节选了一部分内容，用AI翻译了一下
有些感觉不重要的没放进来，还有些可能有趣但没有读的扔到了后面
现状
QUICK: In terms of what you’re doing with investing. I mean, that’s a huge amount of money. How much cash does Berkshire have on hand at this point?
目前伯克希尔公司手头持有多少现金？
BUFFETT: I don’t know the exact number, but it’s not much different than before. So you know, it’s probably north of $350 billion in cash and treasury bills.
我不清楚确切数额，但和此前相比没有太大变化。我们持有的现金及短期国库券总额，大概在3500 亿美元以上。
QUICK: Yeah. So –
BUFFETT: We bought 17 billion this week.
我们本周又买入了 170 亿美元。
QUICK: 17 billion of T bills?
170 亿美元的短期国库券？
BUFFETT: Of T bills.
是的，短期国库券。
QUICK: Berkshire is the largest owner of T bills?
伯克希尔是短期国库券的最大持有者吗？
BUFFETT: I think we’re probably the largest bidder. And ironically, I got involved in Solomon because they bid for too many bills. And I don’t think they’d get mad at us now – we’ve been for too many but, you’re not supposed to go over 35% or something in the auction. And of course, you bid through the primary dealers. But I don’t even know the mechanics that well, but one fellow in our office handles all the mechanics of the stocks and bonds we buy.
我认为我们大概率是最大的竞拍方。说来颇具讽刺意味，当年我介入所罗门兄弟公司，正是因为他们在国债竞拍中认购过量。不过现在他们应该不会对我们心生不满 —— 我们同样认购了大量国债，但国债拍卖有明确规定，认购比例不能超过 35% 左右。
所罗门公司成立于1910年，是美联储发行国债的主要承销商之一，只有主要承销商才有资格从美国政府手里竞标购买国债，然后卖给其他人赚差价，因此这些大承销商几乎垄断了美国国债销售市场。
1987年9月巴菲特投资了7亿美元购买可转换优先股，票面利率9%，每年固定利息收入约6300万美元，占据所罗门公司利润的约15%。该优先股可在1990年后以38美元/股的价格转换为普通股，且自1995年起分5年强制赎回本金。
1987年10月19日是黑色星期一，道琼斯指数单日跌幅为22.6%。所罗门公司股价大跌。
1991年8月，巴菲特得到消息，所罗门公司负责竞购政府国债的董事总经理保罗莫泽尔，多次违反规定，绕过美国财政部规定的35%国债竞购上限，在未征得客户同意的情况下，代表他们竞购更多债券，并迅速将客户账户的债券转移到公司账户，囤积国债、操纵市场，引发监管调查。
QUICK: You’re still making new purchases?
你们目前还在进行新的投资收购吗？
BUFFETT: Got one tiny purchase, but we aren’t finding things that – we weren’t finding them before.
有一笔规模极小的收购，但我们始终没找到合适的投资标的 —— 其实此前也一直没能找到。
近期波动
QUICK: Well, let’s talk about that. The market has come down substantially.
那我们聊聊这个。市场已经大幅下跌了。
BUFFETT: Not substantially.
算不上大幅。
QUICK: Well, you’ve got both the Dow and the Nasdaq in correction territory. It’s the worst performance on a quarterly basis for stocks in about four years. Do things look cheaper to you?
道琼斯和纳斯达克都已经进入回调区间了。这是股市大约四年来表现最差的一个季度。在你看来，资产价格变得更便宜了吗？
BUFFETT: No. Three times since I’ve taken over Berkshire, it’s gone down more than 50%. I mean, if you look at the markets, of the worst, probably was the 2007, 08′ period, although it was that one Monday, when you had 21% in a day. I mean, this is nothing. I mean—
并没有。我接手伯克希尔以来，市场已经出现过三次跌幅超过 50% 的情况。你要是看历史上最糟糕的行情，大概还是 2007、2008 年那段时期，还有一天暴跌 21% 的那个周一。眼下这点波动根本不算什么。
QUICK: This is nothing to make you get excited and think there’s huge valuation—
这点跌幅完全不足以让你动心，也谈不上估值出现巨大机会 ——
BUFFETT: Well if they’re 5 or 6% cheaper, that doesn’t, we aren’t in it to make 5 or 6% I mean, but what a big seller either, in the end, we own businesses. Sometimes there’s only owned, sometimes they’re partly owned. That’s what I like to own. And two thirds of our money, or more is in our businesses. And we bought Occidental Chemical on January 3, that was 9.7 billion. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s got some advantages, some disadvantages, versus owning a stock, but it’s got the same principles attached to it. It is a business, and it’s a business we expect to own, you know, indefinitely. I mean—
是啊，就算便宜了 5%、6%，也没什么意义。我们做投资不是为了赚这 5%、6% 的收益。当然，我们也不会大规模抛售。说到底，我们持有的是实业。有的是全资持有，有的是部分持股，这才是我想要的投资方式。我们超过三分之二的资金都投在了实业资产上。1月3日我们收购了西方石油化工，耗资 97 亿美元。在我看来，和直接买股票相比，这种方式各有利弊，但核心逻辑是一样的：它是一门生意，一门我们打算无限期持有的生意。
QUICK: Are you, I mean, it doesn’t sound like you’re necessarily finding businesses that you want to own flat out either, not just purchasing portions of them if you’ve got $350 billion plus sitting around.
既然你手里握着 3500 多亿美元的现金，听起来你也没找到想要全盘收购的企业，甚至连部分入股的好标的都不多。
BUFFETT: Yeah and we get calls all the time, and there’s so many calls, but the like I said, it takes me five seconds to say no. It takes, Greg’s a little more polite than I am, but I just as soon get the calls just to see what people are doing. But they aren’t offering anything that’s at an attractive price, and what they want is a trade.
确实。
QUICK: Are you waiting for the next big drop in the market to deploy that cash, and if so, when do you see that coming?
你是在等市场下一轮大幅下跌，再把这笔现金投出去吗？如果是这样，你觉得这一天什么时候会来？
BUFFETT: Yeah, if there is a big decline, we will deploy, I mean, but we won’t, we will deploy it because stocks are attractive or businesses are attractive to us, and we are not planning to sell them next week or next month, so we want to be right on them. And we’ve had our American Express stock 30 years without having a – close to 40 years, 35 years. And on the other hand, there’s things I change my mind on fairly quickly, but, but the goal is own the owned businesses, and when we buy Occidental Chemical, we expect all of that 50 years from now. You know, the world can change in some way, but that we do not, we do not buy that with a thought of resale.
没错，如果市场真的出现大幅下跌，我们肯定会出手。但我们出手的前提，是股票或者实业资产对我们而言具备吸引力，而且我们没打算下周或下个月就卖掉，所以我们必须看准。我们持有美国运通的股票已经快 40 年了，大概 35 年。当然，有些标的我也会很快改变想法，但我们的核心目标就是持有实业资产。收购西方石油化工时，我们的预期是持有 50 年。未来世界或许会发生变化，但我们买入时，从没想过要转手卖出。
Apple
QUICK: You’ve sold a lot of stock that’s done very well for you, Apple—
你减持了不少此前带来丰厚收益的股票，比如苹果
BUFFETT: Well, I sold it too soon, but I bought it even sooner. So, it worked out. Yeah, I think we’ve made over $100 billion in that pretax.
我确实卖早了，但我买入的时间更早。所以整体还是赚了。没错，我们在苹果这笔投资上的税前收益已经超过 1000 亿美元。
QUICK: But you’re regretting it? You say you sold it too soon?
那你会后悔吗？你是说自己卖早了？
BUFFETT: No, no, I don’t have any ability to predict what stocks will do next week or next month and I will buy them if they’re cheap. I’ll buy a whole lot of them if they’re cheap and I think I really understand the business, and Apple is still our largest single investment.
不会。我根本没本事预测股票下周或下个月会怎么走。只要价格便宜，我就会买；如果价格足够低、而且我真的看懂了这家公司，我会大举买入。而且苹果至今仍是我们单一最大的投资标的。
QUICK: And you like it that way?
你对此满意吗？
BUFFETT: Yeah, well, if I didn’t like it, I could sell it. Yeah, I can, I think it’s a remark – it’s better than any business we own outright. Now, we own a railroad that’s worth more money than our Apple position, for example, they’re both looked at the same way. I mean, they’re both, they’re both businesses. I expect the, I think it’s more predictable in a certain sense, that the railroad will be around 50 or 100 years from now, but it doesn’t earn the rate remotely on capital than Apple does. I mean, Apple is a business that you’ve got one, probably and your kids have got them, and—
当然满意，不满意我早就卖了。说实话，苹果比我们全资持有的任何一家公司都更出色。我们旗下的铁路公司市值，比我们持有的苹果股票市值还要高，但在我眼里，它们本质都是实业。从某种角度来说，铁路公司 50 年、100 年后大概率还会存在，但它的资本回报率，跟苹果比起来差得远了。你想想，苹果产品你人手一台，你的孩子也都在用 ——
QUICK: Not one, we’ve got like 20 of them.
哪是一台，我们得有 20 台。
BUFFET: Yeah, devices. Actually, the Bell Telephone Company was that way at one point, but they were regulated.
对，就是这类设备。其实当年贝尔电话公司也曾有过这种国民级地位，只不过它当时受监管约束。
QUICK: Well, do you worry about regulation coming for some of these big tech companies, in particular Apple?
那你会担心大型科技公司，尤其是苹果，面临监管风险吗？
BUFFETT: I think the consumers are in love with them too much. I don’t, I don’t think Washington will do anything that really destroys something that every one of their voters likes and they’re using themselves. I mean, it’s a remarkable product that way. Just think of something as useful as the Apple is. I mean, it’s, Tim Cook has done better with the hand than Steve Jobs. He couldn’t have done what Steve Jobs did, but Steve Jobs handed him a hand that Steve would not have done as well. Steve picked him. I mean, when you get right down to it, and Tim was a fantastic manager, and he’s a good guy, and somehow he gets along with everybody in the world, which is, you know, that’s, that’s a technique I wouldn’t have for example. Certainly my partner, Charlie Munger, wouldn’t have had it, but I’m very happy to have it be our largest open. I was not happy to have it be as large as almost everything else combined.
我觉得消费者太钟爱苹果了。华盛顿的政客们，不会去真正摧毁一件所有选民都喜欢、自己也在用的东西。这款产品的国民度就是这么高。
再说说管理层面：蒂姆・库克把乔布斯留下的摊子，打理得比乔布斯本人还好。乔布斯做不到库克现在做的事，而库克接手的这套班底，乔布斯自己来管也未必能做得这么好。是乔布斯选中了他。
说到底，库克是极其出色的管理者，人也很好，还能跟全世界所有人都处好关系 —— 这种本事我没有，我的搭档查理・芒格肯定也没有。
我很乐意苹果是我们第一大持仓，只是不太乐意它的规模一度快赶上我们其他所有投资加起来那么大。
QUICK: Okay, that makes sense.
BUFFETT: Although at a price I was, and they could—
不过如果价格合适，我也能接受，而且 ——
QUICK: Right. Hold it up—
是的，等价位到位就加仓 ——
BUFFETT: It’s not impossible that Apple would get to a price, we would buy a lot of it, but not in this market. I mean, it just isn’t going to happen in this market.
苹果股价达到某个水平后，我们可能会大量买入，但绝不会在这个市场。我的意思是，在这个市场里，这种情况根本不会发生。
QUICK: How much would stocks have to come down for you to think that this is really attractive, if it’s—
那股市整体要跌多少，你才会觉得真的有吸引力？
BUFFETT: Well it depends on the stock. Some stocks now, generally speaking, they move together to quite a degree, but, but I don’t think I know what the market’s going to do. I do think I’ve got a reasonable idea of what a business is worth. I have no idea what the stock market’s going to do, and I don’t think anybody else does either.
这要看具体股票。现在大多数股票走势关联性都很强，但我真的不知道大盘会怎么走。我只对一家公司值多少钱有个大致判断，我完全不知道股市短期会怎么走，也不认为有谁能知道。
QUICK: You don’t necessarily follow tech companies and Apple, people look at as a tech company, but you always looked at as a consumer company.
你其实并不怎么追科技公司。苹果被外界看作科技股，但你一直把它当成消费公司。
BUFFET: It’s a consumer company.
它就是一家消费公司。
QUICK: So what do you do about all of these tech stocks and the AI trends that are there? Do you try and follow any of that? Do you get involved in any of those industries?
那对于其他科技股、还有现在的 AI 热潮，你怎么看？会去跟进吗？会涉足这些行业吗？
BUFFETT: Well I don’t because A, I wouldn’t be any good at it, and besides, I’m so late to the game. I am not learning new things well. I still don’t know what to do with the phone, but I just recognize the fact that that you know you’re going to have one, and your kids are going to want one, and and it is a terribly useful, I mean, it’s incredibly useful. And you get something that’s useful and offered worldwide, and where, to some extent, you’re a little worried about maybe moving your photos from one system to another. All I had to do was go out to Nebraska Furniture Mart and talk to customers is what, that’s what I did 60 years ago at American Express when they were looked at like they were done for on the salad oil scandal. And I went down to the Omaha National Bank, and I said, are you getting a premium for American Express tickets? They can sell their traveler’s check for more than Citigroup, Bank of America, Barclays, everybody had and they were getting a premium at the same time, everybody else was worried about them getting in, getting out of business. And the same thing, when they actually started their card, they were going up against Diners Club and Carte Blanche, who had come first. And they came they came on later. And instead of coming in at a cut price, they came in at a price above the competition. That says a lot about how consumers felt about American Express.
**我不会。**一来，我并不擅长这个；二来，我入局太晚了。我现在也学不好新东西，连自己的手机都玩不明白。**但我能看明白一件事：人人都离不开苹果，你的孩子也想要一台，它的实用性无可替代。**一款全球普及、极度实用的产品，还会让用户产生粘性 —— 比如大家会担心照片没法从一个系统换到另一个系统。我要做的，只是去内布拉斯加家具城跟顾客聊聊天就够了。
60 年前色拉油丑闻爆发，所有人都觉得美国运通要完蛋的时候，我就是这么做的。我跑去奥马哈国民银行，问他们美国运通的旅行支票是不是还在卖溢价。当时美国运通的旅行支票，价格能比花旗、美国银行、巴克莱的都高，还能保持溢价。可另一边，所有人都在担心它要倒闭。同样的事也发生在美国运通刚推信用卡的时候：它面对的是更早入局的 Diners Club 和 Carte Blanche。美国运通进场更晚，却没有打价格战，反而定价比竞品还高。这就很能说明消费者有多认可它。
1963 年，美国运通旗下一家小型仓储子公司，为大宗商品交易商开具了大量伪造的色拉油（大豆油）库存收据。在油罐中做夹层造假，用海水冒充色拉油，骗取了约 1.5 亿美元贷款。骗局败露后，美国运通作为担保方，面临巨量赔偿责任。市场恐慌抛售，美国运通股价暴跌，外界普遍认为公司可能因此破产。
巴菲特亲自进行了实地调研，观察到消费者仍在正常使用美国运通卡，随后前往奥马哈国民银行，询问美国运通旅行支票的销售情况，发现运通旅行支票仍在卖溢价，比花旗、美国银行等竞争对手的产品价格更高。说明消费者对美国运通的信任未受影响，核心业务稳固。
美国运通旅行支票是一种预付费纸质支付工具，专为旅行者设计，可替代现金在全球范围内安全使用，兼具现金的灵活性与远超现金的安全性，通常以略高于面值的价格（通常 0.2%-1% 手续费）购买旅行支票
经济
QUICK: Warren, let me ask you about the economy because the Fed is in a bit of a quandary right now, just trying to figure out which one of its mandates it’s more worried about. Is it worried about inflation potentially rising more. Is it worried about the jobs market and, you know, potential decline in economic output? What, what of those two issues would worry you most if you were at the Fed right now?
我想问问你对经济的看法。美联储现在有点左右为难，搞不清自己更该担心哪项政策目标：是担心通胀可能进一步走高，还是担心就业市场、以及经济产出可能下滑？如果你现在执掌美联储，这两个问题里哪个最让你揪心？
BUFFETT: Well, if I were at the Fed, the thing I’d worry about always is, you know, you’re the reserve currency of the world. I mean, so you’ve got very smart people, very sophisticated people, the American dollar looks like nothing could happen to it. I don’t feel anything could happen to it. But if it does happen to it, I would, I would, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of running the Fed. The world will be dependent on it doing it. And last time in 2007 and 08′, you had Congress that essentially felt they knew more about it than Secretary Treasury. And so they really gummed things up when they when they turned on TARP the first time. And I mean, it was, I think now people better understand what, the Fed can print money.
如果我在美联储，我始终会惦记一件事 —— 美元是全球储备货币。美联储里都是绝顶聪明、经验老道的人，现在看起来美元好像稳如泰山，我也不觉得会出什么大事。可万一真出了事，我可不想担着管理美联储的这份责任。
整个世界都依赖美元的稳定。上一次 2008、2009 年那回，国会那帮人还觉得自己比财政部长更懂金融，所以第一次投票否决不良资产救助计划（TARP）时，把局面彻底搞砸了。我觉得现在大家总算更明白一件事：美联储是可以印钱的。
QUICK: The Fed can print money, and we have a president, President Trump, who would like to see the Fed cut rates? Would you cut rates if you were there right now?
美联储可以印钱。而且现任总统特朗普也希望美联储降息。如果你现在在美联储，会选择降息吗？
BUFFETT: I don’t know what, what I do there. I mean, I think that Jay Powell in when, when the epidemic broke out, I think he acted in March of 2020 and I think if he’d waited two or three weeks, it would have been a disaster. Once the dominoes start toppling, they just start toppling and, and, and, and that line is shorter than anybody thinks, and it topples faster. And I think he did exactly the right thing, and he, he did it even stronger than Volker did. You know, I mean, he, he and Volker are my heroes at the Fed.
我也说不准自己会怎么做。但我觉得，疫情暴发时，杰伊・鲍威尔在 2020 年 3 月的应对非常果断。要是他当时再等两三周，后果就是一场灾难。多米诺骨牌一旦开始倒，就会接二连三地倒，临界点比所有人想象的都近，崩溃速度也快得多。我认为他的做法完全正确，力度甚至比沃尔克当年还要大。他和沃尔克都是我心中美联储的英雄。
QUICK: Did they keep rates low for too long? I mean, I think that’s, as they didn’t worry about inflation, as they said it was going to be transitory? Because I think even Powell himself said that he might wish he’d turned it sooner.
他们是不是把利率维持在低位太久了？我是说，他们当时不担心通胀，还说通胀只是暂时的。就连鲍威尔自己也说过，可能后悔没更早收紧政策。
BUFFETT: Well, I wish they had a zero inflation target.
我希望他们把通胀目标定在零。
QUICK: Right.
BUFFETT: But, I mean, once you start saying you’re going to tolerate 2 percent, that compounds pretty dramatically over time. And you’re saying to people, if you’re getting less than 2 percent on your money, you’re going backwards. And, actually, if you pay tax, you may pay tax on the 2 percent. You know, I mean, I don’t like that particular goal. But—
可一旦你说可以容忍 2% 的通胀，长期下来复利效应会非常惊人。这等于告诉大家：如果你的资金收益低于 2%，实际财富就在缩水。而且如果要交税，你甚至还要为这 2% 的收益缴税。我不喜欢这种目标设定，但 ——
QUICK: So, inflation is maybe what you’d be more concerned about? I mean, that’s what Greenspan, Alan Greenspan always said.
所以你更担心的是通胀？艾伦・格林斯潘以前也总这么说。
BUFFETT: Yes. I would be, I would care about inflation. I would compare what I really would care about is the stability of the banks.
是的，我会在意通胀。但我真正更关心的，其实是银行体系的稳定性。
QUICK: Yes.
BUFFETT: I mean, the banking system, in some sense is very strong, in other sense, is very fragile. I mean, JPMorgan in the last couple annual reports reported doing $10 trillion of business per day. Now, that’s an unsecured policy. Now, they know what they’re doing. Believe me. I mean, there’s nobody smarter than JP– but I don’t want – I didn’t want – during the 2008 period, I didn’t want anything unsecured, you know, out there for a day. I mean, who knew? Nobody was any good. You know, I mean, it, the world is very interconnected and everybody panics. I mean, it, you know, they may say they don’t, but you can call the biggest investment banking firms and they say, well, they don’t answer the phone even if things get bad enough. And if they do answer the phone, you know, they say 10 bid, 20 offered subject.
银行体系在某些方面非常强健，但在另一些层面又极其脆弱。摩根大通最近几年的年报里提到，每天处理的业务规模高达 10 万亿美元，这些都是无担保的交易。当然他们很专业，没人比摩根大通更懂行。但在 2008 年那段时间，我连一天的无担保敞口都不想有。谁都说不准会发生什么，没人能独善其身。全球金融联系得太紧密，一恐慌就是所有人一起恐慌。嘴上说不会慌，可真到局势恶化的时候，你给顶级投行打电话，他们连电话都不接；就算接了，报价也会极其离谱，买卖价差拉得极大。
QUICK: Yes. I mean, Joe will talk about that day that you mentioned in where the Dow was down 21 percent. I think he was, at that point, he said it himself. He was hiding under his desk for the calls that were coming in.
是啊。乔也聊过你说的道指单日暴跌 21% 的那天，他自己都说，当时吓得躲在桌子底下不敢接电话。
BUFFETT: Yes. And—
QUICK: Because when liquidity disappears, it disappears—
因为流动性一旦消失，就是彻底消失 ——
BUFFETT: 21 percent and that was some day, and it just kept coming. And most of the specialist firms, which then counted for more in terms of the stability of the markets. They were broke. I mean, as I remember, they went around to their banks and said, just don’t pull the loans, you know, but they, people, they were supposed to keep making markets, but people just kept hitting the bid and can widen the spread out. You got circuit breakers now, all kinds of things. But when people are scared, they’re scared. And people, if you yell fire in a crowded theater, everybody runs. Still, it still pays to beat people to the door, you know, and I can get trampled, you know, so, I will stand back there and say everybody to stay calm, you know? But that’s because I can’t run fast. On the other hand, when people come back into the theater, they come in one at a time. They know they don’t have to get into it. But when people panic, they panic.
单日跌 21%，那真是黑暗的一天，恐慌一波接一波。当时对市场稳定更重要的场内特种经纪商，基本全都破产了。我记得他们跑去求银行不要抽贷，本该他们维持市场报价，结果买家不停砸盘，价差越拉越大。现在有了熔断机制等各种保护措施，可人一旦害怕，就是真的害怕。就像在满是人的影院里喊着火，所有人都会疯跑，抢着往门口冲，不然就会被踩踏。我只能站在后面喊大家冷静，谁让我跑不快呢。可反过来，等人们重新回到影院，却是一个接一个慢慢进来，没人着急。恐慌就是这样，说来就来，势不可挡。
QUICK: But is it the banking system we should be concerned about right now, or is it the shadow banking system, the private credit at this point?
那我们现在该担心的是传统银行体系，还是影子银行、私人信贷？
BUFFETT: Well, it’s all parts of the banking system because they all affect each other and the troubles from one can spread over to another. And, well, you saw what happened, I mean, in 2008.
都是金融体系的一部分，彼此互相影响，一处出问题就会蔓延到另一处。2008 年发生的事就是最好的例子。
QUICK: But at risk of potentially, I don’t want people to say that you are commenting on what’s happening in the private credit situation right now. What do you think of the private credit situation right now? Are there enough concerning issues there that you worry that it could cause a contagion—
我不想让大家觉得你是在评论当下的私人信贷市场。你怎么看当前的私人信贷状况？是否存在足够大的隐患，可能引发连锁风险？
BUFFETT: I don’t think I know.
我不认为我知道。
QUICK: Okay.
BUFFETT: I don’t, I do not think I know what, but, therefore, I want to be prepared for anything, and, therefore, we will always have, we’ll always have cash around and we’ll have treasury bills. We won’t have money market funds. We didn’t have them in 2008. We won’t have commercial paper in 2008. There’s just one thing that’s legal tender. And, you know, if you own treasury bills, and we have known, we don’t own treasury bonds way out. I mean, but every Monday, the treasury has to sell bills. And as long as they got to sell, you know, X billions worth of bills, I mean, they kind of a, they can print some money to do it, and they’ll do it.
我确实不清楚。正因为这样，我才要为一切意外做好准备。所以我们永远会持有现金，持有短期国债，不会碰货币基金，2008 年我们就没碰；也不碰商业票据。真正的法定货币只有一种。我们持有的是短期国库券，不买长期国债。每周财政部都要拍卖国债，只要他们需要发行几千亿的国库券，他们就可以印钱来完成这件事，他们也一定会这么做。
QUICK: But just to put a fine point on it, you don’t think you know what’s happening out there. You’ve had this huge cash forward north of $350 billion. It’s just there waiting for any time. It’s not that you necessarily think that there’s something on the horizon. It’s just the longer time goes—
你也看不清市场正在发生什么，只是手握 3500 多亿美元的巨额现金随时待命。并不是你预判到有什么危机要来临，只是时间越久 ——
BUFFETT: Oh, sure. And I never want to buy anything just because people think the market is going up.
没错。我从来不会因为别人觉得股市要涨就去买东西。
QUICK: Yes.
BUFFETT: I mean, the idea that people think they know what the market’s going to do is just crazy. I mean, the idea that they would shout out to the world, you know, that something they really knew, I mean, that’s like saying if they had gold – found gold in their backyard, they’d come on television and say, here’s where the gold is in my backyard, you know? I mean, they’re selling something.
人们觉得自己能预测市场走向，这简直是疯了。真要是有人知道内幕消息，还会满世界嚷嚷吗？就像谁在后院挖到金子，会跑上电视告诉大家金子在哪吗？他们这么说，无非是想兜售东西罢了。
QUICK: They want other people to follow, you mean?
你是说他们想让别人跟风进场？
BUFFETT: Well, they know that there’s a certain, I mean, there’s people in the United States and other parts of the world, but you’ve seen how much they like to gamble. And, basically, you have this incredible cathedral called the American Economic System. Nobody’s seen anything like it. I mean, it’s the cathedral of all cathedrals. But attached to it is a casino and people can walk back and forth between the two. And believe me, people like to gamble. I mean, they gamble with the odds against them in the market. They can actually gamble if they – well, they really aren’t gambling if they do it, but, I mean, if they just buy a stock and sit for 50 years, if they got a group of them, they’re going to do fine. I mean, the American capitalism system works and betting against the house does not work. I mean, it’s just – it’s so simple. But, people like to gamble. I mean–
人天生就好赌，美国乃至全世界都是如此。我们拥有无与伦比的美国经济体系，堪称经济殿堂。但这座殿堂旁边，连着一个赌场，人们可以在两者之间随意进出。说实话，人就是爱赌，哪怕胜算对自己不利也要在市场里赌。其实如果只是买入股票拿上 50 年，分散持有一批公司，收益一定不会差。美国资本主义体系是有效的，做空整个市场是行不通的，道理就这么简单。可人就是爱赌。
QUICK: When you say gamble, are you talking–
BUFFETT: I had my honeymoon in 1952. We went through Las – Susie and I. We just got my Aunt Alice’s car. And we drove and we went through Las Vegas at the time. And I watched all these people who were dressed well and they’d flown on jets. They’d flown, you know, for many hours, spent much money and everything else to go and pull handles, you know, or do something that was mathematically dumb. And I thought, this is the land of opportunity. I told them we were going to get rich. I mean, how can you have people who have perfectly decent IQs rushing to do dumb things, which they do, and industries build on it. Now, it’s become legalized and the more they open it up, the more people like to do it. They like to do it in the stock market. And actually in the stock market, at least they got a favorable expectancy if they just sit tight.
1952 年我度蜜月的时候。我和苏珊开着爱丽丝姑姑的车，路过拉斯维加斯。我看着那些衣着光鲜、坐着飞机远道而来的人，花大把时间和金钱，就为了去玩老虎机，做一些数学上完全不划算的事。当时我就想，这真是遍地机会。我说我们肯定能发财，这么多智商正常的人，争先恐后去做傻事，还有专门的行业靠这个赚钱。现在赌博更是合法化了，开得越多，人们越上瘾，在股市里也是一样。其实在股市里，只要长期持有，期望收益是正向的。
QUICK: Right.
BUFFETT: But they don’t sit tight, of course, if they, if they’re gamblers.
可赌徒们根本拿不住。
QUICK: So, you’re not – so you’re not a fan of prediction markets, of legalized sports gambling, even of day trading, is that basically what you’re saying?
所以你不看好预测市场、合法体育博彩，甚至短线日内交易，大致是这个意思？
BUFFETT: Well, I don’t think, I don’t think you can stop it once you open it up, and once the states found out that they could pay about 60 cents on the dollar, or something like that, whatever they may have different systems for different states. There was one state it was legal in when I was a kid, and we’ve been around for hundreds of years. But then once people saw how that was working, other places took it up. And of course, rich people love it because they don’t have to pay. I mean, to the extent that the states raise money from people who that what the dollar really means something to them, actually relieves the taxes on me or other rich people. I mean, it’s not direct. I mean it, but it’s, it’s the net effect. So I don’t like things that make a sucker out of people. I don’t like them. I particularly don’t like them when the government sponsors them. I don’t think the government should play its I don’t think the function of the government is to play its people for suckers.
一旦放开，就很难再禁止。各州发现可以靠这个获得大量收入，各州规则不同，但本质差不多。我小时候只有一个州合法赌博，这种事已经存在几百年了。后来大家看到有利可图，其他地方也纷纷效仿。而且富人还很乐意，因为这变相减轻了他们的税负。州政府从普通人身上赚来的钱，等于是替我和其他富人分担了税收，虽然不是直接的，但最终效果就是如此。我不喜欢利用人性弱点收割普通人的事，尤其不喜欢由政府主导这种事。政府不应该把民众当成可以收割的对象。
QUICK: My dad has always said the lottery is a tax on the stupid gambling, same thing?
我父亲总说，彩票就是对傻瓜征的税，赌博也是一样？
BUFFETT: It’s a tax. It’s a tax on stupidity. But it’s, it’s, but I’m not mad at the people that are stupid. No, I really am not. I mean, you can’t help it, to some extent, if you’re human beings, you’re geared that way when somehow, you know, it’s developed within the humans. I don’t like it when the government that they elect decides they’re going to profit off that sort of activity. And I particularly, I think it’s kind of cynical. I don’t think, I don’t think you should have a cynical government. I mean it’s—
就是对无知的征税。但我不会怪那些陷入其中的人，人性本就如此。可我不喜欢民众选出来的政府，靠收割人性弱点牟利，这太功利冷漠了。政府不该是这个样子。
局势
QUICK: Warren, let me let me shift gears and ask a little bit about what you think that is happening, that’s happening about what’s happening in the Middle East right now. There’s a lot of ways we could go with this, but why don’t we start with just what it means for crude oil and energy in particular? Berkshire owns a utility company. What do these higher prices mean?
我换个话题，想问问你对当前中东局势的看法。可以聊的角度很多，我们先从最直接的说起吧 —— 这对原油和能源市场意味着什么？伯克希尔旗下有公用事业公司，油价走高会带来哪些影响？
BUFFETT: Well, it, it means the two oil positions we have, Chevron and Occidental, go up a lot. But that doesn’t mean I can go around predicting what will happen next. I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow over there.
这意味着我们持有的两笔石油资产 ——雪佛龙和西方石油，股价会大幅上涨。但这不代表我能预测接下来会发生什么，我根本不知道中东明天会出什么状况。
QUICK: Yeah. You for a long time were involved with the nuclear initiative. I think still are funding that. And I know your very first priority in philanthropy was the nuclear problem.
你长期参与核相关的倡议项目，我印象里至今还在提供资助。而且我知道，你慈善事业的第一优先级，就是核问题。
BUFFETT: I think it’s the problem. I think, it – well, I’ll put it this way. When I was – when I went to school, grammar school, they told me the sun was going to burn out in 4.5 billion years. I took that pretty philosophically. I mean, I could handle that. And now, you’ve got nine countries, including, you know, a guy in North Korea. I mean, and there will be, something will happen. And we worried enormously about it when there were two. And we had perfectly, we had really pretty sane leaders in Kennedy and Khrushchev. You know, I mean, you were not dealing with unstable people or anything like that. And. You know, the ships turned around, but people were hiding under their desks with two. I mean, just think how you feel with North Korea having it and Iran wanting to get it. I mean, it – it is – and I don’t have an answer for that. I mean, we did the right thing in 1938 even or 1939. You can go look at it. It’s all over the Internet. The most important letter ever written. And Leo Szilard could not get the message to. He was a famous nuclear physicist. Terrific one. Very funny too. And he couldn’t get the message to Roosevelt, but he knew if Einstein signed the letter, that it would get there, and he finally got Einstein to sign the letter. And that letter was a month before the Germans started rolling into Poland. And I don’t think Roosevelt understood U-235 any better than I do. I mean, you know, but he knew if Einstein signed it, he better do something. And the funny thing is, of course, he was doing it because he was worried about the Germans getting it. And it was actually used on the Japanese. But it, we, we haven’t learned to live with it. Now, we’ve been – we’ve gone 80 years since then. We’ve had a lot of close calls. I mean, we’ve had training tapes put in there that that almost got the president to do something. They’ve had them. I mean, there is no way that the planet has an expectancy of 500 years now when it was 4.5 billion when I was a kid and we had to do it. I’m not faulting anybody. My dad was in Congress. He would have voted for it. I mean, everybody rejoiced on VJ day. You know, I mean, it – it – but there was no way we could undo it.
我认为这才是人类真正的终极难题。这么说吧，我上小学的时候，老师告诉我太阳会在45 亿年后燃尽。
我当时听了还挺坦然的，觉得完全能接受。可现在，全球已经有9 个国家拥有核武器，其中还包括朝鲜的领导人。迟早会出大事的。
当年只有美苏两个核大国时，我们就已经极度恐慌了，而且当时肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫都是相当理智的领导人，不是什么行事不稳的人。最后苏联船只掉头返航，化解了危机，但即便只有两个核国家，人们都吓得躲在桌子底下。
你想想，现在朝鲜已经有核，伊朗还在谋求核武器，这是什么概念？对此，我其实没有答案。
1938、1939 年那会儿，我们其实做了一件关键的事，网上都能查到 —— 那是人类历史上最重要的一封信。著名核物理学家利奥・西拉德，没法把核威胁的消息递到罗斯福总统手里。他非常杰出，也很风趣。他知道，只要爱因斯坦在信上签字，这封信就一定能送到总统桌上。最后他成功说服爱因斯坦签了字。
这封信寄出的一个月后，德军就入侵了波兰。罗斯福其实也不懂铀 - 235 是什么，跟我一样，但他知道，既然是爱因斯坦签的字，就必须有所行动。
有意思的是，当时研发原子弹，是怕德国人先搞出来，结果最后却用在了日本人身上。可从那以后，我们始终没学会与核武器共存。
到现在已经过去 80 年了，期间多次险象环生，甚至出现过误放训练磁带，差点让总统下令发动核打击的情况。
**我小时候以为地球还有 45 亿年寿命，可现在，地球根本撑不了 500 年。**我不是在指责谁，我父亲当时就在国会，他也会投票支持研发原子弹。二战对日胜利日那天，所有人都在欢庆。可核武器一旦被造出来，就再也收不回去了。
QUICK: Well, I think the question becomes today, Nikki Haley was just on “Squawk Box” right before you. And she was saying she thinks the president should go in and find the enriched uranium in Iran right now. And that’s a controversial position.
现在的问题是，妮基・黑利刚才就在《财经扬声器》节目里表态，她认为总统应该立即采取行动，找到并清除伊朗的浓缩铀。这个立场争议很大。
BUFFETT: It’s a controversial but I would be, I would be for one way or another, if I were president of the United States. I don’t want to be president United States, because I don’t want that. Sorry, I, I one time asked one president. I said, you know, if, if the Soviets had launched, though they already were in the air and our policy was mutually assured destruction, would you have told Strategic Air Command, unleash ours knowing that it wasn’t going to, I mean, it was going to just kill millions and millions and millions more people and add to a super polluted atmosphere that who knows what is going to happen? I mean, it, and now we have—
确实有争议，但如果我是美国总统，无论如何都会想办法阻止伊朗拥有核武器。我可不想当总统，因为我承担不起这个责任。
我曾经问过一位前总统：如果苏联已经发射核弹，导弹已经升空，而美国的国策是相互保证毁灭，你会下令战略空军司令部发动反击吗？明知道这么做会害死数百万更多人，让大气陷入极致污染，后果完全无法预料？
QUICK: What was the answer?
他怎么回答的？
BUFFETT: The answer? Well, a, the, this president said, he said, “I’ve thought about that every day.” Because some major shows up at midnight and says, we have incontrovertible. This is not – this is not geese above the North Pole. This is not a training tape that got put in by mistake. We know they’re in the air and you’ve got 10 minutes to make a decision. Mr. President, what do I tell SAC to do? Do we unleash ours? And I used to be on the SAC advisory board, but believe it or not, the, but that was for political purposes as they put people on that truly, because they were always looking for more money. And they just figured if. And I don’t blame them.
这位前总统说：“我在任期间，每天都在想这个问题。”
因为万一半夜有人紧急汇报：有确凿证据，不是北极上空的野鹅，也不是误放的训练磁带，确认敌方导弹已经升空，总统只有 10 分钟做决定 —— 该怎么命令战略空军司令部？要不要发动核反击？
我曾经在战略空军司令部顾问委员会任职，但说实话，那更多是政治安排，他们只是想争取更多拨款，我不怪他们。
QUICK: But what did the president say? What was his answer?
他到底给出明确答案了吗？
BUFFETT: He said, I thought about it every day during the time I was in office. He was an ex-president.
他说，在任期间每天都在思考这件事。当时他已经卸任了。
QUICK: But did not give an answer on what he—
没说具体会怎么做？
BUFFETT: Actually said, I think the answer is yes. I would tell him to do it. That is the policy of the United States of America.
他其实说了。我想答案是：会，我会下令反击。这就是美利坚合众国的国策。
QUICK: Yeah. So if you were the president today or if you were advising the president today, what would you say about going after the enriched uranium in Iran?
那如果你现在是总统，或者给总统担任顾问，针对打击伊朗浓缩铀的问题，你会给出什么建议？
BUFFETT: I would say that one way or another. In the next 100 years, maybe it’s 200 years, who knows? But one way or another, something will happen that cause it to be used. And we can’t take what’s out there now. And if you thought it was dangerous with the Soviets and us with Khrushchev, who was perfectly rational guy, probably Kennedy, just wait until we, wait until we’re dealing with, you know, the guy in North Korea that criticizes haircut or something, I mean, or, or I would say the most dangerous thing is actually somebody that’s got their hand on the switch who is dying themselves or is facing enormous embarrassment if he figures if I go ever—
我会说，无论如何，伊朗拥有核弹的后果，一定比没有核弹要危险得多。
未来 100 年，或许 200 年，谁也说不准，但迟早会发生核武器被真正使用的事件。现在的核武格局已经让我们难以承受，当年美苏对峙，赫鲁晓夫、肯尼迪都是理性的人都那么危险，更别说现在面对朝鲜那样的领导人，还有那种自身濒临死亡、或者彻底走投无路、不惜鱼死网破的人，手握着核按钮 —— 这才是最可怕的。
QUICK: If you’re cornered, yeah, if you’re cornered.
如果陷入绝境。
BUFFETT: Yeah.
QUICK: So that’s still rises to the level of one of the most important and—
所以核问题依然是最重要、最紧迫的议题之一？
BUFFETT: It is. It’s just that I don’t know the answer for it. But I do know that the – it’ll be more difficult if Iran has the bomb than if they don’t.
没错。
只是我也没有完美的解决方案。但我非常确定一件事：伊朗拥有核弹，局面会比现在危险得多。
结尾
QUICK: We have 87 seconds left in the show. Any other thought that you’d like to throw in because I don’t think we’ve covered enough ground.
节目还剩 87 秒，你还有什么想补充的吗？感觉我们聊的还不够多。
BUFFETT: Well, I think the interesting thing is, you’ve got America, which is the wonder of the world, and at the same time, you’ve got a great number of people that they’re just as much human beings as you or I. And you know, they may not, they may not have the same IQ or anything like that, but I think the differentials are too great, but I also think it’s worked. So how do you actually solve all that through an entity which is basically broken down into two sides that sort of automatically vote against each other no matter what the issue is. I mean.
我觉得很有意思的一点是，美国是当今世界的奇迹，但与此同时，世界上还有许许多多普通人，他们和你我一样都是活生生的人。他们或许智商不同、条件各异，贫富差距也大得惊人，但这套体系大体还是运转下来了。
可现在的问题是，整个国家基本分裂成了两派，不管什么议题，双方都下意识地互相反对，这种局面该怎么解决？
QUICK: You mean Democrats and Republicans?
你是说民主党和共和党？
BUFFETT: Yeah, Democrats and Republicans. I mean—
对，民主党和共和党。
QUICK: We have 20 seconds.
BUFFETT: It’s become more partisan than ever, and we’re more prosperous than ever, and than anybody ever dreamt. So you have to say, capitalism’s worked, but it still needs, I guess we’re finished.
党派对立比以往任何时候都严重，但我们却比以往任何时候都更繁荣，繁荣到超乎所有人的想象。所以不得不说，资本主义是有效的。好了，我们差不多就到这吧。
QUICK: We’re finished, three seconds. Are you a Democrat or a Republican?
你是民主党人还是共和党人？
BUFFETT: I’ve been both, and I was actually on the ballot as a Republican in 1960 but my dad was very Republican. I went to the Democratic side, and now I’m an independent.
两者我都当过。1960 年我还以共和党身份参选过，我父亲是坚定的共和党人。后来我转向了民主党，现在我是无党派独立人士。
爱泼斯坦与比尔盖茨基金会
QUICK: Yeah. Warren, I’m going to shift topics again. You have given away almost $60 billion since 2006 when you first started giving money away. The bulk of that has gone to the Bill Gates Foundation. What have you thought about all the emails in the Epstein files related to Bill Gates?
BUFFETT: Well, I won’t say what I thought about them, particularly related to Bill Gates, but I would say it’s astounding to me how human people are. I mean, it, here you had a guy that was a convicted guy, a sensational con man, and the percentage of people that he knocked off. I mean, whether it was, he found their weakness, it might have been sex. It might be power, it might be, whatever it might be. And I don’t see how anybody could have pulled that off. And then, and of course, all these figures think that it’s going when he dies that are, you know, they’ve, they’ve, they basically lied about it before. But I mean, you know, it—
QUICK: Lied about their associations with Epstein, you mean?
BUFFETT: Well, I mean, you know, they’ve rationalized it one way or another, but and now it’s all getting opened up and, of course. I’m just I’m so happy the guy didn’t, that he didn’t stop in Omaha ever. I mean, or that I didn’t live in New York. If I lived in New York, I had some party. I would have been at some thing I think. And more people always are asking to take a picture, and I usually do. I’m so used to doing it with students. I always do these gag pictures where I’m picking some guy’s pocket or proposing to some woman or some thing and – and, you know, I thank heavens, I, I never, and I never came near the guy. And I had read the article in “Vanity Fair” in 2003 that—
QUICK: The one that laid out who, what a mysterious and strange figure he was.
BUFFETT: It was as far as somebody was worried about libel suits goes.
QUICK: Well, it made him sound like a fraud, for sure. Yeah, I’ve read that article recently with your suggestion.
BUFFETT: And the interesting thing is, you know, he got his start at Bear Stearns—
QUICK: Yeah.
BUFFETT: And they knew him. They knew he lied to him on all kinds of things. And. And Ace Greenberg was a good friend of mine. Well, Jimmy Cayne may have been actually running the firm by then. I’m not sure. But Ace Greenberg always was looking for – he had a guy that the son of a friend of mine that he hired just to be his ferret. His – and his job was to look for anything that was old or large that traders might have stuck in their desk or – I mean, he was worried about, about people. But somehow. Ace’s daughter, I guess, was dated by – dating Epstein or something. And that guy must have been the con man of all time. There’s—
QUICK: But it’s one thing to be a con man. It’s another thing to be trafficking minors.
BUFFETT: Absolutely.
QUICK: Sexual prostitution.
BUFFETT: And be prosecuted. And even though he managed to jiggle his way through that thing with, you know, whoever the attorney general was, then it one way or another, he did not really spend much time in his cell, you know, and – but he had a way of conning everybody. I mean, he probably who knows what he offered the guys, you know, to do that, he could con anybody.
QUICK: Have you been concerned –
BUFFETT: He found their weakness.
QUICK: Have you been concerned – first of all, have you learned things from the Epstein files?
BUFFETT: Sure. I can’t read them myself because my eyesight are so bad, but I’ve got a friend that reads them for me, and it is astounding to me that anybody could be that successful as a con person. But you know, PT Barnum said it many years ago too, there’s one born every minute. And, you know, men are going to like sex, and some, some of them are going to like not paying taxes, and whatever it was, he figured out what their weakness was, and then he was — had the ability to prey on them. But that doesn’t excuse the people on the other end. I mean –
QUICK: Right. What – what are the consequences for what –
BUFFETT: The consequences are very likely to be, in my view, same thing that happened back in 1969 when the Johnson administration left and the Ford Foundation hired a whole bunch of people that were let go from government, and it’ll take – it takes something where Congress feels that they’re better off going after the foundations than not. And foundations have got plenty, I mean, money, and foundations have plenty of more power in Washington. It’s kind of irritating. We can talk about that later, maybe, but in ’69 I think Wilbur Mills was as head of the Ways and Means Committee. I don’t remember exactly how it came about, but that was the last – that was a big revision of what foundations could do –
QUICK: Okay.
BUFFETT: I think this is going to have the same effect.
QUICK: Is there anything that you’ve read or been read from the Epstein files that concerns you about the money that you donate to the Gates Foundation? Money you’ve given in the past or money that you may have –
BUFFETT: There was a lot I didn’t know. It was very clear.
QUICK: Like what?
BUFFETT: Well, I didn’t know a lot of things. I mean, there were three trustees of the foundation –
QUICK: You, Bill and Melinda.
BUFFETT: And I was one of the three. Now, we only met once a year. I did not ask probing questions. I mean, you know, if I had – if I thought I had to ask probing questions, I wouldn’t want to put the money into it in the first place. But – and incidentally, the guy, the CEO of the foundation, wasn’t necessarily present during all these things, but he’s not the real CEO. I mean, in the end, Bill ran the foundation. And it was – but I learned – I guess when the divorce action happened, because I resigned a month later, less than a month later, I think.
QUICK: What did you learn then that –
BUFFETT: I learned that I didn’t know what was going on, and – which didn’t mean something terrible was going on, necessarily, but I certainly didn’t know what was going on. We didn’t – and I didn’t ask the questions, either, though. I mean in terms of being on the foundation board, or it was – I made a decision on it in 2006 and and I didn’t think butting into so many marital problems or anything like that was particularly appropriate at foundation meetings. But they went through and they talked about all these little things that didn’t mean anything and and then they hired a few people that are really bad news, you know, I never met any of those people. That guy –
QUICK: You’re talking about Boris Nikolic?
BUFFETT: Yeah. I don’t even know what exactly –
QUICK: He was mentioned pretty prominently in the Epstein files.
BUFFETT: I never heard of him. That guy, so far in the proceedings, I mean, he looks like a terrible guy to employ. Now, I’ve employed terrible people, but we’ve gotten rid of them.
QUICK: Boris Nikolic eventually was gotten rid of at the foundation as well. Have you talked to Bill Gates about any of this?
BUFFETT: I haven’t. No. I haven’t talked to him at all since the whole thing was unveiled. I don’t want to be in a position where I know things at the moment. I could get called as a witness.
QUICK: Are you going to continue to give money to the Gates Foundation? You have every June since 2006.
BUFFETT: Well, yeah, actually, I agreed to do it every year, but I’ve done it around June 30 most of the time, and I’ll wait and see what unfolds. The stock isn’t going anyplace. It isn’t like I’m giving it all the way to something else or won’t have it. But I’ll wait and see what I’m learning. I’ve learned things I didn’t know about something for all these years, and I didn’t know how the marital thing would play out. I mean, I just didn’t know about it. You can guess sometimes that people aren’t getting along at a given time, but that’s true in every marriage. There are times when they get irritated with their spouse, or something like that. So in any event, I’ll just wait and see. And there’s three and a half million, or whatever it is pages – I mean, it is astounding.
QUICK: In the Epstein files.
BUFFETT: The Epstein files. And there’s a lot of redacted stuff. And obviously, anybody that was involved in Epstein, I mean, they’ve been miserable, probably from the moment they learned that things are going to get released, and they can’t bury it now. I mean, it’s gone too far.
QUICK: Are there situations – I guess you’re caught in a position where if you don’t –
BUFFETT: – to give it away. That’s for sure.
QUICK: Right. If you don’t give the money to the Gates Foundation, are you in violation of the pledge that you made? Or if you do give the money, are you condoning the behavior that has taken place? That you may or may not – that you may not have – we haven’t learned everything potentially yet about –
BUFFETT: That’s why I want to learn. I don’t have to make that decision today, and I haven’t made it today. But I do keep reading things. I mean, I heard – somebody reads them for me, actually. I was always astounded somewhat by the Epstein thing when it was taking place. But what this reveals about humans and the degree, whether – whether it’s money or whether it’s sex or whatever. I mean, this guy found people’s weaknesses, but they did do things. I don’t think, if you ask me my personal opinion, I don’t think Bill had anything to do with girls or the island or anything like that. But I am learning things about all kinds of stuff when I read this, and it is ruining one person after another. I mean, it’s just astounding to me how bad – people always do things. I mean, there’s consensual sex and all kinds of things, but, this guy – how many hours are there in the day? I mean, three and a half million, or whatever, his communications and all the thinking that goes into – and he found people’s weaknesses, and boy, did he know how to use it. And he used, he obviously used this guy, Boris somebody. And he used the woman at Goldman Sachs, I mean, just every place you looked. I’ve never seen anything – and I’m sure that once you get rid of the redacting a few things, you’re going to learn more.
QUICK: So you’re waiting to hear what else comes from the files –
BUFFETT: Sure.
QUICK: – potentially what comes from congressional hearings?
BUFFETT: Yeah. I think they may change the law on foundations too.
QUICK: You may think – I’m sorry, you think –
BUFFETT: I think, I think there’s a good chance, but Congress doesn’t act that fast, so – but I just think that Congress reacts to whatever the public’s mad about, and they’ll be mad about the Epstein thing.
QUICK: But you said that you think they could change the law on foundations as a result.
BUFFETT: Oh yeah. I think there could be major foundation hearings.
QUICK: And the changes that would go after the foundations that would do what strip their tax status?
BUFFETT: Congress will want to look like they’re doing something about it, and foundations have done a lot more lobbying in the past. I mean, there’s been – hasn’t been any anti foundation lobbying to speak of, and there’s been foundations are there, and everybody goes to Washington.
QUICK: Do you —
BUFFETT: It’s astounding to me how – no, Washington it’s really become important. That’s where the money is doled out. That’s where the rules are doled out.
QUICK: Do you think the foundation, foundations in general, have done good work? Do you think the Gates Foundation has done good work?
BUFFETT: Oh, I’m sure they’ve done good work. I don’t think they’d be around if they hadn’t done some good work. The question is whether the rules get changed in terms of what they can do, or their taxation gets – I mean, look at Harvard. I mean, once public opinion changes, Congress changes. It’s just the way it works.
QUICK: Are you sorry you’ve given the money to the Gates Foundation?
BUFFETT: No. No.
QUICK: So you’re happy that it’s gone –
BUFFETT: Yeah, well I mean, but I wish that certain things hadn’t happened, obviously. But I don’t – but it isn’t like they’re stealing money for themselves or anything like that. I mean, Bill pours his efforts into it. Melinda poured her efforts into it, the present guy that runs it does. He’s a guy who I’d hire myself, you know, I mean it –
QUICK: Mark Suzman.
BUFFETT: Yeah. And, I think he’s actually the best CEO they’ve had, you know, and I don’t envy his job. But I also think that I’ll wait and see. They’ve got $96 billion that they’re sitting on now
QUICK: At the foundation.
BUFFETT: At the foundation. Nobody’s got anything like that.
QUICK: Although Bill has also said that he plans to spend that money down pretty rapidly over the next 20 years.
BUFFETT: Well, he’s got plenty of his own money. Add to it. I don’t know what will happen.
QUICK: There’s been – you and Bill and Melinda also created the giving pledge, where you got billionaires around the world to sign up and agree that they would give away at least half of their wealth, either while they were living or upon their death. And you got hundreds of people to sign up to that –
BUFFETT: 200 and something.
QUICK: Yeah, 250-some people to sign up to that.
BUFFETT: It’s astounded me that we’ve gotten that many. What Bill has done, on which I give him credit for, is he’s taken it abroad. And you’re changing the behavior of societies to some small degree. The United States is – now, they’ve gotten it partly by laws, the favor of two and everything else. But United States is an experiment, not only in a lot of other ways, but also actually in terms of private philanthropy and those made small little cracks in that around the world, which I think only defies centuries and centuries of behavior. So his, the energy he brings to anything he’s involved in is incredible. I mean, I’m too lazy. I’m not going to go around the world. I just, you know, I feel we launched something good, and I feel that there is no one that’s a member of the giving pledge that is giving less than they would have given otherwise. Now we never told them what to give it to. We never told them when they should give it. We didn’t make an illegal pledge, I mean, but we really got response on that.
QUICK: There have been some articles written recently about the backlash in certain sectors, technology billionaires, in particular, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, who have said that they don’t like the giving pledge, and they think it’s woke.
BUFFETT: Well, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to belong to the – they can retire from it. They didn’t make a legal pledge anyway. There may be any one of a lot of reasons why rich people don’t like other rich people, or who knows what happens, but I would say this, that – I just would bet a lot of money that nobody is giving less because of it than they would have otherwise given. And a fair number of people, not huge numbers – but not insignificant numbers either – are giving it earlier or giving more. The biggest objection that people would raise with me, and it usually was by the mother, was that they just didn’t want to become targets of articles about how rich they were, and can’t blame them for that. I mean, they’re worried about – they can be worried about anything. But a lot of people joined. One guy even joined, because he said, all I wanted is to have lunch with Becky Quick. I said, I think – and he didn’t follow through, apparently.
QUICK: No. I never heard from him.
BUFFETT: But I mean that – if you get a lot of billionaires, you get a lot of peculiar people. Not that that’s peculiar. I know I should present you with that, but it was amazing to me the reception we got. And we just started dialing and we hit the obvious. I mean, obviously it’s fallen off – the rate of additions. And obviously, you know, we made – we genuinely said we’re not judging the people. We’re not to go to the judge whether if they made their money liquor, we weren’t, you know, what counts is what they’re doing with it. You know? I mean, that’s all we’re talking about, is for God’s sakes, you know, give away half of it. And that’s so different from up for a family that’s got a family farm for 100 years, and they planned on giving it to their kids and all kinds of things, than it is for some guy like me that just made it in stocks, you know. I mean, it would be a big, emotional decision if I were like a bunch of – got certain very rich farmers, you know, that own lots of acreage, and they’ve been building it their whole life for their – to turn over to their kids, then they buy the farm next to them and everything. So I think I feel good about the giving pledge.
QUICK: You said you haven’t talked to Bill about any of the issues that have come out from the Epstein files. Are you still good friends with him?
BUFFETT: We’ve had great times together, but he’s treated me better than I think he’s probably treated anybody else. I mean, he’s arranged trips that arrange for the kinds of foods I like, to the Wall Street Journal being in China, or what I mean, he’s been terribly thoughtful with me throughout this but I think until it gets cleared up, I don’t, I just don’t think it makes sense to do a lot of talking. For one thing, I don’t want to be under, my memory is no good anymore. I don’t want to be under oath in terms of trying to remember everything over 30 years or 20 years of foundations done, or anything like that. I didn’t have anything to do with it, except I put, put the money in. But as you may say, you can, you can say, well, you’re a derelict and not in not doing it. But I’m giving money to one of my children’s foundations. I’ve never looked at what they give, either. You know, I mean, I just, I trust people. And I think I’ve trusted very good people, but I think I can see where if somebody just a guy like Epstein involved in their life, they don’t want to talk about it, you know, I wouldn’t. I mean, it’s been very useful to me that Bill ever said, come on along. I want you to meet Epstein so he he could have, he could have done things that that would have been screwed up my life. I’d have gone along with him if he’d said to me after the annual meeting or sometime and he said, you know, I’m going to New York. Why don’t you fly along? There’s this interesting guy or something. I probably would have gone, you know. And so, I got him to thank for not doing that. But you can’t get away from what happened either. And you can’t get away from the fact that foundations are a peculiar there’s something that our country has really endorsed, I mean charitable deductions, and donor advised funds and all of that sort of thing. And that’s worth looking at, probably more often than every 30 or 40 years. Foundation is just what they do is they lobby just basically leave us alone.