Pentium M vs Pentium 4 - Page 6

Warren Buffet, 36 Bil.

Master of Science, Columbia University (crappy school, but I have NYU bias!)

I didn't say he's in the 30s range, just he's not 11...

Are you sure he received it prior to starting Berkshire Hathaway? If so, I stand corrected. I would still bet money that the majority of our *most welathy* today either didn't finish college (Bill Gates, Michael Dell and many others) or didn't get anything beyond a bachelor's.

The point to take home in all of this is our society needs to create new standards for determining how successful someone may be at the job being hired for, via assessment tests, previous proven performance, real-world experience, etc. Our current system is flawed, and only hinders the businesses who have adopted such standards.

EDR, all your arguments seem to be based on the fact that rich people are better people? Yes, it is a fact that many entrepreneurs do not have a high level of education. But what is your point? That their rich status proves them to be better, and hence that those who have money but no degree is better than those who have a degree? I beg to differ. Those who hold high levels of education contribute to society in a way entrepreneurs never can. Remember Palo Alto Research Center? I don't see any uneducated millionaires inventing an entirely new industry. Only those trained in a field can make such innovations. You are claiming that corporations only hire those with graduate level educations because of their proven tenacity. Preposterous! Some jobs can only be fulfilled by those who are trained in the field and who spend years learning the professional expertise. Can a high school graduate, with the same level of tenacity as a Ph.D, design a RNA enzyme, or engineer a hydraulic sysem, or study the effects of a new medicine, or produce in vitro recombinant DNA? No! Only experts in a field can, and these people are far more advanced people than most entrepreneurs.

Oracle of Omaha assumes Delphic role as Arnold's economic adviser in California governorship race. Maybe because he's so dismayed with governance in the corporate sphere: "Accountability and stewardship withered in the last decade." Takes some of the blame personally. "Too often I was silent when management made proposals that I judged to be counter to the interests of shareholders." Otherwise an impeccable track record. Studied under investment guru Benjamin Graham at Columbia. Applied value investing principles to build Berkshire Hathaway into $116 billion (market cap) holding company: insurance (General Re, Geico), substantial stakes in American Express, Coca-Cola, Gillette, Wells Fargo. Also wide assortment of operating companies that tickle Warren's fancy: Fruit of the Loom, Pampered Chef, NetJet. Believes Berkshire should be a "fortress of financial strength." Has been just that: over the past 38 years Berkshire's per-share book value has grown from $19 to $41,727, a rate of 22.2% compounded annually.

Source: Forbes

He studied at Columbia first, then he started BRK.

Looks like we have our new fun! Ding Ding, round 2!

Delta, you were impressing me for a while, but you are showing me that you fit into that category of people who aren't comprehending what they are reading. I never stated or implied that rich people are better. You have to realize that I retorted to someone who implied that "advanced education" people are ABOVE the rest. That is what I addressed and stated - if that's the case (Ph.D's are smarter and above everyone else), why are our wealthiest people not from "advanced education?"

You are so 100% wrong on this. Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, BILL GATES, the Rockefellers and many others C'mon, are you for real!

Dude, seriously, who are you people? I didn't say that either. READ BEFORE YOU RESPOND. I said that most companies only higher those that have a bachelor's (not graduate level) and that is the flat out truth. That is the standard. Almost all higher paying jobs state, "College degree required", or "B.S. a must." And, as another poster already stated and agreed, this mentality originally stemmed from "If you were able to obtain a degree, then you have a good chance of showing ambition and follow through." Those are the facts, my friend!

Wrong again! In REALITY, anyone can learn anything. The same Ph.D at some point in his/her life gets off the school desk, and starts to take those theories and apply them. Even the Ph.D has to learn how to conduct certain tests. I think the key word is *trained* in a field. My argument is that anyone can be *trained* to learn, and even the Ph.D when they get that new scientist project has to *learn something new* as they get used to the specific requirements of that job. Once again, those that have real life experience, and proven performance in a real life situation should not over-looked simply because they don't have some affiliated degree - my only point.

Well there are a few debates going on around here:

1. Does having a college degree make you smart?
2. Does having a college degree assure success in life?
3. Is success defined by productivity towards humanity/society or wealth? (this seems to be delta's point)
4. We are also associating wealth with intelligence here, since EDR points out that most successful/wealthy (EDR's use of successful) businessmen do not have degrees.

Therefore, before we proceed I would suggest clarifying and breaking the arguments down to more manageable arguments.

Relax EDR, Delta's having fun with you.

Wow! You don't even know what you said! "Why are our wealthiest people not from 'advanced education'?" Because wealthiest people are not above scientists! Your entire argument, by bringing in the factor of wealth, is to imply that wealthy people are above the rest. Following through with that argument you state that since wealthy people are above the rest, and since wealthy people are not those with degrees, that means those with degrees are not above the rest. THAT is the logic of your words. You suffer from something that those not trained to think at a high level typically suffer: you cannot abstract logic from your sentences. You create sentences out of empirical knowlegde, and therefore your words sound right to yourself. But when someone puts the logic of your words in front of you, you do not recognize it.

Nice breakdown X!

1. We know the answer to this

2. We know the answer to this

3. Great point. Could be both. In the end though, it's all about money. It is certainly *most admirable* when someone's true motive is to help mankind, even at their own sacrifice, and could care less if they were able to pay their own bills. There's very few, if truly any, of those kinds of people - whose sole motive is to help mankind, and not gain personally, in any way, whether it's ego driven (as per winning a nobel prize or #1 selling book) or money.

The Dalai Lama is the only person I know who holds a Ph.D equivalent (from his country) that is wealthy and has what appears to be the most true intentions of helping others. Compassion!

Even he, though, sells books, CD's, and tapes, and we don't know if any of that money is used for the bettering of mankind or feeding his pocket.

4. I'm not intending to associate wealth with intelligence. I'm simply saying that whoever says that because they have a Ph.D makes them superior to everyone else or all other classes of society, is a joke! To them, I would say, "Show me the money!"

And, again, I do raise the question, WHY is it that the majority of our wealthy do not have advanced degrees? WHY? I'm just curious. Seems like those on the other side of this argument still won't admit to, or address that issue. It's kind of a slap in the face.

This is how the logic would be, if you did not imply that wealthy people are better.

Let's us list first the kinds of people in our argument: a. those without degree or wealth. b. those with wealth and c. those with a degree.

Let us say that b are not more advanced than a. Let us also say that b cannot also be c. Then there is no arguement saying c is not more advanced than a.

The only way your argument would work is if you assume first that b and only b is more advanced than a:

b and only b is more advanced than a. b cannot also be c. therefore c is not more advanced than a.

So you are implying that only rich people are better than all other people.

Your entire argument stands on the fact that regardless of anything else, wealth alone show superiority over other people. This argument is pretty much pointless if you insist on that point.

I don't know where to put your experience in the grand scheme of this argument...sorry. I don't even know which side you are on.

3. You place an emphasis on wealth. And that is your benchmark, where as delta is arguing against your benchmark.

4. But you are unintentionally implying that those without degree and wealthy, are "more successful" than those with degrees and not as wealthy. And we started this debate because RSX implied he's smart because of his advanced degree. Your counter argument is that those with wealth and no degree is "more successful", hence more "intelligent" than RSX's definition of intelligence.

Of course I am opening another can of worms here. And I am way too lazy to define intelligence, success, wealth etc...

No, that is the interpretation you have. Wow! You're still putting words into my mouth. There are over 2,000 different Chrisitian religions that all read the same bible and think they're right. If you're going to be so "empirical" and "logical", then you should take the words at face value. My words, as you quoted above, do not say or imply that rich people are *better than*

In reality, as I implied in my last post, it all comes down to paying bills, and making money. That may sound shallow to some of you, but again, even the Ph.D who has the true desire to help others, is also secretly wanting to get rich from their work, or get recognition (Nobel prize or other), and so it's all about self, not true selfless as you imply that they want to contribute to the bettering of society. Again, in the end, it's all about making more money. It's sad but true.

My argument, therefore, has been and remains, YOU DO NOT *NEED* AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO BECOME WEALTHY, HAPPY, OR SUCCESSFULL IN LIFE.

That was the jest of my retort to the original person who created this argument. I never said wealthy people are *better than* advanced degree people. And, it's true that there are alot of idiots running around that do have advanced degrees. I think one person stated, "George Bush partied at Yale."

And, after all, there are a select few advanced degree people who are extremely wealthy so your argument, as you interpreted mine, is flawed in its logic.

That is the funniest load of babble-jargon I've ever read. I'm sorry, you've just made a complete idiot of yourself, in public, in front of all of us. I feel bad for your brother. You put words into people's mouths, and mis-interpreted the argument, your bad, not mine.

Again, for the record, my argument is:

YOU DO NOT *NEED* AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO BECOME WEALTHY, HAPPY, OR SUCCESSFULL IN LIFE. YOU DO NOT NEED AN ADVANCED DEGREE TO BE TENACIOUS, OR TO HAVE QUALITIES LIKE FOLLOW THROUGH, FOCUS AND DETERMINATION.

So, for any idiot to come across as though they are superior simply because they are in advanced curriculumn, is an idiot!

'Nuf already.

You could've topped that if you're married and doing all that at the same time with 3 kids to feed and you have to brave the snow at night to go to class...

Let us not forget your 3 legged dog, let's call him Tripod.

Obviously X is one who can abstract logic from an argument. EDR cannot even see the logic behind his own argument, which makes hard and less fun arguing with him/her. He/she claims that he never stated rich people are better, when in fact that is his entire argument...