👀War or No War？Warren Buffett's statement is the real underlying logic.

When the market is flooded with war news and the fear index soars, I'm reminded of Warren Buffett's almost counterintuitive words:

"Even if I knew a third world war was coming, I would still own stocks."

Many people hear this as "mindless optimism."

But I understand it as something else.

Buffett isn't denying risk.

He's emphasizing a larger time horizon.

History tells us:

Two World Wars

Oil Crises

The Cold War

Financial Crises

The Pandemic

The capital markets have experienced severe volatility through them all.

But the ability of businesses to create value did not disappear.

What truly determines long-term returns is not headlines, but productivity.

War changes borders.

It doesn't erase a company's ability to earn profits.

I focus more on the logical chain:

Businesses own assets

Assets generate cash flow

Cash flow grows over the long term

As long as this structure exists, a stock fundamentally represents ownership of the means of production.

$SPDR S&P 500(SPY.US) represents the overall earning power of American businesses.

Not the emotional swings of any single day.

Of course, short-term volatility will be intense.

At the onset of war, liquidity dries up, risk appetite falls, and indices plummeting is the norm.

But if you assume the world won't come to a complete standstill,

then holding quality assets is often more effective than trying to time the market.

Buffett's core belief was never "the market won't fall."

It was "businesses will keep operating."

I've lived through several extreme market cycles.

The hardest part each time wasn't assessing the risk.

It was enduring the emotions.

The real test is:

When uncertainty is at its peak, can you still stick to the long-term logic?

Panic is cyclical.

Productivity is structural.

Which one do you believe in more?