Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

berkshirehathaway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#51

Post by jfengel »

graemep wrote: post #36
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambodians are, and they were just hit by a 49% tariff, one of the highest applied to anybody.

Yes, that is stupid. Why not apply that to the big economies that the GP comment said was 90% of the deficit. Exempt small low income countries - save a lot of people a lot of paid at little cost. On the other hand this is a bargaining tactic. I do not think these tariffs will last. > Instead, recall that President Trump views tariffs as generating negotiating leverage for making deals. It is easier to imagine that a…

He seems quite confident that we "hold all of the cards", to quote another set of international trade negotiators.

I am less confident. The domestic consequences are immediate. Many of these negotiations are with experienced and patient experts. China, in particular, is under no obligation to its people or stock market to resolve this quickly.

The tariffs may not last, but I think they will end more unilaterally than Miran does. I guess we'll reach the Finding Out stage soon enough.

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#52

Post by Calwestjobs »

paxys wrote: post #20

Buffett has been aggressive selling stock in the last year ($134 billion total in 2024) and Berkshire is right now sitting on $334 billion cash vs $272 billion in equities. Kinda funny because he's the first one who will tell you "don't time the market", but he definitely timed it to perfection. "Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful".

so he is sitting on 334 billion?

that is almost Buffets "USA net ownership balance in 1980" - 360 billion. from that 2003 document... ;)

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#53

Post by ajmurmann »

paxys wrote: post #20

Buffett has been aggressive selling stock in the last year ($134 billion total in 2024) and Berkshire is right now sitting on $334 billion cash vs $272 billion in equities. Kinda funny because he's the first one who will tell you "don't time the market", but he definitely timed it to perfection. "Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful".

I'm very pessimistic about the stock market right now but am also very concerned about inflation. The stock will go back up the cash won't. Where am I wrong?

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#54

Post by rayiner »

graemep wrote: post #36
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambodians are, and they were just hit by a 49% tariff, one of the highest applied to anybody.

Yes, that is stupid. Why not apply that to the big economies that the GP comment said was 90% of the deficit. Exempt small low income countries - save a lot of people a lot of paid at little cost. On the other hand this is a bargaining tactic. I do not think these tariffs will last. > Instead, recall that President Trump views tariffs as generating negotiating leverage for making deals. It is easier to imagine that a…

> Yes, that is stupid. Why not apply that to the big economies that the GP comment said was 90% of the deficit. Exempt small low income countries - save a lot of people a lot of paid at little cost.

I suspect Trump is focused on a simple and aggressive message aimed at our largest trading partners, and doesn’t want to dilute it by making exceptions out of the gate.

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#55

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #14
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

The important part is that this doesn’t seek to force a zero trade deficit on a per-country basis. Imagine insisting Cambodia has to buy as much US goods (taking into account the type of goods the US exports) as US companies import from Cambodian factories.

Over 90% of the trade deficit is attributable to China, the EU, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. These are big, diversified economies. Nobody is focused on Cambodia.

[deleted]

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#56

Post by tene80i »

rayiner wrote: post #14
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

The important part is that this doesn’t seek to force a zero trade deficit on a per-country basis. Imagine insisting Cambodia has to buy as much US goods (taking into account the type of goods the US exports) as US companies import from Cambodian factories.

Over 90% of the trade deficit is attributable to China, the EU, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. These are big, diversified economies. Nobody is focused on Cambodia.

What do you mean by “nobody”? The U.S. government has done exactly this to Cambodia. It is stupid, for exactly the reason you say, but it’s also relevant, because it has happened.

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#57

Post by leoh »

rayiner wrote: post #14
ComputerGuru wrote: post #4

The important part is that this doesn’t seek to force a zero trade deficit on a per-country basis. Imagine insisting Cambodia has to buy as much US goods (taking into account the type of goods the US exports) as US companies import from Cambodian factories.

Over 90% of the trade deficit is attributable to China, the EU, Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. These are big, diversified economies. Nobody is focused on Cambodia.

I have a 100% trade deficit with the grocery store and a 100% trade surplus with my employer. Expecting all parties to trade at parity is utterly insane.

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#58

Post by marcosdumay »

hayst4ck wrote: post #44
throw0101d wrote: post #15

That's from 2003. In a more recent interview in March 2025: > Asked about how tariffs will affect the economy, Buffett stated, "Tariffs are actually, we've had a lot of experience with them. They're an act of war, to some degree." > I asked, "How do you think tariffs will impact inflation?" > "Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!" he laughed. "And then what? You always have to…

Blockades are an act of war. How expensive does a tariff have to be before it is a de facto blockade? I think that comparison is much more apt than it first appears.

Blockades usually refer to impeding a country to trade with anybody. Tariffs are only comparable if you consider the US tariffs to be an act of war against the US.

(Having said that, it's not such a ridiculous concept as it seemed.)

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#59

Post by oh_my_goodness »

vannevar wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's from 2003. Would you argue that the period between 2003 and 2025 have strengthened or weakened the case for free trade?

Worth noting that the deficit bottomed out around 2006, then improved throughout the Obama administration before leveling out. It declined again post-pandemic. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/uni... So something reversed the trend Buffett was seeing in 2003.

No fair bringing data. Share your feelings or move on.

Re: Buffett: America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out from Under Us [pdf] (2003)

#60

Post by api »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #46
api wrote: post #37

I don't agree with how it's being done -- it makes Biden's Afghanistan exit look well planned and executed -- but the trade stuff is one of the few areas where I have some overlap with MAGA. My preferred approach would be more careful, gradual, selective, and, well, well-executed, but it's very clear that blanket free trade with no standards and no reciprocity has hollowed out the country. I mean... if we are going t…

The Biden administration spent a lot of time and money trying to bring back manufacturing to US shores, including loads of funding in the IRA for industries like renewable energy and batteries and the CHIPS act for semiconductors. They also used tariffs to protect a number of US industries, but they did it intelligently and in a targeted manner. Being “in favor of some trade restrictions and reindustrialization” does…

I agreed with that, though not entirely with how it was done, but they didn't take credit for it. Very few people even knew it was happening.

Objectively I don't think Biden was a bad president, and no I didn't vote for Trump.

They also never took a principled stand on it. Biden and Harris never said "the trade policy of Reagan and Clinton was a mistake and we are reversing it." If Harris had said that, she would have flipped Michigan and Wisconsin and maybe Ohio. With one sentence. Throw in "the Iraq war was a mistake, and while I support Ukraine we need to make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past" and she might have flipped a few more.

If that's at all what Harris thinks, then the Democratic Party has an enormous communication problem. They don't know how to connect and they don't claim their wins. They sound like their whole communication agenda is set by consultants and PR people, because it is, and when people hear that they dismiss it as bullshit because everything consultants and PR people say is bullshit. That communication style is a huge contrarian indicator. When people hear a press release they tune out.

The right has learned how to talk to people. Or rather, they've un-learned the communication playbook of the latter half of the 20th century. That's why they're winning.

I knew Harris was going to lose when she skipped Rogan for SNL. I'm not a big Rogan fan (he's gone way downhill since his early years) but he's how you reach people today. Nobody cares about SNL.

I think a good first step would be to start listening to people like AOC -- not necessarily about all her policy views but about how she communicates. She communicates like a 21st century politician, not like someone from 1980.

Post reply on HN