What's new

Warren Buffett: Tariffs are ‘an act of war’

  • Context: Economy 
  • Thread starter Thread starter phinds
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Warren Buffett stated that tariffs are akin to an act of war during a CBS interview, emphasizing their detrimental impact on trade relations. The discussion highlights the immediate market reactions, with the NASDAQ experiencing a significant drop due to tariff announcements. Participants express concerns over the economic ramifications, particularly for agriculture and manufacturing sectors, which are expected to face price increases and job losses as a result of the tariffs imposed on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. The conversation also touches on the political pressures faced by Republican senators amidst public backlash against these trade policies.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of economic principles related to tariffs and trade wars
  • Familiarity with the U.S. agricultural and manufacturing sectors
  • Knowledge of the political landscape surrounding trade policy in the U.S.
  • Awareness of market indicators and their reactions to policy changes
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the economic impact of tariffs on U.S. agriculture, focusing on specific crops affected by recent trade policies
  • Examine the effects of tariffs on the automotive industry, particularly regarding production costs and job losses
  • Analyze historical data on trade wars and their long-term effects on U.S. manufacturing employment
  • Explore the political dynamics influencing trade policy decisions among Republican senators
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for economists, policymakers, trade analysts, and anyone interested in understanding the implications of tariffs on the U.S. economy and political landscape.

All I know is that appeasement politics does not work.

You basically say that others should kind of worship him

For me, worship is not the same thing as appeasement. Appeasement means giving more favorable (relative to the US) trade deals than existed prior to Trump's election to office. I think (I might be misunderstanding you) worship means telling Trump "Thank you so much for showing me the light" while you give over the more favorable terms.

Perhaps a countries least-domestic-harm strategy might be to try some worship with negotiations around appeasement while counting on the fact that actual lasting trade deals require quarters or years to put in place so run out the clock. Its a reasonable bet that Democrats win back the house, and any agreements that would outlast Trump's term would require laws, not just executive orders. Running out the clock might not mean 4 years, it might just mean another 7 quarters.

I can't think of any course of action that does have a reasonable person saying 'an aspect of what you suggest is totally repugnant'.
 
I think (I might be misunderstanding you) worship means telling Trump "Thank you so much for showing me the light" while you give over the more favorable terms.

I meant to worship in the sense as to serve his narcissism by giving in to whatever he wants, in this case, "waiting for Trump" although he was (deliberately?) late.

1. started a meeting without waiting for Trump to arrive, even if Trump was running late.
2. Trump exited the conference, and quite soon after, while Trump was still in the air, Trudeau held a press conference about the declaration, yet nitpicking the tariff agenda of Trump.

I meant appeasement in the sense of not acting against the will of the supposedly stronger party. I consider them the same in this case as both mean to please Trump's narcissism and not to make reasonable decisions. Any agreement with Trump is not worth the paper it is written on since you cannot know what next comes to his insane mind. To avoid a confrontation (appeasement) by pleasing his ego (worship) won't work in my opinion. That's why we have diplomats responsible for negotiations, not kindergarten kids. If Trump were interested in any other goal than people having to bow in front of him (Szelensky's outfit, esp. cp. to Musk's sloppy clothing) or filling his pockets by destroying markets (news from yesterday), then he would have acted far more quietly.
 
@fresh_42 Do we both agree on run-out-the-clock then, and perhaps what what we are discussing is what to do in the meantime?

Are you advocating tit-for-tat? I think game theory supports that approach, but game theory assumes rational players.
 
@fresh_42 Do we both agree on run-out-the-clock then, and perhaps what what we are discussing is what to do in the meantime?

I think that the USA said goodbye to any form of alliance. It simply makes no sense to negotiate with someone who is unpredictable. Even Kim is more reliable! Time doesn't change this fundamental problem. Trump has already canceled or broken many international agreements. I think of the Paris Agreement on CC or the rules of the WTO here, not to mention the many cases of violating human rights by ICE, now and during his first term. He is a person you don't want to be seen with.

Here is how we see it:

Trump-Zoelle-EIL.webp
BREAKING +++ Trump is reintroducing tariffs after all! +++ BREAKING +++ Trump is suspending tariffs for the time being +++ BREAKING +++ Trump is reintroducing tariffs after all! +++ BREAKING +++ Trump is imposing tariffs for the time being... no, wait, they're staying... no, they...


Are you advocating tit-for-tat? I think game theory supports that approach, but game theory assumes rational players.

Maybe. I think the European and Asian markets can compete with the US market and there is no reason to give in. The upcoming recession will hit us all - except those who are notoriously bankrupt and make money with shorts.

However, I do not know how to deal with a person who is without any doubt a pathological narcissist and has the mindset of a five-year-old, and an atomic bomb. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Although there is little consensus on the causes of narcissistic personality disorder, the most important therapeutic goal is to promote the patient's ability to autonomously regulate their self-esteem and develop a self-concept that is less susceptible to narcissistic insults. This is to be achieved by gently, step-by-step highlighting the patient's real limitations, while at the same time empathically supporting the patient so that they can accept the disillusioning experiences and incorporate them into their self-concept. More helpful than confrontationally challenging the patient's need for self-aggrandizement is to reinterpret the narcissistic traits and utilize them to build an intact self-image. However, the successes achieved in therapy are generally modest.

I don't think there is any reasonable way to deal with such an old patient. Drugs are possibly the only promising treatment.

My take would be: act like von der Leyen as long as it doesn't cost anything and tit-for-tat on the case.
 
Neville Chamberlain, 1938.



I don't know whether your assessment of Trudeau is correct. It is obvious that Trump is a narcissist though. All I know is that appeasement politics does not work. It didn't work for Chamberlain and it doesn't work against Putin. Why should Trump be any different? You basically say that others should kind of worship him, and I do not agree with that view. We simply don't know what will come next. Today's worshippers are tomorrow's dependents.
I do not know from where you are getting this ' worship Trump ', or ' appeasement ' , from what I wrote.
It set the situation of Canada/USA relations.
As they say for the police, de-escalate the situation. Trudeau and Ford acts were nothing short of escalation, forcing Trump to save face by withdrawing from the G7 deal from Trudeau's action, and adding extra 25% by Ford's strong man bellowing.
I pointed out that the 51st state thing was quite much a red-herring put out by Trump as bait for any idiot politician who would over-react with hyperbole Canada chest thumping - Ford in particular. One can see the reaction though of ordinary mindful Canadians themselves who responded with disgust to Trump's comment by the 'buy Canadian' - those who do not need a mindless politician telling them what's what.
Ford, by the way was somewhat of a Trump supporter all the way back to 2016.
Wonder why I don't really care for a guy with fickle about convictions, a closet Maga, whose rhetoric changed with tariffs. Stabbed in the heart did it.
 
I think that the USA said goodbye to any form of alliance. It simply makes no sense to negotiate with someone who is unpredictable.

That is a good reminder, thanks.

I don't expect a consistent (more than a max of 8 years) policy from the US and I don't see how any other country could have such an expectation. So perhaps running out the clock is not even a meaningful thing to say, except in the context of waiting out the term of person who I also believe has some mental disorders. At least then one can hope for a transactional relationship where one can depend on good faith transactional negotiations.
 
I do not know from where you are getting this ' worship Trump ', or ' appeasement ' , from what I wrote.

Because:

a) I don't think that Trudeau had to wait only to grant Trump his appearance! Trump wasn't the host. To answer disrespect with disrespect is alright in my opinion. Everything else would have been solely the purpose of flattering him. That is why I used the word "worship". Appeasement described my assumed motivation, under which such an attitude would make sense.

b) It is absolutely usual for a host to hold a press conference after a meeting. Why should he have to care where Trump was at this moment? In the air? So what?

I disagree in so far as I think Trudeau didn't do anything wrong.
 
That is a good reminder, thanks.

I don't expect a consistent (more than a max of 8 years) policy from the US and I don't see how any other country could have such an expectation. So perhaps running out the clock is not even a meaningful thing to say, except in the context of waiting out the term of person who I also believe has some mental disorders. At least then one can hope for a transactional relationship where one can depend on good faith transactional negotiations.

We may not underestimate habits. Habits die hard, and once you've created a ditch, it's hard to fill it in again. Plus, there is always the fear that such a kind of person could be elected again. You cannot make international politics, or even decisions on investments, driven by emotions and even less by daily changes. It always takes longer to construct than it takes to destroy. Foreign politics has always been ruled by consistency and small steps - until now.
 
Because:

a) I don't think that Trudeau had to wait only to grant Trump his appearance! Trump wasn't the host. To answer disrespect with disrespect is alright in my opinion. Everything else would have been solely the purpose of flattering him. That is why I used the word "worship". Appeasement described my assumed motivation, under which such an attitude would make sense.

b) It is absolutely usual for a host to hold a press conference after a meeting. Why should he have to care where Trump was at this moment? In the air? So what?

I disagree in so far as I think Trudeau didn't do anything wrong.
My assessment totally at odds, so we disagree on all your points.
1. The meeting can be delayed for any member not present. Lack of respect from Trudeau to all members, even the ones present.
2. Trudeau deliberately embarrassed a G7 member after the conference.
 
My assessment totally at odds, so we disagree on all your points.
1. The meeting can be delayed for any member not present. Lack of respect from Trudeau to all members, even the ones present.
2. Trudeau deliberately embarrassed a G7 member after the conference.
I wonder if you said the same if it was Ishiba instead. So, yes, we completely disagree.
 
If I were running a country, I would have restrained myself from engaging with Donald Trump. I would have played the card "Let the Americans do what they think is best for them. Let's not interfere in their internal policies."

Because that is what tariffs are: an internal tax on consumption, on your citizens. It has nothing to do with outside countries.

Your neighbour doesn't want to buy your stuff because they don't want it, they want to make it themselves, or they can't afford it? What can you do? Force them? I wouldn't want them to think they can do this with me.

No, I would just respect their wishes and their ways of dealing with their internal problems without [public] judgment. (Of course, it won't work. It is obviously a chicken game, and it won't last long.) I would spend my time working on our internal politics where we obviously depend too much on that single country. Because that is YOUR real problem.

The point is to keep diplomatically praising the independence of the other country without admitting to anything, such that they can't accuse you of any wrongdoing. Any bad thing happening to anyone becomes their fault.
 
The point is to keep diplomatically praising the independence of the other country without admitting to anything, such that they can't accuse you of any wrongdoing.

Oh, how I wish that would apply to Trump and co, too! They have no problems intervening with other countries, from openly threatening with war, to recommendations on general elections!
 
I do not know from where you are getting this ' worship Trump ', or ' appeasement ' , from what I wrote.
It set the situation of Canada/USA relations.
As they say for the police, de-escalate the situation. Trudeau and Ford acts were nothing short of escalation, forcing Trump to save face by withdrawing from the G7 deal from Trudeau's action, and adding extra 25% by Ford's strong man bellowing.
I pointed out that the 51st state thing was quite much a red-herring put out by Trump as bait for any idiot politician who would over-react with hyperbole Canada chest thumping - Ford in particular. One can see the reaction though of ordinary mindful Canadians themselves who responded with disgust to Trump's comment by the 'buy Canadian' - those who do not need a mindless politician telling them what's what.
Ford, by the way was somewhat of a Trump supporter all the way back to 2016.
Wonder why I don't really care for a guy with fickle about convictions, a closet Maga, whose rhetoric changed with tariffs. Stabbed in the heart did it.

You can't assign Trump's actions to others and try and seek some sort of justification. There isn't any. You simply can't reason with this type of personality.

There will always be an imagined slight that they will point to. If there isn't one, they will make it up out of nothing. As an example, see the White House meeting with Zelensky - "did you even say thank you?"

They find excuses for what they are going to do in order to get what they want. Then, once they have that, "what they want" changes and they find a new excuse.

It is a perpetual treadmill of gaslighting, outright lies, and extortion. It needs to be opposed at every opportunity.
 
I don't get it. We all know Trump is a fraud, yet country leaders still act like we haven't figured him out. He's not a master negotiator, yet leaders still act like he's playing 4D chess. He's not, call his bluff.
You call his bluff by ignoring it.

US president: "I will impose a tariff on my citizens buying from your country."

Me: "If you think it will help your country, I wish you well. Hope you don't mind me finding other partners to play with while you are doing so."

US president: "But I will tax the aluminum coming from your country, you know, where we get 80 % of our needs."

Me: "Do you want us to help you? We can stop sending you our aluminum altogether if you wish. For how long do you wish us to do so?"

You know, never arguing with him and always offering to help a friend in need.

And then you set a tariff on aluminum exports to the US - not imports - to pay the welfare of people losing their jobs in your country, in that sector. Your neighbour will stop paying when they stop buying or... when they will buy more. Nobody forces them to do one thing or the other.

Local policies to solve local problems. Just like our neighbour does. Can anyone blame us for taxing our exports? You are still free to sell us or anyone else the new aluminum you will now make. (If you can compete with our local manufacturers, that is.)

Why not put a tax on local empty factories? You know, the ones that moved production to the US. Or even forbid moving the tools out of the country. They could be considered important for economic security reasons. We could even nationalize them. We need them as a society.

There is plenty of pressure you can put on your side of the border without targeting the other country. Jobs are lost, and we need to find money to help pay for welfare and find other jobs, don't we?
 
You call his bluff by ignoring it.

US president: "I will impose a tariff on my citizens buying from your country."

Me: "If you think it will help your country, I wish you well. Hope you don't mind me finding other partners to play with while you are doing so."

US president: "But I will tax the aluminum coming from your country, you know, where we get 80 % of our needs."

Me: "Do you want us to help you? We can stop sending you our aluminum altogether if you wish. For how long do you wish us to do so?"

You know, never arguing with him and always offering to help a friend in need.

And then you set a tariff on aluminum exports to the US - not imports - to pay the welfare of people losing their jobs in your country, in that sector. Your neighbour will stop paying when they stop buying or... when they will buy more. Nobody forces them to do one thing or the other.

Local policies to solve local problems. Just like our neighbour does. Can anyone blame us for taxing our exports? You are still free to sell us or anyone else the new aluminum you will now make. (If you can compete with our local manufacturers, that is.)

Why not put a tax on local empty factories? You know, the ones that moved production to the US. Or even forbid moving the tools out of the country. They could be considered important for economic security reasons. We could even nationalize them. We need them as a society.

There is plenty of pressure you can put on your side of the border without targeting the other country. Jobs are lost, and we need to find money to help pay for welfare and find other jobs, don't we?
I think there is something lost between your suggestion and your approach. The examples that you have given appear to me to be passive aggressive attempts to deliberately antagonize the other party.

Regardless of the specifics of the execution, I still think the whole concept of "never arguing" is stillborn, for the reasons I cited above. The current US administration has made it clear that they require no justification for their actions. Even on the rare occasions that they feel that they need an excuse, they simply manufacture one.
 
I think there is something lost between your suggestion and your approach. The examples that you have given appear to me to be passive aggressive attempts to deliberately antagonize the other party.

I tried to understand tariffs on an economic level and found a lecture about the tariff union of the EU and the analysis of its cost structure only to find out that things are a bit complicated if we apply methods of game theory, at least more complicated than simply calling it a domestic issue.
 
You call his bluff by ignoring it.
Agree.
There are cases of Canadian enterprises being caught up in the Canadian frenzy to impose tariffs on American goods - American goods being that which is imported from America. One is a furniture manufacturer ( I think in St.Hyacinthe) who imports his specialty wood to make veneer. Another, I think in Quebec also, who found a US company willing to mix and bottle his drink, while those back home wouldn't, or couldn't. In both cases, the Canadian tariff adds to cost of their doing business.

Surely these are specific cases like more that could be found.

Not seeing, or admitting, the harm done by retaliatory tariffs on your own population gets sideswiped by the hawks thinking acting tough is the way to go.

Look up the non-tariff egg business between the EU and the US ( maybe Canada too but we have our egg board instead ). There is no business. EU eggs have to be NOT Washed; US eggs have to be Washed. A regulatory barrier to hinder trade.
 
It's about time I can read about the other side of the coin in the US. This is the kind of example we should hear politicians from the opposition talk about for months now.


But Mr. Trump’s goals have clashed with the current economic reality in places like Spartanburg and Greenville, S.C., heavily Republican areas where foreign companies have turned the onetime textile hubs into wealthy, industrial heavyweights. Should those levies go back into effect, locals worry that they will threaten the very businesses that saved the region, home to some 1.5 million residents, all to revive a bygone industry that few people miss.

[...]

Today, companies like BMW and Michelin — from Germany and France — are the economic engines of the region. Since BMW opened its plant in Spartanburg County in the early ’90s, it has invested more than $14.8 billion into its South Carolina operations. The plant has more than 11,000 jobs, its largest single production facility in the world, according to the company. And it is the country’s largest car exporter by value, with $10 billion in shipments last year.

So the local business community was stunned when the White House’s top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, attacked BMW’s manufacturing process in an interview this week. He told CNBC on Monday that “this business model where BMW and Mercedes come into Spartanburg, S.C., and have us assemble German engines and Austrian transmissions — that doesn’t work for America. It’s bad for our economics. It’s bad for our national security.”

“There was widespread bewilderment in our community about that,” said Carlos Phillips, the president and chief executive of the Greenville Chamber of Commerce.

In response to Mr. Navarro’s comments, South Carolina’s governor, Henry McMaster, told reporters this week that ever since BMW arrived in the state with well-paying jobs, other companies had followed suit and “sent the word out around the world that this is a great manufacturing state.”

“They’ve done a lot of good for South Carolina,” Mr. McMaster, a Republican, said of BMW. Still, the governor has spoken positively about Mr. Trump’s tariffs, saying that he agreed with the president’s goal to make the United States more self-sufficient.

Business leaders have attributed the region’s success partly to South Carolina’s staunchly anti-union stance, and its legacy of a work force familiar with manufacturing. Last year, the governor drew the ire of labor organizers when he criticized unions in his State of the State address, saying, “We’ve gotten where we are without them.”

Now, leaders say that waging a trade war could undermine future recruitment of international investments and risk losing the jobs that are already in the region.

If tariffs raise prices on products and BMW’s sales drastically drop, they said, there’s a higher chance of layoffs at the Spartanburg plant. And it is difficult to imagine how cheap fabric or yarn manufacturing, the kind made in factories in Vietnam, Cambodia and China, could meaningfully fill the gaps, they added.

John Lummus, the president of Upstate SC Alliance, an economic development group, said that the region’s standard of living “has gone up so much more, that unless those companies are much more niche we’re not going to see companies come back and making T-shirts.”
 
I read about an interview of Scott Galloway. Unfortunately, the interview was on ABC, which denied me access as a non-US citizen. One of the statements I read (secondary sources) was, that 80% of the US population wants to increase manufacturing but only 20% want to work there. There are a lot of equations that do not sum up.

I think we must stop thinking that populists stand for what they say. What they say is what people want to hear, what they do is gain power and personal wealth. Galloway also said that Trump's politics was the greatest example of insider trading ever. That is what it's all about, not US-American people.
 
Last edited:
One of the statements I read (secondary sources) was, that 80% of the US population wants to increase manufacturing but only 20% want to work there. There are a lot of equations that do not sum up.
Yes, I've seen that statement in a couple of places now. Sounds about right to me, although I'm not positive that the 20% would hold when that 20% realize it means doing things like sewing soccer balls and tennis shoes on a production line. I believe a lot of them are thinking of $40/hr jobs, not ones that are being done for $20/day overseas.
 
I believe a lot of them are thinking of $40/hr jobs,

Probably so. I'm not sure what the average pay is for the existing openings, whether its closer to $40 or $20, but if one looks at the US attempts to increase manufacturing, one sees data to support the bottleneck being labor, not factories or job openings.

So yes, it seems clearly to be the case that ...

That is what it's all about, not US-American people.



====
But with the unemployment rate at 4.2%, there are more open manufacturing jobs than there are willing Americans to fill them.


As of February 2025, there were 482,000 manufacturing job openings, according to the latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. In a report from last year, the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte estimated that there would be 1.9 million unfilled jobs in manufacturing by 2033.
=====
 
I just had another thought. If we assume a constant demand and you increase prices of foreign supplies by tariffs, then you shift the demand towards domestic supplies. Now, what will happen to the prices of domestic products if demand is artificially increased?

It's been a long time since I last looked into my economic textbooks, but if I'm not entirely wrong, higher demands on constant supplies increase prices, in this case, prices of domestic products. Good for Californian winemakers, but not so good for the rest of you.
 
@fresh_42 It happened with steel.

I remember the diagrams economists use to demonstrate those mechanisms. I was always skeptical whether those simple considerations would actually work. Apparently, they do. This is kind of sad again, since it is really, really simple so even Trump should be able to understand it. I must avoid thinking there is another reason for Trump's actions than his narcissism.
 
Having read several articles on the state of manufacturing in the US vs China, it looks grim for the US. When China opened its doors to consumerism, US companies salivated at the new enormous market. China had a broader goal, to make the world its market. It took decades, but now, it is the world's manufacturing capital. Businesses in the US, particularly smaller ones, find China's manufacturing is responsive, produces quality products, and delivers products only available in China.

Many products used by small businesses in the US are only made in China. Additionally, the quality of their products is often superior to the US's and, of course, cheaper. So the US suffers a double whammy of raising their prices due to increased manufacturing cost and possibly an inferior product or even no product.

Trying to cut off product supply lines from China is like the "Whack a Mole" game where China can send raw material or parts through various countries. When you discover a portal, it can be moved to another country. While we are trying to rectify issues for legacy products China is working on future products an technology.

Take, for instance, humanoid robots. China is expected to start production of such AI-augmented robots within a year for $16,000 per unit. Musk "claims" he will have one soon for $20,000. Sure, Elon, just like your 4680 battery or only two starship launches this year. I thought you said 25.

AI is another product group that China may be leading with, especially as applied to robots. One company is expecting mass production this year. China expects to be the world's leading by 2027.



The US is, of course, concerned, but instead of getting into the game and competing it imay handicap itself by closing down the supply of rare earths, hampering AI research in universities, and forcing that research into China. Biden tried to help the US semiconductor industry with the CHIPS Act. Trump does not like it. But look on the bright side by 2027 US might have built a factory to produce more expensive socks.
 

Liberal Democracy Values

  • Free and Fair Elections
  • Rule of Law
  • Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
  • Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
  • Pluralism & Political Competition
  • Independent Media & Free Press
  • Open Civil Society

Community Values

  • Civility
  • Productivity
  • Good Faith Debate
  • Evidence Based Debate
  • Transparency
  • Integrity

Community Motto

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies." - Noam Chomsky
Back
Top