I read the speech. I also read Liars Poker. I knew Lewis had worked at Soloman Brothers, but somehow in the years since I read the book "Goldman" replaced "Soloman" in my head. So this is a typo.
Of course that I named a different firm (equally hated) than the correct one doesn't change the content of my article.
It is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument to evade the obvious reason. The actual reason has been presented as an argument by the majority of the respondents so, anti-intellectualism.
So just how much more "lucky" is Warren Buffet than a thousand other capitalists? If you took away every penny he owns and made him 25 again, do you really doubt he would be able to earn it all back?
His value investing and stock picking ability is pretty much unparalleled.
At the same time, he IS lucky to have done what he did, at the time he did.
Even if one single person like him existed before or at the same time as him, he would have had trouble finding deals to invest in.
EDIT: not to mention the things he did wouldn't have been possible at many other junctions in time. His skill set - value investing, would have been impossible if he wasn't born in the era he was.
Warren Buffett admits he was lucky. I don't doubt he would do very well. I have doubt he would do as well, his performance would revert closer to the mean.
I think you changed the framework of the discussion.
While within your framework you are of course, correct; at the same time, its framework is at odds with what everyone else in this thread are discussing. As a result you are being downvoted.
Of course that I named a different firm (equally hated) than the correct one doesn't change the content of my article.
It is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument to evade the obvious reason. The actual reason has been presented as an argument by the majority of the respondents so, anti-intellectualism.