere in sight for owners of financial assets. Bonds, stocks and real estate are in fact overvalued because of near zero percent interest rates and a developed world growth rate closer to 0 than the 3 – 4% historical norms. There is only a New Normal economy at best and a global recession at worst to look forward to in future years.”
Gross argues that:
“Long-term profits cannot ultimately grow unless they are partnered with near equal benefits for labor…
The United States in particular requires an enhanced safety net of benefits for the unemployed unless and until it can produce enough jobs to return to our prior economic model…
Policies promoting “Buy American” goods and services – which in turn would employ more Americans – should also be reintroduced. China and Brazil do it. Why not us?”
Not Everyone Wants To Live In America Mark Rice, 06.04.10, 01:57 PM EDT
Another angle on immigration.
There have been a lot of news stories and opinion pieces written about immigration in recent weeks, including a special report in this publication just last month. Much less has been written about emigration, about the people who have made the decision to leave the U.S. in order to build their lives elsewhere.
However, as Forbes Editor Paul Maidment noted in his recent essay on immigration, many immigrants to the U.S. eventually return to their home countries. But it isn't just home countries that beckon residents of the U.S. Nearly a quarter-million emigrants leave the U.S. each year, and the State Department estimates that between 5 million and 5.5 million Americans currently live abroad. These emigrants remit nearly $3 billion back to the U.S. each year, more than emigrants from most other countries remit to their home countries.
Where do these emigrants go? Nearly one-third (32.2%) live in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. In fact, the U.S. ranks ninth in the percentage of its emigrants that reside in that part of the world. The next most popular destination for American emigrants is Europe, at 28.3%. Around 12.6% of U.S. emigrants reside in other parts of Northern America, and there are small numbers of American emigrants living in Oceania (4.2%) and Africa (2.7%).
Like the immigrants Maidment writes about, many of these American emigrants view their time abroad as limited, and they plan to return home to the U.S. whenever it suits their personal or economic interests. However, there is a growing trend among U.S. emigrants of formally renouncing their American citizenship and embracing the citizenship of their new countries, according to a recent report from the Federal Register. The website expatinfodesk.com notes that the reasons for these renunciations tend to be more economic than political--but then the same can be said for many immigrants who choose to become U.S. citizens.
The point of this is not to deny the importance of levelheaded discussions about U.S. immigration policy. However, it is important to recognize that there are many different forces that push and pull people from one country to another, and that any discussions about immigration would do well to recognize the reality of a global diaspora that also includes Americans moving all around the world.
If every national border in the world was opened up, and people had the opportunity to live anywhere they wanted, what would the world end up looking like? There can be little doubt that more people would choose to move to the U.S. than anywhere else--at least in the near term. After all, with the world's largest GDP and a long history of political tolerance, the U.S. has a lot to offer emigrants from all over. But it is reasonable to think that more Americans would also emigrate than currently do so. ........................................ Special Report: Immigration
Immigration Is U.S. .. Four Steps To Fix Immigration .. Immigration, Reform And My Dad .. Home, Temporary, Home .. Terrorism And Citizenship .. Hand Out Green Cards With Diplomas .. My Heart And My Chart Collide .. links inside .. ........................................ Indeed, in such a scenario several countries would experience much more profound demographic shifts than the U.S., according to a 2009 Gallup Poll. Gallup's "potential net migration index" (PNMI) subtracts the number of adults who would move out of a country from the number of adults who would choose to move to that same country, and presents it as a percentage of the total adult population.
The U.S. has a PNMI of 60%, less than a quarter of top-ranked Singapore's 260%. Other countries that rank higher than the U.S. include New Zealand (175%), Canada, (170%), Australia (145%), France (70%) and the U.K. (65%).
Of course, it is unlikely that an opening of all national borders will ever happen. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that there are many different reasons why people want to live in one country or another, that not everyone wants to live in the U.S., and that more and more Americans are happily making lives for themselves in all different parts of the world.
Mark Rice is the chair of American studies at St. John Fisher College in Rochester, N.Y. Links to many of the sources of the data used can be found on his blog, Ranking America.
The Teaparty/Norquist group with the consequent blah blah, and the debate on raising your debt ceiling, would not have increased the attraction of good ol' USA.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
