Warren Buffett keeps taking investors to school as stock meltdown reveals the uncanny wisdom of his recent moves BYJason Ma April 5, 2025 at 2:15 PM EDT Warren Buffett at the 2019 Berkshire shareholders meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. Warren Buffett at the 2019 Berkshire shareholders meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. Johannes Eiselle—AFP via Getty Images The stock market crash triggered by President Donald Trump’s global tariffs brought Warren Buffett’s investment moves over the past year into a fresh light, underscoring his prudence amid the once-raging bull market. His decision last year to shed most of Berkshire Hathaway’s Apple stock now looks especially well timed. Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett’s investment moves over the past year now seem uncannily well timed in the wake of the stock market meltdown caused by President Donald Trump’s global tariffs. Related Video Trump’s tariffs were calculated through a simple math formula Next Stay In the last two trading sessions alone, the S&P 500 crashed 10%, and the broad market index is down 17% from its mid-February peak. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq and the small-cap Russell 2000 are in bear market territory, having tumbled more than 20% from their recent highs. Since Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement on Wednesday, US stocks have lost more than $6 trillion in market cap in the worst selloff since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as Wall Street prices in a tariff-induced US recession. But Buffett appeared to anticipate a market downturn coming. Berkshire sold $134 billion in equities in 2024—when the bull market was still raging—and was sitting on a record $334 billion cash pile at year’s end. That’s nearly double from a year earlier and more than its shrinking stock portfolio of $272 billion. The famously value-oriented investor has also been complaining for years that valuations were too high and has held off on using his cash on major acquisitions due to a lack of bargains. Most of Berkshire’s cash is in short-term Treasury bills, which not only offer shelter from the storm but also provide the conglomerate a tidy gain that Buffett noted in his most recent letter to shareholders. “We were aided by a predictable large gain in investment income as Treasury Bill yields improved and we substantially increased our holdings of these highly-liquid short-term securities,” he wrote in February. In addition to what he bought, what he sold also stands out, given the market crash. Last year, Berkshire slashed its Apple stake by about two-thirds, representing the bulk of the company’s equity sales, though the iPhone maker remains its largest stock holding. Those stock sales, which came in the first three quarters of the year, also occurred while Apple was still on the rise, with shares peaking in late December. But since that peak, Apple has collapsed 28% as US tariffs on China are expected to hit especially hard. That’s because Apple, like many tech companies, relies on China for parts and manufacturing. With Trump’s latest round of tariffs, imports from China now face a 54% duty. And if the administration follows through on its threat to impost a “secondary tariff” on countries that buy oil from Venezuela, the rate could hit 79%.
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment