QuestionerMy question is, how do you see the current U.S.-China Internet companies' valuation and the price disparity, given there has been many uncertainties such as geopolitical tensions, significant cost optimizations, with lean at U.S. tech firms, while China tech has been through all that already. Thank you.
WarrenCharlie, I want to... Well, there's been some tension in the economic. relationship of United States and China, I think that that tension has been wrongly created on both sides. I think we're equally guilty of being stupid. If there's one thing we should do, it's get along with China, and we should have a lot of free trade with China in our mutual interest. And I just can't imagine. It's just so obvious. There's so much safety and so much creativity as possible. Think of what Apple has done by engaging in a partnership with China as a big supplier. It's been good for Apple and good for China. That's the kind of business we ought to be doing with China. And more of it. And with everything that increases the tension between the two companies is stupid, stupid, stupid. And it'll be stopped on each side. and each side ought to respond to the other side stupidity with reciprocal kindness. That's my view. And it creates one enormous problem, of course, which is that you have the two superpowers of the world and they know they have to get along with each other. Either one can destroy the other. And they're going to be competitive with each other. But part of it is trying, always in a game like that, is trying to judge how far you can push the other guy without them reacting wrong. And, you know, if either side is a bully in some ways they can get away with it to an extent because the alternative would drive them both into destruction. But if they push it too far, they increase the probability that something really does go wrong. So it's one of those game theory dilemmas. But you really need the leader of both countries, and you need the populace to understand at least the general situation in which these countries are going to operate over the next century and know that some leader that promises too much can get you in a hell of a lot of trouble. And that, like, you know, that you've got one kind of a system that gets this leader one way, they got another system that gets his leader another way. And keeping either side from trying to play the game too hard and thinking the other side will go along, you know, it's
[3:30]
Warrenlike playing chicken, you know, and driving toward a cliff. So it is, if you got any diplomacy skills, persuasive skills, or anything like that, you really want people to but we'll convince the other country as well as his own, or her own country, that that this is what we're engaged in. We've got to do it right. We won't give away the store, but we won't try and take the whole store either. And it, it, we're just at the beginning of this, unfortunately. I mean, we've learned what the situation was. It used to be the Soviet. And And the mutually assured destruction was our policy then, and that kept a lot of things from happening, but it also came with a very, very, very, very close call with Cuba. And these are not, you know, these are different games than existed hundreds of years ago. You could, you know, Britain might rule the seas or France or Spain, but now you're playing with the game. that you can't really make a huge mistake in. And I think that that should be, the better that's understood in both countries, the more the leaders feel that their citizenry does understand that, the better off will be. And that a lot of demographic, demography, or a lot of inflammatory speaking, but a lot of inflammatory speaking, but a lot of authority. humanitarian action. I mean, it all carries its dangers. And the world has stumbled through the years post-1945 with a lot of close calls in the nuclear arena. And now we've got pandemics and we've got cyber and a whole bunch of other things. So we've got more tools of destruction than the world's ever had. And it's imperative that China and the the United States. Both understand what the game is and understand that you can't push too hard. But both places are going to be competitive. And both can prosper. That's what really is. That's the vision that is out there that China will have a more wonderful country. The United States will have a more wonderful country. And the two are not just compatible. They're They're almost imperative in terms of what's going to happen in the next 100 years or so. And I think that the leaders of both countries have got an important job in having that understood and not to do inflammatory things. And we'll see whether the luck that has taken us from 1945 to present holds out and I think we can affect to some extent that luck. And with that surey message, we will move to Becky. This question comes from Rohit Bellany. Berkshire bought a substantial position in Taiwan
[7:10]
Questionersemiconductor and contrary to its normal holding timeline sold almost the entire position within a few short months. While you cited in a CNBC interview that geopolitical issues were the catalyst, these issues were seemingly no different when you acquired that stock. So what else, if anything, changed in those few months and prompted the firm to offload close to $5 billion worth of Taiwan Semiconductor shares? Taiwan Semiconductor is one of the best managed companies and important companies in the world. And there is not, and I think you'll be able to say the same thing, five or 10 or 20 years from now.
WarrenI don't like its location and I've re-evaluated that. I mean, I don't think it should be any place but Taiwan, although they will be obviously opening a chip capacity in this country. And actually, one of our subsidiaries that we got in Allegheny is participating in their Arizona construction activities. But it's, it's, it's, uh, it, uh, it, uh, it, uh, it, uh, the question of we would rather have the same kind of company and there's nobody in the chip company there's no in the chip industry that's in their league in our bit at least in my view uh and the man that was a 91 year old or so that connected with it that uh i think i played bridge with and uh uh in albuquerque and the marvelous people marvelous company but I'd rather find a marvelous people, I won't find it in the ship industry, marvelous, uh, competitive position and everything. I'd rather find it in the United States. I feel better about the capital that we've got deployed in Japan than in Taiwan. I wish it weren't so, but I think that's the reality and I'd reevaluated that in the light of certain things that we're going on.
QuestionerWell, my view is that Warren ought to feel comfortable if you wants to. Put that in the minutes.