2008 年 Charlie Rose 巴菲特访谈
这是沃伦·巴菲特 2008 年 10 月 1 日接受查理·罗斯采访的文字记录。
This is a transcript of Warren Buffett’s interview by Charlie Rose on October 1, 2008
沃伦·巴菲特:在我成年后,从未见过如此强烈的经济恐惧——查理·罗斯专访
Warren Buffett: I Haven’t Seen As Much Economic Fear In My Adult Lifetime - Charlie Rose Interview
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
今天下午,我们在加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥,与沃伦·巴菲特对话。国会领导人、政府和美联储都想和他谈谈,而且是反复谈。他是伯克希尔·哈撒韦的传奇董事长兼首席执行官。伯克希尔的成功让他成为世界首富。他因长期以来的投资业绩而备受钦佩。他的常识判断令人信服,而且多年来,他在每年致股东的信中,就曾对一些酿成美国和全球经济危机的因素发出过警告。正因如此,我们来到圣地亚哥见他——他正在这里参加《财富》杂志举办的“最具影响力女性峰会”。稍后,他将在峰会上接受《财富》记者、也是他多年老友卡罗尔·卢米斯的采访。今晚,我们从圣地亚哥的公共电视台 KPBS 演播室连线。感谢我的朋友沃伦·巴菲特,在百忙之中抽出时间与我们交流。
We are in San Diego, California this afternoon for a conversation with Warren Buffett. He is a man congressional leaders, the administration, and the Federal Reserve want to talk and talk to. He is the legendary chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Its success has made him the world’s richest man. He’s admired for his investment results over a long period of time. He is trusted for his common sense and the fact that he’s warned over the years, in his annual letter to stockholders, about some of the things that are contributing to the crisis facing America and the global economy. For all those reasons, we have come to see him in San Diego where he is attending the Fortune Magazine’s most powerful women’s summit. Later, he will be interviewed at a conference by the Fortune reporter and long time friend, Carol Loomis. We come this evening from the studios of our public television affiliate in San Diego, KPBS. I thank my friend, Warren Buffett, for taking time in a busy schedule to talk to us.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我的荣幸,查理。
My pleasure, Charlie.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我们谈谈今天的新闻。你宣布向通用电气投资 30 亿美元,条款跟高盛那笔差不多——
Let me talk of the news of today. You have announced an investment of $3 billion in General Electric, along the same terms as the the Goldman Sachs —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对,几乎一模一样。
Yeah, almost identical.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
为什么是通用电气?
Why GE?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是这样的,今天早上,我接到高盛一位朋友的电话,说通用电气可能对这类投资感兴趣。我很熟悉这家公司。我认识它的管理层,现任管理层,以及杰夫·伊梅尔特之前的杰克·韦尔奇,我认识他几十年了。所以我对他们的业务很了解。我们和他们有大量业务往来,而且通用电气一直是——我认为它是道琼斯工业平均指数中存续时间最长的成分股。到今年就 100 年了,它还会继续存在。希望到时候我也还在。这是一笔很有吸引力的投资。过去两年,我们手里一直有不少现金,现在能看到一些有吸引力的机会了。
Well, I got a call this morning from a friend of mine at Goldman Sachs saying they might be interested in such an investment. I’m familiar with the company. I’ve known the management, the current management, Jack Welch before Jeff Immelt. I’ve known him for decades. And so I understand their businesses. We do lot of business with him, and GE has been — I think it’s the longest running stock in the Dow Jones industrial average. It will be 100 years now it will be around. I hope I’m around then, too. And it was an attractive investment. And we have had a lot of money around, over the last two years, and we’re seeing things that are attractive now.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你还在看其他机会吗?
Are you looking at other things?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我什么都看,查理。这就是我的工作。我确实如此。我的意思是,每天我都在想所有事,没错。
I look at everything, Charlie. That’s my job. I really do. I mean every day, I think about everything, yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我知道,但现在都说现金为王。伯克希尔·哈撒韦和沃伦·巴菲特手头是不是囤了大量现金,就等着这个时机来仔细审视很多机会?
I know, but cash is said to be king now. Are you sitting on a lot of cash so that this is the time for Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffet to look carefully at a lot of opportunities.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的,我们想用现金。两年前没用现金,是因为没找到那么有吸引力的东西。但人们说现金为王的时候,如果现金只是摆在那里什么也不干,那就不是王。有些时候现金能买到更多东西,现在就是那种时候——能买到相当多的东西——所以我们就用它了。
Yeah, we want to use cash. The reason we haven’t used our cash two years ago, we just didn’t find things that were that attractive. But when people talk about cash being king, it’s not king if it just sits there and never does anything. There are times when cash buys more than other times, and this is one of the other times when it buys a fair amount more, so we use it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
有时要积攒,有时要花销。
There is a time to accumulate and a time to spend.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
没错。别人恐惧时你要贪婪,别人贪婪时你要恐惧。道理就这么简单。
Absolutely. You want to be greedy when others are fearful. You want to be fearful when others are greedy. It’s that simple.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
他们现在是什么状态?
What are they now?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
他们相当恐惧。事实上,在我的成年生涯里,我不记得见过人们像现在这样在经济上如此恐惧。
They’re pretty fearful. In fact, in my adult lifetime, I don’t think I’ve ever seen people as fearful economically as they are right now.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你认为这是为什么?
Why is that, do you think?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,这是因为他们——他们亲眼目睹了信贷市场冻结。他们对货币市场基金感到担忧,尽管政府的最新方案应该能解决这个问题。过去几周里,美国 8% 的银行存款被非常巧妙地转移了,我得说,从几个月前他们还认为没问题的机构转到了其他机构。他们感到担忧,不是没有道理的。
Well, it’s because they — they have seen the credit market seize up. They’re worried about money market funds, although the latest proposition from government should take care of that. They’ve seen eight percent of the bank deposits in the United States get moved very skillfully, I might say, within the last couple of weeks from institutions that they thought were fine a few months ago to other institutions. They are not wrong to be worried.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
就像人们常说的那样,普通商业街上的实体经济是不是也感受到了这种冲击?
Is it being felt as people often point out on Main Street?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我今天看了所有的销售报道。如果你是个汽车经销商,你感觉得到。如果你是个家具零售商,就像我们一样,你也感觉得到。如果你是个珠宝零售商,你还是感觉得到。我了解其中一些生意,因为我们自己就在里面。是啊,这种感受已经很明显了,但如果我们对眼下发生的事不采取行动,这种感受会放大很多倍。
Well, I’ve read about all the sales today. If you’re an auto dealer, you’re feeling it. If you’re a furniture retailer like we are, you’re feeling it. If you’re a jewelry retailer, you’re feeling it. I know some of these businesses because we’re in them. Yeah, it’s being felt, but it will be felt big time more if we don’t do something about it, what’s going on.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
参议院将在今晚某个时刻进行投票。
The Senate will vote sometime this evening.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对。
Right.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你对那个救助计划满意吗?
Are you satisfied with that rescue plan?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我觉得它不完美,但我也画不出一份完美的方案。不过,我宁愿大致正确,也不要精确地犯错——拒绝它,反而会是一个精确的错误。我们需要——我们有一个极为出色的经济体——它就像一位突发心脏骤停的伟大运动员,直挺挺地躺在地上,急救人员已经赶到。他们不该争论抢救设备是该往这边挪四分之一英寸,还是往那边挪四分之一英寸,也不该开始批评病人没测血压之类的事。他们得立刻做该做的事。我觉得他们会做到的。我认为国会会做正确的事。他们确实——你知道,他们会陷入某些争论,开始担心追究责任的问题,其间也会有点煽动性言论,但最终,面对如此重要的事情,他们会做出正确的选择。这确实是一场经济上的珍珠港事件。听起来好像有点耸人听闻,但我以前从没用过这个说法。而这一次,确实就是。
Well, I don’t think it’s perfect, but I don’t know that I could draw one that’s perfect. But I’d rather by approximately right than precisely wrong, and it would be precisely wrong to turn it down. We need — we have a terrific economy — it’s like a great athlete that’s had a cardiac arrest. It’s flat on the floor, and the paramedics have arrived. And they shouldn’t argue about whether they put the resuscitation equipment a quarter of an inch this way or a quarter of an inch this way, or they shouldn’t start criticizing the patient, because he didn’t have a blood pressure test or something like that. They should do what’s needed right now. And I think they will. I think the Congress will do the right thing. I think that they’ve — you know, they got into certain arguments and they start worrying about assessing blame, and there is a little demagoguery, but in the end, something this important, they’ll do the right thing. So this really is an economic Pearl Harbor. That sounds melodramatic, but I’ve never used that phrase before. And this really is one.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
请解释一下为什么情况确实如此——这背后的原因不仅仅是信贷冻结、没人放贷、银行之间互不拆借、或者短期国债收益率极低。
Go through why that is true beyond the fact that there is a freeze on credit, beyond the fact that nobody is making loans, beyond the fact that banks don’t lend to backs beyond the fact that treasury bills are at a low.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是啊。上周一下子卖了 400 亿美元的国库券,七天期国库券,收益率只有 0.05%,那基本上整个国家就差不多——或者说有很大一部分人——是到了把钱塞到床垫底下那个程度了。离把钱塞到床垫底下就差 0.05% 了。你总不能指望 3 亿美国人都把钱塞到床垫底下吧。没有信用和信任的润滑,这经济就转不起来。而这些东西已经没了。这是个巨大的问题。现在的情况是,全球的主要机构全都想去杠杆。它们想缩减自己的资产和负债。一年前借钱看起来还轻而易举的东西,现在在它们眼里就跟老鼠药似的。所以它们都在拼命去杠杆。全世界只有一个机构能通过加杠杆的方式来形成一股对冲力量,那就是美国财政部。
Yeah. When 40 billion of treasury bills are sold like they were last week, seven day treasury bills, at a yield of 1/20th of one percent, that means the whole country is basically at the point virtually, or a lot of the country is at the point of putting the money under the mattress. One twentieth of one percent away from where it’s betting to put it under the mattress. You don’t want 300 million Americans putting their money under the mattress. This economy doesn’t work well without the lubrication of credit and trust. And that’s been lost. It’s a huge problem. What you have is you have the major institutions of the world all wanting to deleverage. They want to take down their assets and liabilities. What seemed so easy to borrow against a year ago now looks like rat poison to them. So they’re trying to deleverage. There is only one institution in the world that can leverage up in a way that’s all a countervailing force to that, and that’s the United States Treasury.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你是否认同一路走来让我们走到今天这一步的那一系列举措?不管是对贝尔斯登、雷曼兄弟、AIG、房利美和房地美,还是你投资高盛和其他公司的行动?
Are you approving of what has been taking place along the stages that got us to where we are now, whether it’s Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers or AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie, or what you’ve done with Goldman Sachs and the rest?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的,我觉得总体上做对了事。但谁也没能完全预见到这场海啸。所以当贝尔斯登出事的时候,当时看起来,要是你在这个节点堵住洪水,就不用担心下游会出问题。我认为美联储当时做得很对。我当时确实以为那应该能阻止对其他大型机构的挤兑,但结果没有。我们看到一波又一波的冲击。不可否认,政策上的应对比有些临时拼凑。但临时应对总比什么都不做强。而且我不认为——我不认为财政部有可能在三四个月前跑到国会那里,把后来发生的这些事原原本本地讲一遍,就能让人信服,还能拿到所需的工具。我觉得非得先有像这样一场危机——
Yeah, I think basically the right things have been done. But no one saw the tsunami coming fully. And so when Bear Stearns came along, it looked like if you stopped the flood at that point, you didn’t have to worry about being downstream from it. And I think the Fed did the right thing there. And I really thought that would probably halt runs on other major institutions, but it didn’t. We have seen wave after wave. And admittedly, there’s been somewhat of an ad hoc response. I’d rather have an ad hoc response than no response at all. And I don’t think — I don’t think the treasury could remotely have gone to Congress three or four months ago and laid out that scenario of what’s happened and been credible and gotten the necessary tools. I think it took a crisis like this —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
以及索取他现在正在要求的那些权力,还有他所要求的那种力度的权力。
And asking for the power he is asking for and the level that he was asking for.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
不,他们当时拿不到。所以我觉得,到目前这步田地,就像一出悲剧。但到了现在这个节骨眼上,我想情况已经明朗了,而且大多数国会议员也会看明白。我想美国人民也该清楚了,在一个金融机构每天都在拼命卖出各种金融工具、信贷又已经枯竭的世界里,唯一能与之对冲的力量,就是美国财政部。
No, they wouldn’t have gotten it. So I think it’s been, you know, kind of like a tragic play to this point. But at this point, I think it’s clear, and will be clear to the majority of the Congress. I think it’s clear to the American people that there is only one countervailing force to a world where financial institutions are trying to sell instruments every day and where credit has dried up, and that’s the United States Treasury.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但与此同时,全国各地也存在抵制——国会议员们会告诉你这一点——因为大家觉得,你也知道,这是在救助华尔街,而他们自己在经济生活中苦苦挣扎,却没有谁出来说一句,我们是来帮你的。我们来自政府。
But at the same time, there has been, and Congressmen and women will tell you this, a resistance across the country because they think, as you well know, it’s a bailout of Wall Street and that they are sitting there in their own economic life, and nobody’s coming along to say, We’re here to help you. We’re from the government.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
唉,那个躺在地上心脏骤停的病人,可不是华尔街。它是美国经济。我是说,这——
Well, the patient that’s on the floor with the cardiac arrest is not Wall Street. It’s the American economy. I mean, that’s —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你觉得他们现在明白这一点了吗?因为这是——
Do you think they understand that yet? Because that’s —
(同时说话)
[talking simultaneously]
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
——沟通。
— communication.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对。我觉得他们八成没有。而且我觉得,任何时候你把“华尔街”和“救助”这类词扯到一起,你知道——我不喜欢华尔街上正在发生的事。我不喜欢高管薪酬那套。但你知道,我不想对台下在座各位上课。我是说,既然心脏病都发作过了,我得让这个体系恢复运转。实际上,如果你是贝尔斯登的股东,你知道,你的钱损失了 90% 到 95%。很多人丢了工作。他们中不少人失去了原本非常优渥的生活。
Yeah. I think they probably don’t. And I think any time you couple the term “Wall Street” with “bailout” or something like that, you know — I don’t like what’s going on in Wall Street. I don’t like what’s going on with the executive compensation. You know, but I don’t want to give a lecture to this body that’s out there. You know, I mean, having had the heart attack, I want to get it back functioning. And as a practical matter, I mean if you were Bear Stearns, and you were a shareholder, you know, you lost 90 to 95 percent of your money. A good many lost their jobs. They lost very cushy lives, many of them.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
没错。
Right.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
如果你在雷曼,同样的事情也发生了。如果你在 AIG,股东在这些事情上被狠狠收割。而那些股东并不只是华尔街的一帮大人物。他们是养老基金,是全国各地的投资者。我对这件事倒不会太担心。正义不会完美执行。我的意思是,你可能对某个拿着巨额黄金降落伞溜走的人非常恼火,但那确实不是重点。我是说,如果珍珠港事件来了,你可能会说军方事先的规划有问题,或者战舰本来不该全停在港里,诸如此类的事情。
If you were at Lehman, the same thing happened. If you were at AIG, the shareholders are getting creamed on these things. And those shareholders are not just a bunch of big shots in Wall Street. Those are pension funds, and those are investors all over the country. I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Justice won’t be perfect on it. I mean, you may be very mad at some guy that walked away with a huge golden parachute, but that really isn’t the important thing. I mean, if Pearl Harbor came along, you could have said the planning was wrong by the military ahead of time or maybe the battleships shouldn’t have all been in the harbor and all that kind of thing.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
没错。
Right.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
这没什么区别。
It doesn’t make any difference.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
这是珍珠港事件。(听不清)
It’s Pearl Harbor. [unintelligible]
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我的意思是,这事就是珍珠港事件。你最好别花上一个星期又一个星期去追究责任,或者制定一套完整的全局作战计划,再让什么委员会来决定战舰该往哪儿开,诸如此类。你最好带上手下最得力的人,立刻行动。
I mean, the job is Pearl Harbor. And you better not spends weeks and weeks and weeks trying to assign blame or deciding on a complete plan for fighting the whole war, you know, and letting a committee decide where the battleships should go and all of that. You better spring into action with the best people you have.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你这辈子从没见过这种事。
You have never seen anything like this in your life.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对,没见过。
No, I haven’t.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
有人说我们正走向衰退,你明白吗?他们把大萧条视为最大的恐惧。
There are those who argue that we are headed for a recession, you know? And they look at depression as the great fear.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
没错。
Sure.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
如果这个方案行不通,有没有可能演变成那样?
Is that a possibility if this plan doesn’t work?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
有可能,确实有可能。我们现在的失业率大约是 6.1%。按照任何常识性定义,我们都已经处于衰退之中,因为如果你看看美国民众,他们拥有价值 200 亿——应该说 20 万亿美元的住宅房产。他们还拥有大约 20 万亿美元的股票。这两项是美国家庭最大的资产。对不同的家庭而言,这两项资产都大幅缩水。但至少 95% 的人,他们住宅资产加上股票资产的状况,都比一年前或两年前更糟。这种冲击正在渗入实体经济。我是说,它正在影响汽车销售、珠宝销售、家具销售等等。但这波冲击才刚刚开始。如果信贷市场的僵局持续下去,如果每家公司都一心只想收缩资产负债表、出售资产,你知道的,那还只是灾难的开端。失业率在任何情况下都会上升。我是说,6.1% 这个数字还会继续走高。但它最终停在 7%,还是停在 10%、11%、12%,这取决于,除其他因素外,国会的智慧,以及执行国会授权计划时的相关政策智慧。
Yeah, it’s a possibility, yeah. We have about 6.1 percent unemployment now. I mean, we’ve been in a recession, by any common sense definition, because if you look at the American public, they’ve got 20 billion — 20 trillion, I should say, worth of residential homes. They’ve got 20 trillion worth of stocks, very roughly. Those are the two big assets of American families. They are both down dramatically for different families. But 95 percent of the people at least are worse off in terms of their residential wealth plus stock wealth from a year ago or two years ago. That is bleeding into the real economy. I mean, that’s bleeding into auto sales and jewelry sales and furniture sales and all that. But that wave is just starting to hit. And if the paralysis we have in the credit markets, if every company continues to feel all we want to do is get our balance sheet down, sell assets, you know, it’s just the start of what can happen. Unemployment’s going to go up under any circumstances. I mean, it’s the 6.1 is going to go higher. But whether it goes and quits at 7 or whether it quits as 10 or 11 or 12 depends on, among other things, the wisdom of Congress, and then the wisdom of, in terms of carrying out the plan that Congress authorizes.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你会不会说,你力主参议院和众议院都应该通过的这个方案,只不过是我们手头现有的方案,我自己也没什么更好的主意,但它对于提振这个国家和金融体系的信心至关重要?
Would you say that this plan which you have argued very strongly the Senate ought to pass and the House ought to pass is simply the plan that we have, and I don’t have a better idea. But it’s essential for the confidence of the nation and the system?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对,我只是担心它是不是够了。但我觉得是够了——
Yeah. I just worry about whether it’s enough. But I think it is —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
够什么?
Enough what?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
一天天过去,我的意思是,如果你对珍珠港事件一周、两周或三周都没有做出反应,那你在本应进行的战争中就落后了。但非常重要的是,美国国会必须在本周内通过大多数议员的行动,表明其采取必要措施的决心。我的意思是,你不会得到全票赞同。
Every day that goes by, I mean, if you don’t react to Pearl Harbor for a week or two weeks or three weeks, you’re behind in the war that you otherwise would have fought. But it’s very important that the determination of the US Congress to do what is is needed be made evident this week and by the actions of most of the members. I mean, you’re not going to get total assent.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
是什么让你相信这个计划会奏效?我是说——
What makes you confident that this plan will work? I mean —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我觉得——我认为你找不到比汉克·保尔森更好的财政部长了。他是在错误的时间上任,本来可能不该接这活儿。他是我的朋友。但他了解市场,了解公司怎么运作,了解金融,而且他把国家利益放在心上。所以,你用对了人—— 希拉·贝尔也是位了不起的人物,大多数观众从没听说过她。希拉·贝尔在过去两周里,接手了美国 8% 的存款,无缝转到了稳健的机构,这些机构又因此获得了更多资本,这工作最终干得非常出色。美国 8% 的存款,涉及数千万储户。但没人听说过她。她永远拿不到金色降落伞,也没有任何遣散费或别的什么。她干得非常出色。我们有一批优秀的公职人员。我觉得我们有合适的人在做这件事,他们只是需要更多工具。
Well, I think you’ve got — I don’t think you can have a better secretary of the Treasury than Hank Paulson, you know. I mean, he is in there at the wrong time, probably shouldn’t have taken the job. He’s a friend of mine. But he knows markets, he knows corporations’ work, he knows money, and he’s got the interests of the country at heart. And so, you’ve got the right — you’ve got a wonderful person with Sheila Bair, most of the viewers have never heard of Sheila Bair. Sheila Bair, in the last two weeks, has taken eight percent of the deposits in the United States and seamlessly moved those over to sound institutions which in turn have gotten more capital, ended up, it’s been a magnificent job. Eight percent of the deposits in the United States, 10s of millions of depositors. And nobody’s ever heard of her. She’ll never get a golden parachute or any severance pay or anything. She’s done a great job. We’ve got some great public servants. We have I think the right people in there to get the job done, and then they need more tools.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那些更多工具,可能会超出这个计划所含的范围?
And those more tools might be in addition to what’s in this plan?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,他们需要大量资金,也确实需要极大的灵活性来执行这个计划。在我看来,他们还必须严格与市场价格挂钩。查理,我说过,那 7000 亿美元,如果他们按当前市场价格购买抵押贷款相关证券或抵押贷款本身,随着时间的推移他们会赚钱,因为美国政府有持久的耐力,而且借款成本很低。如果我能从这 7000 亿美元里拿出一部分,拿出 1% 来做他们的合伙人,分享盈亏,由他们按市价买入这些资产,我会赚很多钱。这就是—— 你看对冲基金之类的人现在买入这些资产,追求 15% 或 20% 的收益率,他们要的就是这些着急脱手的人来接盘。美国财政部的借款成本没人能比。他们借钱基本不受限制。他们可以持有资产很多很多年。随着时间的推移,这些资产会变得更值钱。所以,当美林证券像大约一个月前那样,以 22 美分对 1 美元的价格卖掉一堆抵押贷款相关资产时,买家是会赚钱的,而且如果买家碰巧是美国政府这样借款成本极其极其低的机构,他会赚得要多得多。
Well, they need plenty of money and they really need plenty of flexibility to carry out this plan. They also need in my view to very much tie it to market prices. I have said, Charlie, that the 700 billion, if they buy mortgage-related securities or mortgages themselves at current market prices, they’re going to make money over time because the United States government has staying power and it has a low cost of borrowing. And if I could take one percent of that 700 billion pot and take the gain or loss from it and be their partner, and they would buy the stuff at market, I’d make a lot of money. It’s — I mean you have hedge funds and people like that buying these assets to yield 15 or 20 percent, I mean, that’s the buyer for these people that are trying to unload them. The U.S. Treasury has got borrowing costs like nobody else has. They can borrow basically unlimited amounts. They can stay there for years and years. These assets will be worth more money over time. So when Merrill Lynch sells a bunch of mortgage-related assets at 22 cents on the dollar like they did a month or so ago, the buyer goes — is going to make money, and he’s going to make a lot more money if it happens to be an institution like the U.S. government which has very, very cheap borrowing costs.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
所以,你是在对那些担心这 7000 亿美元会怎么样的纳税人说,当这些证券被买入并卖出后,你们极有希望能收回大部分钱。
So you are saying to those taxpayers who are worried about what’s going to happen to the $700 billion, chances are good that when these securities are purchased and sold, you’ll get a lot of your money back.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我想[听不清]。
I think [inaudible].
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
或者全额退钱,没准还外搭点别的[按发音拼写]。
Or all of your money back, and maybe something else [spelled phonetically].
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我敢押这个注。我是说,如果我能在这笔交易里拿到百分之一,不管买哪边,我都会下注。伯克希尔·哈撒韦今天为通用电气拿出 30 亿美元,我们不是花掉它,是投出去。联邦政府买进抵押贷款的时候,也不是在花钱,是在投资。只是,他们投的是困境资产,但如果按市场价格买,那买的就是困境价。这正是我喜欢干的事。我只是拿不出 700 亿。没准咱们可以一起干。
I would bet on it. I mean, if I got a chance to take one percent of the deal either way, I would make that bet. When Berkshire Hathaway laid out three billion dollars for GE today, we didn’t spend it, we invested it. When the Federal government buys the mortgages, they’re not spending it, they’re investing it. Now, they’re investing it in distress type assets but they’re buying them at distress prices if they buy them at market. It’s the kind of stuff I love to do. I just don’t have 700 million. Maybe we could go in it together.
(笑声)
[laughter]
你想啊,你的钱加上我的脑子,咱俩能走多远,那可不好说。
You know, with your money and my brains, I mean, there’s no telling how far we’d go.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
行,怎么弄都行,这买卖我干了。不过有一点,说到其他方案,有些人提议,比如说——为什么我们不——为什么美国不干伯克希尔·哈撒韦正在干的事?那对美国不是更划算吗?
Whatever, I’ll take the deal, whatever you want to do. There is this, though, I mean, in terms of alternatives, some people have suggested for example that why don’t we — why isn’t America doing what Berkshire Hathaway is doing? Why isn’t that a better deal for America?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我觉得搞一个类似复兴金融公司(Reconstruction Finance Corp.)的模型或实体模型,并不是异想天开。这个机构可以追溯到 1932 年,不过真正落地是在 1933 年,由杰西·琼斯(Jesse Jones)负责,它最初主要投资银行,买优先股之类的东西。所以,现在市场体系里缺两样东西,最急需的是流动性。我的意思是,当人们拼命想[听不清]的时候,必须有人站出来买。不需要花高价买,但得有人买。另外,一些机构还存在资本问题。最近我们向几家机构提供了资本。30 年代联邦政府就做过同样的事,成立了复兴金融公司,我觉得政府在类似事情上完全可以扮演一个恰当的角色。
I don’t think it would be crazy to have a model or an entity model on the Reconstruction Finance Corp. That goes back to 1932, although it was really implemented in ’33 under Jesse Jones, and it invested in mostly banks initially and preferred stock and that sort of thing. So there are two things needed in the system, the one that’s needed overwhelmingly is liquidity. I mean, when people are trying to [unintelligible], there has to be somebody there to buy. And they don’t have to buy at a fancy prices, but to buy. And then there’s also a capital problem with some of the institutions. We have provided capital here with a couple of institutions recently. The Federal government did that in the ’30s for the RFC and I think there could well be a proper role for government in that.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
放在今天,那会是更好的主意吗?
Would that have been a better idea today?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
放在今天,规模就不够大了。而且也不——你做不到——就算你今天把类似复兴金融公司的机构建起来,给它 1000 亿美元投进资本里,审批流程会极其拖沓,方方面面都很麻烦,而这些资产每天都在被往外扔,贷款也在到期,商业票据没人续。我是说,商业票据市场一旦枯竭,你知道,那就好比从美国经济肌体里把血抽干。而这正在发生。所以我会说,搞一个类似复兴金融公司的东西或许有道理。我自己大概真会干。但我不认为该把这事和现在在推进的方案搅在一起,眼下需要的是流动性。
It wouldn’t have been big enough today. And it wouldn’t have been — you couldn’t have — if you’d set up at RFC today and you gave them $100 billion invested in the [spelled phonetically] capital, there’d be a very cumbersome type of application process and everything, these assets are getting shoved out day by day, and loans are coming to a commercial papers not being renewed. I mean, the commercial paper market, when that dries up, you know, that’s just like sucking the blood out of the economic body of the United States. And that’s happening. So I would say that an RFC-like thing might make sense. I probably would do it myself. But I don’t think trying to combine that with what’s going through now, I think what is needed now is liquidity.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好的。有人——你刚才说你会亲自出手——有人相信,也有人提议,现在是沃伦·巴菲特响应政府召唤的时候了,毕竟这个国家一直待他不薄。我的意思是,除了把伯克希尔·哈撒韦经营好之外,你本人还准备做些什么?
All right. There are those who — you just said you would do it yourself — there are those who believe and it has been suggested, you know, that this is the time for Warren Buffett to answer the call of his government in a country that’s been very good to him. I mean what are you prepared to do yourself beyond run Berkshire Hathaway well is this.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
那是我的本职工作。但任何时候只要我能以提供建议的方式帮到政府——事实上,我已经提过一些建议了。[同时说话] 总之,不是那样。我显然愿意这么做。我今晚来这里谈这个话题,也正是出于这个原因。这不会给伯克希尔·哈撒韦带来任何好处。好吧,这话其实也不全对。我是说,任何能让这个经济体以它应有的方式运转的事情——我们拥有的客户,跟两年前还是同一批人。我们有房子,我们有更——比这个国家历史上任何时候都更具生产力的人。这个国家有一套极好的经济模式,但眼下,它正被——它被一些事件打断了。
That’s my job. But any time I can be of help to the government in terms of giving advice — I’ve given a little advice, actually. [talking simultaneously] anyway, no. I obviously am willing to do that. I’m here tonight talking about this for that reason. It isn’t going to do anything for Berkshire Hathaway. Well, that isn’t really true. I mean anything that enables this economy to run in the manner that it should — I mean we’ve got the same clients out there we had two years ago. We have the houses, we’ve got people — more productive than they’ve ever been in the history of this country. We’ve got a wonderful economic formula in this country, but right now, it is being — it’s been brought to a halt by some events —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
被什么打断了?
By?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,是当前正在进行的去杠杆化引发了这场信贷危机。
Well, it’s the deleveraging that’s going on right now that has caused the credit crisis.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我之前在开场介绍中提到过,如果你读你自己写、每年由卡罗尔·卢米斯编辑的致股东信,并且把你的姐妹想象成那位[同时说话]
I mentioned earlier in this introduction do you, if you read your letters to your stockholders which you write, and Carol Loomis edits every year, and you think of your sister as the person [talking simultaneously]
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我有两个姐妹,对。
Two sisters, yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你谈到过衍生品。衍生品,在某种程度上,正是这个问题的核心,对吗?
You have talked about derivatives. Derivatives are, in part, at the core of this problem, yes?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
AIG 本来今天会经营得不错。按市值算,它曾是美国十大公司之一,市值超过 2000 亿美元,是全世界最受尊敬的保险公司。如果他们从没听说过衍生品这个词,他们本来会过得很好。他们本可以每天早上照常去上班,什么麻烦都不会有。但他们——他们——做衍生品太容易了,因为在小纸片上写下数字就可以随心所欲地报告你想要的利润,而且没有任何限制,我的意思是,没有资本金要求或任何类似的约束,这太诱人了。我基本上是说,它们可能是大规模杀伤性金融武器,而它们确实拥有这些武器。这些武器摧毁了 AIG,也无疑促成了贝尔斯登和雷曼兄弟的毁灭——尽管雷曼也有别的问题。
AIG would be doing fine today. It was one of the ten largest companies in the United States in terms of market value, over 200 billion, the most respected insurer and everything in the world. If they never heard of the word derivatives, they’d be doing fine. They’d be going to work in the morning and they would have no troubles. But they — they — it was very easy to do, because it’s very tempting to write numbers on little pieces of paper and you can report the profit you want to, and there is no limit on it. I mean there is no capital requirements to it or anything of the sort. And basically, I said there were possibly financial weapons of mass destruction, and they had them. They destroyed AIG. They certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Sterns and Lehman. Although Lehman had other problems, too.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我关注这个问题,是因为人们在问:这次是不是有人逍遥法外了?是不是有人钻了系统空子、占了便宜、赚得盆满钵满,而我们种种渠道的存在,不可避免地导致了今天的局面?
I’m interested in this because people are asking, did people get away with murder here? Were there people who simply gained the system and took advantage and made huge amounts of profit, and we had accesses that inevitably led to where we are today?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
没错,这些因素都有。但我想说,最大的单一原因,是我们经历了一场不可思议的住宅地产泡沫。你可以追溯到 400 年前荷兰的郁金香球茎。人类在恐惧与贪婪等情绪的交替驱使下,其行为足以催生泡沫。某个时期我们有过互联网泡沫,有过农场泡沫,上世纪 80 年代初中西部的农田泡沫,酿成了各式悲剧。但 3 亿美国人,连同他们的贷款机构、他们的政府、他们的媒体,全都笃信房价会一直往上涨。这一信念被嵌进了一个 20 万亿美元的住宅市场,贷款据此发放,所有人都干了不少蠢事。有人确实行了欺诈之类的事,我们日后会回头揪出元凶。但那并不是我们现在面临的问题。我的意思是,问题的源头固然在那里。我们加了杠杆,如果一笔 20 万亿美元的资产跌去 20%,那就是 4 万亿美元。当这 4 万亿美元的损失落到经济体系中错误的地方,整个系统就会卡住。
Well, we had all of that. But I would say the biggest single cause was we had an incredible residential real estate bubble. I mean you can go back to tulip bulbs in Holland 400 years ago. The human beings going through combinations of fear and greed and all of that sort of thing, their behavior can lead to bubbles. And it may have had and Internet bubble at one time, you’ve had a farm bubble, farmland bubble in the Midwest which resulted in all kinds of tragedy in the early ’80s. But 300 million Americans, their lending institutions, their government, their media, all believed that house prices were going to go up consistently. And that got billed into a $20 trillion residential home market. Lending was done based on it, and everybody did a lot of foolish things. And people really behaved in a fraudulent way or something, we’ll go back and find the culprits later on. But that really isn’t the problem we have. I mean that’s where it came from, though. We leveraged up and if you have a 20 percent fall in value of a $20 trillion asset, that’s $4 trillion. And when $4 trillion lands — losses land in the wrong part of this economy, it can gum up the whole place.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
住房市场的情况同样还在延续。
And it continues with respect to the housing market.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
还在延续。
It continues.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
而且有人会主张,从美国经济长期复苏的角度看,我们必须就此采取行动。
And some will argue that we have to do something about that in terms of a long-term recovery of the American economy.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
毫无疑问,我们的确有过剩库存的问题。好的一面是,这个国家有家庭组建。我不清楚每年是新增一百万个家庭还是更多,但组建势头不错。所以我们可以靠这个消化一部分,但(听不清)规模太大了,房价在很多地方涨得离谱——完全失去理性,融资方式荒唐至极,人们贷款时说谎,种种过度行径都卷进来了。而这正是——这就是我们落到今天这步田地的头号原因。
Well, there is no question we have an access stock. The good thing is, we have household formation in this country. We have a country where I don’t know whether it’s a million households a year or more, but good form. So we can eat off an [unintelligible], but too big, and house prices just soared beyond — beyond reason in many places and they got financed in silly ways, and people lied about loans, all kinds of accesses entered into it. But that is what — that is the single biggest cause of why we’re here.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那么,聪明人本该更明白吧?
And should wise people have known better?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
人永远都应该更明白。
People should always know better.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
对。
Yeah.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我的意思是,人们——有些事人们就是学不乖,连贪婪这么基本的事也学不乖。你受不了看到邻居发家。你明明比他聪明,他却在折腾这些,还变富了,你的配偶也因为你不跟着干而越来越对你不满——很快你也开始干了。于是就出现了我所说的自然演进,三个阶段:创新者、模仿者、蠢蛋。事情的规律就是这样,每个人都跟着往前走。你要是跟大家唱反调,反而显得像个傻瓜。你看,1990 年代末互联网公司的估值那么离谱,可它们在市场上硬是撑住了自己。第二天的卖价比前一天还高,别人会对你说,这时候不进场你才真是疯了。所以这是非常人性化的反应。而在房地产上,情况更加戏剧化,因为大多数人都渴望拥有一套自己的房子。你要是真觉得房价明年、后年都会涨,你就会觉得今年不买,明年还得花更高的价钱买。互联网股票不是这样,但自住房确实是这样。要是还有人替你开方便之门,跟你说你不用真正掏自己的钱,可以稍微虚报一点收入,或者我们给你提供 100% 的按揭,那你肯定就进去了,因为之前这么干的人无一例外都是对的。这就用上了所谓的“社会佐证”,而且你要是没买,眼看着房子越来越贵,你只会觉得自己像个傻瓜。
I mean people — people don’t get — they don’t get smarter about things that get as basic as greed and you can’t stand to see your neighbor getting rich. You know you’re smarter than he is, and he’s doing these things, you know, and he’s getting rich, and your spouse is getting unhappy with you because you aren’t doing — pretty soon you start doing it. And so you get what I call the natural progression, the three Is. The innovators, the imitators, and the idiots. And that’s what happens. Everybody just kind of goes along. And you look kind of silly if you disagree. I mean, you know, you could have these crazy Internet valuations in the late 1990s, but they prove themselves out in the market. The next day they were selling for more than they were the day before, and people said, you know, you’re crazy if you don’t get in on this. So it’s very human. Now, with housing it’s something even more dramatic than that, because most people aspire to own their own home. And if you really think that houses prices are going to go up next year and the year after, you feel if I don’t buy it this year, I’m going to have to buy it next year. That’s not true of an Internet stock. But it’s true of a home. And when somebody makes it very easy for you to do it by saying you don’t really have to put up my money, you can lie about your income a little, or we’ll give you 100 percent mortgage, you’re going to do it, because everybody that’s done it has been proven right. You have what they call social tools, and, you know, you’re going to feel like an idiot if you didn’t do it, because the house cost more.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
这才是稳健的货币。
It’s sound money.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是稳健的货币,没错。
It’s sound money, sure.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那么,看向未来,至少在我看来,眼下有两个问题清清楚楚——风险与杠杆。是不是我们完全忘了风险,也忘了杠杆在什么程度才算合理?
And so when you look at where we are going, there seems to be two issues that are apparent to me at least, risk and leverage. We just lost sight of risk and leverage of what was appropriate?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是啊。同样还是因为,这东西能在一段时间里给你赚钱。你当然可能栽在杠杆上,这也是聪明人唯一会破产的方式。你欠了钱,要是还不上,就完了。你要是所有事都按全款付清的路子走,做的都是聪明事,最终会变得非常富有。可你要是做聪明事的时候用了杠杆,中途只做错一次,就可能全盘归零,因为任何数乘以零都是零。但杠杆会在你身边人都成功、你自己也成功的时候反复强化你的信心。这很像灰姑娘在舞会上——你明知道时间一到,所有东西都会变回南瓜和老鼠,对吧?可只要舞会还在进行中,你看那些小伙儿越来越顺眼,音乐越听越动人,越玩越开心,你就会想,我凭什么不在十一点四十五离场,非要十二点差两分才走?可问题在于,墙上根本没有钟。而且每个人都以为自己能在十二点差两分时掐准离场。
Yeah. Again, because it pays off for a while. You know, you can lose leverage, and it’s the only way a smart guy can go broke. If you owe money, you can’t pay them out. You just pay for everything, you do smart things, you eventually get very rich. If you do smart things and use leverage and do one wrong thing along the way, it could wipe you out, because anything times zero is zero. But it’s reinforcing when the people around you are doing it successfully, you’re doing it successfully, and it’s a lot like Cinderella at the ball. I mean you know at midnight everything is going to turn to pumpkins and mice; right? But if the evening goes along, I mean, you know, the guys look better all the time, the music sounds better, it’s more and more fun, you think why the hell should I leave at quarter of 12. I’ll leave at two minutes to 12. But the trouble is, there are no clocks on the wall. And everybody thinks they’re going to leave at two minutes to 12.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
而且你正玩得开心。
And you’re having a good time.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是,当然开心。
Yeah, sure.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
所以这个计划——你希望它达到什么效果?它能放松信贷,能止住下跌和恐慌。人们会重拾信心——
So if this plan — you hope it will do what? It will loosen credit. It will stop the slide and the panic. People will have more confidence —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
信心是关键。信心是关键。除非你相信我会把钱还给你,否则你不会把钱交给我。而现在,七天期国库券的利率只有万分之五,人们买它不是想赚那万分之五的利息,而是因为他们相信财政部下周会把钱还给他们。我手上有 65 亿美元,准备在 10 月 6 日用来完成玛氏-箭牌的交易。10 月 6 日我得把这 65 亿美元交出去。那么,从今天到那天,我对把钱放在谁那里就必须非常小心,因为他们指望那笔钱能到位。但我对其他人、对各种机构已经丧失了信心。有很多机构我已经不再信任了。结果就是——它们的资金取不出来了。它们没有钱应对接下来……我是说整个经济就这么戛然而止。市场和机构的正常运转,这东西很像氧气。你拥有它的时候,根本不会去想它。不可或缺。你可以多少年都意识不到它的存在。可一旦它消失五分钟,你就满脑子只剩它了。而信贷市场和信心的氧气正在被抽走,必须得——
Confidence is key. Confidence is key. You’re not going to leave your money with me unless you’re confident I’m going to give it back to you. And at this point, when treasury bills, seven day treasury bills at 1/20th of one percent, it’s not because people want to earn 1/20th of one percent, it’s because they trust the fact the treasury will give it back to them next week. And I’m sitting with six and a half billion dollars we’re going to use to close the Mars-Wrigley deal on October 6. I’ve got to hand over that six and a half billion on October 6. Now, I have to be very careful about who I leave it in between now and then, because they’re expecting that he show up. But I lose confidence in other people, all kinds of institutions. And there are plenty of them that I’ve lost confidence in. Then they get — their funds aren’t available. They don’t have it for the next — I mean the whole economy just comes to a grinding halt. Competence in markets and in institutions, it’s a lot like oxygen. When you have it, you don’t even think about it. Indispensable. You can go years without thinking about it. When it’s gone for five minutes, it’s the only thing you think about. And the oxygen has been sucked out of the credit markets, and confidence, and there has to be — it’
而这就是——
And that’s what this —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
这就是我希望实现的目标。
That’s what I hope gets done.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
如果这不管用呢?
And if it doesn’t work?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
你就把水龙头打开。但我——我跟接触过的参议员和众议员们争辩过。你不希望行动得太少、太晚。在我看来,他们多少已经有点晚了,不过——那也没关系。珍珠港事件后,我们还要争论几个星期,来决定到底是日本人偷袭了,还是我们真该派几艘战舰出去。但那个“太少”的部分,你知道,可能会是个错误。我的意思是,这事必须得在——
You turn the spigot. But you — I’ve argued with the senators and congressmen I’ve talked to. You don’t want to be too little too late. They’re being somewhat too late, in my view, and — but that’s okay. We’re going to argue for a few weeks after Pearl Harbor to decide whether the Japanese attacked or whether we should actually commit a few battle ships. But the too little part, you know, it could be a mistake. I mean this has to be done on a —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
“太少”是指果断的重大举措,还是指花出去的钱的金额——
Too little meaning in terms of dramatic steps, or the amount of money you’re spending —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
关键问题是,等所有这些做完之后,大家会不会觉得太少了。说到底,7000 亿美元是一大笔钱,能买下大量不良资产。如果你买的价格合适,说不定能买到面值两万亿的资产。有一件事你绝不能做——(听不清)——不管你付钱的对象是谁,也不管这些资产在他账面上的价值是多少,你都得按市价买。有一种办法是:假如某家机构想卖给你价值 10 亿美元的抵押贷款,他们可能得先在市场上卖掉 1 亿美元,然后你再用同样的条件买下剩下的 9 亿美元。现在,这项计划已经获批、或者说我希望它即将获批,这一事实本身就会在一定程度上稳住市场。这没问题。但你们也不希望按人为抬高后的价格去买。
It’s whether people think it’s too little, when you get all through with it. I mean in the end, 700 billion is a lot of money. And it will buy a lot of distressed property. And if you buy them at the right price, you may be buying two trillion of face value. The one thing you don’t want to do — [unintelligible] paid for it what you’re paying it from or what his carrying value is, you got to buy it at market. And one way to do that is if some institution wants to sell you a billion dollars worth of mortgages, they might have to sell 100 million in the market, and then you’ll buy the other 900 million on the same terms. Now, the very fact that this has been authorized or will be authorized, I hope, will firm up the market to some degree. And that’s fine. But you don’t want to have artificial prices being paid.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
您认为哪些事情可能再也回不到从前了?
What do you believe might never be the same?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
哦,我觉得信心会回来的。我可以告诉你,这个国家——十年后一定会比现在过得更好。二十年后还会比十年后过得更好。那些造就这个国家的要素,怎么说呢,让它成了世界奇迹——我是说,20 世纪美国的人均生活水平提高了六倍,是原来的七倍。可我们中间经历过大萧条,经历了两次世界大战,经历了流感大流行。还有石油危机。所有这些可怕的事都发生过。但在那百年里,美国这套制度不断释放出人类的潜力,才让我们实现了六倍的增长——历史上从来没有过——我的意思是,在有的世纪里,能有 1% 的提升就已经很了不起了。所以说,我们拥有一个极为了不起的制度。而且我们现在的生产能力比以往任何时候都强。美国工人的生产效率比以往任何时候都高。我们干活的人更多了。我们拥有实现光明未来的全部条件。只不过现在,这位运动员正倒在场上。但我们是——这是一位超级运动员。
Oh, I think confidence will come back. I will tell you this. This country is going — be living better ten years from now than it is now. It will be living better in 20 years from now than ten years from now. The ingredients that made this country, you know, the miracle of the world — I mean we had a seven for one improvement in the average American standard of living in the 20th century. Now, we had the great depression, we had two world wars, we had the flu epidemic. You know, we had oil shock. You know, we had all these terrible things happen. But something about the American system unleashed more and of a potential to human beings over that hundred years so that we had a seven for one improvement in — there’s never been any — I mean, you have centuries where if you’ve got a 1 percent improvement, then it’s something. So we’ve got a great system. And we’ve got more productive capacity now than we ever have. The American worker is more productive than he’s ever been. We’ve got more people to do it. We’ve got all the ingredients for a sensational future. It’s just that right now the athlete’s on the floor. But we — this is a super athlete.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那么,这位运动员倒在场地上,在全球范围内会产生什么影响?
And what’s the impact of the athlete being on the floor around the globe?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
影响很大。影响很大,而且我们正在切身体会。同样的事情在全球范围内也在相当程度上上演。我是说,欧洲的银行之前所做的,跟美国的银行一模一样。
Plenty. Plenty, and we’re finding that out. And the same things happen to quite an extent around the globe. I mean, the European banks were doing what the American banks were.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
它们现在也纷纷出问题了。
And they’re failing now, too.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
没错。我是说,他们拿着奥马哈某个人的抵押贷款,转手就证券化了几次。他们那边也有这类人——他们从华尔街招来了这帮人,个个都有高等学历,看着特别机灵,过来时带着——带着那些写着伽马、阿尔法、西格玛之类符号的玩意儿。我只能说,小心那些带着公式的“极客”。这话在欧洲也该有所耳闻了。
Yeah. I mean, they were getting the mortgage of some guy in Omaha, you know, securitized a couple of times. I mean he had all these — they had all these types from Wall Street, you know, and they had advanced degrees, and they look very alert, and they came with these — they came with these things that said gamma and alpha and sigma and all that. And all I can say is beware of geeks, you know, bearing formulas. They’ve heard that in Europe.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
关于脱钩,或者说关于美国经济的影响力,我们有没有从中国这样的地方学到什么?你在中国有过投资,对那里也很了解。
Have we learned something about decoupling or the American economy in terms of its impact, for example, China, a place where you’ve had investments, and you know well.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是啊。我们几天前刚做了一笔新的。
Yeah. We just made a new one a couple days ago.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
投在哪里?
Where was that?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
在一家名叫比亚迪的公司里,我希望他们能开发出一款确实出色的电动汽车。
In a company called BYD, and they develop a really good electric car, I hope.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你目前做的这些投资,除了看估值买入、看竞争优势(原文发音如此)、看标的能否容纳你想投入的资金量、看前景和看价格之外,背后是否还有一套可操作的叙事逻辑?
Is there an operative narrative to the kinds of investments you are making other than you look at and you buy on value, look at advantagement [spelled phonetically] you look at a place that can absorbed the amount of money you want to invest, and you look at its prospects, and you look at price.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对。对现在的我们来说,要产生显著效果,标的必须规模足够大。但我们寻找的是规模相当大的机会,是我能看懂的。很多生意我看不懂。也许有人知道怎么靠可可豆赚钱,但我不懂,那这钱就让他去赚好了。但标的必须是我能理解的生意,必须是经济基础良好的生意,必须是我喜欢、信任且欣赏的管理层,还必须有合理的价格。而最近,价格——
Yeah. They have to be pretty good size for us now to have — to move the needle. But we look for fairly large situations. We look for things I can understand. A lot of businesses I don’t understand. So some guy may know how to make money in cocoa beans, but I don’t so I just let him have that. But it’s got to be something I understand. It’s got to be a business with fundamentally good economics. It’s got to be a management that I like and trust and admire. And it’s got to be a price that makes sense. And lately the price —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
价格是合理的。
Prices make sense.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
现在价格合理多了,是的。
Prices make a lot more sense now, yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
现在,这——
Now, is it —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
而且我不担心这些全是冲着我们投资来的。我是说,听着,这个国家——我们的人均 GDP 有 4.6 万美元或 4.7 万美元。我们干得确实相当不错。未来还会更好。我不担心这个国家。我只担心任何阻碍这个国家发挥潜力的事情。而目前,这种阻碍相当严重。
And I’m not worried they’re all about the investments we make. I mean, listen, this country — we’ve got $46,000 or $47,000 of GDP per capita. Now, we’ve done pretty darn well. We’ll do better in the future. I am not worried about the country. I’m just worried about anything that gums up the potential of the country. And right now, it’s pretty gummed up.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好的。不过我们确实做了紧急救援行动。
Okay. But we do this emergency, urgent rescue.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
没错。
Right.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
到了一月份,我们就会有一位新总统。还会有一位新财政部长。
Come January, we have a new president. We have a new treasury secretary.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。
Right.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我们有了新的立法机构。对等性体现在哪里?他们的挑战会是什么——因为他们现在可以把眼光放得稍微长远一些,你看,病人可能正从地上爬起来。但你还是想让他或她走得更快些。
We have a new legislature. What’s there in parity? What will be the challenge for them because they then can take a little bit of a longer term, look, maybe the patient’s getting up off the ground. And but you want to get him or her moving faster.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。嗯,我认为它会加速动起来。我是说,一旦你让它从——一旦信贷开始流动——眼下衰退还会变得更糟。我是说,我不想宣传一些虚假的希望——在某个神奇的时刻,事情会在几个月内就扭转,因为它们不会,查理。我是说,试图误导人们是个大错。事情会扭转的。我不知道会是六个月还是两年。
Yeah. Well, I think it will get moving faster. I mean once you get it off the — once credit flows — now the recession is going to get worse. I mean, I don’t want to hold out false hopes that the — by some magic moment, that things will turn around in a couple months because they wouldn’t, Charlie. I mean, and it’s a big mistake to try and mislead people. They will turn around. I don’t know whether it will be six months or whether it’ll be two years.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
两年比六个月的可能性更大。
It’s more likely two years than six months.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我不知道。不管发生什么,都不会是一个月或两个月。我只能说——
I don’t know. It isn’t going to be one month or to months, no matter what happens. All I can —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你能想象六个月后,情况开始好转吗?以你所了解的现状来看——
Can you imagine six months from now, it’s beginning to turn around? With the condition that you know their —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
这算是最好的情况了,没错。这算是最好的情况。
That’s sort of the best case, yeah. That’s sort of the best case.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那最坏的情况呢?
And the worst case?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
最坏的情况会持续很长时间。我想说的是,如果他们——
Worst case is a long time. And I would say that if they —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
最坏的情况是五年,或者——
Worst case is five years or —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
如果我们不去做该做的事,那确实可能是五年。
If we don’t do the things we should do, it could be five years, sure.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好。不过我们应该做得比现在更多才对。那些事是什么?
Okay. We should do, though, beyond where we are now. What are those things?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我想这么说——如果情况变得明显的话——据我了解最新的法案,他们谈的是先出 3500 亿,然后再回去追加。
Well, I would say this, if it becomes evident that — I understand the latest bill, they’re talking about 350 billion early and then going back.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
对,对。
Right, right.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
但我们必须为此投入必要的资源。不过就像我说的,我们并不是在花钱。如果我们明智地买下这些资产,美国财政部会赚钱。它本身就是在借钱,年利率只有几个百分点,而这些资产的回报高于借钱的成本。
But we need to throw the resources at this that are necessary. But like I say, we are not spending money. I mean, if we buy these assets intelligently, the United States Treasury will make money. I mean, it’s borrowing money. It’s just a few percent a year. And these assets are better than that.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好吧。但这个“如果”可太关键了。
Okay. But that’s a very big if.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
而且,财政部长是谁确实很重要。
And it makes a difference who the treasury secretary is.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好。所以,我们能否明智地买下这些资产,这才是关键问题。
Okay. So that’s the important question in terms of whether we buy these assets wisely.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
要我说,财政部长是谁比副总统是谁更重要。你们如果想搞一场辩论,我宁愿看财长候选人的辩论,而不是副总统辩论。
I would say it’s more important who the treasury secretary is than who the vice president is. If you want to have a debate here, I’d like a debate between potential treasury secretaries than the vice presidential debate.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那么,总统候选人如果明确说出他们将会听取谁的意见、谁有可能出任财政部长,这难道不是一件好事吗?
Well, might it be a good thing for the presidential candidates to tell it who it is they’re going to be listening to and who might be a potential treasury secretary?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
不过,我认识的总统候选人倒是都听你的。
Well, presidential candidates which I know listen to you.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那是因为他们自己跟你说的,对吧?
That’s because they tell you that, aren’t they?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,不,但我的意思是,了解哪些人具备处置危机的能力并不是他们的职责。
Well, no, but I mean it’s not their job to know the candidacy of people.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
当这些人给你打电话时,他们都在问你什么?我是说,你的朋友、美联储的人都来找你,你自己也经历过这种事——我是说,你经历过长期资本管理公司(Long-Term Capital Management)那件事,还有很多次你不得不面对严峻的危机。
When all these people call you up, what are they asking you? I mean, you’re hearing from your friends and people at the Fed, you’ve been through this before too I mean you were that long term capital , a lot of other times you have had to face difficult crisis.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我见过太多事情发生了。
I’ve seen a lot of things happen.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
所以他们来找你,说:“沃伦,你以前打过仗,我们想跟你聊聊。”但他们问的问题是什么?他们想知道的又是什么?我说的是那些被指派来收拾残局的聪明人。
So they come to you and they say “You’ve fought wars before, Warren, we’d like to talk to you.” But what’s the question they’re asking? What is it they want to know? And I’m talking about smart people who are charged with fixing it.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对。最近他们一直在问,这么做能不能奏效。
Yeah. Well, lately they’ve been asking will this work.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
对。没错。
Right. Yeah.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
而你是在向他们保证,如果他们这么做的话——
And you’re assuring them that if they do it —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我会的。
I will.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
——如果他们真那么做,我——我(同时说话)财政部长(听不清),我会这么说,我会——他们讨厌这个说法,华盛顿那边尤其讨厌,但我差不多会给像汉克·保尔森这样的人一张空白支票,让他去应对——
— if they do it, I — I [talking simultaneously] Treasury Secretary [unintelligible] I would say this, I would — they hate this term in Washington, obviously, but I would hand something pretty close to a blank check to a fellow like Hank Paulson to fight —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你真会吗?
Would you, really?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。嗯——
Yeah. Well —
[同时说话]
[talking simultaneously]
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
一张空白支票,7000 亿美元,拿去花?
A blank check, $700 billion, go spend it?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对,拿去投资。拿去投。说不定我还会让你也放点自己的钱进去,我是说,我也许会叫汉克跟我一起投。
Yeah, go invest it. Go invest it. And maybe put up a little of your own money up beside it, I mean, I might ask Hank to go invest with me.
[笑声]
[laughter]
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
没错。
That’s right.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
不过,不,我觉得试图通过 535 个人去投资是个苦差事,你知道,所以我会给更多空间。这事儿不会发生,我——你知道,我[听不清]——
But, no I think that trying to invest through 535 people is a tough job, you know, and so I would give more latitude. That isn’t going to happen and I — you know, I [inaudible] —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
——并且要带着监督?我的意思是,[听不清],要带着监督。
— go with oversight? I mean, that’s what [inaudible], go with oversight.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
[听不清],我想——
[inaudible], I think —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但别试图去做这个决定——
But don’t try to make the decision —
(同时说话)
[talking simultaneously]
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
不,我觉得监督非常好,而且我认为监督几乎应该完全聚焦于一个问题,就是这件事是不是按市场条件来做的。换句话说,你要确保政府不是在愚蠢地投资。但你不需要关心这笔钱流向哪个国会选区,也不需要关心银行是否比——
No, I think the oversight is great, and I think that oversight ought to be devoted almost entirely to the question is this being done at market you know. In other words, you want to make sure that the government isn’t investing foolishly. But you don’t want to care about which congressional districts it goes to or whether banks get favored over —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但我们怎么判断这件事做得是否明智呢?
But how do we determine whether it’s being done wisely?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我觉得——
Well, I think —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
这可是个大问题。
That’s a big question.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对,我觉得这笔钱怎么投的,大家会盯得很紧。就像当年的 RFC 一样。RFC 运作的时候,人们知道它在哪些机构买了优先股。而且效果很好。
Yeah, I think you’ll have plenty of scrutiny as how the money’s invested. I mean, just like the RFC. When the RFC operated, people knew which institutions they were buying preferred stock in. And it worked very well.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但这与处置信托公司不一样,因为他们讨论的是证券,而不是房地产?
But is this different from the Resolution Trust Company because they are talking about securities, not real estate?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,处置信托公司成立,是为了清算一批政府接手过来的资产,原因是储贷机构倒闭了。储贷机构破产后,政府介入,赔付了储户,现在他们手上剩下一大堆资产要卖掉。我们现在讨论的不是卖,而是聪明地买。他们卖的那些东西,是当初那些储贷机构经营者交到他们手里的,而那些经营者在很多情况下干了一些非常蠢的事。但他们的任务就是清盘,他们也确实清盘了。这完全是两码事。
Yeah, well Resolution Trust Company was set up to liquidate a bunch of assets that the government had inherited because the savings and loans went broke. So the savings and loans went broke, the government stepped in, paid off depositors, and now they’re left with this mass of assets to sell. We’re not talking about selling here, we’re talking about buying intelligently. They were selling what they got handed to them by a bunch of savings and loan operators that had in many cases had done some very dumb thing. But their job was to liquidate it. And they liquidated. This is an entirely different proposition.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你以前对我说过,资本主义不是一个完美的制度。它可能比所有其他制度都好,但并非完美。你谈到过它的一些缺陷。现在人们看着这一切说,瞧,资本主义的种种过度行为,第一,就是那些失灵的市场。而且有些国家的人指着我们说,“看,我们早就告诉过你们,市场不会总是给你们带来好结果。”
You have said to me before that capitalism is not a perfect system. It may be better than all the other systems, but it’s not a perfect system. You talked about it in terms of some of its failings. People are looking at this now and saying, you know, excesses of capitalism, number one, markets that don’t work. And there’s some people in certain countries are pointing a finger at us and saying, “See, we told you, the markets will not always deliver for you.”
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
市场这个——只要市场还在,人就一定会干过头。郁金香球茎能让人疯掉,南海泡沫能让人疯掉,互联网股票能让人疯掉,我刚开始那会儿,铀矿股票也能让人疯掉。我是说,你懂的,你改变不了人类这种动物。而且人类这种动物确实不会变得更聪明多少。当然,你可以通过各种制度来约束这种情况,实际上,银行有各种资本充足率要求之类的东西,但银行总能绕过去,他们搞出筛子一样的东西,就为了多撬点杠杆。杠杆起作用的时候,人们爱死它了。你想,以 X 的利率从一个人手里借来钱,再以 X 的利率放出去,多容易啊。
Markets aren’t — people do, as long as you have markets, you’ll have excesses. People went crazy with tulip bulbs. They went crazy with the South Sea Bubble, they went crazy internet stocks, they went crazy with the uranium stocks back when I was first getting started. I mean, you know, you’re not going to change the human animal. And the human animal really doesn’t get a lot smarter. Now, you can you know you can have institutions that put curbs on that in various ways, and actually what the banks, you know, they have various capital ratios and that sort of thing, but the banks got around them, I mean, they set up sieves and that sort of thing just to get more leverage. People love leverage when it’s working. I mean, it’s so easy to borrow money from a guy at X and put it out at X [inaudible].
(同时说话)
[talking simultaneously]
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
——上涨的时候,你——
— going up, you’re —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是啊,但如果你另一边还欠着那个 X,你就拿不回 X 加一,那你就麻烦了。
Yeah, but you don’t get the X plus one back, if you still have the X on the other side you’re in trouble.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
还有一点,会计。你对会计和按市值计价有强烈看法。跟我说说你对这个问题的立场。
There is this, too, accounting. You have strong feelings about accounting and mark [spelled phonetically] to market. Tell me where you are on that issue.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
很多人不同意我的看法,但我信奉按市值计价。我记得是在 1974 年——查理,要么是 1974 年,要么是 1975 年——我们在伯克希尔·哈撒韦持有一批普通股。我告诉股东们当时的市场价格,我们就用那个价格。我说,我认为这些股票的价值远高于市场价,我也相信我们最终会从中赚大钱。但今天它们的价值就是市场价。我觉得,在这类事上讲真话,对谁都没坏处。而一旦你开始说“我们要按某种非市场的价格来给这些东西定价”,天知道最后会搞出什么财务——
A lot of people disagree with me on this, I believe in mark to market. I think that accounting in 1974 Charlie, it was either 1974 or ’75, we owned a bunch of common stocks at Berkshire Hathaway. I told our shareholders what the market was. And we used that. I said I think these things are worth a lot more than market. And I think we’re going to make a lot of money out of it. But this is what they’re worth today. And I don’t think anybody gets hurt by telling the truth on that sort of thing. And I think that once you start saying we’re going to peg these things at some price that isn’t market, God knows what a financial [talking simultaneously].
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
(听不清)那些反对你的人会说,这些资产的价值远高于按市值计价所显示的数字,因此——
[inaudible] these people make that argue against you will say the assets are worth much more than mark to market says and therefore —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
今天它们不值这个价。
They’re not worth it today.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
——因此,我们看到的并非现实。
— therefore we’re not seeing a reality.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,但这就是现实。这也是它们将要卖给财政部的价格。你知道,我——
Well, but that is the reality. And that’s the reality of what they’re going to sell them to the Treasury for. You know, I —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你得到的是市场价。
You get market.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
当你开始塞进一些虚构的数字时,就会陷入大麻烦——
You get in a lot of trouble when you start putting fictitious numbers —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
关于价值。
On value.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
——关于价值。我的意思是,你可以解释说,这些资产价格被压低了。我们认为这些资产未来会更值钱。而且我觉得,在某些情况下这个论点是站得住脚的。但我认为,要是直接说,我们忽然宣布一块钱现金值两块钱——它根本不值两块钱。它今天就值一块钱。我觉得,一旦开始往财务报表里塞虚假数字,你就会惹上大麻烦。过去二十年里,我们见过太多这种事。
— on value. I mean, you can explain the fact that these are depressed prices, you know. We think these assets are going to be worth a lot more. And I think that case can be made in certain situations. But I think to just say, you know, we’re going to say a dollar of cash is worth $2 all of a sudden, it isn’t worth $2. It’s worth a dollar today. And I think once you start putting phony figures into financial statements, you get in a lot of trouble. And we’ve seen so much of that in the last 20 years.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
情况在恶化吗?
Is it getting worse?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我不认为情况在恶化。我觉得是有人——有人希望它恶化。(笑声)
I don’t think it’s getting worse. I think people — what people want to do is make it get worse. [laughter]
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但你会怎么改革会计流程——你会保留按市值计价吗?
But what would you reform about that in terms of the way the accounting process — you’d keep mark to market?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
规则(听不清)。我的意思是——执行这类规定简直是一场噩梦,但我想告诉伯克希尔的股东:对于我们持有的有市场报价的证券或资产,即便那些市场——我想告诉你们这是怎么回事。实际上,我已经为下一年度的年报写好了一个章节,解释为什么我认为在某个案例中,我们资产负债表上计算出来的数字是错误的。但那是标准做法,仿佛不可动摇的圣典。SEC 要求我们这么做,我们就会照做,而我则会解释为什么我认为它错了,股东们可以读一读,看看是认同我的逻辑,还是不认同。
The rule [unintelligible]. I mean it’s — it’s a nightmare to administer some of this sort of thing, but I want to tell the shareholders of Berkshire, to the percent we own marketable securities or things for which there are market, even if those markets — I want to tell them what it’s all about. As a matter of fact, I’ve already written a section in the annual report for next year explaining why I think in one case that the figures on our balance sheet as calculated are wrong. But it’s the standard way of doing it. It’s holy writ. The SEC wants us to do it that way, and we’ll do it that way, and I’ll explain why I think it’s wrong and shareholders can read it and see whether they agree with my logic or don’t.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
当你审视这个国家的前景时,也有人会争辩说,美国固然很好,但如今我们生活的这个世界,已经有些书在写,我们的霸主地位、头号交椅如今必须与人分享。我们可能仍拥有和以前一样多的蛋糕,但别人将拥有得多得多。
You — when you look at the prospects for this country, there are other people who argue, you know, that America, as good as it is, lives in a world today and there are books being written in which our supremacy, our primacy will now have to be shared. That we may still own as much of the pie as we had, but other people will own a lot more.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
这太好了。我希望我们的蛋糕能越做越大,惠及所有人,但如果别人的蛋糕增长得比我们稍快一些,那也很棒。长远来看,这对我们是好事。我是说,这世界上有六十五亿人。三亿人能继续享受越来越多的财富当然很好,但其余的人也能如此,我觉得就更好了。如果他们能从我们的制度中学到一些东西——我相信已经学到了——他们正在学习如何释放本国公民的潜力,去生产更多他们自己的公民想要的、或者我们想要的商品和服务,我觉得这很棒。而且——你知道,我觉得,活在一个周围人的生活也在改善的世界里,尤其是其中有些人手里还有核弹的时候,我觉得要好得多。
That’s great. You know, I want our — I want our pie to grow all the people, but if some other guy’s pie is growing a little faster, that’s terrific. It will be good for us in the long run, and I mean there are, you know, six and a half billion people in this world. And it’s great for 300 million to keep enjoying more and more property, but I think it’s terrific if, you know, the remainder do. And I think if they can learn something from us in terms of our system, and I think they have, they are learning more about how to unleash the potential of their citizenry to turn out more goods and services that their citizens want or that we want, I think that’s terrific. And that’s — you know, I think it’s much better to live in the world where those around you, particularly when some of them have nuclear bombs, I think it’s much better to live in a world where their lives are getting better also.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
对。但你的意思是,你看到了这一点。所以当你今天看中国,看一些亚洲国家以及它们持有多少美国债务,在当前的经济环境下,这让你有多担心?它们是不是对美国失去了一些信心?这会不会给我们带来一个大问题?
Yeah. But you mean you look at that. So when you look at China today, and you look at some Asian countries and the amount of American debt they have, how much does that concern you in today’s economic circumstances? And are they losing some of their confidence in America? And does that pose a huge problem for us?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
你看,有人在买收益率只有 0.05% 的国库券。我的意思是——我们——(同时讲话)每天消费的商品和服务比我们生产的要多出约 20 亿美元。换句话说,世界其他地方每天净送给我们约 20 亿美元的东西。我们总得给他们点什么作为回报吧。于是我们递给他们一些纸片。要是他们把那些纸片全塞在床垫底下倒是不错,但他们总得拿它们买点什么。有时他们买国库券,有时设立主权财富基金。他们能做各种事情。他们可以在这里买下我们的公司。只要我们的消费超过生产,每天拿国家的一小部分去交换,他们就一定会拥有一些东西。现在,他们没法避开美国资产。我是说,只要他们继续卖给我们这些商品,世界其他地方每天就会比我们多持有约 20 亿美元的美国资产。
Well, somebody’s buying these treasury bills at 1/20th of one percent. I mean the — we — [talking simultaneously] consuming about $2 billion a day of goods and services beyond what we’re producing. In other words, the rest of the world sends about $2 billion a day net of something. We got to send them something in return, don’t we. So we send them little pieces of paper. That would be nice if they stuck them all under a mattress, but they got to buy something with them. Sometimes they buy a treasury note, sometimes they set up sovereign wealth funds. They can do all kinds of things. They can buy our companies here. As long as we consume more than we produce, and we trade away little pieces of the country daily, they’re going to own something. Now, they can’t run from American assets. I mean every day the rest of the world is going to have about two billion more of American assets than we have, as long as they sell us these goods.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
因为我们借入了 200 万美元——
Because we’re borrowing two million dollars —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对,而且他们想把商品卖给我们。
Yeah, and they want to sell us these goods.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但你不认为这是好事。我的意思是,你认为不断扩大的经常账户赤字是坏事。
But you don’t believe that’s good. I mean you believe that an increasing current accounts deficit is bad.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我认为这是坏事。
I think it’s bad.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
这反映的是美国的消费观念,而非储蓄观念。
And it reflects American’s consumption ideas rather than its savings ideas.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。
Yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但这局面怎么改变呢?
But how does that change?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我几年前提出过一个——有点像鲁布·戈德堡机械似的方案,我自己也不喜欢,只是觉得它比另一个选项要好,另一个选项就是我们现在正在做的。不过,我们在出口方面其实做得相当不错。我是说,我们现在出口额大约占 GDP 的 12%。很多年前这个比例只有 5%,而且那时 GDP 规模小得多。所以,全世界确实相当喜欢我们生产的东西。问题在于,我们买了太多他们生产的东西。我认为——我认为这应该是需要着手解决的问题——但我一点不认为这是眼下最紧迫的问题。我们一直为了超出自身产出的消费,一点点地把国家资产置换出去。这不好。长期来看,我觉得这很糟糕。但我们国家的生产力增长足够快,所以实际上我们还能撑得住,生活也还是会过得更好。只不过,如果没有这么做,我们会过得更好。
Well, I laid out — it’s kind of a Rube Goldberg plan a few years ago, which I don’t like myself, except I like it better than the alternative, which is what we’re doing. But we’ve actually been pretty good on exports. I mean we are exporting 12% of our GDP now roughly. That was five percent many years ago, a much smaller GDP. So the rest of the world really likes our stuff pretty well. It’s just we buy so damn much of what they produce. And I think — I think that should be something addressed by — I don’t think it’s the most pressing problem now at all. We are trading away a little bit of our country all the time for this access consumption that we have over what we’ve produced. That is not good. I think it’s terrible over time. But our country’s productive grows enough so we actually can do that, and we’ll still be better off. We just don’t be as well off as if we hadn’t done it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
这一切会对美元汇率产生什么影响?
What’s all this going to do to the price of the dollar?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
美元可能会面临非常严峻的考验——通胀很可能是当前局面所产生的一个后果。眼下,我们实际上是在——某种程度上,是在未来通胀和让经济离开谷底之间做选择。而我们未来很可能——很可能会因为当下为应对现状而采取的措施,面临更高的通胀。
It could be very tough on — inflation could be a very — is a likely consequence out of what’s going on now. Right now, we are in effect making a — to some extent, making a choice between future inflation and getting our — getting off the floor. And we’re likely — we’re likely to have more inflation in the future as a consequence of the things we do to fight the present situation.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
您支持的奥巴马参议员——我想确认一下,不过我不想把话说得太绝对——他今天发表了一篇经济演讲,谈到又一项刺激计划。这在当下是必要的吗?
Senator Obama, who you support, I think, I don’t want — to be clear on this, but made an economic speech today, talks about another stimulus program. Is that essential at this time?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我认为眼下最需要做的是疏通信贷市场,可能还需要再来一轮刺激计划——如果真需要的话——这笔钱应该流向低收入和中等收入人群。说实在的,我在缴税方面从来没这么轻松过。我这一生中缴纳的税率从来没这么低过。你看,这简直疯了。如果查查《福布斯》400 富豪榜,算上工资税,他们缴纳的税率平均比自己的秘书或者办公室里随便哪个人还要低。所以我认为,像我这种处境的人实际上应该多缴税。而奥巴马说的那 95% 的美国人,也许还应该再多一些,他们应该少缴税。不过我觉得刺激计划应该切实面向老百姓。你知道,美国有 2400 万个家庭,占全美家庭总数的 1/5,这些家庭年收入 2.1 万美元甚至更少,每个家庭平均差不多有四口人——实际上可能接近两个半。查理,你想想看,年收入 2.1 万、2.2 万美元怎么过活。全美有 20% 的人口就靠这点钱过日子。所以,你根本不用操心我这种人。我会把钱花出去——如果给那些家庭 1000 美元的购买力,他们一定会花出去。而且他们确实需要花这笔钱。这笔钱就该从像我这样的人这里出。
I think the biggest thing we need now is to unclog the credit markets, and we may need another stimulus — if we do, it’s — it should go to the lower and middle-income people. I mean the truth is, I’ve never had it so good in terms of taxes. I am paying the lowest tax rate that I’ve ever paid in my life. Now, that’s crazy. And if you look at the Forbes 400, they are paying a lower rate, accounting payroll taxes, than their secretary or — whomever around their office. On average. And so I think that actually people in my situation should be paying more tax. I think the rest of the country should be paying less, the 95 percent that Obama talks about or maybe even a little higher than that. But I think that a stimulus plan should really be geared to the people. You know, you’ve got — you’ve got, what, 24 million households, 1/5th of the households of the United States, you have earning $21,000 a year or less, on average of close to four people, three people in those households. Two and a half they will actually probably. But just imagine living on 21,000 a year, Charlie, 22,000 a year. I mean you have 20 percent of the population doing that. So you don’t have to worry about guys like me. I would push purchasing power — you push out $1,000 of purchasing to those people, it’s going to get — it’s going to get spent. And it needs to be spent. They need it. And it should come, to some extent, from guys like me.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
……那资本利得税呢?
… what about the capital gains tax?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
这个嘛,你知道,现在资本利得税是 15%。所以我坐在办公室里,靠资本利得赚了很多钱,只交 15% 的税,而且这笔收入还不用交工资税。
Well, you know, the capital gains tax is 15 percent now. So I sit there in my office and I make a lot of money by capital gains, and I pay 15 percent, and I pay no payroll tax on it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
没错。
Right.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
那位进来把废纸篓搬走的女士,光工薪税一项就要交 15.3% 还是多少。我是说——我这日子从来没这么好过。
The woman that comes in, takes the wastebasket away, she’s paying 15.3 or whatever it is on payroll tax alone. I mean it is — I never had it so good.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
因此,资本利得税是不是应该改成 18%、25% 或 30%?
So therefore the capital gains tax should be changed to 18, 25, 30?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我认为,有人实际上在主张投资收益的税率应该远远低于劳动收入的税率,这太糟糕了。我的意思是,我觉得这样一来你就会——我们今年要花掉约 3.1 万亿美元。而我们只能筹集到约 2.6 万亿美元,或者差不多的数字——你得从某些人那里收这笔钱。你瞧,那你去跟谁要呢?你跟我和你要,还是跟那些开出租车把我送到这儿来的人要?随便吧。反正你得从某些人那儿收钱。而且,人人都反对交税。我也一样,大家都这么想。但如果你想要一个能完成我们要求它做的事的政府,你就得从某些人那儿收钱。过去这些年,尤其是最近六到八年,像我这样的人交的税越来越少。现在,人人都喜欢谈论顶层那百分之一的人贡献了多少多少收入所得税,比如我们说有 1.3 万亿美元。而工薪税超过 9000 亿美元。这 9000 亿美元,可不是从我这儿来的。我只为头十万美元左右收入交工薪税。但那笔钱是从我办公室里那些人身上来的。他们交了 9000 亿美元——当人们谈论那百分之一的人交了多少税时,从没人提到过这个。我喜欢讲述自己如何“受苦”,因为我们这百分之一的人交了总收入的 25%。但我们交的并不是个人总税收的 25%。我们可能交了收入所得税的 25%,可工薪税占了联邦政府收入的超过三分之一。而且他们不从我的资本利得上收工薪税,也不从我的股息上收。他们是从那位进来倒废纸篓的女工身上收的。
I think it’s terrible for people in effect to say that income from investment should be taxed at a much lower rate than income from labor. I mean I just think that you’re going to — we’re going to spend 3.1 trillion, something like that, this year. We’re going to only raise about 2.6 trillion or something like — you’re going to raise it from somebody. You know. Now, who you’re going to get it from, you’re going to get it from me and you, or you’re going to get it from, you know, the people that drive the taxis, bring me here. Whatever. Maybe. I mean you got to get it from somebody. And, you know, everybody is against paying tax. I feel the same, everybody feels that way. But if you want a government that’s going to do the things we ask our government to do, you’ve got to get it from somebody. And over the years, the last — particularly the last six or eight years, they’ve taken less and less from a guy like me. Now, you know, everybody likes to talk about how the top one percent pays this percent in income, but the income tax, we’ll say 1.3 trillion. The payroll taxes are over 900 billion. That 900 billion, that doesn’t come from me. I pay it on the first hundred thousand or something like that. But that comes from the people in my office. And they are paying 900 billion — nobody ever talked about that when they talk about what the one percent is paying. I love to tell how I’m suffering because one percent we’re paying 25 percent of the total. We’re not paying 25 percent of the total taxes on individuals. We’re paying maybe 25 percent of the income tax, but the payroll tax is over a third of the receipts of the federal government. And they don’t take that from me on capital gains. They don’t take that from me on dividends. They take from the woman who comes in and takes the wastebaskets out.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你提到了通货膨胀,说到了通胀的可能性。那么,你是不是——你对利率有什么看法——美联储应该在利率上怎么做?
You mentioned inflation. The possibilities of inflation. Are you therefore — do you have a position on what interest rates — what the fed should do about interest rates?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我想这几乎——暂时先放一放,等病人站起来能走了我们再谈这个。不过,这确实有意思。我的意思是,我们正在做的事情——将会带来一些通胀后果。但是,你看,利率水平非常低,包括长期利率在内。
Well, I think that’s almost — for the time being, just put that aside and we’ll get to that after the patient is up and walking. It’s interesting, though. I mean we are — what’s going to happen — things we’re doing are going to have some inflationary consequences. But, you see, interest rates, you know, very low levels, including the long rates.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
我们看着这个情况——我是说,今天你和我正在聊这事。参议院今晚投票,众议院也可能投票。我今天跟一些人聊过,他们认为法案会通过。不管是因为他们对方案做了各种调整和微调,还是另一种可能——有些人上次投票失败后吓坏了,切身体会到不采取任何行动的危害有多大。
When we watch this, I mean you and I are having this conversation today. The senate votes tonight. House may vote. People I talked to today believe it’s going to pass. Whatever happened to change minds either in the combination of what they did with the plan and tweaking the plan, or B, some people got so scared by the failure of the vote last time that it brought home a danger of not doing anything.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。
Yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好。那我们要怎么衡量进展,看这办法到底管不管用?用什么指标?
All right. How will we measure the progress, whether this is working or not? What’s the indicia?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是啊,这会很难,因为经济在一段时间内会变得更糟。而且如果这个方案通不过,经济可能一下子跌下悬崖。但如果通过了,谁也不会知道那会发生。所以他们看不到立竿见影的效果。我的意思是,我们就像在给一个倒地的人按压胸口,你知道,他不会突然一下就跳起来。所以这很难。我是说,作为立法者很难,你知道,投了赞成票,然后人们说,你投了这么多钱,钱全花光了。其实钱没花掉,是在做投资。但它确实全花出去了。什么都没发生。你知道,你怎么能这样?你没为我做任何事。我是说,你要经历这一切。这很难。而真正需要的是,有懂行的领导,能把事情解释清楚。而且人们要愿意相信——
Yeah. It’s going to be tough because the economy is going to be getting worse for a while. And it might fall off a cliff if this doesn’t pass. But nobody will ever know that if it does. And so what they will not see immediate reaction. I mean, we’ll be pounding on the guy’s chest, you know, on the floor, and you know, he’s not going to just jump up all of a sudden. So it makes it tough. I mean, it’s tough to be in the legislature, you know, and vote for something and then people say, well, you voted all this money and you know, it’s all getting spent. It isn’t getting spent. It’s getting invested. But it’s all getting spent. Nothing’s happening. You know, how could you have done that? You haven’t done anything for me. I mean, you go through all of that. And that’s going to be tough. And it takes — what it really takes is leadership that knows what it’s all about and can explain what it’s all about. And that people will believe —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
不过,这一点难道不是一直缺失吗?——
But hasn’t that been missing, though —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
当然。
Sure.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
——那种能解释清楚这一切的领导力?
— leadership that can explain what it’s all about?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
绝对。
Absolutely.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你们来到这里的原因,以及我想跟你们来一场炉边谈话的原因,是因为这个理念——不知怎么的,它没能被透彻理解——
And the reason you’re here and the reason I want to have a kind of fireside chat with you, it is that somehow it hadn’t gotten through, the idea —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
当美国总统早上八点出门,然后他所属的政党在众议院以 2 比 1 的投票结果支持他,你就知道,信息肯定没传达到位。这需要相当的领导力。我是说,罗斯福当年——你看,他上任时,并没有印钞票。嗯,他可能确实做过一些(听不清),但他——并不是像现在这样,请来世界上最伟大的经济学教授之类的人物。但他确实恢复了信心。而且他们做了很多事。当时需要那样做。你需要给经济来个强力启动。那花了很长时间。我是说,世界并没有在 1933 年或 1934 年就变了天。但我们推行了像 FDIC 这样的制度。我认为 FDIC 是美国(听不清)最伟大的发明之一。
When the president of the United States goes out at, you know, 8:00 o’clock in the morning and then his own party votes gets him 2 to 1 in the house, you know that somehow a message isn’t getting out. It takes real leadership. I mean Roosevelt didn’t — you know, when he came in, he didn’t print any money. Well, he actually may have done [unintelligible], but he — it wasn’t like, you know, you’ve got the greatest economics professor in the world or anything else. But he did restore confidence. And they did a lot of thing. And you needed it. You needed to jump-start the economy. It took a long time. I mean, the world did not change, you know, in 1933 or ‘4. But we put in things like the FDIC. I think the FDIC was one of the great inventions of the American [unintelligible].
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
是啊,他们得根据他的法案来调整一下,不是吗?
Well, they had to tweak that in terms of his bill, did they not?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。它们曾是——而且——
Yeah. They were — and —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
[听不清] 延长到五年。
[unintelligible] extended five-year.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的,它们正往正确的方向走。
They’re going the right direction, yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
罗斯福还说过,我们唯一要恐惧的就是恐惧本身,而这正是当前美国存在的恐惧。说说看,在过去三周里,你什么时候最担心?我是说,过去一个月里,你什么时候在心里说,天哪,我从未想过会到这种地步?
Roosevelt also said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, which is clearly the fear that exists in the country. Tell me when you worried the most of all the things that you have seen over the last three weeks, say. I mean how about in the last month, when did you say, my God, I never knew it could get to this point?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
怎么说呢,我倒也不是害怕,因为我确实对两个方面有信心——我知道这个国家的运转极其出色。你知道的,只要没被堵住。我也知道国会最终会做正确的事。不过我得告诉你,那天我看着众议院投票时,我并不害怕——因为我仍然觉得会通过点什么。但是——我们正在经历一个非常、非常艰难的时期。而且,你知道,我没想到自己有生之年会看到,一家美国国际集团(AIG)的支票居然没法兑现。
Well, I don’t get that afraid in a sense because I really do have faith in both — I know the country works extremely well. You know, but when it isn’t clogged up. And I know that Congress will do the right thing. But I will tell you, when I watched the House vote the other day, I wasn’t afraid because I — I still felt something would pass. But I — we are going through a very, very tough period. And, you know, I did not think I would see the day when, you know, an AIG would not be able to have its checks clear.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
如果 AIG 倒下,许多人的袋子就会暴露在风险之中,摩根大通也会——
If AIG had failed, would fold man sacks have been exposed and at risk, JP Morgan would have been —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
查理,人人都逃不掉,人人都逃不掉。
Everybody would have been exposed, Charlie. Everybody.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那为什么当时还会有人质疑要不要救 AIG?
So why was there even a question of not rescuing AIG at that time?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
嗯,我觉得人们对此的理解大概是——他们原本指望私营部门会来做这件事。
Well, I think what people understand there probably — well, they were hoping the private sector would do it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
对。
Right.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我的意思是,换成我也会那样做。如果我是财政部长或美联储主席,我也会拼命吓唬私营部门,说你们最好自己把这船救了,不然就跟着一起沉了。所以你们自己来救吧。我会尽可能拖着,心里一直担心,如果他们不救,最后我就得出手。
I mean, that’s the same way I would behave. If I were the treasury secretary or head of the Fed, you know, I would try to scare the hell the out of the private sector and say, you better save this because you’re going down with the ship. So you guys save it. And I went as long as I could worrying if they didn’t save it, I’d come in.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那么,这场危机中真的出现了那种情形吗——财政部长说“你们最好救它,不然我们都得完蛋”?
Well, did that in fact happen during this crisis in which the secretary of the treasury said you better save this or we’ll all going down?
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我认为当然——
I think certainly —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你现在最好马上拿出些现金来。
You better put up some cash right now.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我觉得他们原本指望私营部门能介入。私营部门也确实试图介入,直到他们看清了问题的规模。我是说,那个周末有些在场的人,还以为他们找到了解决办法。可随后窟窿越来越大,突然一下就变得很明显:200 亿不够,300 亿不够,400 亿也不够。这下子,显然超出了任何人在短时间内能收拾得了的范畴。
I think that they hoped the private sector would come in. And the private sector tried to come in until they saw the size of the problem. I mean, from were people on that weekend that thought they’d had a solution. And then the hole kept getting bigger and bigger. And all of a sudden became apparent that 20 billion wouldn’t do it and 30 billion wouldn’t do it and 40 billion wouldn’t do it. So it got beyond anybody’s ability to certainly to do it in a short period of time.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
除了政府,没有足够的资本可用。
There was not enough capital available other than from the government.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
这事没人搞得清楚。你有衍生品账本,(录音不清)AIG 金融产品,对吧。除了是个极其赚钱的部门,没人听说过它。你知道的,你可以凭空造出利润来,干各种勾当。我敢打包票,高层管理——我这么说不算苛责他们。换了我,我觉得自己也搞不明白——他们根本弄不懂这摊东西。1998 年我买了家叫通用再保险的公司,它旗下有个类似但规模小得多的业务,里头塞了 23,000 份合约。
It’s an unknown situation. You have the derivative book, [unintelligible] AIG financial products, you know. Nobody’s every heard of it except it was a terrific profit center. You know, you could manufacturer earnings out of it, do all these things. And I will guarantee that you the top management — and I’m not knocking them for this. I don’t think I could have done it. They couldn’t get their minds around it. I bought a company called General Reinsurance in 1998 that had a similar but much smaller operation, had 23,000 contracts in it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
而你当时不得不把它清掉。
And you had to get rid of it.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我必须从这摊东西里脱身。就算在风平浪静的时候,它也让我赔了 4 亿多美元。但当时可不是风平浪静的时候。如果 AIG 当初想平掉他们的衍生品账本,我不知道——那会冲击到世界上每一家金融机构。
I got to get out of this. It cost me 400-and-some million dollars in benign — in a benign situation. But when this was not a benign situation. If AIG had tried to unwind their derivatives books. I don’t know. It would have hit every institution in the world.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
而且当时也没有私人资本愿意进来接盘。
And there was no private capital to come in and do that.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
体量不够大。
Not big enough.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
连伯克希尔·哈撒韦都不够大。
Not even Berkshire Hathaway.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
是的。伯克希尔·哈撒韦也接不住。我的意思是,如果我觉得掏 50 亿或 100 亿美元能做成一笔好买卖,而且我当时也拿得出这笔钱,我早就动手了。
No. Not even Berkshire Hathaway. I mean, if I thought 5 or 10 billion would have bought me a good deal, and I could have done that, I’d have done it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
他们当时正——
They were —
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
我又不羞于开口。
I’m not bashful.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
[无法听清] 曾经触手可及。
[unintelligible] was within reach.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
对。
Yeah.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
但 850 亿美元可能就不会发生了。
But 85 billion might not have been.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
不会,不会的。而且美联储把整件事安排得相当、相当妥当。就是说,他们已经把自己放在一个——
No, no. And the Fed structured that thing very, very well. I mean, they have put themselves in a position —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
对。
Yeah.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
——放在一个他们极大概率能拿回本金的位置上,甚至可能拿回更多。他们占了 80% 的份额——我是说,他们谈下了很强硬的条款。说真的,我想把谈成那笔交易的人挖过来。他在伯克希尔会很合得来。
— where they are very likely to get their money back; maybe more. They participate 80 percent — I mean, they drove tough terms. I mean I want to hire the guy that made that deal. He’d fit in well at Berkshire.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
很多人看着你、高盛和通用电气,都说想雇那个替你谈成这笔交易的人。
A lot of people look at you and Goldman Sachs and GE saying I want to hire the guy that made that deal for you.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
不,蒂姆·盖特纳在这件事上干得更漂亮。
No, Tim Geithner did a better job on this one.
(笑声)
[laughter]
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
那么,这场对话到了尾声。你一直在提醒我们要警惕某些事情。从这次对话中,我也听出来了——这个计划现在是必不可少的。否则,我们就将陷入一个非常、非常艰难的境地。每周我们再不采取行动,情况就会越陷越深,而且越来越不可逆转。
So we come down to the close of this conversation and you have been warning us about certain kinds of things. I hear from this conversation too this plan is essential now. Otherwise we’re in a very, very difficult place and each week we go beyond not doing something we get deeper and it becomes more irreversible.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
而且,确实,说“一分预防胜过十分治疗”的人,还说得太轻了。你想,一份延迟了半年的治疗,以后得用一吨的治疗才能顶得上。我的意思是,不这么做才叫发疯。不过,这不会让经济立竿见影地好转。这是大家必须明白的。你会看到失业率上升,你会看到很多企业经营惨淡,它们不会——
And, yeah, whoever said, you know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure understated it and I you know a pound of cure that’s delayed another six months is going to need a ton of cure later on I mean it would be crazy not to do this. It will not produce dramatic results though in the economy. That’s what people have to understand. You’re going to see unemployment go up. You know, you’re going to see lousy earnings in many businesses. And they’re not —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
你会看到有人失业。
You’re going to see people unemployed.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
你会看到更多人失业。但查理,区别在于,如果我们把这事压到失业率 7% 而不是 9%,那就是 300 万人。这 300 万人,要是我们搞砸了,在我看来就会不必要地丢掉饭碗。我是说,我从来没失业过。我也从来没被充分雇佣过,但你想一下,那是什么滋味——背着房贷回到家,还有孩子和一堆破事。我父亲在 30 年代初就经历过那种事。你不想凭空多弄出 300 万人失业。但我不认为你——
You’re going to see more people unemployed. But the difference Charlie if we bottom this thing out at seven percent unemployed versus nine percent, that’s three million people, that’s three million people that if we do it wrong you know lose their jobs unnecessarily in my view I mean you know I’ve never been unemployed. I’ve never been very fully employed either but just think of what it’s like, you know, to go home with a mortgage payment you know and kids and everything else. My dad had that happen to him in the early ’30s. It you know you don’t want to create three million people more unnecessarily. But I don’t think you —
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
这就是大萧条。
That’s the depression —
(同时说话)
[talking simultaneously]
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
确实如此。从这个节点往后,你不可避免地会看到一些增长。我不想让任何观众误以为国会里存在魔杖。所以,他们还会看到一些坏消息。但如果我们这么做,就是在做正确的事。而且,如果——这套系统最终会运转起来。没有别的——我们拥有一套了不起的系统。
It really is. And you can’t help some increase from this point. I don’t want any viewer to go away think a magic wand exists in Congress. So they’re going to see some more bad news. But if we do this, we’re doing the right thing. And if — the system will work over time. There’s no — we got a wonderful system.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
好,不过这个问题我最后再谈。我们需不需要对这个体系做些什么?除了眼下这场危机的紧急状况、当下的紧迫性之外——到了一月份,关于这个体系,你知道的,大家都在谈论监管,谈论如何找到恰当的平衡,谈论政府的介入是不是我们需要更多、而不是更少的东西,也就是重新审视里根总统当年带到台前的那套理念。
Okay, but I mean let me come to that in the end. Do we need to do anything about the system? And beyond the emergency of the moment, the urgency of the moment, come January, about the system, lots of talk about regulation as you know and finding the right balance, lots of talk about whether government involvement is an idea we need more of rather than less of, rethinking sort of what President Reagan brought to fore.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
等我们把[听不清]理顺之后,就能[听不清]做出改变[听不清],执行[听不清],这之类的事情我们都能做。要知道,如果我从中想出什么好主意——或者说自认为是好主意——我很乐意贡献出来,但整个体系可能会在其他方面矫枉过正。我是说,民主的本质就是这样,当出现这种——自然会出现强烈的反感情绪,觉得——这种事绝不能再发生,所以我们很可能会用各种并不合理的办法去应对。但——那是国会存在的意义,也是请顾问的意义。我完全支持你找来最优秀的人才去琢磨这一类问题。如前所述,我不认为最后能做得尽善尽美。也许我们最终会得到一个稍好一些的体系。但说到底,过去很长一段时间里,我们的体系其实相当不错。可一旦我们发了疯——我们在居民住宅上确实发了疯——就引发了一连串连锁反应,多米诺骨牌开始倒下。
Once we get the [unintelligible] back, we can [unintelligible] changes [unintelligible], exercising [unintelligible], we can do all of that sort of thing. And you know if I got any good ideas out of that or I think they’re good ideas, I’ll be glad to contribute them but the system will probably overdo some other things. I mean, the nature of democracy is such that when there’s this — there’ll be this revulsion, obviously, toward — that’s never going to happen again, so we’ll probably attack it in various ways that don’t make sense. But I — that’s what Congress is for. And that’s what advisors are for. And I’m all for getting the best minds you can get to work on that kind of thing. Like I say, I don’t think it’ll be done perfectly. Maybe we’ll end up with a little bit better system. But the end, we had a pretty good system over time. But when we went crazy, and we did go crazy on residential real estate, it set things in motion that just — the dominoes started toppling.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
谢谢你们来上节目。
Thank you for coming.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
谢谢你,查理。
Thank you, Charlie.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
见到你很荣幸。
Pleasure to see you.
沃伦·巴菲特:
Warren Buffett:
聊得很愉快。
Enjoyed it.
查理·罗斯:
Charlie Rose:
沃伦·巴菲特。我们现在在圣地亚哥。感谢这里 KPBS 的朋友们。这场对话聊的是我们所有人都面临的危机,而我们要听听这位很多人都想听他见解的人怎么说。我很高兴能和他一起坐在这里。感谢各位收看。下次再见。
Warren Buffett. We’re in San Diego. My thanks to the people at KPBS here. A conversation here about the crisis that we all face, and hearing from a man that a lot of people want to hear from. And I’m pleased that we were able to join with him here. Thank you for joining us. See you next time.