Wood August 14, 2003March 25, 2012 So where should we put our money? Stocks, as a class, seem no bargain; long-term bonds seem to carry far more risk than reward; real estate is due for a correction (or at least not likely to zoom in the next few years as it’s been zooming in the last few); money markets yield under 1% before tax. Timber! Not, ‘tim . . . . BER!’ as the loggers warn at the top of their lungs as a crash is about to occur. I do not expect a crash. But, rather, ‘timber’ in vaguely the same way Dustin Hoffman encountered ‘plastics’ in that famous scene in The Graduate. (And, while we’re at it, it’s always a good idea to raise a glass to Mrs. Robinson.) I claim no expertise in timber, yet feel comfortable suggesting that you consider putting 5% of your investible funds in it. Maybe 10%. Not more. [As always: free advice is worth what you pay for it! Just because I’m doing it doesn’t mean you should. If I had a nickel for every dumb thing I’ve done with my money over the years, I’d be a rich man today!] I arrive at this conclusion because people who actually do know something about timber, and who, if they had a nickel for every smart thing they’d done with money over the years would be (and are) rich men and women today, think this makes some sense. Timber, for starters, grows. Gold doesn’t. Copper doesn’t. Pork bellies and sorghum do, but you have to feed the pork and fertilize the sorghum. (I think. I’m actually not sure what sorghum is.) Trees are fed by God. And as they grow, they not only become bigger (that much you knew) . . . they become more valuable. Skinny trees may be suitable for conversion to paper or woodchips or something. But as they grow wider around the shoulders, they gradually become more highly prized for their usefulness in making things. So, the first thing is that where most inventory actually shrinks – either because it spoils or because some of it walks out the door with the occasional disgruntled employee – timber just sits there and grows more valuable. Don’t ask me how fast, but you might imagine 5% a year, between actual growth and the growth in value as it becomes suitable for board-room table tops. Nor do they need to be warehoused, like most inventory. Then you have what I’ve been told is perhaps a 2% annual ‘unpopularity’ bonus. That is to say, the market allows you a higher return on your money than it should, because people are quite skittish about investing in trees. Leave aside the sheer boredom of it; I’m talking here of the obvious negatives: Fire! Dutch elm disease! The increasing irrelevance of paper in a world of pixels! It turns out, according to experts like Jeremy Grantham, whose Boston-based firm, Grantham, Mayo & Van Otterloo, manages $38 billion or so – a bit of it in timber partnerships – these fears are overdone. The wise forest manager diversifies geographically and by species, so that the risks from fire and disease are less than they might seem. And while wood is undoubtedly the most substituted-for material on earth – we are constantly finding other materials to replace it – it seems to grow ever more valuable. With ups and downs, to be sure, but on a general 2% annual long-term trend line. That long trend could always end or go into reverse. But it might not. Think, for example, of a billion Chinese and nearly as many Indians who don’t now have decent houses but might someday be ready to build. That’s a lotta wood. So you get the growth of the inventory and its gradual ‘seasoning’ to more valuable uses. You get what may be a slow but very long-term increase in the value of wood products, generally. And you get the same sort of unpopularity premium you might have gotten investing in Philip Morris all these years – without having to feel in any way responsible for helping to addict young children to the world’s leading cause of preventable death. There is a large anti-tobacco contingent. Few people are anti-tree. Yes, if interest rates go up and the U.S. housing market collapses, timber prices could fall sharply. But, smiles Jeremy, you don’t have to sell until you want to. It just keeps growing. (Contrast that with an airline seat or hotel room that, if unsold tomorrow, is gone forever.) And there’s more! For one thing, timber should be a good inflation hedge, over the long run. For another, properly managed, income from timber should be lightly taxed. If you cut and sell some trees, Uncle Sam generally views the revenue not as a taxable dividend, but as a ‘return of capital’ . . . or at least he does until you’ve sold off most of the trees you started with (even though new growth has occurred in the meantime). At that point, you can sell your forest for a lightly-taxed capital gain. I have probably lost most readers by now, because another aspect of the unpopularity of this investment may be its seeming impracticability. How, exactly, are you, who not that many years ago paid off the last of your education loans, going to buy a diversified portfolio of forests? One way, if you have a great deal of money, is to lock up a small fortune in one of Grantham’s timber partnerships. But an equally good way, accessible to more or less anyone, may be to buy shares in plum Creek Lumber (PCL), as I have done over the years, most recently at around $26.50 a share. These days, it yields about 5%. That ain’t hay (and hay, I think, unlike timber, rots when it gets wet) – at least not these days. Over the decades, the yield might rise with, or even outpace, inflation. You’re 24 and have $3,800 to invest? Forget PCL – you’ll die of boredom. But if you’re 50 and have accumulated $700,000 to help hold you from age 70 on thru 95 . . . well, putting 5% of it in PCL might not be the worst thing to do in this environment.
Cod to Queen’s Bishop Fox August 12, 2003January 22, 2017 COD (Again?) Dan Flikkema: ‘David’s seal logic is completely wrong. First of all you won’t get a ‘seal population explosion’ [if you stop clubbing them for fur coats]. The seal population – just like the population of any predator, will rise and fall with the available food supply. The seal’s consumption certainly will slow down as the cod supply goes down because the cod will be harder to find and catch. Until seals start building big ships and huge nets to catch cod, only humans (and some parasites probably) will have the ability to hunt or fish something to anywhere near extinction. Please note that I have no strong feelings either way about a person wearing a fur coat; but their reasoning is an affront to me if they think they are doing it to protect the supply of cod.’ Jeff: ‘You ask, ‘How did the cod ever survive before there were humans in significant numbers to club the seals for fur coats?’ Answer: The seal population has a dramatic decrease when the cod population gets too small. Then the cod population grows again. It’s the natural free market, disrupted by the economic free market consumers who pay gross amounts to eat endangered cod even when their population gets really small.’ John Seiffer: ‘David Lloyd-Jones said: ‘The cod are the biggest and best example around of simple economics at work.’ And therein lies the problem. Economics is not simple. Ecosystems are not simple. Health care, education, and wars against terrorism are not simple. Yet people want to believe these things are simple and that the solutions are simple. So they end up following people who are good at simplifying rather than ones who are good at solutions. That’s a simple <grin> explanation for the success of everything from full-service stock brokers to the Republican party.’ BISHOPS (Again?) Gloria: ‘First of all, let me preface this by saying that I am neither an Episcopalian, nor do I practice any religion. However, I have been following the news, and like everyone, have an opinion on the appointment of Gene Robinson as bishop of NH. For me, the true issue behind his confirmation would be the fact that he is divorced. Marriage is a holy sacrament, according to the rule book these guys use. The breakup of a holy sacrament would be argument enough to disqualify any person from holding a position of responsibility in the church. However, all the focus has been placed on the fact that Robinson is homosexual, because homosexuality is such a polarizing issue. So far, I haven’t heard anyone sharing my point of view, which is too bad, because it simply highlights the double-standard that exists in any organized religion.’ Bill Saunders: ‘I have a slightly different take on this story [about the bishop unsuccessfully trying to ascertain Peter’s dying wishes]. I hope I can convince you to ask your readers to draw up their advanced directives NOW, before they become ill. My mother has early-onset dementia, and is now in the advanced stages. BUT, with her advanced directives (durable power of attorney for finances, and health care power of attorney), I know what she wants, but most importantly have the legal authority to act on her wishes. Especially critical is health care power of attorney. A living will is a poor substitute, as it only addresses limited situations. I have been in many institutions during the course of mom’s illness. And I have seen many people subjected to treatment I seriously doubt they would have willfully chosen. But in the absence of an advanced directive for health care you will receive the most aggressive treatment by default, even when actively dying. It is such a comfort to me knowing that mom will never be rushed to the hospital for futile treatment, or placed on a feeding tube. Instead she will receive the comfort care, through Hospice, that she desires. The health care power of attorney is a relatively new concept, but you can usually find a standardized, model form for your particular state by searching online.’ WE DISTORT, YOU DECIDE™ (AND THEN WE SUE) NEW YORK (AP) Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase ”fair and balanced” in the title of his upcoming book. Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks a court order forcing a Penguin publisher, Dutton books, to rename the book, ”Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.” It also asks for unspecified damages. Fox News registered ”Fair & Balanced” as a trademark in 1995, the suit says. ☞ What a joke. I was going to buy two. I’m upping my order.
Ooo, Le, Le! August 11, 2003January 22, 2017 CORRECTION! Thursday, I quoted and linked to a guest column by Professor Walter Williams all but calling for the President’s impeachment. I jumped to the conclusion it was by the conservative columnist Walter Williams. I am embarrassed to say this was the wrong conclusion to which to jump. It was actually by a different and seemingly less conservative Walter Williams, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, not Professor Walter Williams at George Mason University. It remains a column worth reading, but I obviously regret this error – and thank ‘David,’ the one reader who caught it. LE SHOW Barry Bottger: ‘I, too, recommend Harry’s ‘le Show’ broadcast. The other reader that recommended it gave you the address for Harry’s archived shows. But you can hear it live Sundays at 10am Pacific time. The liberal Rush Limbaugh? Harry’s been doing his show longer than Limbaugh (nationally, anyway), although Harry can be quite critical of democrats, as well. At any rate, le Show is *highly* entertaining, regardless of your political bent.’ LE CIRCUS Dan: ‘Isn’t it time for you to say something to your readers in California who are suffering through national embarrassment because of this Republican attempted coup d’etat mislabelled as a recall? The recall provision dates to a time before multi-millionaires could pay signature collectors to finance the rejection of a democratic election. If the recall wins, a candidate winning a few voters (a small plurality of a large field) will replace a Governor who was elected by far more people. And Arnold Schwarzenegger? A complex multi-billion dollar state government is supposed to be led by someone who has no experience with the organization and no executive or other leadership experience?’ ☞ Perhaps instead of starting his managerial career by running the state with the world’s fifth largest economy, Arnold should cut his teeth running something smaller, like GE. Needless to say, my hope is that – after having a lot of fun with the bikini-wax jokes – people will turn out to vote against the recall. Not so much because they love Gray Davis, if they don’t, but because it sets an unfortunate precedent to have a governor elected by 15% of the voters (or some number like that) replacing one elected by more than half. Did you see the Andy Borowitz on this? BREAKING NEWS: CITING CALIFORNIA, IRAQIS REJECT DEMOCRACY
Talking Cod August 8, 2003January 22, 2017 CORRECTION! Yesterday, I quoted and linked to a guest column by Professor Walter Williams all but calling for the President’s impeachment. I jumped to the conclusion it was by the conservative columnist Walter Williams. I am embarrassed to say this was the wrong conclusion to which to jump. It was actually by a different and seemingly less conservative Walter Williams, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, not Professor Walter Williams at George Mason University. It remains a column worth reading, but I obviously regret this error – and thank ‘David,’ the one reader who caught it. TALK RADIO David Royal: ‘If you’re looking for quality talk radio, allow me to suggest Harry Shearer’s ‘Le Show.’ You can get it online here: http://www.harryshearer.com/leshow/ I’m not sure where you can listen to it on the radio, as I live in Taiwan, so I get all my radio via the internet. He does great skits (providing the voices of Bush Sr., Jr., Cheney et al), and delivers his take on the news. You may recognize the name – he’s the star of films such as ‘This Is Spinal Tap’ and he provides many of the voices on ‘The Simpsons.’ I think you’ll like it.’ COD Colin: ‘David Lloyd-Jones’ comment that it’s the seals fault Cod fisheries have had it is nonsense. Whenever commercial fishing of a species gets started, we lose 90 or more percent of that fish within a few years. It’s clearly not the seals.’ ☞ I was going to suggest it was an upsurge in the demand for cod pieces, but then I did a Google search. Oh, my. AND NOW Go back and read Matt Miller’s column from yesterday, if you missed it. I think it really helps understand the macro-economic picture. As does Al Gore’s important speech yesterday. Macro-economics matters because, at the end of the day, it’s all about your money.
From the Right and the Left August 7, 2003February 23, 2017 CONSIDER THE SOURCE I heard Walter Williams, the conservative columnist, speak once. He is a tall, lean, tough African American who ridicules affirmative action, who thinks insider trading should be legal, who believes we should drill for oil in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge, and who is, above all, I think, a firm believer in free-market economics. He is a very smart man, even if not much burdened by warmth or empathy. (He begins his February 19 column: ‘If you’re a poor adult in America, for the most part, it’s all your fault.’) I point all this out to suggest he is no lefty. Yet in this recent column, he all but calls for President Bush’s impeachment [[OOPS! No, he doesn’t this Walter Williams, a different professor by the same name, does – my apologies!]]: George W. Bush has knowingly deceived the American people on the two overriding policy issues of his presidency – the invasion of Iraq and the deep tax cuts. Other presidents have lied. Only Bush has repeatedly duped Congress and the public to thwart their exercise of informed consent. He is the first president to use propaganda as the main weapon in selling his policies. Bush’s unprecedented pattern of deception may constitute an impeachable offense. . . . Deeming presidential deception a high crime under the impeachment clause can open a Pandora’s box of problems. Yet, President Bush’s actions appear to be a far more serious assault on the Constitution than Watergate. I hold that interpreting Bush’s pattern of deception on his most important policy proposals as a high crime against the nation is a necessary step in rescuing American democracy. I think part of the disconnect here is that the President does it so blithely. The bulk of the Bush tax cuts was designed to go to the people at the top end of the economic ladder. Yet he told the nation in the second televised Presidential debate that ‘most of the tax reductions go to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.’ So that was a trillion-dollar untruth; but it was offered so naturally, so comfortably, how could it be anything but, at worst, a difference of opinion? The second round of tax cuts, he told us, was crafted to maximize job creation. No reputable economist believed these particular tax cuts were designed to maximize job creation, and presumably neither did he. But he and his team simply imposed it as the truth. Walter Williams is not buying it. [[Or at least one Walter Williams isn’t. Again, my apologies to the other.]] CONSIDER THE FACTS Neither is Matthew Miller. His latest column (emphasis added): THE REPUBLICAN HONESTY DEFICIT By Matthew Miller It’s not usually easy to prove that political rhetoric is a total fraud – there are caveats and shades of gray and pseudo-arguments that leave the offending politician ‘covered.’ Not so with Republican moans these days about ‘big government,’ and with their characterization of Democratic presidential contenders as tax addicts set to inflict their ‘liberal’ agenda on the nation. Proof of the GOP’s honesty deficit comes by asking a simple question: What is the Republican position on the right size of government and how to fund it? Start with basic but poorly understood facts. Just seven programs make up about 75 percent of all federal spending: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, civil service pensions, defense and interest on the debt. That’s ‘big government.’ Republicans aren’t trying to cut a dime of it. In fact, they’re calling for big increases in every one of these programs. According to the White House, interest on the national debt alone will soar by 66 percent over the next five years thanks to the red ink oozing from President Bush’s budget. And those ‘big 7’ programs come before you toss in everything from NASA to the national parks to the National Institutes of Health, not to mention homeland security, student loans and farm subsidies – all things Republicans support, and which take up a goodly portion of the quarter on the federal dollar that’s left. In other words, if you pay heed to their votes and not their words, the Republican critique of ‘big government’ is a pure charade. Though it hardly seems possible, the GOP position on taxes is even more shocking. Understanding why requires a quick, painless look at a few numbers. Over the next five years, President Bush figures the ‘big 7’ programs will cost, on average, about $1.8 trillion a year. Over the same period, he says, the revenue the government will collect, not counting Social Security taxes (which both parties say shouldn’t be used for current spending, though it is), will average about $1.35 trillion a year – or $450 billion a year less than just the ‘big 7’ programs on which Republicans want to spend more. The reduction in income taxes enacted under President Bush accounts for most of this gap. Since the GOP thinks income tax rates should continually be reduced, they obviously believe we should fund government activities they support in one of two ways. First, we can borrow huge amounts from our children (which is the GOP’s present plan). Or, we can at some point raise payroll and other retirement taxes, which means funding government through taxes that impose a greater burden on lower- and middle-income citizens. The income tax, by contrast, is progressive. Mathematically, these are the only options available, given that Republicans, rhetoric aside, aren’t interested in cutting government spending. This, then, is today’s spectacle: ‘Family values’ Republicans are sticking the kids with the bill for current spending while railing fraudulently against the ‘big government’ they support. Then they attack Democrats for offering the radical idea that we ought to pay for the spending we all agree we want (and that’s before we even begin fighting about other things government might do – like cover the uninsured, or help poor children get better teachers). If we had a functioning press corps – one that simply presented these facts again and again – the fiscal and moral fraud of the GOP position would be self-evident. Instead, today’s press corps chews endlessly over the political jockeying. ‘Does Bush have Democrats in a bind because they have to talk about repealing his tax cuts?’ they ask, rather than laying out the facts that show that Bush’s positions are an obvious hoax. So much for our ‘adversarial’ press! And because the White House knows top editors and producers will think that repeating these tougher questions and analyses would seem too ‘biased,’ they can count on ‘he-said, she-said’ coverage to leave citizens confused. This confusion is the Republican goal. Is this Republican hoax really sustainable? As both political parties know, the answer largely depends on how the press views its responsibilities in the coming election cycle. It’s time for editors and producers to hammer home some basic civic facts instead of continuing their overwhelming – and lazy – emphasis on ‘the politics’ of every debate. Matthew Miller’s e-mail address is mattino@worldnet.att.net. He is author of The 2 Percent Solution: Fixing America’s Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love, in bookstores next month.
Rhodes, Cod, TIPS, Bishops August 6, 2003January 22, 2017 RHODES Murray Sussman: ‘We have a wonderful liberal on the radio right here in Florida whose 3 to 7 PM broadcast is on the web and is receiving calls from all over the country. Please Google Randi Rhodes. Then listen to her on WJNO.com. I know that you will be impressed. She follows Rush Limbaugh and gets a higher rating in this area. RANDI IS FOR REAL.’ COD David Lloyd-Jones: ‘The cod are the biggest and best example around of simple economics at work: The people munch 400,000 tons of cod every year, the seals munch 600,000 tons of cod every year, everybody’s happy. But the people stop wearing seal-fur coats because the seals are all so cute . . . suddenly you got a seal population explosion, the people keep eating 400,000 tons, the seals start eating two million, and in no time at all you got a collapse of the cod population. The seals are still there, and their consumption hasn’t slackened off a great deal. Only now they’re eating the cod small, so the population doesn’t get to bounce back. The people are eating zero, but that makes no difference to the seals: they’ll just breed up to the max. Ya wanna eat cod ten years from now? Buy a seal skin coat today. Preferably floor length.’ ☞ Point taken (at least unless/until another knowledgeable reader weighs in with a different view) . . . but is it necessary to club the baby seals to death? Isn’t that part of the objection? And how did the cod ever survive before there were humans in significant numbers to club the seals for fur coats? TIPS Michael Garvey: ‘Why do you prefer 30-year TIPS to 10-year TIPS? The yield is only about 1/2 percent difference and I would think the 10 year would lose less if bonds go down. Also, since the recent 10 year is selling below par, if you hold it to maturity you can’t lose any principal. Thanks for your advice. Like you I sold my tips and I’m thinking of buying some back. ☞ Ordinarily, longer-term bonds do drop more sharply when interest rates rise. (Think of a seesaw with bond prices at one end and interest rates at the other. And think of its fulcrum as ‘today.’ The bonds furthest out from the fulcrum go up and down the furthest as interest rates rise and fall.) But that’s different with TIPS, which remove most of the interest rate risk by their guarantee to ride out inflation. The 10-year TIPS at 95-and-change may be safer than the 30-year TIPS for a short-term investment; but because they are both inflation-adjusted, to me the yield should be about the same . . . I see no great need to demand a higher yield from the longer-term bonds, as I normally would of a bond. And I think insurance companies and others may like the idea of locking in a certain above-inflation yield for 30 years, so that if the Treasury ever stops issuing TIPS, the 30-year TIPS would be in even greater demand. That said, you could certainly go either way. Both are good conservative investments, especially within a tax-deferred retirement account. BISHOPS When my great friend Peter Burns lay dying a dozen years ago, a bishop – a bishop! – came to his bedside to ask where he wanted the funeral. ‘Where do you want the funeral, Peter?’ he asked loudly. But Peter was too far gone to respond. The bishop, having been at many such bedsides – and thus being less inhibited than I – leaned closer and shouted, ‘Peter! Where do you want the funeral?‘ But even though Peter still couldn’t answer, it was unanimously agreed he would have wanted it at the main Episcopal Church downtown. He was one law partner who took his churchgoing seriously. (Less, I think, for the divinity of it than the ceremony and tradition, and the sense of identity it gave him. He liked the ‘smells and bells,’ he used to say.) At the service, there were three bishops, one local (who was straight) and two who had flown some considerable distances to attend, who were gay. Three bishops! Peter would have liked that, and the fine things they were so obviously sincere in saying about him that day. I was very proud of him. The two gay bishops were discreet, of course. But my guess is they, and perhaps the straight one as well, voted yesterday to elevate Gene Robinson to their ranks. And my guess is that if there is a heaven (which – well, don’t get me started), Peter is in it and smiling broadly at yesterday’s news.
A Radio Hightower August 5, 2003March 25, 2012 So I’m driving in from the Hamptons, listening to my Hertz woman in one ear (‘continue on current road, two miles’) and pressing the SEEK button of the radio going from one right-wing talk show host to the next (which is fine; I like to listen) when I come to one I hadn’t heard before, talking about the flag. Jim Hightower is his name. From Texas. And as I listened, I realized – what rare bird is this? — he was a liberal radio talk show host. So I Googled him when I got home (‘you have arrived,’ says the Hertz woman), and here he is.
Reading the Social Cues August 4, 2003March 25, 2012 My favorite needlepoint pillow of the weekend (spent guesting in ‘the Hamptons’): Don’t mistake endurance for hospitality.
Schmorealis August 1, 2003January 22, 2017 August? Already? COD Chas from Hawaii: ‘For those of your readers who think Cod is a good read, with whom I agree, I highly recommend The Founding Fish by John McPhee, which I think is an even better book.’ BOREALIS From Chris Bourne, Head of Public Relations at Borealis Exploration Limited: I’d like to correct one thing you said in yesterday‘s column (Borealis Speaks) – we didn’t pay them for the interview. We are far too mean with our money, although we’re happy to take free publicity where we can get it. One of the reasons your preposterous stock continues to prosper is that we do our best not to trade our credibility for ephemeral gee-whiz publicity. There are enough ‘miracle’ technologies out there already: we’d prefer to spend money building the real thing, instead of hyping it. Because we can demonstrate that our work is serious, companies like Rolls-Royce take the time to listen to us and work with us as we make steady progress towards commercialization. ☞ I had based my comment on this, from the web site: ‘Interviews are done without compensation or payment of any kind. However, companies do pay to have a text version of the interview published online as part of a paid media program.’ Apparently, this was not the case with the Borealis interview. Meanwhile, the stock is unbudged at $3.50 (for a total market cap of $17.5 million) – while a Borealis subsidiary, called Cool Chips (symbol: COLCF), recently traded above $8. Given that a share of Borealis stock represents ownership of more than one share of Cool Chips stock, one could draw the conclusion that – however good or bad a buy Cool Chips is at $8 – BOREF is a substantially better or less bad buy at $3.50. BOREALIS-SCHMOREALIS Sergei Slobodov: ‘Since you can pronounce ‘stern warning’ in Russian, here is your strogoye preduprezhdeniye about Borealis. I have actually looked through their patents (betcha you didn’t before investing). All their claims are based on a ‘Method for increasing of tunneling through a potential barrier’ they say they invented. Suffice it to say, if the claims were true, they would probably have received a Nobel prize in Physics by now for single-handedly solving the problems of fusion power. Close examination of the patent reveals that the stuff they write, while plausible looking to the uninitiated, is actually complete nonsense. Sort of like perpetuum mobile machines.’ ☞ Well, that settles THAT. Though it does leave one to wonder why Rolls-Royce would allow themselves to be publicly associated with something that, from a simple review of the patents, is patent nonsense. Understanding absolute zero of the science – all negative 459 degrees Fahrenheit of it – I am just left to live in hope. THE TAX CUTS KEEP ROLLING IN Mark Gorman: ‘I just got my first paycheck with the latest tax cut applied. I’m single, no kids, and gross $60K/year. It increased my take home pay by $20/month. Gee, I think I’ll run out right now and buy a new car! For a $240/year tax cut now, I will probably see my Social Security and Medicare benefits cut by the equivalent of $240 PER MONTH when I reach 65 (in 13 yrs).’ ‘If this is class warfare, then my class is winning.’ – Warren Buffett