★英語資源頻道為大家整理的china daily 雙語新聞：股神巴菲特與安德森關于比特幣的口水戰(zhàn)，供大家參考。更多閱讀請查看本站英語資源頻道。
位是德高望重的傳奇投資人，一位是風頭正勁的新銳大佬，但巴菲特和安德森這兩位舉足輕重的投資家對虛擬貨幣比特幣的態(tài)度卻大相徑庭。巴菲特警告稱，離比特幣遠點;而安德森卻說，巴菲特不懂技術，純粹是瞎扯。不過，或許兩人的觀點都沒錯。
It's not often that billionaire investor Warren Buffett gets called out for being clueless.
身價億萬的投資家沃倫•巴菲特被人稱作無知，這種情況可不常見。
But that's essentially what venture capitalist Marc Andreessen did this week at a virtual currency conference when he said, in reference to Warren Buffet's advice that investors stay away from Bitcoin, that "The historical track record of old white men crapping on new technology they don't understand is at, I think, 100%." Andreessen was responding to an appearance on CNBC where Buffett opined:
不過這確實是風險投資家馬克•安德森上周在虛擬貨幣會議上所說的話。針對沃倫•巴菲特讓投資者遠離比特幣的建議，他說：“一直以來，這些白人老頭對自己不了解的新技術發(fā)表的言論全部都是瞎說。”安德森對巴菲特在美國全國廣播公司(CNBC)上提出的觀點做出了回應。當時，巴菲特說：
"Stay away. Bitcoin is a mirage. It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money, and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."
“離遠點。比特幣是海市蜃樓。這是一種轉移資金的手段。它是一種有效的轉移途徑，而且可以通過匿名實現這個過程，還有諸如此類的一些特色。不過支票也是一種轉移金錢的手段。就因為支票可以轉移金錢，所以它就價值連城嗎?郵政匯票呢?大家也可以通過郵政匯款轉移錢。人們也是這么做的。我希望比特幣能成為更好的轉移金錢的手段，但你可以用許多方法創(chuàng)造出類似的貨幣，將來也的確會出現這種情況。在我看來，認為比特幣擁有某種巨大內在價值的想法非?？尚??！?BR> And yesterday Business Insider's Henry Blodget entered the fray, defending Buffett's skepticism of Bitcoin, saying it wasn't based on ignorance of the technology as Andreessen asserts, but a healthy skepticism of all new technologies. To back up his argument, Blodget quoted at length from a Buffett-penned article, which appeared in Fortune in 1999. The article was written during the height of dotcom mania, as Buffett explained why he avoided investing in the flurry of new technologies that were then hitting the market. Wrote Buffett:
昨天，商業(yè)新聞網戰(zhàn)Business Insider的亨利•布拉吉也加入了論戰(zhàn)，他為巴菲特對比特幣的懷疑態(tài)度進行了辯護，表示巴菲特并不是像安德森所說，是由于對技術的無知，而是一種對所有新技術的合理的質疑。為了支撐自己的觀點，布拉吉詳盡地引用了由巴菲特執(zhí)筆，登載于1999年《財富》雜志上的一篇文章。文章撰寫于網絡狂熱的高峰期，巴菲特在文中解釋了自己為什么不在當時沖擊市場的新技術的騷動中跟風投資。巴菲特當時寫道：
"The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage."
“投資的關鍵不在于評估這個產業(yè)將對社會產生多大影響，或是它將發(fā)展到多大規(guī)模，而在于判定目標公司有多少競爭優(yōu)勢。最重要的是，那種優(yōu)勢能維持多久?！?BR> In other words, it's not that Buffett is ignorant about technology. It's just that he understands that it's impossible to know which specific investments will benefit from a technology's widespread adoption, even if you are prescient enough to know what technologies will revolutionize the world and how they will do so. Buffett chooses the examples of the car and aviation industries. Many people saw the revolutionary potential of these inventions, but such clairvoyance would be worthless to an investor if he chose the wrong car company. The same goes for aviation -- which has notoriously been a difficult industry to profit from, despite its revolutionary effect on society.
換句話說，并不是巴菲特不了解技術。只是他明白，要確切知道哪種投資能夠從技術的廣泛普及中受益不太可能，哪怕你足夠有先見之明，預見到哪種技術將徹底改變世界，以及通過何種方式改變。巴菲特舉了汽車和航空業(yè)的例子。許多人看出了這些發(fā)明具有革命性的潛力，但如果投資者沒有選對汽車公司，那這種先見之明就毫無價值。航空業(yè)也是一樣——盡管它對社會起到了革命性的作用，但從這個行業(yè)獲利的難度也是眾所周知。And by this logic, Buffett is right to be skeptical of Bitcoin. Whether you hope to profit from the rise of cryptocurrencies by investing in Bitcoin itself, or companies that would profit from Bitcoin'sascendence like the Andreessen-backed Coinbase, you're going to need to know more than just the fact that cryptocurrencies will change the world to make money. After all, what if you buy a bunch of bitcoins, but it turns out that a bitcoinvarient becomes the dominant form of virtual currency?
根據這種邏輯，巴菲特對比特幣持懷疑態(tài)度合情合理。不管你是希望借加密貨幣的崛起之機投資比特幣獲利，還是像安德森支持的Coinbase這類公司借比特幣的強勢而獲利，但在加密貨幣將改變世界這一事實之外，你還需要懂得更多才能掙到錢。畢竟，假如你買了一大堆比特幣，但最后卻是比特幣的某一變種占據了虛擬貨幣的統治地位，到時候怎么辦呢?
Adresseen, in an email interview with Forbes, called this analysis "unsophisticated." Writes Andreessen:
安德森在接受《福布斯》雜志的郵件采訪中表示，這種分析“單純而天真”。他寫道：
"This is a standard trope of technology criticism by people who don't understand technology ... 'Yes, sure, it's great technology, but it won't be useful or valuable in the way that those crazy nerds think it will be useful or valuable.' I've heard it my whole life applied to every new important technology. It's fake sophistication -- it sounds nuanced but it's not."
“不了解技術的人總是用這種比喻來批判技術……‘是啊，當然，這技術很棒，但并不像那些瘋狂的呆子所想的那么有用或有價值?！槍γ糠N重要的新技術，都有這類論調，我這輩子已經聽了太多。這不過是故作高深——看起來分析入微，實際上并非如此?！?BR> The problem with this comeback is that Buffett isn't trying to sound sophisticated or nuanced. Buffett's very point is that a sophisticated or nuanced understanding of technology isn't necessary -- and is perhaps even detrimental -- to making money on investments. Buffett's style of investing requires very sophisticated knowledge of financials while avoiding understanding technology for fear that an emotional connection to the promise of that technology can take his eye off the ball of profits.
安德森的反駁存在一個問題：巴菲特并不想顯得高深或是分析入微。巴菲特的重要觀點在于：對技術有著深刻或細致的了解，并不是投資獲利的必要因素，這甚至反而可能是有害的。巴菲特的投資風格要求他熟知金融知識而避免過分了解技術，以免對這項技術的前景的情感羈絆影響他對利潤的關注。
Essentially this disagreement can all be boiled down to the fact that Andreessen and Buffett are two different types of investors. Andreessen is a venture capital guy who makes his money by putting bets on countless long shots, and only needing to be right a fraction of the time. To know what long-shot bets you should make requires a deep knowledge of the technologies you're investing in to aid you in your forecasting of how they will change the world. But even Andreessen knows he's only going to be right a fraction of the time on an investment-by-investment basis. Buffett takes the complete opposite approach -- by either investing in mature companies with very small and hard-to-perceive advantages over their competitors, or by leveraging his reputation and access to capital to make sure bets not available to anyone else (like the stake he took in Goldman Sachs at the height of the financial crisis).
實際上，這場爭論可以歸結為一個事實：安德森和巴菲特是兩種不同類型的投資者。安德森是個在許多高風險的投資項目上下注掙錢的投資家，他只需要在短期內正確就夠了。想知道應該投資哪些高風險項目，你需要對投資的技術有著深刻的了解，從而幫助你預測它們將會如何改變世界。不過即便安德森自己也知道，他這種不斷投資的方式只能讓他做到短期內正確。巴菲特的方式則正好相反，他或是投資那些比起競爭對手而言有著細微和難以察覺的優(yōu)勢的成熟公司，或是利用他的聲望及資金來保證其他任何人都無法參與下注【比如在金融危機最嚴重的時候，他買入了高盛投資公司(Goldman Sachs)的股票】。
In other words, both men are right. (And that's why they have so much more money than you.)
換句話說，兩個人都是對的。(這也是為什么他們擁有的財富比你多得多。)
位是德高望重的傳奇投資人，一位是風頭正勁的新銳大佬，但巴菲特和安德森這兩位舉足輕重的投資家對虛擬貨幣比特幣的態(tài)度卻大相徑庭。巴菲特警告稱，離比特幣遠點;而安德森卻說，巴菲特不懂技術，純粹是瞎扯。不過，或許兩人的觀點都沒錯。
It's not often that billionaire investor Warren Buffett gets called out for being clueless.
身價億萬的投資家沃倫•巴菲特被人稱作無知，這種情況可不常見。
But that's essentially what venture capitalist Marc Andreessen did this week at a virtual currency conference when he said, in reference to Warren Buffet's advice that investors stay away from Bitcoin, that "The historical track record of old white men crapping on new technology they don't understand is at, I think, 100%." Andreessen was responding to an appearance on CNBC where Buffett opined:
不過這確實是風險投資家馬克•安德森上周在虛擬貨幣會議上所說的話。針對沃倫•巴菲特讓投資者遠離比特幣的建議，他說：“一直以來，這些白人老頭對自己不了解的新技術發(fā)表的言論全部都是瞎說。”安德森對巴菲特在美國全國廣播公司(CNBC)上提出的觀點做出了回應。當時，巴菲特說：
"Stay away. Bitcoin is a mirage. It's a method of transmitting money. It's a very effective way of transmitting money, and you can do it anonymously and all that. A check is a way of transmitting money, too. Are checks worth a whole lot of money just because they can transmit money? Are money orders? You can transmit money by money orders. People do it. I hope bitcoin becomes a better way of doing it, but you can replicate it a bunch of different ways and it will be. The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke in my view."
“離遠點。比特幣是海市蜃樓。這是一種轉移資金的手段。它是一種有效的轉移途徑，而且可以通過匿名實現這個過程，還有諸如此類的一些特色。不過支票也是一種轉移金錢的手段。就因為支票可以轉移金錢，所以它就價值連城嗎?郵政匯票呢?大家也可以通過郵政匯款轉移錢。人們也是這么做的。我希望比特幣能成為更好的轉移金錢的手段，但你可以用許多方法創(chuàng)造出類似的貨幣，將來也的確會出現這種情況。在我看來，認為比特幣擁有某種巨大內在價值的想法非?？尚??！?BR> And yesterday Business Insider's Henry Blodget entered the fray, defending Buffett's skepticism of Bitcoin, saying it wasn't based on ignorance of the technology as Andreessen asserts, but a healthy skepticism of all new technologies. To back up his argument, Blodget quoted at length from a Buffett-penned article, which appeared in Fortune in 1999. The article was written during the height of dotcom mania, as Buffett explained why he avoided investing in the flurry of new technologies that were then hitting the market. Wrote Buffett:
昨天，商業(yè)新聞網戰(zhàn)Business Insider的亨利•布拉吉也加入了論戰(zhàn)，他為巴菲特對比特幣的懷疑態(tài)度進行了辯護，表示巴菲特并不是像安德森所說，是由于對技術的無知，而是一種對所有新技術的合理的質疑。為了支撐自己的觀點，布拉吉詳盡地引用了由巴菲特執(zhí)筆，登載于1999年《財富》雜志上的一篇文章。文章撰寫于網絡狂熱的高峰期，巴菲特在文中解釋了自己為什么不在當時沖擊市場的新技術的騷動中跟風投資。巴菲特當時寫道：
"The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage."
“投資的關鍵不在于評估這個產業(yè)將對社會產生多大影響，或是它將發(fā)展到多大規(guī)模，而在于判定目標公司有多少競爭優(yōu)勢。最重要的是，那種優(yōu)勢能維持多久?！?BR> In other words, it's not that Buffett is ignorant about technology. It's just that he understands that it's impossible to know which specific investments will benefit from a technology's widespread adoption, even if you are prescient enough to know what technologies will revolutionize the world and how they will do so. Buffett chooses the examples of the car and aviation industries. Many people saw the revolutionary potential of these inventions, but such clairvoyance would be worthless to an investor if he chose the wrong car company. The same goes for aviation -- which has notoriously been a difficult industry to profit from, despite its revolutionary effect on society.
換句話說，并不是巴菲特不了解技術。只是他明白，要確切知道哪種投資能夠從技術的廣泛普及中受益不太可能，哪怕你足夠有先見之明，預見到哪種技術將徹底改變世界，以及通過何種方式改變。巴菲特舉了汽車和航空業(yè)的例子。許多人看出了這些發(fā)明具有革命性的潛力，但如果投資者沒有選對汽車公司，那這種先見之明就毫無價值。航空業(yè)也是一樣——盡管它對社會起到了革命性的作用，但從這個行業(yè)獲利的難度也是眾所周知。And by this logic, Buffett is right to be skeptical of Bitcoin. Whether you hope to profit from the rise of cryptocurrencies by investing in Bitcoin itself, or companies that would profit from Bitcoin'sascendence like the Andreessen-backed Coinbase, you're going to need to know more than just the fact that cryptocurrencies will change the world to make money. After all, what if you buy a bunch of bitcoins, but it turns out that a bitcoinvarient becomes the dominant form of virtual currency?
根據這種邏輯，巴菲特對比特幣持懷疑態(tài)度合情合理。不管你是希望借加密貨幣的崛起之機投資比特幣獲利，還是像安德森支持的Coinbase這類公司借比特幣的強勢而獲利，但在加密貨幣將改變世界這一事實之外，你還需要懂得更多才能掙到錢。畢竟，假如你買了一大堆比特幣，但最后卻是比特幣的某一變種占據了虛擬貨幣的統治地位，到時候怎么辦呢?
Adresseen, in an email interview with Forbes, called this analysis "unsophisticated." Writes Andreessen:
安德森在接受《福布斯》雜志的郵件采訪中表示，這種分析“單純而天真”。他寫道：
"This is a standard trope of technology criticism by people who don't understand technology ... 'Yes, sure, it's great technology, but it won't be useful or valuable in the way that those crazy nerds think it will be useful or valuable.' I've heard it my whole life applied to every new important technology. It's fake sophistication -- it sounds nuanced but it's not."
“不了解技術的人總是用這種比喻來批判技術……‘是啊，當然，這技術很棒，但并不像那些瘋狂的呆子所想的那么有用或有價值?！槍γ糠N重要的新技術，都有這類論調，我這輩子已經聽了太多。這不過是故作高深——看起來分析入微，實際上并非如此?！?BR> The problem with this comeback is that Buffett isn't trying to sound sophisticated or nuanced. Buffett's very point is that a sophisticated or nuanced understanding of technology isn't necessary -- and is perhaps even detrimental -- to making money on investments. Buffett's style of investing requires very sophisticated knowledge of financials while avoiding understanding technology for fear that an emotional connection to the promise of that technology can take his eye off the ball of profits.
安德森的反駁存在一個問題：巴菲特并不想顯得高深或是分析入微。巴菲特的重要觀點在于：對技術有著深刻或細致的了解，并不是投資獲利的必要因素，這甚至反而可能是有害的。巴菲特的投資風格要求他熟知金融知識而避免過分了解技術，以免對這項技術的前景的情感羈絆影響他對利潤的關注。
Essentially this disagreement can all be boiled down to the fact that Andreessen and Buffett are two different types of investors. Andreessen is a venture capital guy who makes his money by putting bets on countless long shots, and only needing to be right a fraction of the time. To know what long-shot bets you should make requires a deep knowledge of the technologies you're investing in to aid you in your forecasting of how they will change the world. But even Andreessen knows he's only going to be right a fraction of the time on an investment-by-investment basis. Buffett takes the complete opposite approach -- by either investing in mature companies with very small and hard-to-perceive advantages over their competitors, or by leveraging his reputation and access to capital to make sure bets not available to anyone else (like the stake he took in Goldman Sachs at the height of the financial crisis).
實際上，這場爭論可以歸結為一個事實：安德森和巴菲特是兩種不同類型的投資者。安德森是個在許多高風險的投資項目上下注掙錢的投資家，他只需要在短期內正確就夠了。想知道應該投資哪些高風險項目，你需要對投資的技術有著深刻的了解，從而幫助你預測它們將會如何改變世界。不過即便安德森自己也知道，他這種不斷投資的方式只能讓他做到短期內正確。巴菲特的方式則正好相反，他或是投資那些比起競爭對手而言有著細微和難以察覺的優(yōu)勢的成熟公司，或是利用他的聲望及資金來保證其他任何人都無法參與下注【比如在金融危機最嚴重的時候，他買入了高盛投資公司(Goldman Sachs)的股票】。
In other words, both men are right. (And that's why they have so much more money than you.)
換句話說，兩個人都是對的。(這也是為什么他們擁有的財富比你多得多。)