WARREN E. BUFFET

沃伦·E·巴菲特

Warren E. Buffett is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a company controlled by Buffett Partnerships, Ltd. from 1965. Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s business activities include underwriting of property and casualty insurance, candy production and sales at retail, newspaper publishing, retailing home furnishings, sales of encyclopedias, sales of home cleaning units, manufacture and distribution of uniforms, retail jewelry, and manufacture, import, and distribution of furniture.

Warren E. Buffett 是 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 的董事会主席兼首席执行官，该公司自 1965 年起由 Buffett Partnerships, Ltd. 控制。Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 的业务活动包括财产与意外伤害保险承保、糖果生产与零售、报纸出版、家居用品零售、百科全书销售、家用清洁设备销售、制服制造与分销、零售珠宝，以及家具的制造、进口与分销。

Mr. Buffett is perhaps the most highly regarded businessperson in the United States today. His advice is widely sought, and highly treasured. He serves as a Director of Capital City/ABC, the Coca-Cola Company, the Gillette Company, Salomon Inc. and USAir Group, Inc. Berkshire Hathaway has significant investments in each of these companies. His investment acumen, buttressed by the force of his reputation, honesty, and integrity were instrumental in the preservation of one of the oldest and largest investment banking houses in the world, Salomon Brothers.

巴菲特先生或许是当今美国最受尊敬的企业家。他的建议广受追捧，极为珍贵。他担任 Capital City/ABC、the Coca-Cola Company、the Gillette Company、Salomon Inc. 和 USAir Group, Inc. 的董事。Berkshire Hathaway 在这些公司均有重要投资。他的投资敏锐，加之声望、诚实与正直的支撑，在挽救全球历史最悠久、规模最大的投资银行之一 Salomon Brothers 的过程中起到了关键作用。

Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report, authored by Mr. Buffett, is widely read in the business and investment community for its sound advice, its creativity, and its humor in explaining important principles for achieving success in business. The Berkshire annual meeting has become an “event” which not only spreads the Buffett message, but enhances Berkshire’s corporate coffers through visitations by shareholders to Omaha’s Nebraska Furniture Mart and Borsheim’s Jewelry Store, both of which are in the Berkshire Hathaway stable.

由巴菲特先生撰写的 Berkshire Hathaway 年报，以其稳健的建议、独到的创意以及用幽默阐释商业成功重要原则而广受商界与投资界阅读。Berkshire 的年度股东大会已成为一项“盛事”，不仅传播巴菲特的理念，也通过股东造访奥马哈的 Nebraska Furniture Mart 和 Borsheim’s Jewelry Store（均属于 Berkshire Hathaway）为公司带来可观收益。

Mr. Buffett was born in Omaha to Howard H. Buffett and Leila Stahl Buffett. His father, an investment banker, served as congressman from Nebraska’s second district from 1943-1949 and from 1951-1953. Mr. Buffett married Susan Thompson in April 1952. They have three children—Susan, Howard, and Peter.

巴菲特先生出生于奥马哈，父母为 Howard H. Buffett 和 Leila Stahl Buffett。他的父亲是一位投资银行家，曾于 1943–1949 年和 1951–1953 年担任内布拉斯加州第二选区的联邦众议员。1952 年 4 月，巴菲特先生与 Susan Thompson 结婚，育有三名子女——Susan、Howard 和 Peter。

Mr. Buffett graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, D.C. in 1947, attended the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania from 1947-1949 and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of Nebraska in 1950. In 1951 he received a Masters degree in Economics from Columbia University. His mentor, Benjamin Graham, was one of his professors at Columbia.

巴菲特先生于 1947 年毕业于华盛顿特区的 Woodrow Wilson High School，1947–1949 年就读于宾夕法尼亚大学的 Wharton School of Finance，并于 1950 年获得内布拉斯加大学的工商管理理学学士学位。1951 年，他在 Columbia University 获得经济学硕士学位。他的导师 Benjamin Graham 是他在 Columbia 的教授之一。

Mr. Buffett serves as Life Trustee of Grinnell College; Life Trustee of the Urban Institute; Trustee of the Business Enterprise Trust, Stanford, California; Trustee of the Wellness Council of the Midlands; and as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Science. His foundation is reported to provide funding mainly on world population issues and nuclear disarmament.

巴菲特先生担任 Grinnell College 终身董事；Urban Institute 终身董事；加州 Stanford 的 Business Enterprise Trust 董事；Wellness Council of the Midlands 董事；并且是 American Academy of Arts and Science 的成员。据报道，他的基金会主要资助世界人口问题与核裁军相关领域。

Mr. Buffett resides in Omaha, Nebraska and presides over his financial empire from that city without the “luxury” of a large staff, computer modeling or Wall Street gossip.

巴菲特先生居住在内布拉斯加州奥马哈，并在该城市掌舵其金融帝国，而无需依赖庞大的员工队伍、复杂的计算机建模或华尔街的传闻“奢侈品”。

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Business Administration and Woodmen Accident and Life Company take great pleasure in welcoming Warren E. Buffett as the 1994 E. J. Faulkner lecturer.

内布拉斯加大学林肯分校商学院与 Woodmen Accident and Life Company 欣然欢迎沃伦·E·巴菲特担任 1994 年 E. J. Faulkner 讲席主讲人。

E.J.Faulkner Lecture October 10,1994 Warren E. Buffett

Introduction of Warren Buffett

by Mr. John Haessler,

President and Chief Executive Officer

Woodmen Accident and Life Company

It’s a great pleasure for me, both personally and on behalf of Woodmen, to welcome you to this lecture, which is 16th in a series that Woodmen has sponsored in conjunction with the College of Business Administration. We have established this lecture, as I think many of you know, in honor of E. J. Faulkner, who served for 60 years with Woodmen, 44 years as a CEO. He was a great friend and a graduate of the campus and of the College of Business Administration. Through his estate, a gift has been made and it is now being translated into the writing lab at the College of Business Administration.

我个人以及代表 Woodmen，十分高兴欢迎各位出席本次讲座。这是 Woodmen 与 College of Business Administration 联合主办系列讲座中的第16场。正如诸位所知，我们设立此讲座是为纪念 E. J. Faulkner，他在 Woodmen 服务了60年，其中44年担任 CEO。他是我们的挚友，同时也是这所校园与 College of Business Administration 的校友。通过其遗产捐赠，现已落实为 College of Business Administration 的写作实验室项目。

We are greatly privileged and especially pleased to have Warren Buffett here. From the size of this crowd and excitement, the anticipation that’s been on campus is obviously honored in the halls of the academia as well as in business.

我们非常荣幸、也格外欣喜地邀请到 Warren Buffett。仅从到场人数与热烈气氛便可见，这份期待不仅在校园里深受推崇，也在商界殿堂中备受尊崇。

While he needs no introduction, I think he truly deserves one. And frankly, he deserves one that will be more laudatory and flattering than I will give him, because I don’t think a flowery one would comport with his sense of comfort. He’s a very basic man.

尽管他无需介绍，但我认为他确实值得被郑重介绍。坦率讲，他理应得到比我将要给出的更为溢美的赞词；只是我不认为华丽的辞藻符合他的处世之道。他是一个非常朴素的人。

Much of the activity of Mr. Buffett is highlighted on the handout that you received. He is a native Nebraskaan. He was born in Omaha. He went to high school in Washington D.C. His father, who was an investment banker, also served as a congressman from the second district-Republican by the way. (Warren Buffett and I are probably the only two Democrats in this whole room.)

各位手中的资料已概述了 Buffett 先生的大部分经历。他是土生土长的 Nebraskaan，出生于 Omaha，高中就读于 Washington D.C.。他的父亲是一位投资银行家，同时也曾担任第二选区的联邦众议员——顺带一提，是共和党人。（Warren Buffett 和我大概是这个房间里仅有的两位民主党人。）

He received his degree from the University of Nebraska College of Business Administration; he then went to Columbia University for a masters, where he studied under Benjamin Graham, who was a friend and mentor for his life. He started, as I think many of you know, modestly in the mid-50’s with a limited partnership, some friends and some relatives and about $100,000 of his money. He’s built that into the financial empire of Berkshire Hathaway, and he has now become the richest person in America.

他在 University of Nebraska 的 College of Business Administration 获得学位；随后赴 Columbia University 攻读硕士，师从其一生的朋友兼导师 Benjamin Graham。正如诸位所知，他在50年代中期以相当朴素的方式起步，设立一个有限合伙，用一些朋友与亲属的资金加上自有资金，总计约10万美元。他将其发展为 Berkshire Hathaway 的金融帝国，并已成为全美最富有的人。

Now, I know that some of you have seen Forbes, and Bill Gates has supposedly passed him in the last year. But nobody wants to tell Warren that. Today, we’re going to say he is the richest person in the United States. Besides, we’d already invited him before he slipped.

当然，我知道诸位有人看过 Forbes，称 Bill Gates 去年已超过他。但没人愿意把这事告诉 Warren。今天，我们就说他是美国最富的人。再说，我们在他“被反超”之前就已经发出邀请了。

But wealth is not a very good definer of the man. He has said he enjoys the process far more than the proceeds, and I think that’s true. He got his wealth the old fashioned way—he earned it. And he did it not by the sweat of his brow, but by leveraging his brain. And he did it by using his own assets and not somebody else’s, and certainly not somebody else’s debt. He did it by thinking, and that doesn’t sound too unique but in one of his annual reports, he quotes the observation of Burton Russell “that most men would rather die than think and many do.” And he says this applies with unusual force in the financial world. Not only is he a thinker, he’s an investor; he’s not a speculator; he builds; he doesn’t tear down. He creates jobs; he doesn’t displace persons. And talking about investing and speculation, he writes, “Indeed, we believe that according the name ‘investors’ to institutions that trade actively is like calling someone who repeatedly engages in one-night stands’ ‘a romantic.’”

但财富并不能很好地定义此人。他说过自己更享受过程而非收益，我认为这确实如此。他以“老派”的方式获得财富——靠赚来的。而且并非凭体力流汗，而是凭头脑的杠杆；并且使用的是自有资产，而非他人的，更不是借用他人的负债。他靠思考致富，这听起来并非稀奇，但他在某年股东信中引用过 Burton Russell 的评语：“大多数人宁愿死也不愿思考，而且许多人确实如此。”他还说，这一点在金融世界尤为贴切。他不仅是思想者，更是投资者；他不是投机客；他选择建设，而非拆毁；他创造就业，而非挤走岗位。谈及投资与投机，他写道：“确实，把频繁交易的机构称为‘投资者’，就像把反复进行一夜情的人称为‘浪漫主义者’一样。”

In his annual reports that you’ve read avidly, he quotes unusual people. Talking about diversity as not being necessarily good, he quotes Mae West, “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful.” In talking about extracting himself from a bad deal that he felt was a bargain when he went into it, he refers to a gentleman in a country western song that said, “My wife ran away with my best friend and I still miss him a lot.” His style, his humility, his lack of pretense is probably best represented or at least well represented in setting up some details for this lecture. One of the questions was, “Do you want extra security here?” His answer, “We don’t need any security; just ask the attendees to check any soft fruit at the door.”

在他那些令你们如饥似渴阅读的年度报告中，他常引用一些“非典型”的人物之言。谈到多元并非必然之善，他引用 Mae West 的话：“好东西多多益善，简直太美妙了。”谈到摆脱一桩起初看似便宜后来却很糟的交易时，他借用一首乡村西部歌曲里某位先生的话：“我老婆跟我最好的朋友跑了，我至今仍十分想念他。”他的风格、谦逊与不做作，或许在本次讲座筹备的细节上体现得最为充分。有人问：“需要额外安保吗？”他的回答是：“不需要安保；只要请来宾在门口寄存一切软质水果就好。”

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to present a true legend in his own time, the oracle of Omaha, Warren E. Buffett.

女士们、先生们，我非常荣幸向各位介绍一位当代真正的传奇——“奥马哈先知”——Warren E. Buffett。

Warren Buffett’s opening remarks and conversation with students:

沃伦·巴菲特开场白及与学生对话：

Testing. One million, two million, three million…. Somebody yelled out from the back, earlier, “I can’t hear you.” I was giving a speech a few weeks ago and the same thing happened. Somebody said, “I can’t hear you.” And, then someone in the front stood up and said, “I can. Let’s change places.”

测试，一百万，两百万，三百万…… 刚才有人在后面喊：“我听不见你说话。” 几周前我在演讲时也遇到同样的情况，有人说：“我听不见你。” 然后前排有人站起来说：“我能听见，咱们换个位置吧。”

It’s really good to be here today. I have a lot of great memories of the University. My mother and father met here when my dad was editor of the Daily Nebraskaan in 1924. My mother had worked for her father’s tiny paper in West Point. And so, when she came here, she went into the Daily Nebraskaan to apply for a job and met my dad there. Within a couple of years, they were married. Then about twenty-five years later or thereabouts, after two years at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, I transferred here and I must say that I thought that my year here was considerably superior to either of the years I’d had at Wharton. I got a lot of education. Ray Dein from here was a terrific accounting professor at that time. We were reminiscing earlier a little bit about Carl Arndt, who taught Economics. Professor Arndt, when he taught Economics, would leave the room during the exams. We thought that was very trusting of him. He explained that, well, he could do that because, although we had the same exam, he had different answers for the odd and even numbered seats.

今天能来到这里我感到非常高兴。我在这所大学有许多美好的回忆。1924年，我父亲担任《Daily Nebraskaan》主编时，就在这里遇见了我的母亲。母亲曾在她父亲位于 West Point 的小报社工作，所以来到这里后，她去《Daily Nebraskaan》应聘工作，就在那里遇见了父亲。几年后，他们结了婚。大约25年后，也就是我在宾夕法尼亚大学 Wharton School 学习两年之后，我转学到了这里。我必须说，我在这里的那一年远比我在 Wharton 的两年收获更多。我接受了很多教育。当时 Ray Dein 是一位出色的会计学教授。我们刚才还聊起经济学教授 Carl Arndt 的一些回忆。Arndt 教授在考试时会离开考场，我们觉得这真是对学生的极大信任。他解释说，他之所以能这样做，是因为虽然大家拿到的是同一份试卷，但坐在单号和双号座位的学生会有不同的答案。

I would like to talk to the students, primarily, a little bit about your future because an experience I had a couple of years ago may tie in with that. Then we’ll get into questions and what’s on your mind. But I did have an experience in 1991 that may have some applicability to you students in the room.

我主要想跟学生们聊聊你们的未来，因为我几年前的一次经历可能与你们相关。然后我们会进入提问环节，回答你们关心的问题。但我确实在1991年经历了一件事，可能对在座的同学们有所启发。

What happened then was that on a Friday, August 14, 1991, I received a phone call at a quarter of seven in the morning. And, it woke me up, I’m sorry to admit. That early-to-bed, early-to-rise stuff is, well, you can forget that. I’m not going to give you any of that. In any event, I got this call and on the other end were some people in a conference room, obviously on a speaker phone. They told me that the top management of Salomon had been told the previous night, by the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (and he is the most important man in financial markets in the world; he is not that well known, the Chairman of the Fed would be better known), but the President of the New York Fed, in terms of financial markets is number one, and his name is Jerry Corigan. Mr. Corigan had told the top management of Salomon that they were unacceptable to be running the institution; and he meant, immediately. So they decided the next morning that they were going to leave. They had to leave. And they were calling to say that as of that time there was no one there to run the institution.

事情发生在1991年8月14日星期五早上6点45分，我接到一个电话，把我吵醒了（很抱歉承认这一点）。早睡早起这一套，你们就别指望我来讲了。总之，我接起电话，对面是一个会议室里的几个人，显然是在用免提电话。他们告诉我，Salomon 的高层管理人员前一晚被纽约联邦储备银行行长告知（他是全球金融市场中最重要的人，虽然不像美联储主席那么出名，但在金融市场层面，他才是真正的第一位，他的名字叫 Jerry Corigan），Corigan 先生告诉 Salomon 的高层，他们不再被接受继续经营公司，意思是立即下台。所以他们决定第二天早上必须离开。他们打电话是要告诉我，从那一刻起，已经没人来运营这家公司了。

That was a rather serious situation because at that time, Salomon owed more money than any other institution in the United States, with the exception of Citicorp, the big bank. Citicorp owed a little over $200 billion. Salomon’s total liabilities were just under $150 billion. Now, $150 billion was roughly equal to the profits of all of the companies on the New York Stock Exchange in that year. So, it was more money than the Bank of America owed. It was more money than American Express owed. It was more money than Fannie Mae owed. Only Citicorp owed more money. The problem about this $150 billion was that basically, it almost all came due within the next couple of weeks. Unlike Citicorp or the Bank of America or Manny Hanny or the other big banks, people who had lent money to Salomon were not protected by FDIC insurance, so they could not look to the government that way. And, they were also not protected by what’s called the “Too Big To Fail Doctrine”. Basically, people feel, although the Fed has not been terribly specific about it, that any of the really big banks will not be allowed to fail because the Fed is worried about a domino effect. So, if people were worried about the solvency of Citicorp or Chase or somebody like that, they didn’t really worry about their deposits there because they had both FDIC insurance and they had this “Too Big To Fail Doctrine”. Salomon had neither. So, we were faced with the fact all over the world, because this money was owed all over the world, that people on that Friday and the following Monday were going to want us to pay back $140 odd billion or something close to it, which is not the easiest thing to do.

那是个相当严重的局面，因为当时 Salomon 欠的钱比美国任何一家机构都多，除了 Citicorp 这家大银行。Citicorp 的负债刚超过2000亿美元，而 Salomon 的总负债接近1500亿美元。要知道，1500亿美元大致等于当年纽约证券交易所所有公司总利润。所以这笔钱比 Bank of America 所欠的还多，比 American Express 欠的还多，比 Fannie Mae 欠的还多。只有 Citicorp 的负债更多。问题在于，这1500亿美元几乎全都在接下来的几周内到期。与 Citicorp、Bank of America 或 Manny Hanny 等大型银行不同，借钱给 Salomon 的人并没有 FDIC 保险作为保障，无法依赖政府兜底。而且他们也没有所谓“太大而不能倒”的保护。基本上，市场普遍认为，尽管美联储从未明确说明，但任何一家真正的大银行都不会被允许倒闭，因为美联储担心多米诺骨牌效应。所以，如果人们担心 Citicorp 或 Chase 这样的银行的偿付能力，他们并不会真正担心自己在那里的存款，因为既有 FDIC 保险，又有“太大而不能倒”的保护。Salomon 却两者都没有。所以我们面对的现实是，这些债务遍布全球，到了那周五和接下来的周一，全球各地的债权人都会要求我们偿还大约1400亿美元，这可不是一件容易做到的事。

I went to New York that afternoon, and I met with Mr. Corigan that night. I won’t forget that because when I went in, in kind of a light way, I said to Mr. Corigan, “The only thing I owe personally is $70,000 on a second home I have in California and that is because the interest rate is cheap. I may need a little help,” and I smiled kind of weakly. He gave me this steely look and he said, “Prepare for all eventualities”. I didn’t know exactly what he meant by that but I certainly thought of strychnine or something of the sort. So anyway, one immediate problem I had was that my basic job was going to be dealing with regulators and Congress and all that sort of thing. And, essentially, we had to reassure the world, between that Friday night and the following Monday morning, that Salomon was not going to collapse or we were going to have a run on the bank.

那天下午我去了纽约，当晚与 Corigan 先生见面。我永远不会忘记，当我以一种轻松的语气对他说：“我个人唯一的债务是加州一套第二住宅的7万美元贷款，那只是因为利率便宜。我可能需要一点帮助。”我还带着有点心虚的笑容。他冷冷地看着我说：“做好一切准备。”我不太明白他确切的意思，但我脑子里闪过氰化物之类的念头。无论如何，我眼前的当务之急是，我的基本工作将是与监管机构和国会打交道。我们必须在那个星期五晚上到下周一早晨之间，向全世界保证 Salomon 不会倒闭，否则就会爆发挤兑。

This is where the story starts becoming applicable to this group. One of the things I immediately had to do was to find somebody to run the place. This was a company with 8,000 employees; perhaps 500 or more in Tokyo and 1,000 or more in London. And, spread all over the world, we owed $10 or $15 billion in Japan and similar amounts in Europe. So, there was a real problem, in terms of who was actually going to run the place day to day.

这就是故事开始对你们有借鉴意义的地方。我当时立即要做的一件事是找一个人来运营公司。那是一家拥有8000名员工的公司，仅在东京就有500多人，在伦敦超过1000人。遍布全球，我们在日本欠了100亿至150亿美元，在欧洲也有类似的债务。所以，真正负责日常运营的人选问题极其关键。

This is a company that, because it has a very big government securities operation, now does over $200 billion of business a day. You don’t make very much money on it, but that’s close to three times as much business as Wal-Mart does in a year. Now, it is a different sort of business. But it does require someone who knows what is going on, and I didn’t know the business or the details of the business at all. So, I was faced on that Friday night with the problem of deciding who would run this place and then making a recommendation to the Board, that was going to meet on Sunday. There were about a dozen candidates for that job who were high up in Salomon. I only knew four or five of them by their faces. I knew most of the twelve by name, but I only had met four or five of them. This was the most important hiring decision in my life.

这家公司由于有庞大的政府证券业务，每天的交易额超过2000亿美元。虽然利润并不多，但这个规模几乎是 Wal-Mart 一年业务量的三倍。虽然业务性质不同，但它确实需要一个非常了解状况的人来掌舵，而我对这门业务及其细节一无所知。所以，在那个星期五晚上，我必须面对一个难题：决定由谁来运营公司，并在周日董事会召开时提出推荐。大约有十二位候选人，都是 Salomon 的高层。我只认识其中四五位的面孔，大多数人只是知道名字，却没见过面。这是我一生中最重要的一次招聘决策。

I hope all of you are going to go out and get hired in the next few years. And, it might be interesting to know what went through my mind in making that important hiring decision because it may be going through the minds of some of the people that you will be facing in the next few years. What I did was interview those twelve people. We had one discussion on Friday night because they were in an uproar about something or other, and then the next morning, I interviewed these people serially over a three- or four-hour period. Now, the good news is that I did not ask them their grades in business school. You can relax. But, the bad news is, of course, that I didn’t even ask them whether they went to business school. I did not ask for their résumé. I never saw a résumé on the fellow that I decided on. I really had to decide in that time who was going to be the best person for me to go into a fox hole with and who was going to be able to lead this organization during an extremely difficult period, when people would be quitting, when customers would be badgering them, and when lenders would be pulling out—all of that sort of thing. I didn’t give them an IQ test. I had twelve people there who all were smart enough to run the place. And, most of the people in this room, a very significant majority, would be smart enough to run the place.

我希望在未来几年里，你们都能出去并获得理想的工作。也许了解我在做出那次重要用人决定时的思考会对你们有趣，因为在未来几年你们面对的一些人，也可能会有类似的思考。我所做的是面试那十二个人。我们在周五晚上进行了一次讨论，因为他们因某些事情闹得沸沸扬扬；然后第二天早上，我在三到四个小时里依次面试了这些人。先说个好消息：我没有问他们在商学院的成绩。你们可以放心了。但坏消息当然是：我甚至没有问他们是否上过商学院。我没有要他们的简历。我从未看过我最终决定任用的那位的简历。我必须在那段时间里决定：谁是能让我愿意与之同赴战壕的人，谁能在极其艰难的时期领导这个组织——那时会有人辞职，客户会不断纠缠，

而放贷人会抽走资金——诸如此类。我没给他们做 IQ 测试。在场的十二个人都足够聪明，可以胜任这份工作。而在座的大多数人、绝大多数人，也都足够聪明来胜任这份工作。

Most businesses do not require somebody with a staggering IQ. I wasn’t looking for Forrest Gump, either. But, the dozen or so had all the IQ necessary; they had all the drive necessary. These are people who were used to working twelve hour days and had lots of push. So, it was not a question of energy. It was a question of who, in my view, with both of those qualities already a given, really was the highest quality individual. It was the person who would not stick a gun to my head after he took the job, because I couldn’t afford to fire whoever came in and I couldn’t afford to have him quit on me when the going got tough a week or two weeks or month later, because with one more event like that, it would have been curtains. So, I really had to be sure of the steadfastness of the individual. I had to be sure he was up to it temperamentally, because the pressures would be enormous.

大多数企业并不需要一个 IQ 高得惊人的人。我也不是在寻找 Forrest Gump。不过，这十来个人都具备必要的智商，也都有充足的干劲。这些人习惯每天工作十二个小时，动力十足。所以问题不在精力上。问题在于：在我看来，在智力与精力都已满足的前提下，谁才是真正素质最高的人。我要找的是那个上任之后不会“拿枪指着我脑袋”的人——因为我既无法承受把新上任的人解雇，也无法承受他在一两周或一两个月后局势艰难时撂挑子走人；再来一次这样的变故，我们就要“落幕”了。所以我必须确定这个人足够坚定。我得确定他的性情能扛得住，因为压力将会巨大。

The person I decided on never asked me then; he never asked me a week later; he never asked me a month later, what the pay was. Basically, he was a battlefield promotion and he behaved like he was a battlefield promotion. He could have come to me and said, “Look, I could go over to Goldman Sachs and make ‘X’ this year and this is going to be much tougher so I want 150% of ‘X’ from you”. He never said a word about that. As a matter a fact, in the first year, just to set an example, he reduced his pay, running the whole place for less than he had made running the Tokyo office the year before. He never asked me to indemnify him against the lawsuits that would be forthcoming if the place failed. If things had gone bad, and you couldn’t tell whether they would or not, we were going to get sued by everybody in the world. And, if Salomon had gone under, its indemnification would have been no good.

我选中的那个人当时没有问；一周后没有问；一个月后也没有问他的薪酬是多少。从本质上说，这是一次“战场晋升”，而他的举止也完全像是在战场上被破格提拔。他本可以来找我说：“听着，我今年去 Goldman Sachs 可以拿到‘X’，而这份工作更难，我要你给我 150% 的‘X’。”但他一句也没提。事实上，第一年他还为了树立榜样主动降薪——掌管整个公司拿的还不如前一年管理东京办事处时多。他从未要求我为公司倒闭可能引发的诉讼提供个人赔偿。如果事情变糟——而你无法确定会不会变糟——全世界的人都会来告我们。而一旦 Salomon 垮了，它的赔偿承诺也无济于事。

So, it would have been perfectly reasonable for this person to say, “Well look, I’ll take this job but who knows what’s going to happen and if it happens, Salomon isn’t going to be good for it. So why doesn’t Berkshire Hathaway or why don’t you personally indemnify me against the lawsuits I’ll be facing the rest of my life if this goes sour?” He never said a word about it. It wasn’t because he was dumb and didn’t know enough to ask that. He just felt it was not the right thing to do under those circumstances. So, in the end, I picked out the individual there who I felt was an outstanding human being. He never let me down. He took on that job the next day. We came out of a directors’ meeting at three in the afternoon. And, there were these twelve people out there and I just walked up to him and said to him, “You’re it, pal”. And, we went right from there down the elevator to meet a couple hundred reporters who had come in on a Sunday afternoon and who were plenty hostile in some ways. He sat up there on the stage with me and answered questions for three hours. And, I knew then I had made the right choice.

所以，这个人如果说：“好吧，我接这个活儿，但谁知道会发生什么；一旦真的出事，Salomon 也赔不起。那为什么不由 Berkshire Hathaway，或者你本人，为我今后可能面临的终身诉讼提供赔偿保证呢？”——这完全说得过去。而他从未说过这样的话，并不是因为他愚蠢，不知道可以这么提；只是他觉得在那种情形下这么做不合适。于是，最后我选定了我认为是个杰出“人”的那位。他从未让我失望。第二天他就走马上任。下午三点我们走出董事会，会外站着那十二个人，我径直走到他面前对他说：“就是你，伙计。”随后我们直接乘电梯下楼，面对一个周日下午赶来的、在某些方面颇为敌意的两三百名记者。他与我同台坐下，回答了三个小时的问题。那一刻我就知道我做对了选择。

Now, the interesting thing about that choice is that the qualities that attracted me to him were not impossible for anyone to achieve. He didn’t have to be able to jump seven feet. He didn’t have to be able to throw a football sixty yards. He didn’t have to be able to remember every bridge hand he played the previous year or something of the sort. There was no feat of intellect or something like that. What he did was bring qualities like steadfastness and honesty. I knew he would tell me the bad news. I always worry about that with people who work for me. They don’t need to tell me the good news. I just want to hear the bad news. I knew he would not get his ego involved in decisions. I knew he would not be envious or greedy or all of those things that make people unattractive. And, the truth is, that anybody can have those same qualities that Deryck Maughan, the fellow I picked, exhibited. They are not feats that are beyond anyone. They are simply a matter of deciding what you are going to do and what kind of person you are going to make out of yourself, and then doing it.

而关于这次选择，有趣的是：吸引我的那些品质，并不是任何人都无法达到的。他不需要能跳过七英尺高。他不需要能把橄榄球扔出六十码。他不需要能记住前一年打过的每一副桥牌牌局，或类似的本领。并不存在什么惊人的智力绝技。真正重要的是他带来的那些品质，比如坚定与诚实。我知道他会把坏消息告诉我。我一直担心为我工作的人会不报坏消息。好消息不用告诉我，我只想听坏消息。我知道他不会把自我带进决策。我知道他不会嫉妒，不会贪婪，也不会有那些让人反感的毛病。事实是，任何人都可以具备我所选择的那位——Deryck Maughan——所展现的同样品质。这些并非谁也达不到的壮举。它们只是关乎你决定要做什么、要把自己塑造成什么样的人，然后身体力行。

John mentioned Ben Graham, who was my teacher at Columbia University. When he was twelve years old, he sat down and made a list of the qualities he admired in other people; and he made a list also of the qualities that he found unattractive in other people. He decided that it was just an act of will and then habit to develop those attractive qualities and to get rid of the unattractive qualities. Anybody can show up on time; they cannot claim credit for ideas that are not their own; they cannot cut corners; they can avoid envy. All of those things are doable and they make an enormous difference in how you function, not only in your job but in society subsequently.

John 提到了 Ben Graham，他是我在 Columbia University 的老师。他在十二岁时坐下来，列了一张清单：一张是他在别人身上所钦佩的品质；另一张是他在别人身上所反感的品质。他决定：培养前者、去除后者，只需要意志，然后把它变成习惯。任何人都可以做到准时出现；不把不属于自己的点子据为己有；不偷工减料；不心生嫉妒。这些都是可行的，并且会对你的行为方式产生巨大影响，不仅在工作中，也在你之后的社会生活中。

I’ll give one more illustration. Let’s just assume when you got out of school, that you won a lottery of some sort and you were entitled to pick one of your classmates, and you got 10% of the earnings of that classmate for the rest of his or her life. You had about an hour to make up your mind. Now we’ll leave out picking the son or daughter of the richest person around or something of the sort; let’s say we’re all starting from scratch. Now, who would you pick? Just think about that for a moment. You wouldn’t give them an IQ test. You probably wouldn’t look at their grades. You’d probably think, who’s going to function best when they get out there? If they had a 300 horsepower motor, who’s going to get 300 horsepower out of it instead of 150 or 100? You’d look for who is going to function best. And, you would look for people with those qualities that you admire, but which are also attainable by you and which become a matter of habit after time.

我再举一个例子。假设你毕业时中了某种彩票，可以从同学中选一个人，并在其余生中获得他或她收入的 10%。你有大约一小时来决定。我们先不考虑去挑某个富豪的子女之类的情况；就假设大家都是从零开始。那么你会选谁？想一想。你不会让他们做 IQ 测试。你大概也不会看他们的成绩。你会想：谁在走向社会后“发挥”得最好？如果他们有一台 300 马力的发动机，谁能把 300 马力都发挥出来，而不是只发挥 150 或 100？你会寻找那个“发挥”最好的人。同时，你会寻找那些具备你所钦佩的品质的人——而这些品质也是你自己能够达到、并能随着时间变成习惯的。

Somebody said that the chains of habit are too light to be felt until they’re too heavy to be broken. It’s absolutely true that the habits of behavior you start out with will follow you the rest of your life. And, as you think about that person whom you would like to buy the 10% of, the person whom you find admirable or attractive, the answer is that if you want to sit down and do it yourself, you can be the one that you would buy 10% of. It is not that difficult. One friend of mine said that in hiring they look for three things: intelligence, energy, and character. If they don’t have the last one, the first two will kill you because, it’s true, if you are going to hire somebody that doesn’t have character, you had really better hope they are dumb and lazy, because, if they are smart and energetic, they’ll get you in all kinds of trouble. Well, that’s enough of the advice.

有人说，习惯之链轻到你感觉不到时，已重到你难以挣脱。这完全正确：你最初形成的行为习惯会伴随你一生。当你思考那个你愿意“买下 10%”的同学——那个你觉得值得钦佩的人——答案其实是：如果你愿意坐下来认真做，你完全可以把自己打造成那个你愿意“买 10% 股权”的人。这并不难。我的一位朋友说，在招聘时他们看三样东西：智力、精力和品格。如果缺了最后一个，前两个会害死你。因为确实如此：如果你雇用一个没有品格的人，你最好祈祷他又笨又懒；否则，如果他既聪明又有干劲，他会把你拖进各种麻烦。好了，建议就到这里。

Let’s tackle the questions that you are interested in. Make them as tough and impertinent as you like because it makes it more interesting for me and it probably makes it more interesting for the audience. So, feel free to throw your hard one.

现在我们来回答你们关心的问题。尽管把问题提难、提尖刻一些吧——这对我来说更有趣，对听众可能也更有趣。尽管把你们的“杀手锏”抛过来。

Q. In a sentence or less, could you please tell me what is your personal philosophy of life? And then my follow-up question, why?

问：能否用一句话或更少的字概括一下你的人生哲学？然后我的追问是，为什么？

A. Well, I’m not sure I have any brilliant philosophy of life. I certainly enjoy life. I like my life as much as anybody possibly could. I mean, I love every day and one reason I do is that I am fortunate in that I only work with people I like. I consider myself very lucky to be in that position. If you work in a job where your stomach churns and you find yourself dreading going to work and all that sort of thing, essentially, that is really like marrying for money, which is probably a dumb idea under any circumstances. And, it’s absolute madness if you are already rich. I’ve been very fortunate in that I have no stress whatsoever. I’m going to try and outlive Mrs. B. I mean it. I tap dance on the way to work. I do believe in working at something you enjoy. I gave this advice one time at Harvard when somebody asked me, ‘Who should I work for?’ I said, ‘Well, go work for somebody you admire. You’re bound to get a good result.’ A couple of weeks later, I received a call from the Dean, and he said, ‘What did you tell that group? They’ve all decided to become self-employed!’

答：嗯，我不确定自己有人生方面多么高明的哲学。我当然很享受生活。我对自己的生活喜欢到极致。我的意思是，我热爱每一天，其中一个原因是我很幸运，只与我喜欢的人一起工作。我认为自己在这种位置上非常幸运。如果你从事一份让你胃里翻腾、让你害怕去上班的工作，从本质上讲，那就像为了钱而结婚——无论在什么情况下，这大概都是个愚蠢的主意。而如果你已经富有，那就更是绝对的疯狂。我相当幸运，毫无压力。我打算活得比 Mrs. B 更久。我是认真的。我上班的路上都会“踢踏起舞”。我确实相信，应该做你喜欢的事。有一次在 Harvard，有人问我，“我该为谁工作？”我说，“去为你钦佩的人工作。你一定会有好结果。”几周后，我接到院长的电话，他说，“你跟那群人说了什么？他们全都决定去自雇了！”

Q. If you could look in your crystal ball, what kind of sector stocks would you look into in the next few years? What kind of stocks do you think will boom?

问：如果你能看水晶球，未来几年你会关注哪些行业的股票？你认为哪类股票会大涨？

A. That’s an academic question if I ever heard one. Just a little theoretical.

答：这是个典型的学院派问题。我听着就很理论化。

Q. What exactly do you do all day?

问：你一天到底都在做些什么？

A. Getting right to the core here, aren’t you? I spend an inordinate amount of time reading. I probably read at least six hours a day, maybe more. And I spend an hour or two on the telephone. And I think. That’s about it. We have no meetings at Berkshire. We’ve never had. We have businesses around the country; we have some 20,000 employees, but we’ve only had one meeting of our managers in the twenty-some years I’ve been there, to talk about health care–one time. But, they never come to Omaha. We never have presentations. We don’t have a slide projector. We don’t do any of that sort of thing. Our board of directors meets once a year, right after the annual meeting. We have lunch and that’s it, because I hate meetings, frankly. I have created something that I enjoy: I happen to enjoy reading a lot, and I happen to enjoy thinking about things. It is a little crazy, it seems to me, if you are building a business and creating a business, not to create something you are going to enjoy when you get through. It’s like painting a painting. I mean, you ought to paint something you are going to enjoy looking at when you get through.

答：你这是直击要害，是吧？我把大量时间用来阅读。我每天大概至少读六个小时，可能更多。我还会花一到两个小时打电话。然后我思考。差不多就这些。我们在 Berkshire 不开会。我们从来不开。我们在全国各地有业务；大约有两万名员工，但我在那二十多年里，管理层只开过一次会，只为讨论医疗保健——就一次。而且他们从不来 Omaha。我们从不做展示。我们连幻灯机都没有。我们不做那一套。我们的董事会一年只开一次会，就在年度股东大会之后。我们吃个午饭，就结束了，因为坦白说我讨厌开会。我打造了一个自己喜欢的工作方式：我碰巧很喜欢大量阅读，也碰巧喜欢思考问题。在我看来，如果你在打造一家企业、创建一项事业，却没有把它做成一个你完成后会享受的东西，那就有点疯狂。这就像画一幅画。我的意思是，你应该画出一幅你完成后会喜欢看的画。

Now, I know I’m avoiding your first question about what I should buy this afternoon. I don’t think much about that. I don’t think at all about what the stock market will do or what given stocks will do in the very short term. We do try to own, and to look at stocks, as pieces of businesses. And, that is crucial in my view to the investing process; that is, to not think about a stock as a little ticker symbol or something that goes up or down, or something of the sort, but to think about the business that you own…. Same way if you were deciding on a business to buy in Lincoln. You might think about buying a dry cleaning store or a grocery store or whatever. You wouldn’t think about what this business is going to be selling for tomorrow or next week or anything. You would think about whether it’s going be a good business over a long period of time. And that’s what we try and do. So, if you look at the portfolio of Berkshire, you will see the kind of businesses that we like to own.

另外，我知道我在回避你第一个问题——我今天下午该买什么。我根本不怎么想这个。我完全不去想股市短期会怎么走，或某只股票在极短期会怎样。我们确实努力把股票当成企业的一部分来持有、来审视。在我看来，这对投资过程至关重要；也就是，不要把股票当成一个小小的行情代码，或一个上上下下的东西，而是把它当作你所拥有的企业……就像你要在 Lincoln 买一家企业一样。你可能会考虑买一家干洗店或一家杂货店，或其他什么。你不会考虑这家店明天或下周能卖多少钱。你会考虑它在长期里是不是一家好生意。而这正是我们努力在做的。因此，如果你看 Berkshire 的投资组合，你会看到我们喜欢拥有的那类企业。

Our biggest single holding is Coca-Cola. We own a lot of Gillette. Those are two of the most dominant companies in the world in their field. And they are also companies that are not subject to a lot of change. We don’t want to own things where the world is going to

change rapidly because I don’t think I can see change that well or any better than the next fellow. So, I really want something that I think is going to be quite stable, that has very good economics going for it. Coca-Cola sells 47% of all the soft drinks in the world. That is seven hundred and fifty million eight-ounce servings a day around the world. That means if you increase the price of Coke one penny, you would add two and a half billion dollars pre-tax to the earnings. So, that’s the kind of thing I can figure out. And, Gillette, I mean Gillette is marvelous. Gillette supplies over 60% of the dollar value of razor blades in the world. When I go to bed at night and I think of all those billions of males sitting there with hair growing on their faces while I sleep, that can put you to sleep very comfortably.

我们最大的一项持股是 Coca-Cola。我们持有很多 Gillette。这两家公司都是其领域里全球最具主导力的企业。而且它们也不是那种会受到大量变化冲击的公司。我们不想持有那些世界会迅速改变的东西，因为我不认为自己看得清变化，或比别人看得更清。所以我真正想要的是我认为相当稳定、而且有很强经济属性加持的东西。Coca-Cola 销售了全球 47% 的软饮料。这相当于全球每天 7.5 亿份八盎司的饮用量。这意味着如果把 Coke 的价格每份提高一美分，就能为税前利润增加 25 亿美元。这样的账我算得过来。至于 Gillette，我的意思是，Gillette 太棒了。Gillette 供应了全球剃须刀片以美元计价超过 60% 的份额。晚上我躺下睡觉时，一想到全世界数十亿男性在我睡觉的时候脸上的胡子还在生长，这足以让我睡得很踏实。

Q. Have you ever thought of opening your own stock school?

问：你有没有想过自己办一所股票学校？

A. No, I’ve got my occupation for the rest of my life. I plan to keep running Berkshire Hathaway.

答：没有。我这辈子的职业已经定了。我打算一直经营 Berkshire Hathaway。

Q. The problem with money is that it tends to flow toward the emotional part of the human being. And, I guess what fascinates me about you, in what I have observed in the media and so forth, is that you tend to keep a clear, cool head. For example, when you hired that fellow from the Tokyo office, you were adding up certain factors that were tangibles. I wonder if you do the same when you buy stocks, and what happens when they turn out to be “dogs”, like USAir and Salomon Brothers. Obviously, those didn’t pan out as expected when you bought them; however in the fullness of time, one can never tell.

问：金钱的问题在于，它往往会流向人性情绪的一面。而据我在媒体等处观察，你让我着迷的一点是你总能保持清醒冷静。比如你从东京办事处提拔那位高管时，你在加总一些可度量的因素。我想知道你在买股票时是否也这样做；如果它们最后变成“狗股”，比如 USAir 和 Salomon Brothers，又会怎样？显然，你买它们时并没有如预期发展；不过从更长的时间看，谁也说不准。

A. You can probably tell on one of them, anyway.

答：至少其中一只，你大概现在已经能看出来了。

Q. If you are talking about Salomon Brothers, I think you once referred to them as a cash cow; however, when you buy a stock like that, how much of it is just simply a result of Warren Buffett’s many, many years of reading six hours, making phone calls, and thinking at night? Or, how much of it comes down to a gambler’s feel or intuition? Is it that much?

问：如果你说的是 Salomon Brothers，我记得你曾把它称为现金奶牛；不过，当你买入那样一只股票时，有多少成分只是来源于 Warren Buffett 多年每天六小时阅读、打电话、夜里思考的积累？又有多少是赌徒式的感觉或直觉？会有那么多吗？

A. I would say there is no hunch or intuitiveness or anything of the sort. I mean, I try to sit down and figure out what the future economic prospects of a business are. I try to figure out whether the management is someone or some group I both trust and admire, and I try to figure out whether the price is right. I mean that: It’s the right business, the right people, and the right price. There are a whole bunch of businesses I don’t know the answer on. If you take all the companies on the New York Stock Exchange, a couple thousand plus, I don’t have a view on a great many of them. I am familiar with them but I just don’t have the faintest idea what is going to happen in the future. So, I try to narrow it down to what I call my “circle of competence”. The important thing in your circle of competence is not how big the circle is. It isn’t the area of it. It’s how well you define the perimeter. So you know when you are in it, and you know when you are outside of it. And, if I have any advantage, it’s probably that I know when I know what I’m doing, and I know when I don’t know what I’m doing. That’s key in the securities business. You have to make very few correct decisions in securities to get very rich. You don’t have to do a hundred smart things. If we do one smart thing a year, (a) my partner will be surprised, and (b) that’s plenty. I mean, that’s more than enough. And, that’s all I want to do. So, I’m looking for the one idea.

答：我会说没有什么直觉或灵光一现之类的东西。我的意思是，我会静下心来判断一家企业未来的经济前景；我会判断管理层是否是我既信任又钦佩的人或团队；我会判断价格是否合适。我说的就是：对的生意、对的人、对的价格。很多企业我没有答案。把纽约证券交易所几千家公司都摆上来，其中相当一部分我没有观点。我也许熟悉它们，但对其未来会发生什么毫无头绪。所以我会把范围缩小到我所谓的“能力圈”。在你的能力圈里，重要的不是圈有多大、面积有多广，而是你把边界定义得多清楚——这样你知道自己什么时候在圈内、什么时候在圈外。如果我有任何优势，大概就是我知道什么时候自己知道在做什么，什么时候自己不知道在做什么。这在证券业是关键。要致富，你只需要做出很少的正确决策；不必做一百件聪明事。如果我们一年只做成一件聪明事，（a）我的合伙人会感到惊讶，（b）那就足够了。我的意思是，那已经绰绰有余。这也是我唯一想做的。所以我一直在寻找那“一个点子”。

But you are correct that everything I look at over the years, all the reading I do and everything, comes together at some point in terms of giving me the feeling that this particular decision is within my “circle of competence”. And, when it is within it, I’m willing to go very big. I do not believe in taking baby steps when you see something that you really

understand. I never want to do anything on a small scale because, what’s the reason? If I’m doing it on a small scale because I’m not that sure of my opinion, I’ll forget it entirely and go onto something I’m sure about.

不过你说得对，多年来我看的所有东西、我做的所有阅读，最终都会在某个时刻汇聚，让我感到某个决策处在我的“能力圈”之内。而一旦在圈内，我就愿意大举出手。我不相信在真正理解的事情上“迈小步”。我从不想小打小闹——那有什么意义？如果之所以小规模介入是因为我对自己的判断不够确定，那我就干脆放弃它，转去做我有把握的事情。

Q. Yesterday in the World Herald, it was reported that a multi-millionaire with no blood relatives left $5.6 million to the U.S. government.

问：昨天《World Herald》报道说，一位没有直系亲属的千万富翁把 560 万美元留给了美国政府。

A. I saw that.

答：我看到了。

Q. And that money would cover less than two minutes of government spending. If you had no blood relatives and no charitable foundation, would you leave your money to the government? Assuming, of course, it would take longer to spend your fortune.

问：而那点钱连政府两分钟的开支都不够。如果你既没有直系亲属也没有慈善基金，你会把钱留给政府吗？当然，假设花光你的财富会更久一点。

A. Well, I have one of the blood relatives here today who’s monitoring what I’m saying. I read the other day about a fellow who left all of his money to his wife on the condition that she would remarry, so at least one man would mourn his passing. I would say this, when you rule out the philanthropic, that gets tough. If you leave it to the government, you’re leaving it to society, basically. I would rather leave it to people, very high-grade intelligent people, to spend in the interests of society rather than simply to reduce the debt or the deficit that year.

答：嗯，今天我的一位直系亲属就在现场，正“监督”我说什么。前几天我读到一位男士把所有钱留给妻子，但条件是她必须再婚，这样至少会有一个男人为他的离世而哀悼。我的看法是：一旦排除了公益慈善，问题就变得棘手了。把钱留给政府，基本上就是留给社会。我宁愿把钱交给少数非常优秀、聪明的人，让他们以社会利益为目标来花，而不是简单地用来减少当年的债务或赤字。

You know, if you told me that I couldn’t leave it to an individual or to charity, I mean, at that point I would be pretty much stuck. It would be like having a 100% estate tax, in effect.

你知道，如果你告诉我既不能留给个人也不能留给慈善机构，那么我基本就被卡住了；实质上这等同于 100% 的遗产税。

I would say that I got my money from society. If you stuck me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru, I wouldn’t be worth a damn. I have some talents that are particularly suited to this particular economy. I get a lot from society. I get to live exactly the kind of life I want to live; and then not to give it back to society seems a little crazy to me. So, essentially, everything I have will go back. And, I will not try to direct what the trustees do ahead of time. I just want to pick very high grade people, smart people, very few people because if you get a large group, it will bureaucratize. I’ve got six trustees on the foundation and they will do a much better job above ground after I die than will be done if I start giving them instructions from beneath the ground. I’m very satisfied with the arrangement. The only thing I’ve instructed them to do is try and do something big. I don’t believe in lots of little things.

我会说，我的钱来自社会。要是把我丢在 Bangladesh 或 Peru 的某个地方，我根本一无是处。我的一些才能恰好适配这一特定经济体。我从社会得到很多——我得以按自己想要的方式生活——然后却不把它回馈给社会，在我看来有点疯狂。所以，原则上，我的一切都会回归社会。我不会事先指挥受托人该做什么。我只想挑选非常优秀、聪明、人数极少的人——因为一旦人多就会官僚化。我的基金会有六位受托人；在我去世后，他们在地面上做的事会比我在地下发指示要好得多。我对这样的安排很满意。我仅有的指示是：尽量做“大事”。我不相信把钱拆成一堆小事。

Q. Well we certainly hope you live to be 150, 200. Someone with your character needs to stay around.

问：我们当然希望你能活到 150 岁、200 岁。像你这样的人应当多留在世上。

A. Thank you. Thank you.

答：谢谢，谢谢。

Q. I was wondering if you had a role model.

问：我想知道你有没有榜样（role model）。

A. Yes. I call them heroes, but I’ve had a half a dozen or so heroes in my live. I’ve been extremely fortunate in that none of my heroes ever let me down. I never, never had a situation where I was disappointed in any one of the half a dozen or so, starting number one with my dad. And, that’s a great thing. I think it’s very important to have the right heroes. Now they call them role models or whatever; but you’re going to take your cues from somebody. You’re going to pick up the habits, and qualities, like I talked about earlier, from somebody. Fortunately I had some terrific people who were helpful to me in that regard. I went through a period, when we first moved to Washington, where I was antisocial for awhile. And, really having the right heroes pulled me through that as well as anything.

答：有。我称他们为英雄。我的一生大概有六位左右的英雄。我非常幸运，从未被任何一位英雄辜负过；从来没有一次让我失望——首先是我的父亲。这是件了不起的事。我认为拥有正确的英雄非常重要。现在人们称之为 role model 或别的什么，但你总会从某个人那里获取行为线索；正如我之前所说，你会从某些人那里习得习惯和品质。幸运的是，我遇到了几位在这方面非常了不起的人。我们刚搬到 Washington 的一段时间里，我一度有些反社会；真正把我从那段时期拉出来的，正是那些正确的英雄。

So I say, choose your heroes carefully, and then figure out what it is about them that you admire. Then figure out how to do the same thing. It’s not impossible.

所以我说，要谨慎选择你的英雄；然后弄清你欣赏他们的哪些特质；再想清楚如何把同样的事做到你自己身上。这并非不可能。

Q. Was your investment with the Equity Fund of Nebraska a one time offering?

问：你对 Equity Fund of Nebraska 的投资是一次性的项目吗？

A. No. About a year or so ago, the Governor, or a group connected with the Governor, organized a fund to sponsor low income, affordable housing in the State. These funds have existed around the country and we had participated in those national funds; so he asked if we would participate in the Nebraska fund. We said yes, and we will participate in the future. I hope that the participation becomes broad, because it not only has a good social purpose, but it’s a perfectly intelligent investment. So, it is not like there is any sacrifice on our part in doing this. This is something that makes economic sense for Berkshire Hathaway. And, I would hope that other businesses around the State would join in. It’s not a one-time thing.

答：不是。大约一年前左右，州长或与州长相关的一个团队设立了一个基金，用于支持本州的低收入可负担住房。类似的基金在全国各地已有，我们也参与过全国性的那些基金；于是他问我们是否愿意参与 Nebraska 这个基金。我们答应了，未来也会继续参与。我希望参与者越来越广泛，因为这不仅有良好的社会目的，本身也是完全理性的投资。因此我们并没有做出什么牺牲；这对 Berkshire Hathaway 来说在经济上讲得通。我也希望本州的其他企业能加入进来。这不是一次性的项目。

我一直主张累进消费税，如今在经济学家和政治家中比10或20年前更有市场。几十年前它还局限在少数学术圈。大约18个月前，参议员 Nunn 与 Domenici 发布了一份报告，建议了一个等效方案。我记得他们称之为 USA Unlimited Savings Account。话说回来，现在的税率环境比我五六年前来这里时更有利于储蓄；从储蓄角度看并没有变糟。这听上去有点“玻璃晴朗”，但与世界上大多数经济体相比，在这个国家攒钱仍相对容易。消费税或实际意义上的“无限制 IRA”会让储蓄更容易。但与世界大多数国家相比，这里并不是一个在储蓄方面“很难”的经济体。

答：嗯，正如 Forbes 指出的，他们肯定把 Bill Gates 的房子也算进去了。我的意思是，在这方面他确实比我强。顺便说一句，他是我好朋友。我们经常玩在一起。Bill 去年复活节来过 Borsheim’s——我可以讲这个，因为他也讲过——给他的妻子 Melinda 买订婚戒指。他们当时在 Palm Springs，他告诉 Melinda 该回 Seattle 了。到了飞机上，飞行员播报了 Seattle 的天气等等，听起来仿佛真要飞 Seattle。然后 Bill 让她一路忙着，于是她也就没注意太阳的位置。复活节星期天下午四五点，他们在 Omaha 落地。我们专门为他们开了 Borsheim’s。我在他走的时候对他说：“这不关我的事——我也没资格给你建议——但在1951年我给我太太买订婚戒指时，花了我净资产的6%！”那天周日的销售额没有我想象的那么大。

Q. Mr. Buffett, I’ve been led to believe that you have some musical ability. And, I want to know: Do you still play the ukulele?

问：巴菲特先生，我听说你有点音乐天赋。我想知道：你还弹尤克里里（ukulele）吗？

A. I play it very occasionally. A year from now, Mrs. B is going to attend, close to her 102nd birthday, the opening of the Rose Blumkin Performing Arts Center in Omaha, which was formerly the Astro movie theater. She bought that theater about 15 years ago, when it was going to be torn down. The reason she bought that theater is that it’s the site of one of the first good things that happened to her in this country. Back in the mid-1920’s, her daughter, Frances, won a prize there, a five-dollar gold piece for singing “Am I Blue?” And, at the opening a year from now, Frances is going to sing “Am I Blue?” I’ll accompany her on the uke.

答：我很偶尔才弹。明年这个时候，接近她 102 岁生日时，Mrs. B 将出席位于 Omaha 的 Rose Blumkin Performing Arts Center（前身是 Astro 电影院）的开幕。大约 15 年前，当那家影院面临拆除时，她买下了它。她买那家影院的原因是：那里承载着她在这个国家经历的最早几件好事之一。上世纪 1920 年代中期，她的女儿 Frances 在那里赢得过一个奖——唱《Am I Blue?》得到的一枚五美元金币。明年的开幕时，Frances 将演唱《Am I Blue?》，我会用尤克里里伴奏。

About my playing the ukulele—I did play it at the Press Club with the Governor. But my next appearance will be at the Astro next fall.

关于我弹尤克里里——我曾在新闻俱乐部和州长一起表演过。但我的下一次演出将是在明年秋季于 Astro 举行。

Q. The quality that I value most in any leader is integrity, whether that leader be in business or a leader in government or whatever. Do you feel that leaders in business today and the government do have a high degree of integrity? And, has it declined since you started your business?

问：我最看重任何领导人的品质是诚信——无论是企业领袖还是政府领导。你认为当今商界和政府的领导人是否具有很高的诚信？自你开始经商以来，这种诚信是否有所下降？

A. It’s very hard to say. I think the American public thinks it’s probably declined as evidenced by polls. My own feeling from a fair amount of exposure to people in a lot of arenas, including political and business, is that the pattern is not terribly different from what you would find in the population. If you take any large group, you will have some kind of bell-shaped curve where you will find a lot of people in the middle, who, under most conditions, will behave well, but when they are in really difficult situations, they won’t. You will find people who are just outstanding on the right-hand side of the curve and those are the people who are my heroes, frankly. I don’t think it has changed much over the years; that’s my impression. I think that’s true in politics, too. A lot of people yearn for the good old days and all that sort of thing, but I don’t think the human animal changes too much. I think the only way humans change is if they get into a new culture and adopt the mores of that culture. I think it’s easier to drop down, unfortunately, if you get into a kind of jungle-type culture, than to move up if you are in some monastic-type culture. But, I don’t think that the culture is materially different from what I saw in politics or in business 30 years ago.

答：很难说。我认为民意调查显示美国公众觉得诚信可能有所下降。就我在政治和商业等许多领域与人接触的经验来看，整体模式并没有与社会总体有太大不同。把任何大群体看作钟形曲线，你会发现很多人在中间位置——在大多数情况下他们会表现得不错，但一旦遇到极端困难的情形，他们可能就不会。你也会发现钟形曲线右侧有少数非常出色的人——坦率地说，那些人就是我的英雄。我觉得多年下来并没有太大变化；这是我的印象。我认为政治领域也是如此。很多人怀念“过去的好时光”，但我不认为人性会发生太大改变。我认为人只有进入新的文化并采纳那种文化的风俗时才会改变。不幸的是，如果你进入某种“丛林式”的文化，往下滑要比在“修道式”的文化中往上升更容易。但我并不认为现在的政治或商业文化与我 30 年前所见有本质区别。

There are some outstanding people in both, and they’re really the ones to focus on and try to emulate.

两者中都有一些杰出人物，他们才是真正值得关注与效仿的对象。

Q. What do you think the government is currently doing that they should stop doing? And, if you were President, what would be the first change you would make?

问：你认为政府目前在做的哪些事情应该停止？如果你是总统，你会做的第一项改变是什么？

A. If I were President, the first thing I’d do is demand a recount. That is a job I would not like to have. There are a lot of jobs I would not like to have, but that would probably be tops on the list. I think it’s very tough because I’ve seen a little of it, and I’ve even experienced a little tiny bit. It’s very tough to manage any extremely large organization. Maybe Dr. Spanier will agree with me on that, too. You have a really complex organization with loads of people that have to be decision makers under you and huge budgets. That is very difficult to manage. Then think about the fact that the most time you are going to have to do the job in is eight years. Changing cultures is really tough. I’ve had a little experience with that. The trick in business is to get in with a culture that’s already the right kind. And, we’ve had good luck doing that. When we invest in a Dexter Shoe or See’s Candy, that is very easy, because they have grown in a certain way because the head people think about doing the right things. I think it would be very tough in government. If I had my way, there would be a progressive consumption tax. There wouldn’t necessarily be a balanced budget. But, the national debt would grow at a rate that would be less than the growth of the Gross Domestic Product. In other words, I would make sure that debt in relation to income did not increase.

答：如果我是总统，第一件事我会做的是要求重新计票。那是一份我不想承担的工作。有很多职位我都不愿意担任，但那可能排在首位。我之所以这样说，是因为我对这类事有一些见识，甚至亲身体会过一点。管理任何极大的组织都非常艰难。也许 Dr. Spanier 也会同意这一点。你要面对的是极其复杂的组织，有大量需要在你之下做决策的人以及庞大的预算。这非常难以管理。再想想，你担任这份工作的最长时间也不过八年。改变文化真的很难。我对此有一点经验。商业上的诀窍是进入一个已经正确的文化，我们在这方面运气不错。比如我们投资 Dexter Shoe 或 See’s Candy，那很容易，因为那些公司之所以按某种方式成长，是因为领导层考虑做正确的事。我觉得在政府里那会非常困难。如果由我做主，我会推行累进消费税。预算不一定要实现平衡，但国债增长率应低于国内生产总值（GDP）的增长率。换句话说，我会确保债务相对于收入的比例不再上升。

But, in terms of specific programs, you know I have no great ideas. I would probably—since I’m not running for office, and this is already scheduled to come in a couple of decades—I would probably extend the age at which Social Security kicks in, because I think the world is a lot different than in 1937 or whenever the retirement age was put in at 65. I think people are very productive at that age. If you look at demographics for people under 65 to support people over 65, it is a much different chore than it was 60 years ago. I just think there are more productive years, so I would have Social Security start somewhat later. That would save a lot of money. It would also not get the vote of the AARP or other organizations.

答：但在具体项目方面，我并没有什么伟大主意。可能——既然我不参选，而这是若干十年后才会成为现实的事——我可能会把领取 Social Security 的年龄延后一些，因为我认为现今的世界与 1937 年或设定 65 岁退休年龄时完全不同。我认为人们在那个年龄仍然很有生产力。如果你看 65 岁以下的人口来支撑 65 岁以上的人口的人口学数据，这项任务与 60 年前相比天壤之别。我只是觉得可生产年限更多，所以我会把社保领取年龄适当往后推。这将节省大量资金。当然，这也不会赢得 AARP 或其他组织的选票。

Q. I’ve heard that you feel that all universities should teach a course in common sense. I was just wondering: What is your definition of common sense? What should this course teach?

问：我听说你认为所有大学都应该开设“常识”课程。我想问：你对“常识”的定义是什么？这门课应该教什么？

A. Well, I don’t know whether I’ve said they ought to teach a course in common sense because I’m not sure you could teach it. But, I do find it amazing how many people with high IQs get off the track. It’s astounding to me how people who are really very smart manage to engage in so many self-destructive actions, and I’m not just thinking in terms of business. I have no real prescription, as I look around at the people whom I think are extremely sensible. I don’t know quite how to transplant that or teach that to other people. I think a lot of people make things more complicated than they need to. There is nothing complicated about the way we invest. It is very understandable. I’ve felt that before people buy a stock, they should take a piece of paper and simply write “I’m buying General Motors at 47,” or “I’m buying US Steel at 83.” They should just write out what their reasoning is, and they should be able to get it all on one side of one piece of paper. In fact, they should be able to get it into a paragraph. Almost all of the big, great ideas in business are very simple. Sam Walton’s idea was very simple at Wal-Mart. It’s not hard to do. If you want to accomplish something, and this ties in a little bit with common sense maybe, you have to have focus. Mrs. B had focus. Mrs. B never went to school a day in her life, and she ran rings around all kinds of people because she’s smart and energetic. She was also focused. Tom Watson, who started IBM, was the same way. He said, “I’m no genius. I’m smart in spots, but I stay around those spots,” and there is a lot to that.

答：嗯，我不确定我是否明确说过他们应该教授一门“常识”课，因为我并不确定这东西能否真正被教授。但我确实觉得令人惊讶的是，许多高智商的人会偏离正轨。让我震惊的是，那些非常聪明的人竟会干出许多自毁行为，而且我说的不是仅限商业领域。我也没什么具体处方可提供，只能看看那些我认为极为理性的人。我不知道如何把这种特质移植或教给别人。我认为很多人把事情搞得比必要的更复杂。我们的投资方式并不复杂，很容易理解。我一直认为，在买股票之前，人们应该拿张纸简单写下“我以 47 买入 General Motors”，或“我以 83 买入 US Steel”。他们应把自己的理由写清楚，能全部写在一张纸的一面上，实际上应该能写成一个段落。几乎所有伟大的商业想法都非常简单。Sam Walton 在 Wal-Mart 的想法就是很简单，不难做到。如果你想 accomplish 某件事——这也许与常识有关——你必须有集中力。Mrs. B 就很专注。Mrs. B 一生没有上过一天学，但她机智有活力，能把许多人远远甩在后面。她也非常有专注力。创立 IBM 的 Tom Watson 也是如此。他说：“我不是天才。我在某些点上聪明，但我就待在那些点上。”这话很有道理。

Q. I’m a doctoral student in the School of Music, and my question has to do with arts funding. I’m wondering where you think the responsibility for funding for arts programs would lie. Would that be with governmental programs or with businesses or private individuals?

问：我是 School of Music 的博士生，我的问题与艺术资金有关。您认为艺术项目的资金责任应由谁承担？政府项目？企业？还是私人个体？

A. I think it’s with government programs and private individuals. I mean, I think it’s probably a combination needed on that. If you go back 50 or 75 years, it was entirely private. But, I think, in terms of a lot of activities like that, there is a place for both the government and for private funding.

答：我认为应由政府项目与私人共同承担。我的意思是，这大概需要一种组合。若回到 50 或 75 年前，几乎完全是私人出资。但对于这类活动，我认为政府资金与私人资金都各有其位置。

Q. I’ve heard that you refuse to assist your children financially. Is this true? And, what did you get from your parents financially?

问：我听说你拒绝在经济上帮助你的孩子，这是真的吗？那你从父母那里得到了什么样的财务支持？

A. Well, I got all kinds of good things. But, I didn’t get money. And, I really didn’t want it actually. I don’t think I could have been raised with a better pair of parents. That was enormously important. I don’t believe in making kids rich. I just think it’s wrong in terms of society. I hear these people who lecture about the debilitating effects of food stamps on the poor. They say, “You know, you give them food stamps, and they get dependent, and then the next generation wants more food stamps,” and all that sort of thing. What is the difference between that and some kid who gets a lifetime supply of food stamps at birth through inheritance, you know, except the food stamps are called stocks and bonds and the welfare officer is called a trust officer? They never seem to see the debilitating effects of having some big trust fund for themselves. I basically believe that if you are rich, you should leave your kids or give them enough so they can do anything but not enough so they can do nothing. I just think that makes sense. I don’t think it should be like they were born into total poverty, and I don’t think they should be entitled to live a life of doing nothing, essentially living off this stored-up supply of food stamps which somebody handed them. So, that is my own personal philosophy on it.

答：嗯，我从父母那里得到过各种“好东西”，但不是钱。而且说实话我也不想要钱。我不认为世上还有比我父母更好的父母了，这对我极其重要。我不相信要把孩子养成富人。从社会角度看，我觉得那是错误的。我常听到有人抨击食物券会削弱穷人的意志：他们说，“给了食物券，他们就依赖，下一代还要更多食物券。”之类的话。那跟某个孩子一出生就通过继承获得“终身食物券”有什么不同？不过这些“食物券”被称为股票和债券，而“福利官员”被称为信托官。他们似乎从不看到给自己设立一大笔信托基金的削弱效应。我的基本看法是：如果你富有，你应该留给孩子足够让他们“能做任何事”，但别多到使他们“什么都不做”。这更合乎常理。我不觉得他们应该像生来赤贫那样什么都没有，但也不该有资格一生无所事事，靠别人递来的那堆“储存的食物券”活着。这就是我个人的看法。

Q. Mr. Buffett, I would like to ask you about your political involvement. This year, we’ve seen a lot through the media of your being finance chair for Senator Kerrey and helping Congressman Hoagland in Omaha. My concern is, it seems like at least the business publications I read and the business organizations that I’m involved with aren’t real supportive of those two individuals because of maybe increased taxes, regulation, and government-run health care. Can you explain to me your involvement with that and why you support those individuals that seem to be opposed to some business incentives?

问：Buffett 先生，我想问你在政治上的参与。今年媒体上看到你担任参议员 Kerrey 的筹款主席，并在 Omaha 支持众议员 Hoagland。我的担忧是，我所读的商业刊物以及我参与的商业组织似乎并不太支持他们两位，原因可能是他们支持增税、加强监管以及政府主导的医疗保健。你能否解释一下你为何介入并支持这些看起来反对部分商业激励的人？

(Aside, Mr. Buffett receives a can of Cherry Coke.)

（旁白：Buffett 先生收到一罐 Cherry Coke。）

Sure. Thank you. This stuff will do wonders for you. If you are wondering, we get the profit from one out of every 14 of these, so it does my heart good.

当然。谢谢。这东西对你大有裨益。如果你好奇的话，我们每卖出 14 罐就有一罐的利润归我们，这对我心情很有帮助。

A. I was president of the Young Republicans Club at the University of Pennsylvania in 1948 and, of course, grew up in a Republican household. I vote for plenty of Republicans. I mean, I’m not a card-carrying Democrat, although I’m a registered Democrat and have probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans. It would be pretty close. I don’t like to get mixed up in politics much, but in this particular case, I’ve supported the two you mentioned for precisely the reason that some people are opposed to them. I felt that both Hoagland and Kerrey made a vote that they knew would be politically disadvantageous, perhaps even politically fatal. And, they did that for what they thought was for the benefit of society, whether you agree with them or not.

答：我 1948 年在 University of Pennsylvania 当过 Young Republicans Club 的主席，当然，我成长在共和党人的家庭。我也投过很多共和党人的票。我的意思是，我不是“持证”的民主党人，尽管我登记是民主党，且可能投给民主党的票略多于共和党人，但差距并不大。我不太喜欢卷入政治，但在这件事上，我支持你提到的两位，恰恰是因为一些人反对他们的理由。我觉得 Hoagland 和 Kerrey 两人都投下了他们明知在政治上不利、甚至可能政治上“致命”的一票；而他们这样做，是因为他们认为那有利于社会——无论你是否赞同。

Now, that is the hardest thing in the world for a politician to do. It would be hard for me to do. I love the job of running Berkshire Hathaway. If I knew I was going to make some vote that might cause me to lose that job, I’m not sure how I would behave. So, I saw both of those fellows make a vote, and there was no question that it was going to hurt them politically. They had no problem assessing the mood of their own voters or voters around the country. So, they did that and I thought that was exactly the way a legislator is supposed to behave. I felt it was very important. I would have had a much different deficit reduction act than came forth, but that is not the question because you’ll never be happy with every aspect of the bill. I felt it was important to the country that something be done at the time, and that was the bill to be voted on. It was a very close vote, as you know, and both of these fellows stood up and voted for it. So, I felt under those circumstances if I could help in any way by identifying with them, I would be delighted to do so. They stood up when it counted and I felt that I should, too. That’s the reason, but basically I’m not big on getting involved in politics and it’s not because they are Democrats. That’s immaterial to me.

这对任何政治人物来说都是世上最难的事。对我也会很难。我热爱经营 Berkshire Hathaway 这份工作。如果我知道某个投票可能让我丢掉这份工作，我也不确定自己会如何行事。所以我看到他们二人投下了那一票，而且毫无疑问那会在政治上伤到他们。他们完全清楚选民在当地以及全国的情绪。因此他们依然那样做，而我认为这正是立法者应有的行为。我觉得这非常重要。至于赤字削减法案，我会提出与最终版本大相径庭的方案，但那不是重点，因为你不可能对法案的每个方面都满意。我认为当时国家必须有所作为，而摆在面前可投的就是那一版法案。正如你所知，那是一次险胜的投票，他们两位在关键时刻站出来投了赞成票。所以在那种情况下，如果我能公开站在他们一边提供任何帮助，我都乐于为之。他们在该站出来时站出来了，我也觉得自己应该这样做。原因就是这些；总体上我并不热衷卷入政治，也与他们是民主党人无关——那对我而言无足轻重。

Q. You keep a very lean machine going at Berkshire Hathaway. How do you keep it so lean when it grows so much?

问：你让 Berkshire Hathaway 始终保持极度精简。公司规模增长这么多，你如何仍保持精简？

A. Well, that’s a good question, because now we have 22,000 employees or maybe 23,000 or even 24,000, I guess. We probably had 1,000 twenty years ago but we’ve still got 10 or 11 people in headquarters. I really believe in keeping things simple. We have no inside counsel. We have no public relations people. We have no guards. We have no cafeteria. And, it’s a lot easier to run that way. Frankly, I think way more gets done than if you have floor after floor of people that are reporting to people on the floor above them. I see so much waste in most companies and once it gets there, it is very hard to get rid of. It’s much easier never to get there. My pal Charlie says that, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” And, that’s the way I feel about a large organization. I mean, that would be business death as far as I’m concerned; so we’re not going to get there. It’s not a problem keeping it down. We just don’t hire anybody and we won’t. I buy and sell all the stocks myself. Some people say, “How many people can you have reporting to you in a business?” That’s standard organizational management stuff. They say, “The optimum number is this” or something like that. The answer is, if you’ve got the right kind of people, you can have tons of people. You can have dozens and dozens and dozens of people, if they know what they are doing and they like their jobs. But if you have somebody who’s a clown, one is too many. They will drive you crazy. The trick is having the right people. We have been very fortunate in getting in with people who are extremely able at doing their jobs.

答：这是个好问题。现在我们大概有 22,000 名员工，也许 23,000，甚至 24,000。二十年前我们可能只有 1,000 人，但总部仍只有 10 到 11 个人。我真的相信要把事情保持简单。我们没有内部法务，没有公关，没有安保，没有食堂。这样运营其实容易得多。坦率说，这样干成的事远比你在大楼里层层汇报来得多。我在大多数公司都看到大量浪费，一旦形成就很难清除；最好的办法是永远别让它发生。我的搭档 Charlie 说过：“我只想知道我会在哪儿死，这样我就永远不去那里。”对大型组织我也是这么想的。就我看，那是“商业上的死亡”，所以我们绝不会走到那步。保持精简并不难：我们就是不招人，也不会招。我所有股票都是亲自买卖。有人问，“一家企业里，最多能有多少人直接向你汇报？”这是组织管理的“标准问题”，他们会说“最优人数是多少”。但答案是：如果你有合适的人，多少人都可以——几十个、上百个都行，只要他们知道自己在做什么且热爱工作。但如果来的是个小丑，一个都嫌多，他会把你逼疯。诀窍在于用对人。我们很幸运，总能与极具能力的人合作。

We bought H. H. Brown, which is a work shoe company, three years ago. It has probably 4,000 employees, and two hundred and fifty million dollars in sales. I’ve never been to one of their plants. No one ever has. Maybe they don’t even exist. I mean, maybe those guys sit there every month and say, “What figures should we send Warren this month? $2.8 million, will he like that? Yeah, he’ll probably like that; let’s mail it to him.” I’ve got the right kind of people. If you’ve got the Blumkins running the Furniture Mart or something, what can I do, you know? Should I go out there and tell them we should price this stuff at $498 retail instead of $398? I don’t know anything about it.

三年前我们收购了 H. H. Brown，一家工作靴公司。它大概有 4,000 名员工、2.5 亿美元销售额。我从没去过他们的任何一座工厂，没人去过。也许它们根本不存在。我的意思是，也许那些家伙每个月坐那儿琢磨：“这个月给 Warren 报什么数字？280 万，他会喜欢吗？嗯，他大概会喜欢；寄给他吧。”——我有合适的人。如果你让 Blumkins 经营 Furniture Mart 之类的业务，我还能做什么？要我跑过去告诉他们，这件商品零售价该定 $498 而不是 $398 吗？我对此一窍不通。

Three quarters of our managers are independently wealthy. They don’t need to get up and go to work at all. Most of them have tens and tens of millions of dollars. So, I’ve got to create or I’ve got to maintain an environment where the thing they want to do most in the world is to go to work that day and the next day. And, I say to myself, “What would make me feel that way?” One way is to feel you are running your own show. If I had people second-guessing me all day, I would get sick of it. I would say, “What the hell do I need this for? And, that’s exactly the way our managers would feel if I went around second-guessing them or telling them how to run their business. So, you can get by with very few people if they are good people. That’s what we try to do.

我们四分之三的经理人都是财务独立的富人，他们完全没必要起床去上班。大多数人都拥有数以千万计的财富。所以我必须营造并维持一种环境，让他们这辈子最想做的事就是今天和明天继续去上班。我会问自己：“什么能让我也有这种感觉？”其中一个办法是让人感觉到他在“自己当家作主”。如果整天有人对我指手画脚，我会厌烦至极——“我干嘛要受这罪？”——如果我到处去质疑他们、教他们怎么经营业务，我们的经理人也会有同样感受。所以，只要人用得对，用很少的人手也能把事办好。这正是我们力求做到的。

Q. You said that you look at three things when you are looking at a firm. You look at management, price and people. Is your analysis of people what makes your stock prices exceptional?

问：你说在评估一家公司时会看三点：management、price 和 people。是不是你对 people 的分析让你的股票投资表现如此出色？

A. It’s one of three, but it’s all three things. I think I said the “economics” of the business. I mean, you can have the most wonderful person in the world, but if they are running a textile business like we had 30 years ago, they’re not going to do well. On the other hand, if they’re running Coca-Cola, they are going to do sensationally. So, we want to be in a business that has fundamentally good economics like a Coca-Cola or a Gillette or something of the sort. And, then we want people and the price. But all three are very important.

答：这是三者之一，但实际是三者共同作用。我记得我说的是业务的“economics”。我的意思是，你可以拥有世上最优秀的人，但如果他经营的是像我们30年前那样的纺织业务，也很难出彩。相反，如果他经营的是 Coca-Cola，就会非常出色。所以我们要处在像 Coca-Cola、Gillette 这类从根本经济属性上就很好的业务里；然后再要合适的人和合适的价格。但三者都很重要。

Q. I’ve come from a family where my father works a lot and he’s rather successful. How do you balance work with your family? Do you tie your wife into any of your work, or is it totally two different dimensions, two different worlds?

问：我出身于一个父亲工作很忙而且很成功的家庭。你如何在工作与家庭之间取得平衡？你会把你的妻子卷入到你的工作里吗，还是两者完全是两个维度、两个世界？

A. No, it’s two different deals. My daughter, who is here, was doing an interview one time and explained that when she was in high school, she told people I was a securities analyst. She thought that meant I went around checking on homes or something to be sure they wouldn’t be burglarized! No, work and family are two independent things. I don’t consider what I do as work at all. I’m not doing this for a living; I’m doing it because I would rather do it than anything else I can think of in the world.

答：不，完全是两码事。我的女儿（她现在也在场）曾在一次采访中说，她上高中时告诉别人我是 securities analyst。她以为那意味着我到处检查住宅之类，确保不会被盗！不，工作和家庭是彼此独立的。我根本不把自己做的事当“工作”。我不是为了谋生而做，而是因为在这个世界上，我更愿意做它胜过其他任何事。

Q. You say in your annual report that you do not want to increase the number of investors you have through a stock swap or a split, but if you are, in a sense, a large mutual company, a large holding company, why would you not increase the amount of capital available to you?

问：你在年报中说过不想通过换股或拆股来增加投资者数量。但如果从某种意义上你是一个大型 mutual company、一个大型 holding company，为什么不增加你可动用的资本规模呢？

A. Well, we haven’t; we don’t want to increase the amount of capital, which is different than increasing the number of shareholders, of course. We get a natural increase in capital just by the amount we earn from year to year, and that’s plenty satisfactory. I do not have way more ideas than I have capital at the present. When I got out of school, I had way more ideas than capital. I was definitely capital short and at that point I did need more capital. So that’s why I formed a partnership in 1956 to have some partners join with me. But, Berkshire will not need new capital as we go along. Now, the question is, “Who are going to be your shareholders?” “Who is going to sit in every seat?” If you have a million shares outstanding, somebody has to own them, preferably me. All the seats get filled and then the question is, “How do you encourage the people you want to have in those seats to attend?” It’s very simple. If you stick a sign outside an auditorium and say “rock concert”, you will get one group and if you say “opera”, you will get another group. Either group is fine, but you’d better not have people coming who think they are going to the opera and find that they are at a rock concert, or vice versa.

答：嗯，我们没有；而且我们不想增加资本规模——这当然不同于增加股东人数。我们的资本会随着每年的盈利自然增长，这已经非常令人满意。以目前来看，我并没有“点子远多于资本”。我刚毕业时，确实是点子远多于资本，明显缺钱，那时我需要更多资本，所以1956年我成立了合伙制，引入了合伙人。但随着时间推进，Berkshire 不需要新增资本。现在的问题是：“谁会成为你的股东？”“每个席位由谁来坐？”如果你有一百万股在外流通，总得有人持有它们，最好是我来持有。席位终会坐满，接下来问题是：“如何吸引你希望入座的那群人来坐这些席位？”很简单：如果你在礼堂外贴上“rock concert”，会来一群人；如果你写“opera”，会来另一群人。两群人都没问题，但千万别让以为自己要去看歌剧的人进来才发现是摇滚，反之亦然。

So, I believe in communicating with the investment world about our objectives–how we think, and the time horizons to draw a compatible group into Berkshire–and we’ve done that over time. That’s why the turnover in Berkshire stock is so low. We have less turnover than any stock on the New York Stock Exchange. The New York Stock Exchange doesn’t like it but I like that because it means that basically the people are there who want to be there. Splitting the stock or anything like that would tend to draw a slightly different crowd; not a terrible crowd, but not a better crowd than the crowd we have already. The only way somebody can enter is for somebody to leave. And we want to make sure that we’re not losing people who identified with our objectives and time horizons, to take on people who have some other different focus.

因此，我主张向投资界充分传达我们的目标——我们的思维方式和时间尺度——以吸引与 Berkshire 兼容的那群人，我们也一直这么做。这就是 Berkshire 股票换手率极低的原因。我们的换手率比纽约证交所任何股票都低。纽交所不喜欢这样，但我喜欢，因为这意味着基本上在场的都是愿意在场的人。拆股之类的做法往往会吸引略有不同的群体；并不是糟糕的群体，但也不会优于我们已经拥有的这群人。有人进场的唯一方式是有人离场。我们要确保不会为了吸纳关注点不同的新来者而流失那些与我们的目标和时间尺度高度一致的人。

Q. What plans have you implemented for management succession when you and Mr. Munger slow down and retire?

问：当你与 Mr. Munger 放慢脚步并退休时，你们在管理层继任方面实施了哪些计划？

A. Well, that’s a polite way of saying when we die. We’re not going to slow down and retire; we may slow down, but we won’t retire. I’ll put it that way because I plan to retire about five years after I die, actually. At the annual meeting somebody always says, “What happens if you…?”, and then they stutter around a little bit and they finally get, “you know, you get hit by a truck?” I say, “Well, I’m glad you are asking that instead of asking what happens if you don’t get hit by a truck.” My job is fairly easy. All of our operating businesses would continue just as they are. The people that are running H.H. Brown or Dexter or See’s or Scott Fetzer, all know what they are doing. All I do is allocate capital. They mail me the money and then I use it to go buy something else. I also try to maintain conditions so that they want to keep working. I’ve got in mind people beyond the two of us who can fulfill that function. I don’t want to name them at present, but it’s not as if Coca-Cola (where we own almost $5 billion worth of it, close to 8% of the company) will change when I die. People are going to keep drinking Coke the day after; in fact they will probably toast me at the funeral with Coke and so sales may spurt a little bit! There’s no big slowdown that will take place. The job of the person who succeeds me will be to take that money which keeps coming in and find intelligent things to do with it in the future.

答：嗯，这是礼貌地说“等我们死的时候”。我们不会放慢脚步去退休；也许会慢一点，但不会退休。我这么说吧：实际上我打算在死后大约五年再退休。年会上总有人说，“要是你……？”然后结结巴巴，最后挤出一句“比如……被卡车撞了？”我说，“我很高兴你问的是这个，而不是问如果我没被卡车撞会怎样。”我的工作相当简单。我们的各家运营企业会照常运行。经营 H.H. Brown、Dexter、See’s、Scott Fetzer 的人都很懂业务。我的全部工作是配置资本——他们把钱寄给我，我再拿去买别的东西。我也努力维持一种环境，让他们愿意继续干。我心里确实有人选，除了我们俩之外，可以履行这项职能。现在我不想点名。但并不是说我一死，Coca-Cola（我们持有近50亿美元、约8%）就会变样。第二天人们还会照样喝 Coke——事实上，他们可能在我的葬礼上举杯可乐致意，所以销量说不定还小幅冲一下！不会出现什么大的放缓。我的继任者的工作，就是把不断流进来的钱拿去在未来做聪明的事情。

Q. What kind of management training or mentoring do you believe in and actually practice at Berkshire?

问：你认为并且在 Berkshire 实际采用的是哪种管理培训或导师制度？

A. Well, that’s interesting. We really don’t do any. Perhaps half of our managers have MBAs or have had other kinds of business training. Probably half of them didn’t. It’s interesting to me what makes a good manager, because I think you have to understand the language of business, and you should have what I would call a “business mind” or “business orientation.” But, we don’t care about background at all. When I was at Salomon, I did not ask to see anyone’s résumé. I didn’t know where any of the dozen went to school. It just didn’t make a difference to me. You know Mrs. B; if I asked her for her educational experience and she handed me a blank piece of paper, that would be fine with me. Ike Freidman, who built Borsheim’s—I don’t even know what he did in terms of school, or what he had done. It really is irrelevant to me. We basically like to buy into businesses where people have already succeeded and then keep them on. I would much rather have somebody who has been batting .350 or .375, buy their business and try and keep them happy than have to go out and start casting around the sandlots looking for people who tell me they are going to bat .350 or .375. I’m not saying I won’t do the latter. We’ve done some of the latter, but when you can do the former, we like it. We find it’s hard to teach a new dog old tricks. We’ve got some terrific managers, many of whom are over 65 and many of whom did not have a business education. I don’t think a business education hurts, incidently. I got one at Penn, Nebraska and Columbia, so I went to three different business schools and learned a lot at each place. Actually, I learned more at the last two. It can be quite advantageous, but I don’t think it is essential.

答：这很有意思。我们其实并不做任何培训。也许一半的经理人有 MBA 或其他商业训练，另一半则没有。什么造就了一名优秀经理，这对我很有意思；我认为你得懂商业的语言，并且具备我称之为“business mind/business orientation”的思维取向。但我们完全不在意背景。我在 Salomon 时，从不看任何人的 résumé，我甚至不知道那十来个人各自在哪上过学——对我毫无影响。你认识 Mrs. B；如果我向她要教育经历，她递给我一张空白纸，我也觉得没问题。至于把 Borsheim’s 做起来的 Ike Freidman——我甚至不知道他受过什么教育、做过什么，这对我真的不相关。我们的基本偏好是买入那些原本就已成功的企业，并把原班人马留下。我更愿意找一位 batting .350 或 .375 的人，买下他的企业并设法让他继续干得开心，而不是跑到“沙地球场”里去物色那些对我说自己将来能打到 .350 或 .375 的人。不是说我绝不会做后者；我们也做过一些。但只要能做前者，我们就偏好前者。我们发现“教新狗学旧把戏”很难。我们的许多经理非常出色，很多人超过 65 岁，且并无商业教育背景。顺便说一句，我不认为商业教育有害——我在 Penn、Nebraska 和 Columbia 都受过商业教育，等于上了三所不同的商学院，每一所都学到很多，尤其后两所更多。这当然可能是优势，但我不认为它是“必要条件”。

Q. What do you feel is the best way to get money to pay for college?

问：你认为筹措大学学费的最佳方式是什么？

A. The best way is to have somebody give it to you. Actually, my parents paid for my college education, so I did not. I worked for Mark Seacrest at the Lincoln Journal, but I took all that money and saved it to buy securities. You do it any way you can. If you’ve got a parent to give it to you, terrific. If you’ve got somebody that will give a scholarship to you, terrific. And, if you have to work for it, you know, that’s what you have to do.

答：最佳方式是有人给你出。事实上，我的大学学费是父母支付的，不用我自己出。我在《Lincoln Journal》为 Mark Seacrest 工作过，但我把那笔钱全都存起来买了证券。用任何你能做到的方式去筹钱：如果父母能给你，太好了；如果有人给你 scholarship，也太好了；如果必须打工赚钱，那就去做——这就是你该做的事。

Q. I’ve heard the existence of a Buffett premium in regards to Berkshire Hathaway. Could you explain what that is and maybe comment on the reason for its existence.

问：我听说 Berkshire Hathaway 的定价里存在所谓“Buffett premium”。你能解释一下这是什么，以及它存在的原因吗？

A. Some people think we will do as well in the future as we have in the past. And, you can compare that to going out to the race track and betting on a 13-year-old horse that had a great record up to then. It’s an extrapolation of the past and I don’t think there is that much of a premium in it anyway, but that’s just my own opinion.

答：有些人认为我们未来会像过去一样做得很好。你可以把这比作在赛马场押注一匹 13 岁、此前战绩显赫的老马。这是一种对过去的外推。无论如何，我不认为其中有多大的“溢价”，但这只是我的个人看法。

Q. Mr. Buffett, I live in Los Angeles, California, which is generally regarded as being a horrible place to live anymore, but visiting my grandmother in Omaha, I find that the crime rate per capita is, I believe, worse than in Los Angeles. I don’t know in the 50’s and the 60’s if crime was not such a forefront thing, but I’m wondering if you either politically or with your own personal fortune have any ideas on how to get us focused back on economic issues and not getting murdered on the way to the supermarket.

问：Buffett 先生，我住在加州的 Los Angeles，通常被认为已经是个糟糕的居住地了，但我去 Omaha 看望祖母时发现，人均犯罪率我认为比 Los Angeles 还要糟。我不确定在 50 年代和 60 年代犯罪是否没有如此受关注，但我想知道，无论从政治层面还是用你的个人财富，你有没有什么想法，能让大家把注意力拉回到经济问题上，而不是在去超市的路上被谋杀。

A. I don’t necessarily want to accept the premise, and I’m not denying the premise. I just think when you compare the crime statistics of one community verses another, that can become quite tricky, because to some extent they are measuring the city, for example. Specifically, you become involved in how much of the population of the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) is metropolitan in that city. I have no great answer or fast answers to any crime problems. I think the most important single thing society can do something about—although it gets very tough if you’ve lost it—is to maintain an outstanding public school system. I think it’s essential that everyone comes as close to starting at the same starting point as possible in society.

答：我不一定要接受这个前提，但我也不是在否认它。只是我认为，当你比较不同社区的犯罪统计时，这会变得相当棘手，因为在某种程度上，统计口径是在衡量“城市本身”。比如，具体会涉及该城市在 SMSA（Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area，标准都会统计区）的人口中究竟有多少属于这座城市的都会区。我对任何犯罪问题都没有现成或伟大的答案。我认为社会能做的、也是最重要的一件事——尽管一旦失去就会非常难——是维护一套卓越的公立学校体系。我认为，让每个人在社会中尽可能接近同一起跑线是至关重要的。

Now, it isn’t going to happen, because my kids are going to have all kinds of advantages that some low income person’s kids aren’t going to have. And, there is a huge disparity. There is also a disparity in the talents they are born with. There is a disparity in the environment they have. But, there shouldn’t be a disparity in the education they receive from society. I think to the extent that one city after another—particularly the large ones—have lost a good public school system, that is a big contributing factor to a lot of social problems that follow. If I could do one thing, if I had a magic wand, I would try to figure out a way to have an outstanding public school system where there was no reason for anybody to send their kids, except for religious reasons, to private schools. Private schools wouldn’t be needed in order to get a good education. But I know Los Angeles’s public school system, at least in many parts, has deteriorated. I have friends out there and they will pay lip service to a good public school system, but they will send their kids to private school, just like our legislators do in Washington, D.C. Essentially, I don’t think there is anybody in Congress who sends their kids to the public schools. I went to public school in Washington, D.C. 40 years ago, and it was first class. We had half a dozen or more kids of Senators or Congressmen at that school. Today in Washington, public school students are not getting the same shot at the opportunities in America, if they have been forced into a system that is second class. I don’t have great solutions to this problem.

当然，这并不会完全实现，因为我的孩子会拥有各种某些低收入家庭孩子没有的优势，差距巨大。先天能力有差距，所处环境也有差距。但他们从社会获得的教育不该存在差距。我认为，当一个又一个城市——尤其是大城市——丧失了良好的公立学校体系时，这对随后出现的诸多社会问题贡献甚大。如果我只能做一件事、若我有一根魔杖，我会设法建立一套卓越的公立学校体系，让任何人都没有理由（除宗教原因外）把孩子送去私校；为了获得良好教育，不该需要私校。但我知道 Los Angeles 的公立教育体系，至少在很多区域，已经恶化了。我在当地的朋友会口头支持公立教育，但仍把孩子送去私校，正如华盛顿特区的立法者所做的那样。基本上，我不认为国会里有人把自己的孩子送去公立学校。40 年前我在 Washington, D.C. 读公立学校，那是顶尖的。学校里有六七个乃至更多参议员或众议员的孩子。今天在华府，如果学生被迫进入一个“二等”的体系，他们就得不到与美国机会相同的起点。我对这个问题并没有很好的解决方案。

I know something about running business and investing, because I’ve been doing it for a long time. But, that does not give me great insight into a lot of the social problems of the day. One of the problems with philanthropy—and my foundation’s board will have this problem with my funds—is that in business, I get to solve the easy problems. I get to wait for fat pitches. I don’t have to make a choice among 1,000 different companies. All I have to do is decide people are going to keep drinking Coke. And, there is a lot of money to be made in manufacturing and distributing it. In philanthropy and in social situations, it’s just the reverse. All of the intractable problems—the ones that are really tough to solve, the ones that take decades—are the ones that get thrown at you. That’s why I do feel empathy for people in politics, because they are dealing with the toughest problems. They are dealing with problems that people couldn’t solve last year, or the year before, or the year before that.

我懂一些经营与投资，因为我做了很久。但这并不意味着我能对当下许多社会问题有多深的洞见。慈善的一大难题——我的基金会董事会在管理我的资金时也会遇到——在于：在商业里，我可以选择解“简单题”，我可以等“肥球”。我不必在一千家公司里做选择；我只需要判断人们是否会继续喝 Coke，而制造与分销它能赚到很多钱。可在慈善与社会议题上恰恰相反，砸到你面前的全是棘手问题——那些真正难解、需要几十年才能推进的问题。这也是我对从政者有共情的原因，因为他们在处理最难的难题——那些去年解决不了、前年解决不了、甚至更早就解决不了的问题。

Regarding philanthropy, after I die, the Buffett Foundation will be tackling problems that are terribly important, but also terribly difficult to solve, and I wish them well. And I’ll understand how important the requests are that they’ll receive, and how terribly difficult it will be to solve, to make decisions, and I wish them well. But I’ll understand; wherever I am I’ll understand, if they have difficulty accomplishing that.

关于慈善，在我去世之后，Buffett Foundation 将直面那些极其重要、但也极其难以解决的问题，我祝他们顺利。我会理解他们收到的请求有多重要、做决定与解决问题有多么艰难，我依然祝他们顺利。但我也能理解——无论身在何处我都能理解——如果他们在完成这些使命时遭遇困难。

Q. Mr. Buffett, how did you first get started and how did you deal with failure, if you had one?

问：Buffett 先生，你最初是如何起步的？如果你经历过失败，你是如何应对的？

A. How did I first get started? It depends. I bought my first stock when I was 11, but I’d been thinking about them for a long time before that. My dad was in the investment business and I used to go down to his office in the old Omaha National Bank building when I was seven or eight years old. I found out I was near-sighted because I couldn’t read the quotations up on the stock board; otherwise I might have gone through life without glasses. I just got very interested in it. I started reading books on it when I was eight or nine and then I finally saved enough money to buy three shares of Cities Service preferred for $114 in 1942, and then I just kept doing it.

答：我是如何起步的？要看从哪里说起。我在 11 岁买了第一只股票，但在那之前我已经想了很久。我的父亲从事投资业，我七八岁时常常去他在老 Omaha National Bank 大楼里的办公室。我因为看不清股价牌上的报价才发现自己近视；否则我可能一辈子都不戴眼镜。我对这件事非常感兴趣，八九岁就开始读相关书籍。1942 年，我终于攒够了 114 美元，买了三股 Cities Service 的优先股，然后就一直做下去了。

Failure depends on how you define it. A lot of things go wrong in life, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re failures. I really don’t look back. I try to learn from what I see around me, but I don’t try to learn by going back over this decision or that decision or what did I do wrong or the sort. I don’t think about that at all. You can make a lot of mistakes. The nice thing about it is you’re going to make a lot of mistakes and still do very well. That’s the encouraging thing. I write about my mistakes in the report. In fact, I have a section sometimes called “mistake du jour” and unfortunately it’s plural most years, too. It’s not the end of the world. You don’t want to make any ones that are fatal. You do not want to own securities on borrowed money because that can wipe you out. I’ve never borrowed money of any significant amount because I just didn’t want to go back to go. Borrowed money can magnify your mistakes, and it may magnify them to the point where they wipe you out. But, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes. You should try to pick things that you understand. That is the key to what I do. Occasionally I may make a mistake when I think I understand something I don’t. Another mistake that you don’t see is when I pass up something that I’m capable of understanding. Those are mistakes of omission and sometimes they have been huge. I could point to mistakes like that which have cost us over a billion dollars. I knew enough to do something but for one reason or another, I didn’t. Fortunately, people don’t see those.

失败取决于你如何定义。人生中很多事情会出错，但这并不必然意味着“失败”。我真的不回头看。我尽量从周遭发生的事中学习，而不是回过头逐条复盘这个决策、那个决策、我哪里做错了之类。我完全不那样想。你会犯很多错；好消息是，即使犯了很多错，你仍然可以做得很好——这点很鼓舞人心。我会在年报里写我的错误；事实上，有时我专门设一节叫“mistake du jour（当天错误）”，而且不幸的是大多数年份里还是复数。这不是世界末日。你只需要避免“致命”的错误。不要借钱买证券，因为那会把你一锅端。我从未借过任何有意义的金额，因为我不想“回到起点”。借来的钱会放大你的错误，甚至放大到把你彻底击垮。犯错本身没什么不对；关键是选择你理解的东西——这是我所做之事的要义。偶尔我也会在“自以为懂、其实不懂”的地方犯错。还有一种你看不见的错误，是我错过了那些我本来能理解的机会——这是“遗漏错误”，有时代价巨大。我可以指出几笔这样的错过，代价超过十亿美元。我当时懂得足以出手，但因某种原因没有做。幸运的是，人们看不见这些。

Q. Mr. Buffett, after being the richest man in America, what are your major goals now?

问：Buffett 先生，曾经是美国首富的你，现在的主要目标是什么？

A. Well, as I said at the Annual Meeting, now my goal is to be the oldest man in America. That’s all I want said at my funeral. I just want someone to say, “My God, he was old!” I just want to keep doing what I’m doing, as long as I can. I have no desire to bring my golf handicap down five strokes particularly; it won’t go down there by itself, and I’m not going to spend time to do it. It doesn’t make that much difference to me. I feel like I can have as much fun doing what I do at this level as anything else. I really, really, really have no goals other than to stay healthy enough to keep doing the same thing I’ve been doing.

答：正如我在年度股东大会上所说，我现在的目标是成为全美最长寿的人。这就是我希望在葬礼上被说起的一切——我只想有人说一句：“天哪，他可真老！”只要还能做，我就想继续做我在做的事。我并不想特意把我的高尔夫差点再降五杆；它不会自己降下去，而我也不会花时间去做这事。这对我没那么重要。我觉得在当前这个层面，做我正在做的事就像做任何其他事一样有趣。我真的、真的、真的除了保持足够健康以继续做同样的事情之外，没有别的目标。

Q. I have a two-part question. Number one, what do you think about the future of the two-party system in America? And, number two, what do you think about the candidacy of Colin Powell for President in ’96?

问：我有两个问题。其一，你如何看待美国两党制的未来？其二，你如何看待 Colin Powell 参加 1996 年总统竞选？

A. Well, what has happened, as you know, is that party identifications and loyalties have changed dramatically. I’m probably typical in that I may be registered one way or the other, but I don’t really think much about that. Certainly there is no party discipline or loyalty that can be called upon to get me to vote for somebody whom I think is inferior to another candidate. I think television has contributed to that very substantially. I think the parties will continue along; I don’t think they will disappear or splinter in all likelihood.

答：如你所知，党派认同与忠诚已经发生了巨大变化。我大概很典型——我也许登记在这个或那个党名下，但我并不太在意这一点。肯定不会有哪种党纪或忠诚能让我要去投一位不如另一位候选人的人。我认为电视对此影响巨大。我觉得两党会继续存在下去；不太可能消失或分裂。

Everything I know about Colin Powell is good. I do not know him personally. He is clearly an outstanding human being. If he starts offering his opinions on various subjects, his popularity will tend to diminish because that’s the nature of politics. When you have to say whether you are for or against something, you start losing people pretty fast. But, in terms of the quality of that individual, I would think he would be first-class. I have no idea really what his views are on a lot of subjects. We may learn in the next year or so.

关于 Colin Powell，我所知道的一切都是好的。我不认识他本人，但他显然是位非常出色的人。若他开始就各种议题发表看法，他的人气大概率会下滑——这就是政治的本质。当你必须表态赞成或反对某事时，你会很快失去一部分人。但就个人素质而言，我认为他是一流的。至于他在许多议题上的具体观点，我并不真正清楚；也许在接下来一年左右我们会有所了解。

Q. Mr. Buffett, you said that people who are better off than society have a debt to society. I find this respectable. I just am wondering, what’s your debt?

问：Buffett 先生，你说过富裕于社会平均水平的人对社会负有责任。我很尊重这种想法。我想知道，你的“欠债”是什么？

A. Well, I really think in terms of material goods that overwhelmingly eventually belong to society. I think it would be obscene if I tried to consume them all myself or have my family consuming like crazy forever just because I happen to be well-adjusted to this society. The interesting thing is that we live in a market society. If you can bat .375, if you can shoot subpar golf, if you can do what I do, if you have certain kinds of talents, the market will pay enormously for those talents. Now, it didn’t pay that well for ballplayers 25 years ago because the stadiums only held 50,000 people, but television and cable have made it possible for the stadiums to hold 250 million people and that changes the economics dramatically. This market system showers rewards on people with certain types of talents. Yet it does not shower rewards on other people with talents just as important to society; maybe more important to society. An outstanding teacher, outstanding nurse or researcher may not be paid dramatically more and maybe no more than the mediocre one. But the outstanding heavyweight fighter, or the outstanding center fielder, or the outstanding stock picker, or whoever, gets incredibly more because of the way the market system works. I would not tamper with that market system, because I do think that people benefit, because it delivers the goods that people want in this country.

答：我真正的想法是，绝大多数物质财富最终应归于社会。我若试图把它们全由自己消耗，或让家人永无止境地疯狂消费，只因为我恰好适应了这个社会，那会很不体面。有趣的是，我们生活在一个市场社会里。若你能打出 .375 的打击率、能在高尔夫打出低于标准杆的成绩、能像我这样做事，若你具备某些天赋，市场会为这些天赋支付巨额回报。25 年前，球员收入不高，因为球场只能容纳 5 万人；但电视和有线让“球场”能容纳 2.5 亿人，经济学就被彻底改写了。这个市场体系会把回报倾注在某些特定天赋上；但对那些对社会同样重要、甚至更重要的其他天赋，却不会给予相称的回报。一位杰出的教师、护士或研究者，未必会比平庸者多拿多少薪水，甚至可能不多拿。而重量级拳王、顶级中外野手、出色的“选股手”等等，会因为市场机制而获得巨额回报。我不会去干预这种市场机制，因为我认为大众从中受益——它在这个国家确实把人们想要的商品与服务送达了他们手中。

It has been a great system for causing an outpouring of goods and services that people want. The market system works terribly that way. I don’t think it works terribly in terms of distribution of the rewards. And, I think you solve that in two ways. One way is you solve it through your tax system and the other way is you solve it through philanthropy. You might call this a self-imposed tax. I think you could probably find 300 public school teachers in Omaha who have contributed absolutely as much to society as some fellow like myself or somebody that bats .350, or some guy that has won the light-heavyweight boxing championship. The teachers are never going to get paid properly. Society will not reward them that way. I don’t see any way for society to do that. I don’t have anything in mind about some “comparable worth” type of arrangement. I think the market system is the best system for delivering goods, but then I think in terms of distributing these goods and

services produced by that market system. Both philanthropy and a progressive tax system of some sort are the appropriate methods.

这个体系在推动人们所需商品与服务的大量供给方面非常有效；但在分配回报方面并不那么理想。我认为可以通过两种方式来弥补：一是税制，二是慈善。你可以把后者视为“自我征收的税”。我想，在 Omaha 你大概能找到 300 位公立学校教师，他们对社会的贡献丝毫不亚于像我这样的人、或打击率 .350 的球员、或某位轻重量级拳王。教师们永远得不到应有的薪酬；社会不会那样奖励他们，我也看不到社会能以别的方式做到这一点。我并没有“同工同酬价值评估”之类安排的想法。我认为市场体系仍是提供商品的最佳机制；但在分配这些由市场产生的商品与服务时，慈善与某种形式的累进税制才是恰当的方法。

Q. My question concerns something that has come to the forefront in the last couple of years in politics especially—environmental issues. We have seen an increase in the concern of this country, and around the world, with environmental issues. People say a lot of the environmental problems are a result of businesses taking technologies that are not so benign to the environment and applying them in negative ways. In your opinion, as a corporate industrial leader, what would be some criteria that should be established so that corporations could find ways to apply more benign technologies?

问：我的问题与近几年政治尤其关注的环境问题有关。我们看到美国乃至全世界对环境问题的关心都在增加。人们说，很多环境问题源于企业采用了对环境不那么友好的技术，并以负面方式应用它们。在你看来，作为一位企业领袖，应该建立什么样的标准，让企业能够找到方法去采用更友好的技术？

A. I would say on environment that we’ve already got legislation in place which makes it extremely painful for companies who are doing things which are environmentally harmful. I don’t know all the details, but I’ve seen enough of the Environmental Protection Agency’s operation that I think that situation has changed dramatically from 25 years ago, at least in this country. What we do about the rest of the world is another question. In a world economy, to the extent that you apply any kind of restrictions, in terms of child labor or environment or workers compensation that other countries don’t impose, you have a competitive cost disadvantage. That’s a price that society has to pay here, but it is a real cost.

答：我会说，在环境问题上，我们已经有法律在施行，让那些做出环境有害行为的公司付出极其痛苦的代价。细节我不全了解，但我见过足够多 Environmental Protection Agency 的执行案例，我认为情况与 25 年前相比，在美国至少已有巨大变化。至于世界其他地方，那是另一个问题。在全球经济中，如果你施加任何其他国家不施加的限制，比如童工、环保或工伤赔偿，你就会处于竞争中的成本劣势。这是社会必须付出的代价，但它是真实的成本。

I personally think that population is probably one of the most important issues the world faces, except for the eventual problem of nuclear proliferation. I don’t know how much the proper population of the world should be or will be. I know that number is different from what it would have looked like hundred years ago, and it probably will look different a hundred years from now. But, I do know there is a number and it may be affected by technology and it may be affected by the fact that our resources are greater than we think now. If we in this room were to all embark on a space ship journey some place, which was going to last a hundred years, and they were going to put provisions in the space ship that would be ample for this group, we might not know how many more people we could take on that space ship before we endangered the ability to survive and return in a hundred years. But we would know that the number was finite. And, we would certainly err on the low side. We would not say, “Well let’s just take a shot at it and have 500 more join us.” It is a finite world. Man’s imagination is not necessarily finite, and we can do a lot of things that we haven’t even thought of with resources. But in the end, there is only so much oil and gas in the ground. We’re dealing with finite resources. They’re not known, but they are finite. I would say it is a terrible mistake for the human race to test what the ultimate carrying capacity of this planet is. We had better have a margin of error. I believe that population is a terribly important issue.

我个人认为，除了最终的核扩散问题外，人口可能是世界面临的最重要议题之一。我不知道世界的“合理人口”是多少，也不知道将会是多少。我知道这个数字与一百年前不同，并且可能与一百年后不同。但我知道它是存在的，这个数字可能受科技影响，也可能因为我们的资源比现在想象得更多而改变。假如我们这屋子的人都要登上一艘航行百年的宇宙飞船，船上备好了足够本组人使用的物资，我们可能不知道还能多带多少人上船而不至于在百年后无法生存并返回。但我们知道人数是有限的。而且我们一定会宁愿保守地估算，不会说：“随便吧，再加 500 人吧。”世界是有限的。人类的想象力未必有限，我们可以用资源做出许多未曾想过的事情。但归根结底，地底的石油和天然气只有那么多。我们面对的是有限资源——虽然我们不知道确切数额，但它是有限的。我会说，人类去测试地球的最大承载力是严重错误。我们最好留有余地。我相信人口是极其重要的问题。

Now, one of the problems in society is that the most important issues are often these incremental type things. The world is not going to come to an end because tomorrow there are 200 or 250 thousand more people on the planet than there were today. That’s about the number it grows every day. There is nothing apocalyptic about it. People will go on making apocalyptic projections. But, it is like eating about 300 calories more each day than you burn up; it has no effect on you today. You don’t get up from the table and all of a sudden everybody says, “My God, you look fat compared to when you sat down!” But, if you keep doing it over time, the incremental problems are hard to attack because that one extra piece of pie doesn’t really seem to make a difference. The 250,000 people tomorrow don’t seem to make any difference, but the cumulative effects of them will make a huge difference over time, just like overeating will make a huge difference over time. The time to attack those problems is early. It’s a huge determiner of the kind of environment we have. I think the time to be thinking about those issues is now.

而社会的一大难题在于，最重要的问题往往是这种“渐进式”的。世界不会因为明天比今天多了 20 或 25 万人就走向末日——而这就是每天的增长数。没有什么“世界末日”可言。人们会不断作出末日预言。但这就像你每天多吃 300 卡路里超过消耗；当天没有任何影响，你不会刚起身就被人说“天哪，你跟刚坐下时比起来胖了！”但如果持续这么做，累积的结果就极难对付。那额外一块馅饼看起来没差，明天多的 25 万人也看似没差，但长期的累积效应巨大，就像暴饮暴食的累积效应一样。解决这些问题的时机就是早期。它极大地决定了我们将拥有怎样的环境。我认为现在就是思考这些问题的时刻。

Q. Mr. Buffett, two of the Berkshire holdings that you have were mentioned today, Coke and Gillette. Another company that has repeat daily sales like that is Wrigley. Why has Berkshire not purchased that and what would make you purchase Wrigley?

问：Buffett 先生，你今天提到 Berkshire 的两项持股——Coke 和 Gillette。另一家同样拥有每天重复销售的公司是 Wrigley。为什么 Berkshire 没有买它？又是什么条件会让你考虑买 Wrigley？

A. Well, I won’t comment on whether we own or don’t own anything. I mean there are certain holdings we have to show in our report, but we don’t have to show all of our holdings. There are certain threshold levels, but Wrigley is obviously a strong worldwide franchise. How you may feel about the growth in units sales in chewing gum verses the growth in units sales of soft drinks is one question. How you may feel about the pricing flexibility that they have verses the pricing flexibility that Coke or Gillette may have is another. And then how you feel about the price of a stock in the company would be a major factor. I’m not going to get specific on Wrigley because I don’t get specific on stocks. But, it clearly has the kind of worldwide recognition that we like.

答：嗯，我不会评论我们是否持有任何公司股票。我的意思是，有些持股我们必须在年报中披露，但不是所有的都要披露，有披露门槛。但 Wrigley 显然是一家强大的全球性品牌。你怎么看口香糖销量的增长 vs. 软饮销量的增长，这是一个问题。你怎么看它的定价灵活性 vs. Coke 或 Gillette 的定价灵活性，这是另一个问题。然后你怎么看该公司股票的价格，这是重要因素。我不会就 Wrigley 做具体评论，因为我从不对个股做具体评论。但它显然具备我们喜欢的那类全球知名度。

In the case of Gillette, they improve the product periodically. I hope you buy a new Sensor Excel because it produces a very smooth shave! The ticker abbreviation used to be “GS” on the New York Stock Exchange, which stood for “good shave”. There are about 21 billion blades sold every year. Gillette sells only about 7 billion of them, but they’ve got about 60% value share because they’ve done it technologically. The Sensor took 11 years to develop; that is really some product. One thing you’d find interesting: the Sensor for women has become a very big product. More Sensor for women razors were sold in the first 18 months than Sensors were sold originally in their first 18 months. That’s the first time a razor’s become remotely that popular with women. Normally, women use disposables or they use their husband’s or boyfriend’s razor. But, one thing research has shown, which is kind of interesting (those of you in the audience will take this several ways): When a man gets a nick or a scrape or cuts himself with a razor, he blames the razor. But when a women does, she blames herself and that enters into the kind of product she wants to buy. It is also true, of course, there’s only about one-tenth of the nerve receptors per square centimeter in the leg than there are in the face. So, the man tends to be more sensitive to the feel of the shave, and the women is more sensitive to whether she gets nicks or scrapes on her legs. (There are all kinds of interesting things about razors.) People originally started shaving with rocks because it was a disadvantage in combat with other humans or animals to have something the enemy could grab you by and snap your neck with. That’s diminished over the years, but that was the original reason.

至于 Gillette，它会定期改进产品。我希望你买新的 Sensor Excel，因为它能让你刮得非常顺滑！它在纽交所的股票代码以前是“GS”，意思就是“good shave”。全球每年售出大约 210 亿片刀片，Gillette 只卖出约 70 亿片，但它有 60% 的价值份额，因为它凭借技术做到这一点。Sensor 花了 11 年才开发完成，那真是一款产品。还有一点有趣的：Sensor for women 已成为一款大产品。女性版 Sensor 在最初 18 个月的销量超过了原版 Sensor 在前 18 个月的销量。这是剃须刀第一次在女性中如此受欢迎。通常女性用一次性刀，或者用丈夫或男友的刀。但研究表明一件有趣的事（你们在场的人可能会有不同理解）：男人刮伤时会怪刀片；而女人刮伤时会怪自己——这影响了她们的购买倾向。当然还有一个事实：腿部每平方厘米的神经感受器只有脸部的十分之一。所以男人对刮感更敏感，而女人更在意腿上是否刮破或划伤。（关于剃须刀有很多有趣的事。）人类最早用石头刮胡子，是因为在与人或动物搏斗时，脸上有胡子会被对手抓住并扭断脖子，这是一种劣势。随着时间推移，这个原因已消失，但那才是剃须的最初起因。

Q. Mr. Buffett, in recent years, several public accounting firms have been sued by their clients because they have not met their expectations on their auditing services. I was wondering what you and Berkshire Hathaway expect from your external auditors?

问：Buffett 先生，近几年有几家会计师事务所因未达到客户对审计服务的预期而被起诉。我想了解你和 Berkshire Hathaway 对外部审计师的期望是什么？

A. Well, that’s a good question. I said to the Federal Financial Accounting Standards Boards some years ago that I thought accountants deserved to be sued, because I thought the typical accountant certificate in those days was overstated. I did not think they were in a position in many companies to deliver that opinion and when they have been held financially accountable for the fact that they couldn’t back up that opinion, I really thought that was appropriate. It may have gone overboard in some cases, but they were stating something there that people relied on. In many cases—take banks or insurance companies—they were simply not in a position to attest as they did. In our own case, we are small and controlled, and we have an internal audit staff. I’m hoping, if an outside auditor comes up with anything, it may be a potential tax idea, or it might be things our internal auditors did not spot in terms of weaknesses in the control system, or they might spot outright fraud of some sort. We haven’t had that, but that’s what I’m paying them to do, aside from the fact I have to have them anyway because I’m required to by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange. Incidentally, we have bought big firms that never had an audit, and that doesn’t bother me.

答：这是个好问题。我几年前对 Federal Financial Accounting Standards Boards 说过，我认为会计师被起诉是“活该”，因为当时惯常的审计师出具的报告结论被夸大了。我不认为他们在许多公司里具备发表那种意见的条件；当他们因无法支撑其意见而被追究经济责任时，我确实认为这是恰当的。个别案例可能有些过头，但他们在报告中陈述的结论是有人会依赖的。在许多情况下——比如银行或保险公司——他们根本不具备像他们那样出具鉴证的条件。就我们自身而言，我们的总部规模很小且集中管理，并配有内部审计团队。我希望外部审计若能有所发现，要么是潜在的税务筹划点，要么是我们内部审计未能发现的内控薄弱环节，或者某种明显的舞弊信号。我们目前没有遇到这些，但这正是我付钱请他们去做的事；更不用说不管怎样我都得请他们，因为 Securities and Exchange Commission 和 New York Stock Exchange 的规定要求这样做。顺带一提，我们也收购过从未做过审计的大公司，而这并不让我感到不安。

When I made the deal with Mrs. Blumkin, it was on August 30, 1983. I know that because it was my birthday. I didn’t want to tell her that early on, because I thought she might think I was over-eager. I told her afterwards and she said, “You bought an oil well on your birthday!” She had no audit and she just told me she owned all the land, all the buildings, and all the inventory. She told me about what the receivables were, what the business was about, that all the bills were paid, and they didn’t owe any money. We never had an audit. We bought that business with a contract that was one page long.

当年我和 Mrs. Blumkin 达成交易是在 1983 年 8 月 30 日。我之所以记得，是因为那天是我生日。我一开始没告诉她，怕她以为我过于迫切。后来我告诉她，她说：“你在生日那天买了一口油井！”她没有做过审计，只是直接告诉我：所有土地、所有建筑、所有存货都归她所有；应收账款是多少；业务情况如何；所有账单都已支付、没有负债。我们从未做过审计。我们用一页纸的合同就把这桩生意买下来了。

Q. Do you have any opinions or predictions on how health care reform is going to affect the economy, in general and Berkshire Hathaway, specifically?

问：你对医疗改革将如何影响总体经济以及具体到 Berkshire Hathaway 有何看法或预判？

A. Well, as I said earlier, we had our one general meeting on health care about six or seven years ago. When you are spending 14% of the Gross Domestic Product on something that other countries are spending 9% or less, it affects your competitive position. You would like to feel that you are getting a whole lot more for your money. I have no idea how the debate is going to come out because you are talking about one-seventh of the economy and something that is emotionally charged. I do think the rate of increase in health cost has dampened considerably, but I don’t think that is necessarily permanent. I think it can last for a few years and it will come back if we start getting increases in health care costs significantly above the general rate of inflation. You are going to hear a lot about health care, again, and you should.

答：正如我先前提到的，大概六七年前我们专门开过一次有关医疗的总经理会议。当地花在医疗上的支出占 GDP 的 14%，而其他国家是 9% 或更低，这会影响你的竞争地位。你当然会希望感觉到这笔钱“物有所值”。关于这场辩论将如何收场，我没有把握——因为这涉及到经济总量的七分之一，同时又高度牵动情绪。我确实认为医疗成本的增速这几年显著放缓，但未必具有永久性。如果未来医疗成本增速显著高于总体通胀率，这种放缓可能会持续几年后再反弹。你们未来还会听到很多关于医疗的话题——而且理应如此。

Q. You say that you don’t like to look at résumés. What do you think businesses that do use them find impressive about résumés?

问：你说你不喜欢看简历。那你认为那些会用简历的公司，究竟被简历里的哪些东西打动？

A. Well, I would say that, if you are talking about the typical large business, they look at labels. In other words, if you get an MBA, you have the label MBA. If you get it from a certain place, you know, it says that, too. There is an awful lot of hiring done based on that. The label definitely has an economic value. I can’t quantify that exactly, but it has a significant economic value. It just doesn’t happen to have it with us. But if you are getting hired by IBM or General Motors or Merrill Lynch, it’s going to make a difference in the way they look at you initially. I don’t think it makes that much difference five years out. But I do think it makes a difference in starting salary. It makes a difference in your likelihood of getting hired for a great many positions. Then, it’s really what you show from that point forward. But it is a very useful label in getting hired by a large company.

答：我会说，若谈典型的大公司，他们看“标签”。换句话说，你拿到 MBA，就有了 MBA 这个标签；若来自某所学校，这个信息也会显著标注。大量招聘由此展开。标签确实有经济价值——我无法精确量化，但它的经济价值相当可观。只是这种价值在我们这儿并不适用。但如果你去 IBM、General Motors 或 Merrill Lynch，最初别人看你的方式会不同。我不认为五年之后差别还那么大，但它会影响你的起薪，也会影响你被许多岗位录用的概率。之后就看你此后如何表现了。但对于进入大型公司而言，这确实是个很有用的标签。

We don’t even think of ourselves as a large company. We think of ourselves as a collection of medium-sized companies. Incidentally, we’ve got a fellow that runs one of our larger subsidiaries; an MBA might mean quite a bit to him. And he’s the one that hires for the group. I do no hiring, except if the top person in one of our companies dies or retires. I make maybe one hiring decision every three years. They also make hiring decisions all the time, and I don’t get into what criteria they use. That’s entirely up to them. I don’t see how you can hold somebody responsible for an operation and then start telling them how to hire people. We have no human resources department at Berkshire. Some of our subsidiaries have somebody in that position, but we have nobody at the top who in turn supervises all that. Most companies do and once they do, they start building empires. They start going to all the conventions and seminars, and then they hire assistants to do this, and it just goes on and on. So we don’t start it. Two more questions, okay?

我们甚至不把自己看作一家“大公司”，而是看作一组中型公司的集合。顺便说一句，我们有位负责一家较大子公司的同事；对他而言，MBA 也许意义不小，而那家子公司的招聘由他负责。我基本不直接招人，除非某家子公司的“一把手”去世或退休。我可能三年才做一次用人决策。平时招聘都由他们自己决定，我不干预其标准——那完全由他们掌握。我不理解怎么能一方面让某人对经营结果负责，另一方面又告诉他该如何招聘。Berkshire 没有人力资源部；部分子公司有这个岗位，但集团层面没人统管。多数公司一旦设了人力，就开始“建帝国”：参加各种大会和研讨会，然后再招助手……没完没了。我们就不启动这套。再来两个问题，可以吗？

Q. Mr. Buffett, this question deals with international investment. Since you are a key person in your corporations, when you make decisions on important international portfolios, what kind of factors come into your mind when selecting a nation to invest in? What do you think about China as a “hot market” right now?

问：Buffett 先生，这个问题关于海外投资。你是公司里的关键决策者，当你为重大海外组合做决定、选择投资目的国时，会考虑哪些因素？你如何看待当下“热门市场”的 China？

A. Well, we like companies, obviously, that have big international potential. But we’re perfectly willing to buy into a company that can never go outside the region. Nebraska Furniture Mart is not going to sell anything internationally, although they will sell a lot throughout the Midwest. It’s just one variable that enters in. Gillette just bought 70% of the Shanghai Razor Company, which is the largest razor company over there. Coke will sell 135 million cases this year in China, which is only two per capita, roughly, as compared to 325 per capita in the United States. That’s very encouraging and they are moving very fast in China. One problem Gillette has is that the Chinese do not shave as often as Americans. But we plan to put something in Coke to change that!

答：显然，我们喜欢具备巨大国际潜力的公司。但我们也完全愿意买入永远不“出海”的公司。Nebraska Furniture Mart 不会做国际销售，但能在中西部卖很多。这只是诸多变量之一。Gillette 刚收购了上海剃须刀公司的 70% 股权——那是当地最大的剃须刀企业。Coke 今年在 China 将卖出 1.35 亿箱，人均约 2 箱，而美国人均约 325 箱。这很鼓舞人心，他们在中国推进很快。Gillette 的一个问题是，中国人的剃须频率不如美国人高——不过我们打算在 Coke 里“加点料”来改变这一点！（笑）

Q. You support a progressive consumption tax policy. I think your idea is the best and works when our economy is booming or overheated. What do you think if our economy is in a severe recession like in 1981-82?

问：你支持累进消费税。我认为你的方案在经济繁荣或过热时效果最佳。那如果经济陷入类似 1981–82 年的严重衰退呢？

A. A progressive consumption tax, if enacted, would hurt the economy in the following year or maybe a couple of years, regardless of when it was introduced, simply because: If we are consuming 100% of the goods produced in the country and all of the sudden you say we’re going to start saving 5%, that would take consumption down to 95%, assuming no immediate increase in output, which there wouldn’t be. If you’re making $5,000 a month and you decide to save more in your family, you’re going to cut consumption at that point. Later on, you may increase consumption because of the product of that investment. Any kind of a consumption tax that induces more investment will hurt the economy in the following year or two, which makes it tough to sell. That makes it tough to sell in your own household, too. If you say we’re going to start saving more and consuming less, that’s not necessarily a winning argument. But it is the way to build wealth over time. I would say no matter when it was introduced, it would have a bite for awhile.

答：累进消费税不论何时实施，次年或接下来一两年都会“拖累”经济，原因很简单：如果我们当前消费了全国产出的 100%，而你突然说要开始多储蓄 5%，在短期产出不增加（短期里也不会）的前提下，消费就会降到 95%。就像你家每月收入 5,000 美元，决定多储蓄，就会当下削减消费。之后因投资产出增加，消费也许回升。任何诱导更多投资的消费税，都会在接下来一两年压抑经济，这使得它很难“卖”，甚至在你自己家里都难以说服——“多存、少花”并非讨喜口号。但从长期积累财富看，这是正道。我会说，无论何时推出，它都会“咬人”一阵子。

Think back to 1790, when 90% of the people in the country were on farms. If some guy had come along and said we’re going to develop tractors, combines, and cultivators that will put 80% of these people out of work so that a small percentage of people will be on farms, people would say, “That’s terrifying, you know, we can’t have that.” Actually, saving and investment frees up people to do all kinds of other things, as you have seen on the long scale of 200 years of this country. It’s a terrifying prospect to people in the short run, because they see the unemployment; they don’t see those people being freed up to produce all kinds of other things over time. If you could have had a little video tape that you showed all the farmers in the country in 1790, and said, “Use this one tractor instead of needing all of your sons and sons-in-law and everybody else to farm this place, and you will be able to do it yourself. The other eight people will be unemployed,” I would have hated to have a referendum on whether people wanted progress, in terms of better farm machinery. That is the problem with increasing the investment rate in the country. And, in a politically charged environment with sound bites on television, I’m not sure it could be sold.

回到 1790 年，那时全国 90% 的人务农。如果有人说，我们要发明拖拉机、联合收割机、耕耘机，把 80% 的农民“解放”出来，让只剩很小比例的人留在农场，大家会说：“太可怕了，不行！”但事实是，储蓄与投资会释放劳动力去做各种其他事——这在美国 200 年的长周期里已被证明。短期看，这前景可怕，因为人们只看到失业，看不到这些人会在时间推移中去生产别的东西。假如 1790 年能放个小录像给全国农民看：用这台拖拉机，你不用所有儿子、女婿都来种地，你一个人就能干完，“另外八个人会失业”。若就“是否要更好的农机”搞公投，我真不想看到那结果。这就是提高全国投资率的困境。而在电视“金句”飞来飞去、政治情绪高涨的环境里，我也不确定这事能“卖得动”。

Well, I want to thank you all for coming; it’s been a real pleasure to return to the University of Nebraska and I hope we keep our quarters backs healthy. Thanks.

好了，感谢各位到来；能回到 University of Nebraska 我非常高兴，也希望我们的四分卫们都健健康康。谢谢。