QuestionerWarren and Charlie, this is a question. Actually, we got a handful of questions on this topic. This is probably the best formulation of it. Warren, you have been a long-time outspoken Democrat. With all the talk about socialism versus capitalism taking place among Democratic presidential candidates, do you anticipate an impact on Berkshire in the form of more regulations, higher corporate taxes, or even calls for breakups among the many companies we own if they were to? to win? And how do you think about your own politics as a fiduciary of our company, and at the same time as someone who has said that simply being a business leader doesn't mean you've put your citizenship in a blind trust?
WarrenYeah, I have said that you do not put your citizenship in a blind trust, but you also don't speak on behalf of your company. You do speak as a citizen if you speak, and therefore you have to be careful about one. when you do speak because it's going to be assumed you're speaking on behalf of your company. Berkshire Hathaway, certainly in 54 years, as never and will never, made a contribution to a presidential candidate. I don't think we've made a contribution to any political candidate, but I don't want to say for 54 years that we don't do it now. We have, we operate trade in several regulated industries and our railroad and our utility as a practical matter, they have to have a presence in Washington norm and in the state legislatures in which they operate. So they have, we have some, a few, I don't know how many political action committees, which existed when we bought it, we bought the companies at subsidiaries. And I think it, unquestionably, they make some contributions simply to achieve the same access as their competitors. The trucking industry is going to lobby. I'm sure the railroad industry is going to lobby. But the general, well, the rule is, I mean, that people do not pursue their own political interests with your money here. We've had one or two managers over the years, for example, that would do some fundraising where they were fundraising from people who were suppliers to them or something of the sort. And if I ever find out about it, that ends promptly. But my position at Berkshire is not to be used to be used to further my own political beliefs, but my own political beliefs can be expressed as a person, not as a representative of Berkshire, when the campaign is important. I don't, I try to minimize
[3:16]
Warrenit, but it's no secret that in the last election, for example, I raised money. I won't give money to PACs. I accidentally did it one time. I didn't know it was a PAC. But I don't do it, but I've raised substantial sums. I don't like the way money is used in politics. I've written op-ed pieces for the New York Times in the past on the influence of money in politics. On your question about the, I will just say, I'm a card-carrying capitalist, but I believe we wouldn't be sitting here, except for the market system and the rule of law and some things that are embodied in this country. So I, you don't have to worry about me changing in that manner, but I also think that capitalism does involve regulation. It involves taking care of people who are left behind, particularly when the country gets enormously prosperous. But beyond that, I have no Berkshire podium for pushing anything. Charlie?
CharlieWell, I think we're all in favor of some kind of a government, social safety net in a country is prosperous. hours. What a lot of us don't like is the vast stupidity with which parts of that social safety net are managed by the government. It'd be much better if we could do it more wisely. But I think it also might be better if we did it more liberally.