Return to Homepage Reuters Warren Buffett donates record $6 billion Berkshire shares Jonathan Stempel Updated Sat, June 28, 2025 at 4:56 AM PDT2 min read 764 Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -Warren Buffett donated on Friday another $6 billion of Berkshire Hathaway stock to the Gates Foundation and four family charities, his biggest annual donation since he began giving away his fortune nearly two decades ago. The donation of about 12.36 million Berkshire Class B shares boosted Buffett's overall giving to the charities to well over $60 billion. He donated 9.43 million shares to the Gates Foundation; 943,384 shares to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation; and 660,366 shares to each of three charities led respectively by his children Howard, Susie, and Peter: the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, Sherwood Foundation and NoVo Foundation. Advertisement Warren Buffett still owns 13.8% of Berkshire's stock, based on reported shares outstanding. His $152 billion net worth prior to Friday's donations made him the world's fifth-richest person, according to Forbes magazine. Buffett would rank sixth after the donations, which surpassed the $5.3 billion he donated last June. He donated another $1.14 billion to the family charities last November. In a statement, Buffett maintained he does not intend to sell any Berkshire shares. Now 94, Buffett began giving away his fortune in 2006. He changed his will last year, designating 99.5% of his remaining fortune after his death to a charitable trust overseen by his children. Advertisement They will have about a decade to distribute the money, and must decide where it goes unanimously. Susie Buffett is 71, Howard Buffett is 70, and Peter Buffett is 67. More in Business Canada retaliates against U.S. steel imports after Trump terminates trade talks NBC News MIT Scientists Identify the Leading Cause of Senior Fatigue AdvancedBionutritionals・Ad Lockheed Martin (LMT) Announced the Successful Execution of Flight Test Other-26a Insider Monkey Jim Cramer has a six-word response to upcoming bull market TheStreet Warren Buffett has led Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire since 1965. The $1.05 trillion conglomerate owns close to 200 businesses including Geico car insurance and the BNSF railroad, and dozens of stocks including Apple and American Express. Susie Buffett leads the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which funds reproductive health and is named for her mother, who was Warren Buffett's first wife. The Sherwood Foundation supports Nebraska nonprofits and early childhood education. The Howard G. Buffett Foundation focuses on global hunger, combating human trafficking and mitigating conflicts. The NoVo Foundation has initiatives focused on marginalized girls and women, and on indigenous communities. Buffett said last June that donations to the Gates Foundation would end when he dies. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Sandra Maler) View comments(764)
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment