2019年2月CNBC芒格专访实录（中+英）

巴尔扎克

【 以下是CNBC采访伯克希尔哈撒韦公司副董事长查尔斯·托马斯·芒格和CNBC的贝基·奎克的非官方文字记录，采访是在加州洛杉矶举行的《华尔街日报》年度会议之后进行的。采访于2月15日(周五)上午6点至9点在CNBC的“Squawk Box”节目中播出。】
　　贝基·奎克：查理，谢谢你今天抽空跟我们坐下来谈谈。
　　查理·芒格：很高兴这么做。
　　贝基·奎克：你今天花了很多时间谈论那些认为自己可以超过市场平均水平的人可能是在欺骗自己，成为一个价值投资者，甚至只是一个普通投资者变得越来越困难。我想知道，你认为投资的黄金时代结束了吗?
　　查理·芒格：是的，但不是永远结束了。
　　贝基·奎克：为什么呢？
　　查理·芒格：我认为，这与过去没什么区别。未来会有机遇。有些时候，它们更容易，有时也会更困难。
　　贝基·奎克：现在正变得更加困难是因为估值已经比较高了？
　　查理·芒格：是的。第一，估值已经上升。第二，现在竞争更聪明，更有侵略性，而且数量更多。投资当然更难了。最终的结果是人们会得到更糟糕的结果。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为那些比以前更聪明、拥有更好信息的人的数量会下降吗，或者这只是一个估值下降的问题?
　　查理·芒格：估值会上升，会下降，因为它们一直都是这样。我想我们会永远在这游戏里拥有很多聪明的人。
　　   我们所有人都记得的机遇来自于一段令人沮丧的时期——当时大约90%的股票买家都对股票失去了信心，这就为我们这一代创造了实现惊人记录的机会。这是一个难得的机会，我是其中一员，沃伦是另一个。
　　   现在开始投资的人，他们的机会更少。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为我们看到的是2008年之后的一代人的低谷吗?
　　查理·芒格：一代?也许吧。我不认为市场会比当时更便宜。当时有巨大的机会。
　　贝基·奎克：在圣诞节前后，到底怎么回事?许多股票的价格下跌了20%甚至更多。
　　查理·芒格：嗯，我不太了解细节，也不记得具体是哪天了——我知道《每日日报》买这些银行股的时候，基本上是低点。
　　贝基·奎克：是这样子的。
　　查理·芒格：那是个意外。那件事（买银行股在低点）我不值得表扬。
　　贝基·奎克：你值得称赞。
　　查理·芒格：不。好吧——但准确的完美时机是个意外。
　　贝基·奎克：怎么看市场现在缺乏波动性呢？——似乎这是中央银行进入市场和增加流动性的一种结果。
　　查理·芒格：我认为中央银行的大力干预是必要的。我钦佩这样做的政客和技术官僚，包括美联储(Fed)官员。并且我认为中央银行这样干预，是绝对必要的，相对他们造成的一些麻烦来说，他们所避免的危险是有价值的。但是很奇怪的是，这些政策本来是想救助穷人，但实际上却对富人有益——没有人这么做是因为他们爱富人。但当时，他们在工具箱里没有别的工具，当时他们必须做些什么。
　　贝基·奎克：所以这些贫富差距的原因是？
　　查理·芒格：这并不是恶意的，这是一个意外，这种情况可能不会再发生了，这也不是针对穷人的阴谋。
　　   这是一场意外，我们因财政和社会方面巨大愚蠢，造成了巨大的经济衰退。考虑到我们遇到的麻烦，当时我们的工具用完了，不得不做一些以前从未做过的特别的事情时，这在当时是最明智的做法。
　　   你必须记住，如果让麻烦发展下去，我们可能会重新面临类似于让希特勒上台的灾难。当时我们面对的是真正的困难，两党和我们的技术官僚再一次聚在一起，让美国走出了困境。这是一件令人钦佩的事情，你们都可以为此感到骄傲。但从那以后，我再也没有为政治感到骄傲过。
　　贝基·奎克：现在有各种各样的政治提案想要解决这个不平等的问题。从对最高收入阶层征收70%的税，到征收财富税，再到对股票回购征税，甚至阻止回购。你认为这些方法有用吗?
　　查理·芒格：我不觉得我们必须这么做——有些不平等问题可能会自行消失。
　　贝基·奎克：为什么？
　　查理·芒格：我认为我们达到了不平等的顶峰，因为政府别无选择，只能印很多钱。这拯救了资产价格，但那只是侥幸。他们不能做的更多了。这个游戏他们已经玩过一次了。因此，我认为人们不用太担心利率下降会造成进一步的不平等。
　　贝基·奎克：然而，我们仍被这种民粹主义热情所困。和——
　　查理·芒格：是的，但这都很正常。
　　贝基·奎克：你觉得最后结果会如何?
　　查理·芒格：我不知道。到目前为止，这一切都是波浪式发展的。有时是民主党，有时是共和党。在我的有生之年，美国变得更好，因为我们有两个政党，每个政党都在一定程度上控制着国家。如果任何一方完全控制了政府的所有分支，我想我们今天的情况会更糟。
　　贝基·奎克：你觉得还有第三个政党的空间吗?
　　查理·芒格：我想，我们的政治压力很大，我想我们的社会保障体系是正确的。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为还有第三个政党的空间吗，霍华德·舒尔茨的介入，可能吗?
　　查理·芒格：我们有过一次——亚伯拉罕·林肯——但这是一场内战造成的。我认为我们不太可能有第三个政党的空间——上一次我们发起第三党运动时，他们只是选出了两党中本不可能当选的一个。同年，罗斯·佩罗当选共和党人。
　　贝基·奎克：好吧。有你欣赏的政治家吗?您认为谁有好的想法?
　　查理·芒格：当然。但总的来说，这不是我最喜欢的类型。
　　   我对任何人都不太了解。如果你问我最近谁表现得很好，我会说是迈克•布隆伯格(Mike Bloomberg)。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为他有机会赢得民主党吗?
　　查理·芒格：我不知道。但我认为他是一个非常理性，有能力的人，他在努力做正确的事。
　　贝基·奎克：在他担任纽约市长的任期内?
　　查理·芒格：是的。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为我们的政治命运会如何发展?你担心吗?或者你认为它会是……？
　　查理·芒格：好吧，我更希望他们——两党少些仇恨，每个人都更理性。你不喜欢政治上的过分行为，不喜欢大大咧咧的绰号等等。但我能做些什么呢?我只能——我只能高兴一点。
　　贝基·奎克：你提到了一点美国政府债务刚刚达到22万亿美元。
　　查理·芒格：是的，我们进入了新的领域。但这并不意味着我们搞明白了，我们也不太理解现在的情况。我们正处在未知的领域。
　　贝基·奎克：你担心不断增长的国家债务吗?
　　查理·芒格：我不太担心，因为每一个时代，一个伟大的国家都会在适当的时候被毁掉。罗马、大英帝国都在它的全盛时期衰落了，我们（美国）的这一天也终将到来。但是我不喜欢想太多这方面的问题。这就像我自己的死亡，我为什么要太担心呢?但这一天会到来吗?当然会。
　　贝基·奎克：你知道会是什么时候吗？
　　查理·芒格：不。这也没有人会知道。
　　贝基·奎克：你们一直是中国经济和一些中国公司以及经营这些公司的企业家的巨大助推器。很明显，随着贸易谈判的不断进行，我们与中国之间已经陷入了一种讨价还价的状态，也许是一种不同于过去二三十年的关系。你对中国现在和未来有什么看法?
　　查理·芒格：我认为有一些紧张是很自然的——事实是李嘉图，当他发明了比较优势法则时，并没有预测到有一天比较优势法则将会极大地加速一些贫穷国家的发展，这些国家有特别有能力的人民，比如中国。这种自由贸易将使它们能够迅速崛起，并从那些一直处于领先地位的公司手中夺走很多利益，他只是没有想过而已。一旦我们意识到这是可能发生的，我不认为这是疯狂的想法——我们可能希望在我们的航空航天工业或其他领域有一些特殊限制。
　　   所以我不认为自由贸易是一种纯粹的东西——我们在任何情况下都可能会干预。我认为美国和中国相处的好处是巨大的，我预计他们会达到一些可以接受的调整。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为总统提出自由贸易是否真的是贸易、对双方开放和公平的问题是正确的吗?
　　查理·芒格：我不认为限制自由贸易对美国来说是错误的。我不想要很多，我也不想让他们变得庞大。但是，对自由贸易运作的一些限制是可以接受的。
　　贝基·奎克：基于这次贸易谈判，或者基于我们未来可能建立的新关系，您是否已经改变了对中国投资的看法?
　　查理·芒格：我基本双方将保持贸易往来。因为我希望两家公司——两个拥有大量氢弹的国家——能够愉快地进行贸易往来，而不是摆出我们对俄罗斯的姿态。因此，我非常喜欢我们与中国的关系，而不是我们与俄罗斯的关系。我认为中国也是这么想的。我预计中美会相处得很好。
　　贝基·奎克：你刚刚提到核能或核弹。我只是想知道，在所有可能出错的事情中，你最担心的是什么?是核弹吗？
　　查理·芒格：当然。
　　贝基·奎克：人工智能呢？
　　查理·芒格：不，这是一场核战争。核战争将是一场真正的灾难。全球变暖是我们可能如果我们不得不应付。但一场核战争——这是非常严重的。
　　贝基·奎克：你提到了我们与俄罗斯的关系。显然，我们与朝鲜和伊朗的局势是一样的。
　　查理·芒格：我也完全赞成改善俄罗斯的关系。
　　贝基·奎克：怎么做呢？
　　查理·芒格：这是困难的。但是你必须努力去做。我不认为对付每个和你作对的硬汉的正确方法是怀有无限的敌意。有时我认为即使他们错了，应该被仁慈地对待。
　　贝基·奎克：是强调杀戮还是强调仁慈?
　　查理·芒格：我认为仁慈。当你富有而强大的时候，却不愿为世界和平而付出一点努力，这样是很糟糕的。
　　贝基·奎克：你的担忧是什么，你怎么评价它呢?因为很明显，这是你思考了很长时间并观察了很长时间的事情。比起十年前，二十年前，甚至四十年前，你担心的更多还是更少呢?
　　查理·芒格：自他们发明氢弹的那天起，我认为人类的主要问题就是避免使用氢弹的现代战争。这是一个非常严重的问题。
　　贝基·奎克：查理，我能问你一些今天的新闻吗?当你在股东会上和股东们在一起时，有消息说亚马逊实际上取消了对纽约市的总部竞标。我不知道你有多关注这个。
　　查理·芒格：我们州政府长期以来一直在做这种事情。而且总的来说，州政府尝试去吸引企业是明智的做法。
　　   他们很聪明，想吸引外来的公司进来。当然它有时候会过度干涉，但这就是我们的系统。我不太担心这点，并且我认为这本质上是“纯粹的”现象。这在我们国家的历史上几乎从未发生过。
　　   一群非常有才华，有进取心的人在我们国家——我也没有预料到会有这样的成功。现在它发生了，我也不认为这种现象就会就此停止。我认为这可能会持续很长一段时间。
　　贝基·奎克：回到纽约是否给自己制造了大麻烦的问题上来。我刚才想的是根据现有的新税法，一些州在新税法中遭遇了巨大损失。这（亚马逊事件）是对当地政府高税收的回应，因为亚马逊没办法在联邦政府层面对这部分税收进行抵扣，所以纽约会受到影响。你把这一点联系起来看，纽约不仅是在亚马逊上，而且可能会向更广泛的商界传达出这些信息——像纽约这样的州，或者东北部地区的某些州，真的能够承担这样的双重打击吗?
　　查理·芒格：有很多地方都搬起石头砸自己的脚。康涅狄格州、加利福尼亚州、纽约市……这是很严重的问题。如果你是一个州或城市，把富人赶出去是相当愚蠢的。要把富人赶出去来帮助纽约的想法，当然伤害了纽约。当然，这也伤害了康涅狄格州——康涅狄格美丽的房地产价值下降了50%。
　　   这些州赶走了所有的富人，加州也在做同样的事情。我认识很多离开加州的有钱人。我认为一个国家把富人赶出去是很愚蠢的。虽然他们老了，他们让你的医院忙个不停，但他们不会给你的学校、警察局和监狱带来负担。（相比负担），他们贡献得更多。谁不想要富人呢?我认为佛罗里达和夏威夷在招募富人方面都很聪明。我认为康涅狄格和加利福尼亚很愚蠢。
　　贝基·奎克：如果你交税的话，你觉得国家会冒着同样愚蠢的政策风险吗？
　　查理·芒格：加州的一些人非常反对经济增长，他们喜欢把富人赶出去。那不是我的观点。但是，你可以理解为什么有些人会这样想。
　　贝基·奎克：让我们回到亚马逊，看看它的发展。我知道你以前说过——
　　查理·芒格：亚马逊的成就很了不起。
　　贝基·奎克：是的，你还说贝索斯聪明绝顶。
　　查理·芒格：是的。
　　贝基·奎克：你认为亚马逊的长期前景如何?华盛顿有一些反对他的运动，可能是因为他是《华盛顿邮报》的所有者，也可能只是一家公司变得太大，监管机构对此感到担忧。
　　查理·芒格：我觉得他还能做很多好事。
　　贝基·奎克：你曾经和他一样是个律师……
　　查理·芒格：我曾经是律师。
　　贝基·奎克：但一日律师、终身律师嘛。
　　查理·芒格：毕竟那是很久很久以前的事了。
　　贝基·奎克：你怎么看他最近和《国家调查者》的老板说，“看，”他刚出来说，“他们在敲诈我。他们敲诈我。”
　　查理·芒格：嗯，我欣赏那些直面问题的人。因此，我并不反对他与《国家调查者》正面交锋。从某种程度上说，《国家调查者》的行为很糟糕，而贝佐斯对此强烈反对——我完全赞成。
　　贝基·奎克：让我们谈谈商业中的不良行为。我有时会把你想成是牧师，一个环顾四周，赞扬良好行为的人，但同时也会大声训斥不良行为的人。你认为当今商界最糟糕的行为是什么?
　　查理·芒格：我认为，在房地产崩溃之前，抵押和银行业在大萧条时期的行为是很糟糕的。这在当时几乎到处都是。我认为因此陷入麻烦的人是罪有应得，我觉得他们得到的惩罚还不够。如果上帝是公正的，就会有更多的惩罚。在某种程度上，他们得到了救助，因为当时我们必须这么做。但这是不应该的。我的意思是，所有那些令人作呕的谎言、欺骗和妄想的假设，是完全非法和可怕的，这些人做的和“在婴儿食品中掺假，以赚取更多的钱的行为”完全相同。他们的行为非常严重，危及到国家的整个利益。这太邪恶了。这一点上伊丽莎白.沃伦说的很对。
　　贝基·奎克：这种行为现在还存在吗？
　　查理·芒格：谢天谢地，这种行为已经减弱了。但是，金融领域还存在一些疯狂的行为。这总会有的。但是，已经好多了。
　　贝基·奎克：有没有现在你注意到，但大众还没注意到的事？
　　查理·芒格：没人知道我们能印多少钱。我们在两党中还有一些政治家，他们印钱多少都没有关系——我们可以忽略所有问题，直接印钱就行了。这就是罗马帝国当时的行为，然后它就灭亡了，魏玛共和国也是这样被摧毁的。这是很危险的。我的态度是，”知道自己会死在哪里，就永远不过去“。但总有其他人，想要尽可能近距离地靠近。这对我来说太棘手了。我不喜欢这样。
　　贝基·奎克：我们有可能会被卷进去这样的麻烦中吗？
　　查理·芒格：是的。如果河里有个大漩涡，那我会离它远远的。曾经有一群划独木舟的人试着绕过亚伦漩涡，我想他们来自斯堪的纳维亚半岛，事实上，漩涡如此之大，使得他们非常渴望征服它。我认为这样做的死亡率为100%。
　　……
　　贝基·奎克：最近有没有什么事情让你猝不及防的事？
　　查理·芒格：当各国央行开始印钞并购买大量私人证券时，我感到很惊讶。在我有生之年，他们从未这样做过。至少没有大规模做过。如今他们做了很大的规模，而且似乎效果显著，这让我很惊讶。顺便说一下，这让所有经济学家都大吃一惊。如果你读过经济学教科书，没人会预料到这是合乎逻辑的反应。
　　贝基·奎克：我们还在继续这样做（印钞买私人证券）。
　　查理·芒格：看起来直到最后死掉，否则不会结束。
　　贝基·奎克：如果没有看到量化宽松政策的结束，或资产负债表在某种程度上的收缩，我们能称之为成功吗?或者，你认为我们已经取得了足够的有效进展吗?
　　查理·芒格：到目前为止，人类所有的成功都是成功。到目前为止这是成功的，我们不知道最终的结果会是什么。在过去，当人们想，“今年的货币应该以黄金为后盾”，他们希望通胀率为零、社会保障支出为零、同时创造了大量的GDP增长和繁荣，但却往往伴随着可怕的衰退。在某种程度上，经济会通过衰退这种方式来治愈自己。当我们在大萧条时期进行大规模干预时，我们得到的几乎是一个世纪的极度繁荣和相对较小的衰退。但是我们使用的方法太极端了，可能我们不该用太多。我们不知道答案。如果一位经济学家告诉我他知道答案，我不会相信他。无论哪种方式，他的意见是什么并不重要。我只是觉得我们不知道。
　　贝基·奎克：这是因为你觉得问题太复杂了？还是你不相信经济学家？
　　查理·芒格：原因是问题太复杂了，让经济学家根本不知道真正的答案。
　　   你知道，伟大的哲学家说过“一个人永远不会两次踏入同一条河流”，你知道，“这个人是不同的，当他第二次踏入同一条河流时，这条河流也是不同的”，这就是经济学的问题。经济学不像物理学，同样的配方在不同的时间做的结果也不一样。
　　   我认为经济学家们正在逐渐认识到这一点，现在他们的课题更难，而不是更容易。经济学家并没有处理好这个课题。回答（印钱）这个问题，对他们来说很难。
　　   怎么会有人认为他能清楚搞明白现在经济这一切？看看日本的例子吧。
　　   日本的国债能不能因为“它觉得自己的国债可以是现在的两倍”就翻倍?我不知道。
　　贝基·奎克：查理，很多来这里的人都是来寻求建议的，他们不是来找商业或投资方面的建议，而是来寻求生活方面的建议。今天有很多问题，人们试图找出生活的秘密是什么，幸福长寿的秘诀。我只是想知道，你的答案。
　　查理·芒格：不要嫉妒；不要怨恨；不要铺张浪费；即使遇到麻烦，还是保持乐观；和可靠的人打交道；做你应该做的事……所有这些简单的规则都能让你的生活变得更好。这些道理都太老套了。
　　贝基·奎克：你多大年纪认识到这些的？
　　查理·芒格：七岁。当时我就看得出来，我的一些长辈的不理智，我一直都能意识到其他人都有一些不理智的地方。这对我很有帮助，因为世界上有太多的非理性。我很久以来就一直在想，造成非理性的原因和如何预防非理性等等，我相信这样能帮助我。
　　   保持乐观，因为这是一件明智的事情。有那么难吗?当你深陷深深的仇恨和怨恨中时，你能快乐吗?你当然不能。那你为什么要怨恨呢?
　　贝基·奎克：你有没有什么建议可以给20岁的自己?
　　查理·芒格：我没有任何建议，我觉得我的很多孩子都过得很好，不过这和我没有什么关系。我认为他们来到这个世界上，在某种程度上，是命中注定的。作为一个家长，你只需要坐在那里看着。让我感到惊讶的是，其实很多事情都是命中注定的。害羞的婴儿是害羞的成年人。我没找到改变的办法。我对此感到高兴，但我没有改变之道。我可以改变我对此的反应，但我不能改变结果。
　　贝基·奎克：谢谢查理接受我们今天的专访。
　　查理·芒格：我很高兴来到这里。你知道，我在印度和中国似乎有一群人喜欢我。这几乎是我所有的支持者。但这已经比很多人都要好了。所以，我感谢我所拥有的。
　　贝基·奎克：谢谢查理。
　　the end
　　

admin

WHEN: Interview aired today, Friday, February 15, 2019
　　WHERE: Throughout CNBC’s “Squawk Box” from The Daily Journal annual meeting in Los Angeles, CA
　　The following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charles Thomas Munger and CNBC’s Becky Quick following The Daily Journal annual meeting in Los Angeles, CA. The interview aired on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” (M-F 6AM – 9AM) today, Friday, February 15th.The following is a link to video of the interview on CNBC.com:
　　BECKY QUICK: Charlie, thank you very much for taking the time to sit down with us today.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Glad to do it.
　　BECKY QUICK: You spent a lot of time today talking about how people who think that they can beat the market averages are probably fooling themselves, how much tougher it's gotten to be a value investor, or even just an investor in general. And I was just wondering, do you think the golden era of investing is over?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, not forever.
　　BECKY QUICK: Why?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, because I think, it isn't like the last recession or the last big opportunity that the world is ever going to get is past. There'll be opportunities in the future. There are times where they're easier, and there are times when it-- which are harder.
　　BECKY QUICK: So is right now tougher just because--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Now is tougher.
　　BECKY QUICK: --valuation--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Now is tougher.
　　BECKY QUICK: --just because valuations have come up so much?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Of course.
　　BECKY QUICK: So you think--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: A) the valuations have come up. And B) the competition sorting through those opportunities is more intelligent and more aggressive and more numerous. Of course it's harder.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think that the--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: The net result is people are going to get worse results.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think that the number of people who are smarter, who have better information than they used to, that that will go down, or it will just be a question of valuations coming down at some point?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I think valuations will come-- will go up and down because they always have. And I think we'll have smart people in this game forever. Lots of them.
　　BECKY QUICK: You've compared it to--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: The opportunities that we all remember came from a demoralized period when about 90% of the natural stock buyers got very discouraged with stocks. That's what created the opportunity for these fabulous records that my generation had. And that was a rare opportunity that came to a rare group of people of whom I was one. And Warren was another.
　　BECKY QUICK: So you're talking--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: And people who start now have a much less-- they have lower opportunity.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think we saw a generational low after 2008, beginning of 2009?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Generational? Maybe.
　　BECKY QUICK: We--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yeah, I don't think the market is going to be cheaper.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Than it was then. Yes, it was low. There were huge opportunities then.
　　BECKY QUICK: What about just back around December, Christmas Eve? Prices were down 20% and further for a lot of stocks.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I don't follow the details and don't remember the exact days that are-- I know that when The Daily Journal bought those bank stocks, it was basically the low tick.
　　BECKY QUICK: Right.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: That was an accident. I deserve no credit for that.
　　BECKY QUICK: Well, you deserve some credit.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: No. Well-- but-- but the exact perfect timing was an accident.
　　BECKY QUICK: What about the lack of volatility that we've seen in the markets? That-- that's also kind of, as central banks got into the game and increased liquidity—
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, of course it's-- with all this massive central bank interference, I think that was necessary to do. I admire the politicians who did it and the technocrats, including the Federal Reserve people. And I think it was absolutely required, and that the danger they were avoiding was worth some of the troubles they caused. So-- but it was very peculiar. And it did have the accidental effect of bailing out the rich in order to help the poor. And nobody was doing that because they love the rich. They just didn't have any other tool in the kit, and they had to do something.
　　BECKY QUICK: So the inequality that came from that--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: It wasn't malevolent. And it was an accident. And it probably won't happen again. And it's not a permanent conspiracy against the poor. It was a-- it was an accident that we had the huge recession caused partly by massive stupidity in finance and venality. And then when we ran out of tools and had to do something really peculiar that we'd never done before, that was the wisest thing to do, given the amount of trouble we were in. You've got to remember that if the trouble has been allowed to run, we might have had a re-visitation of the kind of troubles that brought Hitler into power. So we were facing real difficulties. And both parties and our technocrats got together for the last time, I think, and worked us out of it. It was a very admirable thing, and that you can all be proud. I've been proud of nothing in politics since.
　　BECKY QUICK: This leads me down so many roads.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: But it was-- but that was a-- that was a high moment.
　　BECKY QUICK: There are all sorts of political proposals out there right now to try and solve that inequality that was created. Everything from a 70% tax on the highest brackets to a wealth tax to taxing stock buybacks or even preventing them. Do you think any of them work?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I don't think we have to destroy-- some inequality is probably going to go by itself.
　　BECKY QUICK: Why?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I think there was a-- I think we hit a peak of inequality because the authorities had no alternative but to print a lot of money. And of course that bailed out asset values. And-- but that was a fluke. And they can't-- they can't really do more of it. They've played that game once, as much as they really can. And so I don't people who were worried about inequality should worry too much about a lot more of it from a lot more interest rate lowering.
　　BECKY QUICK: We are still stuck with this populist fervor, though. And--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yeah, sure. But that's as natural as breathing.
　　BECKY QUICK: How do you think that plays out?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I don't know. So far, it's played out in waves. Sometimes the Democrats are in, sometimes the Republicans. In my lifetime, the country has run better, net, because we had two parties, each of which was partly in control. If either party had been totally in control of all branches of the government, I think we would be way worse off today.
　　BECKY QUICK: You think there's room for a third political party?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I think we, by going back and forth with a lot of political tension, I think we got about the right amount of social safety net. It would have been evil not to have as much. And we probably couldn't afford a lot more.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think there's room for a third political party, the way Howard Schultz is kind of stepping in, potentially?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, we got one the time of-- Abraham Lincoln. It took a civil war to create it. But-- I think it's unlikely that we have-- the last time we got a third party movement, they just elected one of the two parties who otherwise would not have been elected.
　　BECKY QUICK: You mean Ross Perot. Or are you going back--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yes, I mean Ross Perot.
　　BECKY QUICK: Yeah.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Ross Perot elected the Republicans that year.
　　BECKY QUICK: Right. Are there any politicians you look at and admire?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Sure. But generally speaking, it's not a genre that is my favorite.
　　BECKY QUICK: What are-- who are the politicians you do admire? Who do you think has good ideas right now?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I'm not ecstatic about anybody. If you ask me who performed pretty well recently, I'd say Mike Bloomberg.
　　BECKY QUICK: You think he has a shot at winning the Democratic?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I don't know about that. But I think he was-- a pretty reasonable, able kind of a guy, who was trying to do right.
　　BECKY QUICK: You mean in his job-- in his term as Mayor of New York City?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yeah. Yeah, right.
　　BECKY QUICK: What do you think-- if you have not been thoroughly impressed by the political process since they came together to try and combat the Great Recession-- what do you think about our political fortunes going from here? Do you worry? Or is it something that you think will be--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I would prefer they-- that the two parties hated each other less, and that everyone was more rational. You don't like vast political excess and shouted epithets and so forth. I really do-- but what can I do about it? I'm just-- I can be cheerful.
　　BECKY QUICK: You touched a little on the national debt, which has just hit $22 trillion. You touched a little on that.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yeah, we're in new territory. But that doesn't mean that it's crystal clear, we can't by with what we've done. We just know we're in uncharted territory.
　　BECKY QUICK: You worry about the eventualities of a growing national debt?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I don't worry much, because every era, it is a cinch that a great nation will, in due time, be ruined. So I--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: So I -- time and-- whether it's Rome, where is-- Britain in its heyday, they all pass. And so our turn is bound to come someday. But I don't like thinking about it too much. It's like my own death. Why should I enjoy thinking about it? But is it coming some day? Sure. Of course it is.
　　BECKY QUICK: But you-- you have no guess as to when?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: No. None.
　　BECKY QUICK: Sooner or later. You-- you've been a huge- booster of China's economies and some of the Chinese companies, and the entrepreneurs who run them. We've gotten, obviously, into a little sticker situation with China with the trade talks that are going back and forth. And maybe a different relationship than we've been dealing with for the last 20 or 30 years. What do you think about China right now and its future?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I think it's natural to have some tension over-- the truth of the matter is that Ricardo, when he invented the law of comparative advantage, did not predict that some day the law of comparative advantage would make-- would grasp-- would greatly accelerate the growth of some poor nation which had a particularly able populace, like China. That free trade would enable them to come up rapidly and take a lot of power away from companies that had been on top and like being on top. He just hadn't think about it. Once we realized it could happen, I don't think it's crazy to think there may be some limit to the amount of destruction we want to occur in our aerospace industry or something.
　　BECKY QUICK: Right.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: So I don't regard free trade as such a pure thing that we could never, under any circumstances, intervene. And I think that the advantages to United States and China, to getting along, are so great on both sides, that I anticipate that they will reach some tolerable adjustment.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think the president's right to raise the questions about whether free trade is really trade and open trade and fair to both sides?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I don't consider it wrong to have some limits on free trade that matter to the United States. I don't want many, and I don't want them to be huge. But some limits on the operation of free trade are quite acceptable.
　　BECKY QUICK: Have you changed your perspective on Chinese investments, to this point, based on this trade talks, or based on the new relationship we may have going forward?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I basically believe in a lot of trade. Because I want two companies-- two countries with a lot of hydrogen bombs to be trading happily with one another instead of posturing the way we are with Russia. So I vastly prefer our relations with China to our relations with Russia. And I think China thinks likewise. And I anticipate that we will get along. It will be crazy on both sides if United States and China don't-- does any one country, both sides should want to keep friendly, it's the other.
　　BECKY QUICK: You know, you bring up nuclear power or nuclear bombs. And I just wonder, what worries you the most in the arsenal of things that could go wrong? Is it nuclear bombs? Is it--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Of course.
　　BECKY QUICK: --artificial intelligence? Is it--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: No, it's-- it's-- it's a nuclear war. A nuclear war would be a real, real disaster. Global warming is something we could cope with if we had to. But a nuclear war is-- that's-- that is really serious.
　　BECKY QUICK: You point to our relationship with Russia. Obviously, we have the situation with North Korea, with Iran.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I'm all for making the Russian relationship better, too.
　　BECKY QUICK: How?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, that's difficult. But you've got to work at it. I don't think the right way to handle every tough guy that's fighting against you is with unlimited hostility. There are times I think when they ought to be killed with kindness. Even-- even if they're wrong.
　　BECKY QUICK: Is that emphasis on killed or emphasis on kindness?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I think kindness. There are worse things in the world when you're rich and powerful than giving a little for the peace of the world.
　　BECKY QUICK: Your concerns about that, where would you rate it? Because obviously, this is something you've thought about for a long time and watched for a long time. Are you less worried or more worried than you were ten years, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, about that situation?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I don't think, since the day they invented the hydrogen bomb, I've had a moment when I didn't think that mankind's main problem was avoiding-- a modern war using hydrogen bombs. It's a very serious problem.
　　BECKY QUICK: Charlie, can I ask you about some news of the day today? While you were in your board meeting, and then with the shareholders, there was news out that Amazon was actually pulling its headquarters bid for New York City. And I don't know how closely you follow that. But it's certainly an interesting study when you start looking at how much- states and municipalities should be doing to woo corporate investments and when or if there's a time where it's giving too much, or if they're standing up and have just left a potential for a huge investment?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, of course, we've had states doing this kind of thing for a long, long time. And, by and large, the states that have done it have been wise to do it.
　　BECKY QUICK: The states that have wooed companies.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yes.
　　BECKY QUICK: Yeah.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: It's been smart of them to-- to woo outside companies to come in. And, and of course it will go on time the wretched excess, that's our system. No, I don't worry too much about it. And -- and my attitude toward them is on the-- utter phenomenon of nature. It's hardly ever been anything like it in the history of our country. And very talented, driven people. And I would not have predicted the success that happened. And now that it's happened, I wouldn't want to predict that it was going to stop, either. I think it may run a long way.
　　BECKY QUICK: Just back to the idea of whether New York created big problem for itself. I was just thinking about in terms of the new tax laws that are there, and the the blue states, the SALT states, have lost a lot in the new tax legislation. And it's basically punishment from the government for having such high local taxes, because they can no longer deduct those on a federal level. So New York's going to get hit with that. You combine that with the idea that it's not going to be-- not just only wooing Amazon, but what message that may send to the broader business community, could a state like New York or someone in the northeast region really have have shot themselves in the foot with a double whammy?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: There are a number of places that have shot themselves in the foot. Connecticut, California, New York City. They-- it's-- it's been serious. And driving the rich people out is pretty dumb if you're a state or a city. And the idea that you're going to help New York by driving the rich people out, of course it hurts New York. And of course it hurt Connecticut. The idea of that beautiful real estate in Connecticut, down 50% in value--
　　BECKY QUICK: Right.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: --they've driven out all the rich people. And California's doing the same thing. I know a lot of rich people who left California. It-- I think it's really stupid for a state to drive the rich people out. They're old. They keep your hospitals busy. They don't burden your schools, the police department, your prisons. They give a lot. Who wouldn't want rich people? I think Florida and Hawaii have both been very smart in the way they've recruited rich people. And I think Connecticut and California have been stupid.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think the country risks some of those same stupid policies if you tax--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, some of the people in California are so anti-growth, they like driving the rich people out. That's not my view. But, you can understand why some people think that way.
　　BECKY QUICK: Let's go back to Amazon and the growth that you've seen there. I know in the past that you've said--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: It's incredible what they've done.
　　BECKY QUICK: Yeah. And you've called Bezos 'ferociously smart'--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yes.
　　BECKY QUICK: What do you think about the prospects for Amazon longer term? There-- there are some movements in Washington that push back against him, whether it's because he's the owner of The Washington Post or whether it's just-- one company getting too big and-- and regulators worrying about that.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: My guess is he still has a long ways to go. Up.
　　BECKY QUICK: You're a lawyer, too. He--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Was.
　　BECKY QUICK: Well, once a lawyer always a lawyer, correct?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Not really. That was a long time ago.
　　BECKY QUICK: What do you think about his move that he's made recently with the the owner of The Enquirer to say, 'Look,' he just came out and said, 'They're blackmailing me. They're extorting me.'"
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I admire people who simply confront problems head-on. And so I have no quarrel with his confronting The National Enquirer. But I regard it as a little nothing place that the world would be-- could well do without. And so-- and to the extent they've behaved badly, and he's objecting vigorously-- I'm all for it.
　　BECKY QUICK: Let's talk about bad behavior in business. Because I think of you sometimes as the high priest, somebody who looks around and lauds good behavior, but also calls out bad behavior where he sees it. What-- what do you think some of the worst behaviors are in business today?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I think the behavior of the mortgage and banking industry in the delusional prosperity that preceded the great real estate bust was obscene. Practically everywhere. And I think that the people who got into a lot of trouble richly deserved it. And-- I think they didn't get enough. If God were just, there would have been-- there would have been more penalties. They were bailed out, to some extent, because the country had to do it. And-- but it never should have been allowed to run. I mean all that disgusting lying and-cheating and delusional assumptions and-- and-- it was just-- we all would consider it totally illicit and awful to adulterate the baby food to make more money to an extent where the babies died. And they were doing pretty much the same thing with the basic-- with their basic product. They were adulterating it so badly that it threatened the whole welfare of the republic. This was deeply evil. It's one of the things Elizabeth Warren is really right about.
　　BECKY QUICK: And you don't agree with her on much.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: That's true. But I agree with her on that.
　　BECKY QUICK: Is that behavior still taking place? Or you think it's-- it's been put to--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, it's attenuated, thank God. But, is there still some craziness in finance? Of course. There always will be. But it's-- it's way better.
　　BECKY QUICK: Anything that rises to your radar screen now that may be under the radar for other people?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, nobody knows how much of this money printing we can do. And of course we have politicians who like-- and are in both parties, who like to believe that it doesn't matter how much you do. That we can ignore the whole subject and just print money as convenient. Well, that's the way the Roman Empire behaved, then it was ruined. And that's the way the Weimar Republic was ruined. And-- it's-- there is a point where it's dangerous. You know, and of course, my attitude when something is big and dangerous is to stay a long way away from it. Other people want to come as close as possible without going in. That's too tricky for me. I don't like it.
　　BECKY QUICK: In terms of possibly getting sucked up into it?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yes. I-- I-- if there's a big whirlpool in the river, I stay a long way away from it. There were a bunch of canoeists once that tried to-- to run the Aaron Rapids. I think they were from Scandinavia. And-- and the fact that the whirlpools were so big made them very eager to tackle this huge challenge. The death rate was 100%. I regard that as a normal result.
　　BECKY QUICK: Bill and Melinda Gates put out their annual letter this week, too. And in it, they had a list of a number of things that have caught them by surprise, things they learned that they didn't see coming. One of them, I think, was that toilets haven't really changed in the last 100 years. Another was that--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, they have, as a matter of fact. The Japanese made the openings bigger. And what you want to go away goes away better. They have changed. They're way better. I don't think they pay enough attention to their toilets.
　　BECKY QUICK: Same basic construct, though.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: They haven't noticed to see they-- the-- the increased of the size of the whole without telling them.
　　BECKY QUICK: It does wash away more waste with less water. I will give you that.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: But it takes away more waste.
　　BECKY QUICK: Takes away more with less.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Faster, better.
　　BECKY QUICK: They had a list of things. Some is that data can be sexist, obviously. Whoever's programming stuff puts it in. Another is that D.N.A. tests can actually catch serial killers.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, that has been a pleasant change.
　　BECKY QUICK: Catching serial killers?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Yes.
　　BECKY QUICK: Yeah. I would agree. I use this, though, as a way of just getting into things that may have caught you by surprise. Is there anything recently that really caught you off guard or that snuck up on you?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I was surprised when central banks started printing money and buying massive amounts of private securities and, they hadn't done that previously in my lifetime. At least not in a big way. And they did it massively. And it seems to have worked considerably. And that surprised me. And by the way, it surprised the whole economics profession. If you read the textbooks on economics, nobody was predicting that this would be the logical response.
　　BECKY QUICK: We're not out of it yet, though.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: No, of course not. You're never out of it until you're dead.
　　BECKY QUICK: Do you think we can call it a success without seeing quantitative easing wrapped up, the big balance sheets kind of wound down? Or, do you think we've come far enough out of it to say this worked?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, all human successes are successes so far. And this is a success so far, and we don't know for sure what the ultimate consequences would be. In the old days, when people thought, 'This year the currency should be backed with gold,' and they wanted the inflation rate to be zero, and the social safety net to be almost zero, they created a lot of GDP growth and a lot of prosperity, but with horrible recessions. And to some extent, the recessions automatically cured themselves. But when we got into the business of big interventions driven by the example of the Great Depression, what we got is pretty much a century of extreme prosperity with relatively minor recessions. And-- but we're using methods that are so extreme that maybe we can't use a lot more of them. And we don't know the answer to that. If an economist told me he knew the answer to that, I wouldn't believe him. Either way. It wouldn't matter which way his opinion was. I just think we don't know.
　　BECKY QUICK: Is that because that question's too hard, or you just don't trust economists in general?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, the reason the economists are wrong is because it's so hard.
　　BECKY QUICK: Yeah.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: You know, the great philosopher who said 'A man never steps into the same river twice', you know, 'the man is different, and so is the river, when he goes in the second time,' that's the trouble with economics. It's not like physics. The-- the-- the same damn recipe done a different time gets a different result.
　　BECKY QUICK: Right.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: And I don't think the economics profession-- I think they're gradually coming to that recognition. But it makes their subject harder, not more easy. And they weren't handling it so perfectly even when they thought it was easier. So of course it's hard for them.
　　BECKY QUICK: And-- and Charlie--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: How-- why would anybody think they know exactly? Take Japan's present position.
　　BECKY QUICK: Yeah.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Can Japan double its national debt just because it feels like it from here? I don't know.
　　BECKY QUICK: I don't know.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I don't know.
　　BECKY QUICK: Charlie, so many of the people who come here come because they're looking for advice not on business or investments as much as they're looking for just advice on life. There were a lot of questions today, people trying to figure out what the secret to life is, to a long and happy life. And-- and I just wonder, if you were--
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Now that is easy, because it's so simple.
　　BECKY QUICK: What is it?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: You don't have a lot of envy, you don't have a lot of resentment, you don't overspend your income, you stay cheerful in spite of your troubles. You deal with reliable people and you do what you're supposed to do. And all these simple rules work so well to make your life better. And they're so trite.
　　BECKY QUICK: How old were you when you figured this out?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: About seven. I could tell that some of my older people were a little bonkers. I've always been able to recognize that other people were a little bonkers. And it helped me because there's so much irrationality in the world. And I've been thinking about it for a long time, its causes and its preventions, and so forth, that I-- sure it's helped me.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: And -- staying cheerful-- with-- because it's a wise thing to do. Is that so hard? And can you be cheerful when you're absolutely mired in deep hatred and resentment? Of course you can't. So why would you take it on?
　　BECKY QUICK: Is there any advice you would go back and give your 20-year-old self?
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: I have not-- many of my children have worked out well. And I've had very little to do with it. I think they come into the world, to a certain extent, pre-made. And you just sit there and watch. I don't think they're-- it's been simply amazing to me as a parent to note know much is sort of preordained. The shy baby is the shy adult. The booming, obnoxious, domineering baby is the booming, domineering, obnoxious adult. I've never found a way to fix that. I can be cheerful about it, but I can't fix it. I can change my reaction, but I can't change the outcome.
　　BECKY QUICK: Well, Charlie, I want to thank you so much for your time today. It's really been a pleasure being here.
　　CHARLES THOMAS MUNGER: Well, I'm glad to be here. You know, I seem to have a whole group of people in India and China that like me. Now, that's pretty much my whole favorable constituency. But it's more than a lot of other people have. And so, I'm thankful for what I have.
　　BECKY QUICK: And we are thankful for having you here. Thank you.