Reply
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:07 pm
Quote:Edward Wedbush, profiled by the LA Times, may be the cheapest chief executive around, though I'm not sure he's the "cheapest man alive" as one of his employees said, anonymously (and wisely). Warren Buffett is known not only as a brilliant investor, but also as a total cheapskate in his personal life, as are many economists and other folks who know lots about money. Dick Yuengling, owner of Yuengling & Son brewers, is another rich cheapskate CEO, who drives a beat-up 2002 Ford Taurus (that he bought used) to work and rinses Styrofoam cups to reuse them
Read more:
http://money.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/meet-the-cheapest-man-alive/#ixzz15VORrAG7
http://money.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/meet-the-cheapest-man-alive/?cnn=yes
Forgive me, but what exactly is your point in this thread? Are you saying we should all conserve our money and be cheapskates.
Quote:16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. 20But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
(LK 12 KJV)
Not that I think we should all just be irresponsible because we are going to die and can't take it with us, just saying there is a balance in between.
I have no problem with the way Warren Buffett lives. He's happy.
There is also nothing wrong with rinsing out a stryofoam cup, or a paper one, for reuse. That is being a good steward of resources.
Being a cheapskate connotes being so unwilling to spend money the health and or welfare of yourself or others are compromised.
Being frugal and wise with your spending causes you to look at what is important to you, and what isn't.
My Philanthropic Pledge
Warren Buffett
In 2006, I made a commitment to gradually give all of my Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropic foundations. I couldn't be happier with that decision. Now, Bill and Melinda Gates and I are asking hundreds of rich Americans to pledge at least 50% of their wealth to charity. So I think it is fitting that I reiterate my intentions and explain the thinking that lies behind them. First, my pledge: More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death. Measured by dollars, this commitment is large. In a comparative sense, though, many individuals give more to others every day. Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge. Moreover, this pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including -- I'm proud to say -- my three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others. Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends significant person-to-person help daily. I've done little of this. What I can do, however, is to take a pile of Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates -- "claim checks" that when converted to cash can command far-ranging resources -- and commit them to benefit others who, through the luck of the draw, have received the short straws in life. To date about 20% of my shares have been distributed (including shares given by my late wife, Susan Buffett). I will continue to annually distribute about 4% of the shares I retain. At the latest, the proceeds from all of my Berkshire shares will be expended for philanthropic purposes by 10 years after my estate is settled. Nothing will go to endowments; I want the money spent on current needs. This pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. They have already received significant sums for their personal use and will receive more in the future. They live comfortable and productive lives. And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life.
Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and long-standing friends. My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious. The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.
@chai2,
Quote:There is also nothing wrong with rinsing out a stryofoam cup, or a paper one, for reuse. That is being a good steward of resources.
Actually the better would be to not use paper or styrofoam cups in the first place or paper plates, paper towels.... I think in the name of convenience we have wasted money, resources not to mention being harmful to the environment but it sure would mean a big change and commitment to change all that kind of stuff.
I agree about owning too much stuff. My in-laws own too many houses and now they are getting old yet they don't want to get rid of them because they want to leave the kids the houses when they die, but not before...It is a lot of work for them when neither are in the best of health and they are too cheap to hire help with it all...
I dislike the way "cheap" is used derisively to describe someone who doesn't throw money around. I try to use my money wisely also. Why shouldn't everyone? I don't understand why wealth is automatically associated with conspicuous consumption. That said, I don't know that I would drive a 2002 Ford Taurus.
@revelette,
revelette wrote:Actually the better would be to not use paper or styrofoam cups in the first place or paper plates, paper towels....
Last I heard, the environmental impact was kind of a tossup between traditional plates and paper plates. Traditional plates have to be manufactured, then cleaned after every use, which means using water, electricity, and detergent. The waste water then has to be treated to get rid of the phosphates.
Might be that composting used paper plates is a better choice, environmentally speaking.
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Actually the better would be to not use paper or styrofoam cups in the first place or paper plates, paper towels.... I think in the name of convenience we have wasted money, resources not to mention being harmful to the environment but it sure would mean a big change and commitment to change all that kind of stuff.
tangent alert....
I never use styro cups, but I do use paper cups, also paper plates and bowls.
The paper plates and bowls are made from sugar cane fiber and are biodegradeable.
I buy them by the case from Amazon. A 9 inch plate costs about a dime, and a 12 oz bowl costs about 7 cents.
I'm not ashamed to admit that if I use a paper plate or bowl for something non-messy like a sandwich, or any other food that is dry, I put it aside to use again, until it gets messed up with sauce or something. If a dollop of mayo falls on the plate, I wipe it off and use the plate again.
There's been a few times when my husband sees me eating something gooshy, like stew or spaghetti, and if he's says "is there any more? I'll have some if there is." I go over and fill up the same plate when I'm done, and hand it to him. We've both got the same cooties by this time.
I figure I'm wasting a lot more resources in hot water, soap and if using the dishwasher, electricity.
Did you know it actually only takes 1 of those public restroom paper towel to dry your hands, and not 3 (or 5, 6, 7 plus that I see some people pull out)
Might be a small thing, but when I dry my hands with one towel, I'm wasting half the amount of someone who takes 2.
It's like the starfish on the beach story....it matters to that one starfish.
If people just took what they needed, it would be a good thing.
@chai2,
Didn't know they made biodegradable products like plastic/paper tableware and garbage bags. Never really gave it that much thought I am ashamed to say.
Quote:If people just took what they needed, it would be a good thing.
yep
@revelette,
The super rich just keep on accumulating money that hurts the economy. wealth is being concentrated. On the other hand Donald Trump is the opposite.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
The super rich just keep on accumulating money that hurts the economy.
Maybe you could find out how the rich become super rich and work on becoming rich yourself.
No, well then I suppose you want someone (Obama) to take (steal) money from a random rich
person and give it to you because you are entitled to what they have just because you're you.
**** yeah, sounds good to me.
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
**** yeah, sounds good to me.
Robbing the rich at gunpoint sounds good to you?
@H2O MAN,
Another lover of money and save the rich from taxes?
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
chai2 wrote:
**** yeah, sounds good to me.
Robbing the rich at gunpoint sounds good to you?
Hell yeah!
Make that George Soros character your 1st victim
@H2O MAN,
Along with the Wall Street crowd.
You do realize that you will immediately become a target for robbery once
the stolen wealth is redistributed... spread around to you - don't you?
@talk72000,
People are free to make their own choices and if they choose to be rich and just keep it stashed then I guess it is their prerogative to do so. You are right though that it is not good for the economy in our country so it makes no sense fiscally wise to give tax cuts and other incentives for the super rich when trying to stimulate the economy.
But to keep this on the level on which the thread began, as a personal characteristic value so to speak to be a cheapskates, it depends on in what way they are a cheapskates in my opinion for whatever it is worth. If a person just wants to to accumulate money and save it to have it stashed away without doing any good with it, I can see no personal value in such an action. But if a person just wants to be fugal and not waste money by buying lots of useless possessions or conserving what do have, then I think more people could take a lesson from that (including me) and it would be good. I am not talking about making laws or taxing or anything, just personal choices in lifestyles.
This is a pretty good subject given the season coming up, Christmas.
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
...it makes no sense fiscally wise to give tax cuts and other incentives for the super rich when trying to stimulate the economy.
That's an idiotic statement.
Why would you punish success?
When is the last time the poor created jobs and wealth that increased tax revenues?
@H2O MAN,
The middle class are the ones buying the products which does stimulate the economy. During this whole recession we have been operating under the Bush tax cut for the rich which has not produced jobs.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace