I'll play along, so here is the counterpoint. The article remarks on end of an era during which he transformed a failing textile mill into a global conglomerate valued at over $1 trillion. So he never made anything? Wrong, textile mills make things.

Elsewhere in the comments someone links BuffettsAlpha.pdf This explains that they used a 1.6-to-1 leverage refers to the estimate of the average amount of borrowed capital Warren Buffett uses to magnify the returns. This level of leverage means that for every $1.00 of equity, Buffett manages approximately $1.60 in total assets. It explains why Berkshire experiences high volatility (roughly 25%) despite investing in relatively stable, low-risk businesses. A significant portion of this leverage—estimated at 36% of liabilities—comes from insurance float. This is essentially a "loan" that costs Berkshire an average of only 2.2% annually, which is more than 3 percentage points below the average T-bill rate.

So why does this matter? Unlike many investors who might face forced liquidations during market downturns, Buffett's unique access to stable, low-cost financing allows him to maintain this leverage even during significant drawdowns.

So yes, he chose the right "cronies" because during inevitable downturn the money was still there to be used to run these low risk stable business.

Do people idolise him? No need to debate that but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why did he continue to live a simple life while he has pledged that 99.5% of his wealth will go to philanthropic causes either during his lifetime or at the time of his death.

So I do think you "got that right", however you may have missed that he started with a factory that makes things, invested in a way that survived adversity, and then plans to deliver on the principle that his wealth belongs to society rather than to a "family empire."

I do wonder how you or I would handle running a business. To me that work does not sound easy.