Warren Buffett Criticizes Using Trade As A Geopolitical Weapon

Michelle Reid

Economic

Summary:

Buffett criticized weaponizing trade at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting.

Key Takeaways:

● Buffett criticized weaponizing trade at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting.

● Significant market volatility noted.

● U.S. economy saw a contraction in Q1 due to tariffs.

Billionaire Warren Buffett Criticizes Trade as a Weapon

Buffett's remarks hold weight, reflecting potential shifts in global trade dynamics amidst recent U.S. trade policies.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett cautioned against treating trade as an act of war, referencing recent U.S. policies imposing tariffs. He noted how these actions could lead to significant consequences globally for economic relationships, particularly affecting market stability.

Trade should not be a weapon. And the United States… we've won. I mean, we have become an incredibly important country, starting from nothing 250 years ago. — Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO, Berkshire Hathaway.

Berkshire Hathaway's CEO highlighted risks associated with using economic measures as leverage for political gain, a position he has consistently held. He argued that creating antagonism in international trade could result in unwanted long-term effects for the U.S. and global esteem.

Immediate effects of these tariffs have been observed, such as U.S. economic contraction for the first time in three years. These policies, witnessed during Trump's tenure, aim to negotiate better trade deals but have also introduced uncertainty in global markets.

Financial markets experienced volatility, with shifts in trade policy directly influencing investor confidence and economic predictability. Companies with significant international dealings are facing augmented strategic challenges due to these tariffs, seeking to navigate through economic landscapes with new trade barriers.

Economic experts and historians cite Buffett’s perspective on the cruciality of maintaining harmonious trade relationships. Data indicates that collaboration fosters mutual economic growth, whereas divisive policies may erode decades of established trust, potentially affecting future negotiations and technological partnerships.

Source: CryptoSlate

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Grace Montgomery

Cryptocurrency

Key Takeaways:

● Analysts predict a bullish breakout for Bitcoin by Q2 2025.

● Bitcoin currently trades at $96,500, just below resistance.

● Indicators reflect strong buying pressure in the market.

Bitcoin Primed for Major Breakout to New Highs

Bitcoin is reportedly nearing a significant breakout, driven by strong technical indicators and analyst predictions, showing potential for surpassing the $100,000 threshold as of May 2025.

The event holds potential significance for investors aiming for new highs, as Bitcoin trends towards breaking longstanding resistance levels, signifying possible substantial gains.

Bitcoin, currently trading at $96,500, is exhibiting promising signs of a major bullish breakout, backed by significant technical and on-chain data. Technical indicators such as the RSI and MACD are supporting analyst expectations of Bitcoin surpassing $100,000.

Pillows, Crypto Analyst - "The breakout has already begun and expects a new all-time high to be set in Q2 2025," potentially surpassing the $100,000 resistance.

Notable analysts, including Pillows and Willy Woo, On-Chain Analyst, have expressed optimism, expecting Bitcoin to reach and perhaps exceed historical highs by mid-2025. This is set against a backdrop of increasing trading volume and strengthened technical signals.

Immediate effects on the crypto market include heightened trading activities and investor anticipation of Bitcoin's next movement. Such developments could influence other cryptocurrencies, potentially affecting altcoins and specific sectors like DeFi.

Financial implications involve potential gains for investors, as rising Bitcoin prices could recalibrate asset valuations. The broader market looks to align with Bitcoin's uptrend, forecasted to stimulate market-wide sentiment.

The anticipated breakout might pave the way for regulatory evaluations, as a notable surge in Bitcoin could influence discussions on crypto policies. Technological advancements may accelerate, driven by newfound interest and capital inflow, reinforcing the crypto ecosystem's infrastructure.

Source: CryptoSlate

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

A Quiet Warning: Businesses Enter 'Wait-and-See' Mode

As the United States navigates the fallout from President Donald Trump’s proposed tariff escalation, many of the country’s largest corporations are retreating from a crucial element of corporate transparency: earnings guidance. A growing number of firms have stopped issuing short-term forecasts, citing economic ambiguity driven by tariff uncertainty.

The 90-day freeze on new retaliatory tariffs, which began in April 2025, has created a liminal policy space. Companies are unclear whether to plan for a reversal, a moderation, or full implementation of sweeping duties. In this environment, withholding earnings projections has become a strategic choice, mirroring the cautious behavior seen during the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns.

This corporate silence complicates the work of analysts and investors, who rely on forward-looking statements to assess both individual firm outlooks and broader economic trends. Without guidance, market participants are forced to navigate an increasingly opaque business landscape.

Key Industries Caught in Forecast Fog

The impact is particularly visible in sectors closely tied to global trade. Stellantis, the automaker behind Jeep and Dodge, announced on May 1 that it could not provide profit growth forecasts for 2025, citing the volatility of tariff policy. General Motors made a similar announcement just one day prior, while luxury carmaker Mercedes-Benz also pulled its forward-looking projections.

In the tech sector, Snap saw its shares drop by 14% on April 29 after it chose not to issue guidance for Q2 2025. The company cited macroeconomic uncertainty and the unpredictable nature of the digital advertising market—areas historically sensitive to shifts in consumer sentiment and discretionary spending.

Airlines are also backing away from forecasts. American Airlines, Delta, Southwest, and Alaska Air have all withdrawn full-year guidance, pointing to intensifying economic pressure. Delta CEO Ed Bastian warned of a potential U.S. recession, noting that the company’s growth had effectively stalled.

Even firms maintaining their outlooks are hedging their confidence. UPS, while not revising its forecasts yet, acknowledged the risk of doing so. CEO Carol Tomé noted that the second half of the year carries significant uncertainty, particularly as tariff burdens may soon be passed down to American consumers. While consumer sentiment remains relatively stable, she admitted it has already weakened compared to early 2025.

Suspended Guidance as a Broader Market Signal

According to Paul Beland, Global Research Director at CFRA, the suspension of earnings forecasts should not be seen as an isolated phenomenon. Speaking with CNN, he warned that this marks a serious increase in corporate uncertainty, with ripple effects already showing in consumer sentiment indices.

While equity values in the S&P 500 remain high, the six-month outlook for corporate earnings has eroded. Beland drew parallels to the early stages of the pandemic when firms faced extreme supply chain disruptions. The crucial difference today is the absence of large-scale federal stimulus or aggressive Federal Reserve support—two stabilizing forces that were present in 2020 but are largely missing now.

Understanding the Underlying Relationship

The retreat from forecasting is not merely a reaction to economic data; it reflects a deeper correlation between policy volatility and operational decision-making. Companies are not halting projections due to immediate financial damage but because of a strategic recognition that evolving trade policy could rapidly invalidate existing models. In other words, the unpredictability of tariffs is not directly destroying profits yet—it is undermining the assumptions that allow for profit estimation in the first place.

This suggests a relationship where market confidence is decoupled from present performance and tied more closely to policy visibility. The greater the perceived risk of erratic regulatory shifts, the less willing companies are to commit publicly to growth trajectories.

The decision by major U.S. companies to pause earnings guidance serves as a canary in the coal mine. While not a guarantee of recession, it reflects an erosion of business confidence in the current policy environment. With key industries—from automotive and airlines to tech—falling silent, investors and policymakers alike must confront a crucial challenge: how to navigate and mitigate the rising fog of economic uncertainty.

Source: Business Insider

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

From Political Hostility to Constructive Dialogue

Just days after describing the U.S.-Canada trade relationship as “terminated,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to meet President Donald Trump in Washington on May 6. The meeting marks Carney’s first foreign diplomatic visit since leading the Liberal Party to victory in Canada’s April 2025 general election.

Carney’s campaign was overshadowed by rising tensions with Washington, driven by a series of tariffs the Trump administration had imposed on key Canadian exports. Despite the hostile backdrop, Carney confirmed a “very constructive” phone call with President Trump on May 2, signaling a renewed willingness to engage in direct dialogue.

“Our focus will be the immediate trade pressures, as well as the broader economic and security partnership between two sovereign nations,” Carney stated, emphasizing the strategic depth of U.S.-Canada ties beyond current frictions.

Election Undercurrents: Trump, Tariffs, and National Resilience

Carney’s victory over Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was significantly influenced by voter concerns about Canada's deteriorating trade relationship with its southern neighbor. Much of the political discourse during the campaign centered on President Trump’s rhetoric and trade actions, which included sharply worded comments suggesting Canada could become America’s “51st state.”

While provocative, these statements reflected the seriousness of the trade rift, exacerbated by Trump’s recent tariff hikes on Canadian steel, aluminum, and automobiles—sectors central to Canada's export economy. Carney responded with a strong nationalist message, affirming Canada’s refusal to succumb to external pressure and pledging to expand trade ties with Europe and other regions to reduce reliance on the U.S. market.

Toward a Reset: Strategic Framing of the Upcoming White House Meeting

Carney is expected to raise the “complex tariffs” imposed by the U.S. on Canadian auto, steel, and aluminum industries. Although these sectors are historically integrated across North America under the USMCA framework—negotiated with Trump during his first term—recent tariff moves have disrupted longstanding supply chains and inflamed political tensions.

By framing the upcoming negotiations as “difficult but constructive,” Carney signals both realism and resolve. His focus is not only on defending specific sectors but also on reasserting Canada’s role as a key economic partner with independent strategic interests.

The Canadian Prime Minister’s approach contrasts with Trump’s more transactional posture, suggesting an effort to restore stability through multilateralism and predictability rather than through bilateral confrontation. Nonetheless, the meeting will test both leaders’ ability to balance domestic political imperatives with international economic cooperation.

Implications for the Future of North American Trade

The renewed dialogue comes at a time of rising protectionism and geopolitical fragmentation. While the USMCA remains legally binding, the spirit of cooperation that underpinned its negotiation is under strain. If the May 6 meeting results in tariff adjustments or at least a framework for gradual de-escalation, it could restore investor confidence and reinvigorate cross-border commerce.

However, if talks break down or are overshadowed by political theatrics, the trade relationship risks entering a new phase of uncertainty. The economic implications would be significant, especially for industries that rely on stable regulatory alignment across borders.

A Fragile Opportunity to Rebuild Trust

Carney’s visit to Washington represents a chance to re-anchor one of the most vital trade relationships in the Western Hemisphere. While past months were marked by division and unilateralism, the new tone of cautious engagement opens the door for reestablishing mutual trust.

Yet, the success of this diplomatic reset depends not only on formal agreements, but on whether both sides are willing to treat each other as equal partners rather than adversarial counterparts. With Canada seeking market diversification and the U.S. tightening its protectionist stance, the upcoming summit may well shape the trajectory of North American trade for years to come.

Source: FT

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

China–U.S. Trade War

Economic

A Mandate for Stability and Unity

Following a decisive election victory, Australia’s center-left Labor Party has pledged to maintain a disciplined and unified approach to governance, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese securing a second consecutive term—an achievement not seen in over two decades. The Labor Party, initially projected to struggle, is now expected to expand its parliamentary majority to at least 85 seats out of 150, signaling a shift in voter sentiment over the past months.

Albanese’s win is attributed not only to domestic economic policy but also to voters’ unease over international dynamics—particularly the renewed economic tensions triggered by President Donald Trump’s April 2 announcement of sweeping tariffs. These developments, which sent tremors through global markets, contributed to growing fears among Australians about the long-term impact on their pensions, trade flows, and national economic security.

From Inflation to International Trade: Shifting Public Concerns

Initially, Labor faced political headwinds due to rising cost-of-living pressures and criticism of its inflation response. However, public opinion turned in Labor’s favor in March after the conservative opposition proposed significant federal workforce cuts and a rigid return-to-office mandate—measures that drew comparisons to Trump-era U.S. policies. These proposals were widely viewed as disconnected from urban Australia’s evolving social and economic expectations, especially among women and younger workers.

The opposition’s miscalculation was further compounded by the global uncertainty surrounding Trump’s trade policy. As tariff threats intensified, concerns about international instability took center stage in the minds of voters. The parallel between economic protectionism in the U.S. and the opposition's domestic austerity agenda reinforced Labor’s narrative as the party better positioned to manage external shocks.

U.S.-China Rivalry: Australia’s Strategic Priority

In his post-election remarks, Treasurer Jim Chalmers identified the U.S.-China trade tensions as a pressing concern, referring to it as a “dark shadow over the global economy.” He emphasized that the government’s immediate focus would be to navigate the risks posed by this geopolitical competition and to safeguard Australia’s interests in a volatile global environment.

This prioritization reflects a broader recognition that Australia’s economic fortunes are deeply intertwined with the dynamics between its largest trading partner, China, and its strategic ally, the United States. With commodity prices fluctuating, labor markets softening, and household budgets under stress, Canberra is acutely aware that external economic instability could quickly amplify internal vulnerabilities.

Policy Continuity in an Era of Geopolitical Friction

Albanese’s commitment to an “orderly” second term suggests that the government will seek policy consistency in both domestic and foreign arenas. The inclusion of a $300 energy bill relief under a $3.5 billion package in the 2024 federal budget underscores the government’s strategy to cushion households while retaining fiscal discipline. This pragmatic approach aims to build public resilience without inflaming inflationary pressures.

At the same time, Australia is expected to increase its diplomatic engagement, seeking to reduce the fallout from U.S.-China trade disputes and ensuring it retains autonomy in its foreign trade relations. Whether this leads to more active participation in regional trade forums or stronger ties with ASEAN economies remains to be seen, but the message is clear: Australia does not intend to passively absorb global shocks.

Opposition Introspection and Political Realignment

The election also exposed significant challenges for Australia’s conservative bloc. Opposition leader Peter Dutton lost his parliamentary seat, and figures like Keith Wolahan have publicly acknowledged the party’s disconnect with urban voters. Calls for a re-evaluation of the party’s identity and policy priorities indicate a period of introspection ahead.

This internal reckoning is not merely tactical but ideological. With urban Australia representing the bulk of the electorate, future electoral success will depend on the opposition’s ability to align with the lived experiences of metropolitan voters and respond to the broader geopolitical anxieties shaping economic life.

Balancing Domestic Relief with Global Readiness

Australia’s post-election direction underscores a dual mandate: to deliver cost-of-living relief at home while preparing for intensified global economic challenges. The Albanese government is now positioned to pursue a foreign policy that balances alliance commitments with trade diversification, and a domestic policy that cushions households without sacrificing stability.

In this climate of uncertainty, leadership continuity offers a degree of reassurance. However, as the U.S.-China rivalry evolves, Australia will need more than political stability—it will require strategic agility.

Source: CNBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

China–U.S. Trade War

China Responds to U.S. Overtures: Dialogue Possible, but Only with Concessions

On May 2, China's Ministry of Commerce announced that it is considering trade negotiations with the U.S. following repeated diplomatic signals from Washington. A spokesperson confirmed that high-level American officials have conveyed a willingness to reopen talks, and recent backchannel communications further reinforce this interest.

However, China set a clear condition: the U.S. must eliminate all unilateral tariffs previously imposed. Beijing views these tariffs not as bargaining tools but as violations requiring correction before serious dialogue can resume. This position underscores a strategic tactic—shifting the responsibility back onto Washington to demonstrate "sincerity through action."

Despite this, Dan Wang, head of China research at Eurasia Group, noted that the Ministry’s remarks do not signify any change in China’s political stance. While some tariff reductions and exemptions—especially on U.S.-made semiconductors—have occurred in practice, Beijing continues to treat the full removal of U.S. tariffs as a non-negotiable prerequisite, thus returning the ball to America’s court. According to Wang, the chances of a breakthrough remain slim.

Tariff Retaliation and Trade Barriers Remain High

Since President Trump’s return to office in January, both nations have resumed their tit-for-tat tariff campaign. Currently, most Chinese exports to the U.S. face a 145% duty, while American goods entering China are subject to an added 125% levy. Small imported items valued under $800 are now taxed at 90% of their value—or $75 per item—set to rise to $150 after June 1.

Although certain exemptions signal a willingness to ease tensions, these remain symbolic amid a broader climate of entrenched protectionism. The structural impact on trade flows is evident, as high tariffs continue to distort supply chains and restrict market access across both economies.

Mutual Economic Damage Triggers Rhetorical Shift

Despite hardened positions, both sides are beginning to soften their rhetoric. President Trump recently hinted that tariffs on Chinese goods may decrease significantly from 145%, though “not to zero.” This adjustment coincides with growing recognition of the domestic toll the trade war has taken on both economies.

In the U.S., new economic data reveals that GDP contracted in the first quarter of 2025. Business uncertainty, weakened investor sentiment, and reduced consumer confidence are all linked to trade instability. Meanwhile, China's manufacturing activity in April reached its lowest level in over a year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

These parallel economic trends suggest a pattern of correlation—both economies appear to suffer simultaneously under the burden of mutual tariffs. However, whether one side’s slowdown causes the other’s is less clear. Instead, shared exposure to a fractured global trade system is generating similar outcomes, reinforcing the argument for coordinated de-escalation.

Strategic Stalemate: A Game of Endurance, Not Concession

What emerges is a geopolitical “staring contest,” where each side is waiting for the other to blink first. Economist Yao Yang from Peking University commented that both nations fear losing negotiating leverage if they make the first move. This competitive dynamic reduces the likelihood of immediate breakthroughs, as concessions risk being interpreted as weakness.

Adding to this impasse, Ja Ian Chong of the National University of Singapore observed that neither Washington nor Beijing wants to appear as the party that gave in. According to Wen-Ti Sung, a China scholar in Australia, one solution may lie in involving a neutral third party to provide a diplomatic “exit ramp,” offering both sides a way to save face while stepping back from the brink.

While recent messaging suggests a pause in escalation, the structural issues underlying the U.S.–China trade conflict remain unresolved. Mutual economic strain has made further confrontation less desirable, yet neither side is willing to appear conciliatory. As both superpowers await the other's move, the path to de-escalation hinges not just on policy shifts, but on the ability to reframe negotiations as a win-win scenario—something increasingly difficult amid nationalist pressures and domestic political calculations.

Source: Yahoo Finance

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Economic

Comprehensive Sanctions and the Oil Ban: Economic Strain Deepens

On May 2, President Donald Trump announced a total ban on the purchase of Iranian oil and petrochemical products, warning that any country, organization, or individual violating the ban would face immediate secondary sanctions. He stated that entities continuing to trade with Iran would be barred from doing business with the United States. Oil prices surged by $3 per barrel in response, as markets anticipated tighter global supply.

This measure marks a renewed phase of the U.S. "maximum pressure" strategy, reinstated in February 2025, aimed at cutting Iran's vital oil revenue. Analyst Yassamine Mather pointed out that Iran’s currency has depreciated sharply over the past two months, and with European nations still refraining from commercial engagement due to fear of U.S. penalties, the country's economic situation is deteriorating further.

Iran’s Response: Condemnation and Mistrust

Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the latest sanctions, describing them as a repeat of coercive tactics undermining diplomatic efforts to resolve the nuclear dispute. It accused the U.S. of adopting a contradictory approach by pursuing diplomacy while simultaneously applying economic pressure, arguing this dual strategy erodes trust and violates the spirit of international cooperation as outlined in the UN Charter.

The delay of the fourth round of indirect nuclear negotiations, mediated by Oman, adds to growing diplomatic stagnation. Although prior rounds in Italy and Oman were reported as constructive by both sides, the current impasse reflects mounting logistical and political barriers, likely exacerbated by U.S. economic threats. The apparent correlation between increasing sanctions and disrupted diplomacy suggests a deteriorating framework for constructive engagement.

U.S. Nuclear Ultimatum: Diplomacy Framed as a One-Sided Opportunity

On the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a renewed warning, stating that Iran must cease uranium enrichment if it truly seeks peaceful nuclear energy. He emphasized that Iran should import enriched uranium and allow unrestricted inspections, including by American inspectors. According to Rubio, this represents Iran's best and perhaps only chance to avoid deeper isolation.

This statement shifts the focus from multilateral negotiation to a unilateral framework of conditions. Instead of balancing interests, the U.S. appears to be setting preconditions that could frame the future of talks solely within American strategic objectives. Iran's increasing skepticism toward U.S. intentions reflects this shift, particularly given the lack of parallel commitments to easing sanctions.

Interlinked Trends in Economic Pressure and Political Posturing

The relationship between U.S. economic measures and Iran’s diplomatic posture reveals a concerning pattern. Economic pressure is not only deepening Iran’s internal challenges but also shaping its external political behavior. While the causal pathway from sanctions to currency depreciation is clear, the impact on Iran’s political resistance is more nuanced. Although sanctions are meant to coerce policy change, they appear to harden Iran’s stance instead, mirroring past episodes where economic strain fueled nationalistic resistance rather than compliance.

With both sides escalating their rhetoric, the balance of power remains asymmetrical. The U.S. leverages its dominance in global finance and trade to isolate Iran, while Iran is left navigating limited diplomatic options and mounting economic hardship. The “maximum pressure” campaign is functioning less as a bridge to resolution and more as a wedge that risks long-term regional instability. The breakdown in trust, fueled by unilateral actions and rhetorical ultimatums, suggests that the path toward a sustainable agreement is becoming increasingly narrow.