“Why do you think Buffett had/has eternal optimism in America? That is a serious question.”

It’s obviously the rule of law and the investment stability that law provides. It’s also the strong social and physical infrastructure that has made America great. Buffett nods to that history of social and public investment when he celebrates paying $28 billion in taxes in his most recent letter.

Some would have this conversation silenced because it is clearly political, but for centuries the study of economics was called political economy for a reason. Without the political infrastructure to support the economy, the growth and prosperity we have achieved would never have been possible.

Mungofitch made an announcement about his investment decisions based on an analysis of the current political environment in the US, and I think it is perfectly appropriate conversation for this board. His decision challenges a couple of tenants of Buffett’s investment style. First, it challenges the idea that the US is the best place in the world to be an investor, and second it challenges the idea that you should focus on the individual enterprise and ignore the macro noise when making investment decisions. The question is, has something fundamentally changed about the investment environment in the US? There are a number of reasons to believe that it has. The assault on habeas corpus challenges the most fundamental legal principles on which our political economy rests. Executive Orders that target individual law firms ability to conduct business. The flagrant dismissal of judicial review. Add to this list the potentially catastrophic impact of any Mar-A-Lago Accords on the bond markets and you have a demolition of the political and juridical scaffolding of a century of capitalism in America.

It is necessary to talk about the political context of the current investment environment, even if it makes some uncomfortable.