Legendary investor Warren Buffett railed against President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Saturday and the tumultuous way in which the president has rolled them out.
Buffett, 94, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, criticized the Trump administration’s use of tariffs as a trade strategy, arguing that employing trade as a "weapon" has antagonized international relations and destabilized global markets.
"Balanced trade is good for the world," and "trade should not be a weapon," Buffett said at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, which attracts some 40,000 people every year who want to hear from the billionaire magnate, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was also present.
"I don't think it's a good idea to design a world where a few countries say, ha ha ha, we've won," Buffett added. "I do think that the more prosperous the rest of the world becomes, ... the more prosperous we'll become."
"It’s a big mistake in my view when you have 7.5 billion people who don’t like you very well, and you have 300 million who are crowing about how they have done," Buffet added.
"We should be looking to trade with the rest of the world. We should do what we do best and they should do what they do best," he said.
Trump has argues that his tariffs are motivated by making trade fairer for the United States.
But despite concerns about the direction of the U.S. economy and the country itself, Buffett retained his traditional optimism, saying criticism of policies and the people who make them is par for the course.
"We're always in the process of change," he said. "I would not get discouraged... We're all pretty lucky."
It’s not the first time the legendary investor has sounded off against the tariffs. In March, ahead of Trump’s official tariff announcement, Buffet said. Tariffs are "an act of war to some degree" and noted the U.S. has a lot of experience with them.
"Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!" Buffett jokingly said. "And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, 'And then what?'"
CEO @ GM / Mary Barra spoke today w/ CNBC about Trump’s tariffs and the cost impact on GM going forward wrt to her guidance. Her comments directly contradict Bahnsen’s bullet points about Trump creating chaos and lacking economic competence.
Her opening comment:
“We have been working with the Trump administration since late last year, talking to the president and working with members of his administration. So they understood our industry. They understood it is very globally complex from a supply chain perspective, also very competitive and capital intensive. And I really want to thank the President for really working with the industry and understanding the challenges. So we had a very good idea of what steps and actions would be taken.”
CNBC tried to beat Barra down from talking up Trump, but Mary doubled-down w/ him …
“We’ve had many conversations and I share the president’s goal to have a strong manufacturing base in this country to increase manufacturing jobs in this country. And I think it’s important from an economic security perspective, as well as a national security perspective, and to give us a level playing field. When we look at the auto industry it’s been decades of not having a level playing field around the world. So, we are working with a footprint 👣 that has been in position for 20 or 30 years. But, we are making a commitment that we are going to bring more production back to this country to build on what we already have.”
Put that in your editorial perspective pipe.
There’s something about Mary.
And it tells us something true about Trump.
Say what you will about Harris, but she'd have followed the law, the constitution, and the rulings of the Supreme Court. All pretty important facets of our democracy.
BSMI6945
I appreciate Mr. Bahnsen's perspective on economic issues, but I find his hyperbolic take on the impact of the tariffs unjustifiably pessimistic. This is just one crazy take in his article 'However, when the entire objective seemingly changed, it put global markets into disarray and imposed a cost on the U.S. economy of nearly 2% of GDP, all but guaranteeing a recession. ' The stock market bounced back from the initial panic selling and mostly reset to where it was before the tariff announcements. Also, how can he be guaranteeing a recession? Where is the data to support this?
I think everyone on both sides of the tariff debate need to be honest enough to admit that we don't yet know how this will turn out. However, despite the characterization of the tariff rollout being somewhat chaotic, I think Trump has been crystal clear about the overarching policy objective. He wants to level the playing field for American manufacturers and create new incentives, via tariffs, for companies to make more products in the USA instead of other countries. I would guess that 80% of Americans support this overall objective. Trump is also clearly using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to get better trade deals for America. Lets give the Trump team time to implement this strategy instead of engaging in unnecessary pearl clutching and fear mongering. A little short term uncertainty in exchange for long term gain is certainly a good trade off for our country if it results in sustainable prosperity. I suggest talking to people who live in the towns around the Midwest whose lives were ripped apart by "free trade" as factories shut down and moved to low cost countries. You might find these folks are happy to have a President who is looking at for their interests instead of catering to the globalists who benefit from the outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries.
The US is not a manufacturing economy and hasn't been for at least a generation. Like most of the MAGA platform, this is just another attempt to gaslight us into believing that 1950's America is coming back. It's not coming back, and the longer Trump is allowed to recklessly destroy the post-WWII order the more impossible it becomes to repair the damage. We may already be past the point of no return.
pjp
I recommend that people read George Friedman who is the CEO of Global Political Forecasting (GPF). He recently was on Tucker Carlson. He clearly articulates what is happening and why. This is a necessary readjustment of the global economic system that has been in existence since the end of WWII. Trump has seen the change that was needed and got in front of a movement that has been brewing for about 30 years (since the fall of the USSR).
Paul
Were the world markets over rated and needed this 'reset'?
Why is a drop in the market considered a loss when those dollars were never possessed - famers do not claim a loss when prices fluctuate?
How can a tariff change put a cost of 2% on GDP - we all woke up went to work preformed our work -production continued ?
If you really wanted government out of picking winners & losers then you would call for ABOLISHING the cursed IRS- with thousands of forms and regulations changing at the whims of the latest lobbyist costing work time to figure and fill their insanity.
Set us free with at least a FAIRtax or the Ron Paul NO tax
Why would anyone believe Pres Trump would 'harm' the economy - he is consistent in business from long ago ?
David the worn out national review bias is showing again.
His hotels, his casinos, his "university", his airline, his resorts, his football team...
Scots WhaHae
Wonder if David knows "How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president"...
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-congress-delegates-its-tariff-powers-to-the-president
The Constitution actually grants Congress the power to levy tariffs, but in recent years as a result of certain laws Congress has passed, the president and the executive branch have controlled when and how tariffs are placed on goods entering the United States. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Over time, as Congress gave the president expanded powers on its behalf to enact tariff policies, opponents to several tariffs laws argued the statutes were an unconstitutional congressional delegation of authority to the president. Known as the non-delegation doctrine, the question of how much of its authority Congress can grant to the president and the judiciary goes back to the time of Chief Justice John Marshall... Ultimately, Congress can limit or expand the presidential tariffs powers through legislation, but the based on precedents dating back to the time of Chief Justice Marshall, judicial precedent “has given the President broad latitude to exercise his tariff authorities.”
Scots WhaHae
"What the administration had previously telegraphed" was disruption... so here we are, as advertised. It’s part of the play in the art of the deal. Trump takes an axe to Bush's "New World Order" and now the sky is falling... so is the stock market. "Time will tell" is right.
1. Economic Stability isn't Trump's policy objective... rebalanced trade @ MAGA is his prize. David thinks Trump lacks clearly defined policy objectives, but Trump clearly repeated his objective since 1985. Trump using chaos to his advantage does not "leave doubt as to what the administration is trying to accomplish." There is no doubt. A tailspin may be the tact Trump intends (w/ bizarre formulas) given that the global system is entrenched in "stability." We can disagree w/ Trump tactics now & evaluate his effectiveness later, but there's no doubt about Trump's policy objectives. Curious... What were the clearly defined policy objectives of past presidents? Is ever-increasing debt an objective? Is gutting American manufacturing capability an objective? Is trade imbalance an objective? What level of debt/deficit warrants a reset, if not 37T? Is it called a tailspin when all your chips and dip come from other countries and you are dependent on others for energy, steel, meds and metals?
2. Class warfare isn’t being waged. Trump isn't pitting classes against each other. He aims to bring manufacturing back, to bringing jobs back... but not by tearing down Wall Street or killing the little guy. It's not a Marxist agenda. Agree or not, right or wrong, Trump is talking about systemic long-term shifts in opportunity for middle class Americans. There's a reason the labor unions didn't support Kamala Harris... they believe Trump's plan will help Detroit. I don't know if it'll work, but it's not class warfare.
3. Messianic isn’t the move. Like David, I'd "leave the government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy." But that's not how we roll and you know it. Past presidents (and Congress) have picked winners & losers for decades, setting up tariff structures and "clearly defined policies" that force functioned everything from going green, to moving US industry overseas. David talks like Trump is the first person to put his finger on the scale and he misses the point that Trump's objective is to reset trades rates to make markets more "fair"... so that would / could potentially enable a freer market. Everyone has gotten too used to being used and abused.
Tom Hanrahan
those 3 takeaways: EXCELLENT!!
not silent
Thank you for this article and for clearly articulating the concerns many people have.
Legendary investor Warren Buffett railed against President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Saturday and the tumultuous way in which the president has rolled them out.
Buffett, 94, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, criticized the Trump administration’s use of tariffs as a trade strategy, arguing that employing trade as a "weapon" has antagonized international relations and destabilized global markets.
"Balanced trade is good for the world," and "trade should not be a weapon," Buffett said at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, which attracts some 40,000 people every year who want to hear from the billionaire magnate, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was also present.
"I don't think it's a good idea to design a world where a few countries say, ha ha ha, we've won," Buffett added. "I do think that the more prosperous the rest of the world becomes, ... the more prosperous we'll become."
"It’s a big mistake in my view when you have 7.5 billion people who don’t like you very well, and you have 300 million who are crowing about how they have done," Buffet added.
"We should be looking to trade with the rest of the world. We should do what we do best and they should do what they do best," he said.
Trump has argues that his tariffs are motivated by making trade fairer for the United States.
But despite concerns about the direction of the U.S. economy and the country itself, Buffett retained his traditional optimism, saying criticism of policies and the people who make them is par for the course.
"We're always in the process of change," he said. "I would not get discouraged... We're all pretty lucky."
It’s not the first time the legendary investor has sounded off against the tariffs. In March, ahead of Trump’s official tariff announcement, Buffet said. Tariffs are "an act of war to some degree" and noted the U.S. has a lot of experience with them.
"Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!" Buffett jokingly said. "And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, 'And then what?'"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/buffett-criticizes-trumps-tariffs-rollout-says-us-shouldn-t-use-trade-as-a-weapon/ar-AA1E6Bot
One true lesson about this tariff dynamic…
CEO @ GM / Mary Barra spoke today w/ CNBC about Trump’s tariffs and the cost impact on GM going forward wrt to her guidance. Her comments directly contradict Bahnsen’s bullet points about Trump creating chaos and lacking economic competence.
Her opening comment:
“We have been working with the Trump administration since late last year, talking to the president and working with members of his administration. So they understood our industry. They understood it is very globally complex from a supply chain perspective, also very competitive and capital intensive. And I really want to thank the President for really working with the industry and understanding the challenges. So we had a very good idea of what steps and actions would be taken.”
CNBC tried to beat Barra down from talking up Trump, but Mary doubled-down w/ him …
“We’ve had many conversations and I share the president’s goal to have a strong manufacturing base in this country to increase manufacturing jobs in this country. And I think it’s important from an economic security perspective, as well as a national security perspective, and to give us a level playing field. When we look at the auto industry it’s been decades of not having a level playing field around the world. So, we are working with a footprint 👣 that has been in position for 20 or 30 years. But, we are making a commitment that we are going to bring more production back to this country to build on what we already have.”
Put that in your editorial perspective pipe.
There’s something about Mary.
And it tells us something true about Trump.
If you still think Trump is playing 4D chess, I don't know how to help you.
There’s much you don’t know… “I truly don't understand what could possibly be worse about a Harris presidency.” Bless your heart.
Say what you will about Harris, but she'd have followed the law, the constitution, and the rulings of the Supreme Court. All pretty important facets of our democracy.
I appreciate Mr. Bahnsen's perspective on economic issues, but I find his hyperbolic take on the impact of the tariffs unjustifiably pessimistic. This is just one crazy take in his article 'However, when the entire objective seemingly changed, it put global markets into disarray and imposed a cost on the U.S. economy of nearly 2% of GDP, all but guaranteeing a recession. ' The stock market bounced back from the initial panic selling and mostly reset to where it was before the tariff announcements. Also, how can he be guaranteeing a recession? Where is the data to support this?
I think everyone on both sides of the tariff debate need to be honest enough to admit that we don't yet know how this will turn out. However, despite the characterization of the tariff rollout being somewhat chaotic, I think Trump has been crystal clear about the overarching policy objective. He wants to level the playing field for American manufacturers and create new incentives, via tariffs, for companies to make more products in the USA instead of other countries. I would guess that 80% of Americans support this overall objective. Trump is also clearly using tariffs as a negotiating tactic to get better trade deals for America. Lets give the Trump team time to implement this strategy instead of engaging in unnecessary pearl clutching and fear mongering. A little short term uncertainty in exchange for long term gain is certainly a good trade off for our country if it results in sustainable prosperity. I suggest talking to people who live in the towns around the Midwest whose lives were ripped apart by "free trade" as factories shut down and moved to low cost countries. You might find these folks are happy to have a President who is looking at for their interests instead of catering to the globalists who benefit from the outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries.
The US is not a manufacturing economy and hasn't been for at least a generation. Like most of the MAGA platform, this is just another attempt to gaslight us into believing that 1950's America is coming back. It's not coming back, and the longer Trump is allowed to recklessly destroy the post-WWII order the more impossible it becomes to repair the damage. We may already be past the point of no return.
I recommend that people read George Friedman who is the CEO of Global Political Forecasting (GPF). He recently was on Tucker Carlson. He clearly articulates what is happening and why. This is a necessary readjustment of the global economic system that has been in existence since the end of WWII. Trump has seen the change that was needed and got in front of a movement that has been brewing for about 30 years (since the fall of the USSR).
Were the world markets over rated and needed this 'reset'?
Why is a drop in the market considered a loss when those dollars were never possessed - famers do not claim a loss when prices fluctuate?
How can a tariff change put a cost of 2% on GDP - we all woke up went to work preformed our work -production continued ?
If you really wanted government out of picking winners & losers then you would call for ABOLISHING the cursed IRS- with thousands of forms and regulations changing at the whims of the latest lobbyist costing work time to figure and fill their insanity.
Set us free with at least a FAIRtax or the Ron Paul NO tax
Why would anyone believe Pres Trump would 'harm' the economy - he is consistent in business from long ago ?
David the worn out national review bias is showing again.
👍
Trump has certainly consistently destroyed businesses.
Such as?
His hotels, his casinos, his "university", his airline, his resorts, his football team...
Wonder if David knows "How Congress delegates its tariff powers to the president"...
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-congress-delegates-its-tariff-powers-to-the-president
The Constitution actually grants Congress the power to levy tariffs, but in recent years as a result of certain laws Congress has passed, the president and the executive branch have controlled when and how tariffs are placed on goods entering the United States. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Over time, as Congress gave the president expanded powers on its behalf to enact tariff policies, opponents to several tariffs laws argued the statutes were an unconstitutional congressional delegation of authority to the president. Known as the non-delegation doctrine, the question of how much of its authority Congress can grant to the president and the judiciary goes back to the time of Chief Justice John Marshall... Ultimately, Congress can limit or expand the presidential tariffs powers through legislation, but the based on precedents dating back to the time of Chief Justice Marshall, judicial precedent “has given the President broad latitude to exercise his tariff authorities.”
"What the administration had previously telegraphed" was disruption... so here we are, as advertised. It’s part of the play in the art of the deal. Trump takes an axe to Bush's "New World Order" and now the sky is falling... so is the stock market. "Time will tell" is right.
1. Economic Stability isn't Trump's policy objective... rebalanced trade @ MAGA is his prize. David thinks Trump lacks clearly defined policy objectives, but Trump clearly repeated his objective since 1985. Trump using chaos to his advantage does not "leave doubt as to what the administration is trying to accomplish." There is no doubt. A tailspin may be the tact Trump intends (w/ bizarre formulas) given that the global system is entrenched in "stability." We can disagree w/ Trump tactics now & evaluate his effectiveness later, but there's no doubt about Trump's policy objectives. Curious... What were the clearly defined policy objectives of past presidents? Is ever-increasing debt an objective? Is gutting American manufacturing capability an objective? Is trade imbalance an objective? What level of debt/deficit warrants a reset, if not 37T? Is it called a tailspin when all your chips and dip come from other countries and you are dependent on others for energy, steel, meds and metals?
2. Class warfare isn’t being waged. Trump isn't pitting classes against each other. He aims to bring manufacturing back, to bringing jobs back... but not by tearing down Wall Street or killing the little guy. It's not a Marxist agenda. Agree or not, right or wrong, Trump is talking about systemic long-term shifts in opportunity for middle class Americans. There's a reason the labor unions didn't support Kamala Harris... they believe Trump's plan will help Detroit. I don't know if it'll work, but it's not class warfare.
3. Messianic isn’t the move. Like David, I'd "leave the government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy." But that's not how we roll and you know it. Past presidents (and Congress) have picked winners & losers for decades, setting up tariff structures and "clearly defined policies" that force functioned everything from going green, to moving US industry overseas. David talks like Trump is the first person to put his finger on the scale and he misses the point that Trump's objective is to reset trades rates to make markets more "fair"... so that would / could potentially enable a freer market. Everyone has gotten too used to being used and abused.
those 3 takeaways: EXCELLENT!!
Thank you for this article and for clearly articulating the concerns many people have.