Everyman Buffett shows true colour of his knitwear

The billionare's support for Goldman Sachs should not be surprising.

Warren Buffett, the Sage of Omaha, finally gave his verdict on the alleged shenanigans at Goldman Sachs The ukulele-playing, folksy, down to earth all-American hero, who happens to own a US$5 billion (Dh18.36bn) stake in the bank, declared his satisfaction with the way it has been run. He showered compliments on Lloyd Blankfein, the firm's chief executive, saying that if anything happened to Mr Blankfein, he hoped the banker's twin brother could be persuaded to take over, and added that he "loved" his investment in the bank. (To the best of our knowledge, Mr Blankfein doesn't have a twin brother, but we get the point).

Let's face it, did you expect anything else? Or did you think Mr Buffett was going to say that the folks at Goldman are a bunch of money-grabbing, morally bankrupt buffoons with the ethics of alley cats? No, it appears the world's third-richest man is quite content with things staying as they are, although presumably he resents the fact that Goldman's share price has tumbled by 20 per cent since the threat of investigation surfaced.

"I don't hold it against Goldman at all, the fact that allegations have been made by the US Securities and Exchange Commission," Mr Buffett said last weekend. He even had a good word to say for the credit ratings agencies - his investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway has a stake in Moody's Investors Service, a ratings agency - and reiterated that Goldman is still a profitable business assuming that "they're not forced to change the structure around them".

In other words, Mr Buffett is quite happy with the status quo. For all his homespun folksiness, living in the same suburban house that he bought for a reported $31,500 more than 50 years ago - that must have been a tidy sum then - and celebrating his second wedding in 2006 with a seafood meal at the Bonefish Grill, the man is an arch capitalist. Even though he dismissed derivatives a few years ago as "weapons of mass destruction" his insurance business uses them widely. It is said that he has sent a senior executive to Washington to lobby the Obama administration against curbing the use of derivatives, fearing that he could be liable for billions of dollars of hedged contracts.

I have always thought there is nothing more dangerous than a businessman in a sweater. Richard Branson fooled people for many years with his woolly jumpers and beard, until he ran rings round British Airways and sued them for millions. But for many Americans, Warren Buffett is the epitome of what makes the country great; the archetypal outsider who just happened to be friends with Katharine Graham, who was the ultimate insider and owner of The Washington Post. He plays bridge, travels by private jet and mixes with millionaires. He's just like every boss on Wall Street - except he's richer.

None of this deters the thousands who travel every year to hear him give his state of the nation address at the Qwest convention centre, dubbed the "Woodstock of Capitalism". The shareholders have much to thank him for. When he set up Berkshire Hathaway, the shares traded at $19 each; now they fetch about $115,000 a pop. And America loves a winner and an expert. Before he proved to be hopelessly out of touch, Sir Alan Greenspan - yes, even the queen of England was so impressed by him that she bestowed a knighthood on him - was thought to be the finest central banker who ever drew breath. A former jazz musician who looks like Woody Allen's older brother, Mr Greenspan was famous for his gnomic responses to Congress.

It turned out that he might have understood less of what he was saying than anybody else. By then, Wall Street had introduced the "Greenspan put" - whenever he spoke, whatever he said, the message was clear: buy, buy, buy, until the crash came. In a similar fashion, The New York Times had a theatre critic called Frank Rich. Other people might have a view on what made a good play, but his was the one that counted.

Likewise, the New Yorker book critic James Wood is the man you want on your side when you finally get round to penning that literary best seller. Without his vote, you're doomed. Millions of Americans enjoy a glass of wine, but Robert Parker Jr is the only one who can move the price of a bottle. His voting system, giving each bottle a mark from 1 to 100, is like a universal measure, a bit like a thermometer.

Should we expect anything less? Should we expect businessmen and ladies to be honourable, or accept that they can behave like cut-throat thieves? Among Mr Buffett's other bons mots is this: "I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty." Never mind that smoking kills and that it costs the state a fortune to keep you alive while you die painfully.

I think that while we shouldn't expect businessmen to be pillars of either morals or ethics, at least they could dress so we can recognise them instantly. Bank robbers dress in masks and stripey jumpers. Any child now knows not to trust a character with a pinstriped suit, Gucci loafers and slicked-back hair, for they are banksters. But it's the men in woolly jumpers that they must be trained to look out for. They should also be taught never to trust anybody who plays a ukulele.