Ambassador Richard Haass was a featured guest on this week's Wall St Week episode.
David Westin asked Mr. Haass which countries may benefit and which may suffer due to our current policies.
Obviously, this can have financial implications.
Please, let's focus on potential economic/investing impacts
and refrain from ad hominem attacks against the current administration.
Who may benefit?
The first country mentioned was Russia while the second country was China.
Israel is probably third due to our current hands-off approach.
More broadly speaking - authoritarian countries like Turkey, Hungary, and some Gulf countries.
Who may suffer?
Europe will lose economically because of the tariffs.
Generally, allies who are our principal trading partners will suffer.
Canada and Mexico were mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vy3ImGQFEM&t=2850s

Frankly, I've never liked bond funds because in this type of situation you have absolutely no control over the potential for rapid swings in value. My perspective on individual bonds is entirely different: I buy a specific bond for (hopefully) safety and the interest income, with the intent to keep that bond until maturity. Along the way it may appreciate or depreciate in market value, and that makes absolutely no difference to me.
It's my belief that to really "play" bonds you need to be a very smart, experienced, and dedicated player- someone like Junkster, for instance. Probably almost a full-time occupation.
When much younger, if I wanted to take a chance on the intrinsic value of a financial product (hoping for a significant increase in value, of course), I went with stocks or stock funds and took my chances in the market along with everyone else.

Friday USD dollar fell against other major currencies and yields of 10 and 30 years Treasuy notes rose. Just about all US bonds fell accordingly. Excerpt from the enclosed articles:

The sudden loss of confidence has been stark in the US Treasury market, widely considered to be the most important in the world because investors normally use it as the “risk free” benchmark to determine the price of every other financial asset.
In the sharpest weekly move since 1982, the yield – in effect the interest rate – on 30-year US government bonds rose from about 4.4% to 4.8%. The yield on 10-year bonds has also risen.

https://theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/11/the-damage-is-done-trumps-tariffs-put-the-dollars-global-reserve-status-at-risk
What are the options for income investors?

OPPS. Forgot the 'near real-time' financial futures trading graphic for UST's; and other similar.
HERE

The yield increases from late last night have settled down a bit to about one half from the high point. At least a little relief.
Equity, bonds and US$ down, simultaneous. OUCH !!!
And China announced a 'screw you, too' policy of a 84% tariff increase, early today.
Current/active UST yields chart that updates daily during open hours.
One doesn't find much stand up opposition in congress or the senate to the current 'crazy'. So, economic damages will be done; that will be difficult to fix short term, IMO.
Global bond rout starting to sound market alarm bells
2.5 hours ago
06:21 EDT REUTERS
U.S. Treasuries, the bedrock of the global financial system, were hit by fresh selling pressure on Wednesday in a sign that investors were dumping their safest assets as turmoil unleashed by U.S. tariffs prompts forced selling and a dash for cash.
The 10-year Treasury yield has risen 36 basis points (bps) to 4.35% this week alone as prices fall sharply. If sustained, that would mark the biggest weekly jump since 2013.

The rout in the roughly $29 trillion Treasury market dragged borrowing costs across the globe higher, raising pressure on central banks and policymakers to act fast to shelter economies now facing a sharp slowdown as U.S. tariffs kick in.
Japan will cooperate with the Group of Seven advanced economies and the International Monetary Fund to help stabilize a market rout unleashed by U.S. tariffs, the country's top currency diplomat said on Wednesday.
Japanese 30-year government bond yield surged to 21-year highs and Britain's 30-year bond yields rose to their highest since 1998.
The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, the globe's benchmark safe-haven anchor, was unmoored and long bonds were the focus of intense selling from hedge funds which had borrowed to bet on usually small gaps between cash and futures prices.

A little late to cover up, but today I had to place protection in my portfolio by buying an inverse ETF. I've made (long) index purchases this past week, but clearly this might get even uglier (crisis level) soon.
I don't know what reality Orange lives in, but he clearly has too much control of our financial lives. This is not normal and we are quickly passing the point of no return.
Wall Street is quickly catching on to this new "reality".
That said, who knows whether he finally relents from this foolish gambit. We didn't need any of this.

I haven't investigated JR's claim for buying on dips.
Perhaps you are referring to the following MW article published on March 7, 2025?
Warren Pies of 3Fourteen Research calculated that the “golden era of dip buying”
occurred from the end of the 2008 financial crisis to the late 2021 stock market peak.
Pies and his team developed a checklist with seven criteria to determine whether a dip is "buyable" or not.
"As of Thursday’s close, only three of the seven criteria had been met, Pies said.
Yields have fallen, offering some economic stability. The VIX has remained below 25.
And, most important, Pies and his team don’t expect a recession on the horizon."
“'Clients who followed our guidance to reduce risk earlier in the year should look to add back exposure
over the next couple of months … but not quite yet,' Pies said in a report shared by MarketWatch."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/thinking-of-buying-the-stock-market-dip-heres-what-you-should-know-6e3e74c1

Stuck my head out, saw my shadow, and ducked back into my burrow.
Aside from previous comments

Reuters reports:

U.S. Treasuries extended a sharp retreat on Tuesday as investors were having to sell bonds to cover losses in other assets and scrambled to unwind expectations for deep U.S. rate cuts, in the latest unsettling sign of possible stress in financial markets.
/snip
"What do you sell if you need to meet margin calls or liquidity? Treasuries and gold," said Martin Whetton, head of financial markets strategy at Westpac in Sydney.

Still lurking in the weeds are bond vigilantes and angry international markets deciding to stick it to Uncle Sam.
At the risk of getting all political, nobody knows what capitulation looks like because it all depends on how long Trump sticks with tariffs.

"Market participants said the declines in the $29tn Treasury market on Monday reflected several factors, including hedge funds cutting down on leverage — or borrowing used to magnify trades —
and a broader dash for cash as investors sheltered from swings in the wider market."
"Investors and analysts pointed in particular to hedge funds that took advantage of small differences in the price of Treasuries and associated futures contracts, known as the 'basis trade'. These funds, which are large players in the fixed-income market, unwound those positions as they cut back on risk, prompting selling in Treasuries."
https://www.ft.com/content/623971a1-cd93-43c2-ad8d-ba8815339a24
Financial Times article may be paywalled.

Do you REALLY think a large % of his minions would still "believe" he's a financial whiz if the US went belly up?
His minions will believe this is all somehow Biden's fault, because that's the excuse the propaganda (aka Fox News) will direct them towards. Roughly 35% - 40% of the country will vote for him again no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.
Maybe if you take their Social Security away, the base erodes a bit more.
There is no common sense involved, no humility and the facts are alternative. It's the foundation for this entire "movement".
It's a cult of personality. And it's how we got here.

Good god. In a bankruptcy, it's irrelevant what citizens, customers, creditors and whoever else "believe"!
Do you REALLY think a large % of his minions would still "believe" he's a financial whiz if the US went belly up?
Ugh. I'm done with this part of the discussion. What I originally posted was an attempted tongue-in-cheek slap in the face. Somehow semantics got in the way.

Uh, yeah, I kinda thought that went without saying.

You would think, but about 40% of the population still likes to believe that he is some sort of financial negotiations wizard.......despite his bankruptcy history.
Looking past a track record with red flags in abundance, that history has been neatly swept under the rug.
At the end of the day, the Emperor has no clothes.

@Charles, lots of quick changes in bonds. Junk bonds that worked in last two years now are falling behind as the market is falling, while the safer and quality IG bonds are back this week. Quite a reversal. Yes, I like boring T bills, money market, and stable value as cash and cash equivalents. Now is not the time to catch a falling knife.
Right now the FED is in a tight spot when the inflation remains elevated and getting worse. Watch for the labor market where recession starts.
Is it economically feasible to reshoring manufacturing base to the States? Interesting but naive thinking in my honest opinion.
@JD_co, the tariffs is more revealing that meets the eyes. Excerpt from WSJ article.

But the tariff scheme he announced isn’t reciprocal and isn’t based on measuring foreign trade barriers. Instead, it simply measures bilateral trade deficits and comes up with tariff numbers from there. 
Those are two very different things, and could be one reason why global financial markets are reacting so badly.
The upshot is that, in the majority of cases, the Trump administration is now charging other countries more than what they charge the U.S.
Take the case of Vietnam. The U.S. will now charge Vietnam a 46% tariff for its exports to the U.S. But Vietnam’s simple average tariff is 9.4%, and its weighted average tariff—which is adjusted to account for the share of products coming in under different tariff rates—is just 5.1%, according to data from the World Trade Organization.

For Apple News subscribers, here is the link.
https://apple.news/AP0d-np1rQOSoanLTvSkaVQ

Here is a X post from a Shay Boloor, a financial/investment podcaster, that is making the rounds:
MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.
Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.
But that’s not what this is.
That you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.
You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.
Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.
That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.
And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.
I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.
What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.
And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.
You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.
This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.
And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.
You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.
With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.
That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.
Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.
But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.
That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones. So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.
But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.
I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.
It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.
And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate. Because we don’t need more noise.
We need a plan.

Following is a short current report in The Guardian:
Britain’s stock market has plunged deep into the red at the start of trading.

Stocks are sliding sharply again, adding to last week’s heavy losses, as investors grow more fearful that Donald Trump’s trade policies will lead to recession.
In London, the FTSE 100 index of blue-chip stocks has plunged by 488 points, or 6%, taking the index down to 7566 points, its lowest level since February 2024.
That’s an even more severe plunge than the near-5% wipeout on Friday after China retaliated against the US with its own new tariffs.
Every share on the FTSE 100 is in the red, with UK manufacturing firm Rolls-Royce tumbling by 13%.
Miners, banks, and investment firms are also in the top fallers.
There is widespread disappointment this morning that there was no progress on US trade tariffs over the weekend, with Trump described his new tariffs as necessary ‘medicine’.
Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, says investors are desperate to see ‘concrete action’, such as a pause or u-turn on Trump’s tariffs.
This market is looking for concrete action, not talk of action. The best panacea for financial markets right now would be a pause or reversal from the US on its tariff programme.

Following are edited excerpts from three short financial reports from The Guardian:
Japan’s stock index plummets almost 9% on Trump tariff concerns after almost $5tn was wiped off the value of global stock markets last week

The Nikkei plunge nears 9% as Japanese bank stocks plummet. Japan’s Nikkei share average tumbled nearly 9% early on Monday, while an index of Japanese bank stocks plunged as much as 17%, as concerns over a tariff-induced global recession continue to rip through markets.
The Nikkei dropped as much as 8.8% to hit 30,792.74 for the first time since October 2023. The index was trading down 7.3% at 31,318.79, as of 0034 GMT, Reuters reports. All 225 component stocks of the index were trading in the red.
The broader Topix sank 8% to 2,284.69. A topix index of banking shares slumped as much as 17.3%, and was last down 13.2%. The bank index has borne the brunt of the sell-off in Japanese equities, plunging as much as 30% over the past three sessions.
Hong Kong and Chinese stocks dive
Hong Kong stocks have plummeted more than 9% at open, while Singapore stocks dropped over 7%, according to reports.
Hong Kong and Chinese stocks dived on Monday as markets around the world crumbled in the face of the widening global trade war and fears it will unleash a deep recession, Reuters says. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index was down 8% in early trade. Shares in online giants Alibaba and Tencent were down more than 8%.
China’s CSI300 blue-chip index fell 4.5%. China, which is now facing US tariffs of more than 50%, responded in kind on Friday by slapping extra levies on US imports.
US Treasury yields fell on Monday and the two-year yield sank to a multi-year low as worries of a possible recession in the world’s largest economy grew and investors wagered that could see US rates cut as early as May. The two-year US Treasury yield, which typically reflects near-term rate expectations, tumbled more than 20 basis points to its lowest level since September 2022 at 3.4350%, as investors ramped up bets of more aggressive Federal Reserve easing this year, Reuters reports. The benchmark 10-year yield last stood at 3.9158%, languishing near Friday’s six-month low of 3.8600%
Futures now point to nearly 120 basis points’ worth of Fed cuts by December and markets swung to imply a roughly 60% chance the US central bank could ease rates in May, as policymakers seek to shore up growth in the world’s largest economy on the back of President Donald Trump’s latest tariff salvo.
JPMorgan ratcheted up its odds for a U.S. and global recession to 60%, as mentioned, and brokerages elsewhere similarly raised their probability of a US recession as tariff distress threatens to sap business confidence and slow global growth.
The market carnage came as White House officials showed no sign of backing away from their sweeping tariff plans, Reuters reports, and China declared the markets had spoken on their retaliation through levies on US goods.
Donald Trump says foreign governments will have to pay “a lot of money” to lift the sweeping tariffs he has characterised as “medicine” and which have routed Asian share markets.

As the Monday markets start to crash in Asia, this is Donnie at 7:20PM ET this evening...
"““We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing Tens of Billions of Dollars into the U.S.A.,”The Surplus with these Countries has grown during the ‘Presidency’ of Sleepy Joe Biden. We are going to reverse it, and reverse it QUICKLY,” Trump said. “Some day people will realize that Tariffs, for the United States of America, are a very beautiful thing!”"
I swear this jackass's insane tweets about the markets since Wed is simply him trying to convince himself that he's right.

Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:
Futures on the S&P 500, which allow investors to trade the index before regular trading begins on Monday, added to last week’s sell-off.

Financial markets were hit by another wave of selling on Sunday evening, with investors and economists grappling with rising odds of a severe economic downturn caused by President Trump’s significant new tariffs on imports.
Futures on the S&P 500, which allow investors to bet on the index before the official start of trading on Monday, dropped roughly 4 percent on Sunday evening. In oil markets, which also open for trading on Sunday evening, prices fell more than 3 percent — adding to steep losses last week. And the price of copper, considered a broad economic indicator, slid more than 5 percent. The 10.5 percent drop in the S&P 500 on Thursday and Friday was the worst two-day decline for the index since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.
The only other instances of a worse two-day drop came during the 2008 financial crisis and the 1987 stock market crash, according Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices. In dollar terms, the more than $5 trillion that was wiped out in the S&P’s value in the two days last week stands unmatched.
Even more unusual is that last week’s sell-off stemmed directly from presidential policy. Mr. Trump has so far brushed off concerns about the market reaction and potential economic consequences, showing little intention of backing down. “If they’re maintained, the tariff hikes announced April 2 represent a self-inflicted economic catastrophe for the United States,” Preston Caldwell, senior US economist for Morningstar Research Services, said in a blog post on Friday.
Chief executives have begun warning consumers that they should expect prices to increase on some groceries, clothes and other products. Consumers have said they intend to rein in spending on big-ticket items. Some auto companies have already announced production pauses overseas, as well as job losses domestically. Bank economists have raised the odds that a recession will hit the United States over the next 12 months. As countries responded last week with tariffs of their own, the sell-off in financial markets accelerated.
The S&P 500 is now 17.4 percent below its peak reached in February, on course to enter a bear market, defined as a drop of 20 percent or more from a recent peak. The Nasdaq Composite index, which is chock-full of tech stocks that came under pressure as the sell-off accelerated last week, is already in a bear market, down almost 23 percent from its December peak. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies that are more sensitive to the outlook for the economy has fallen over 25 percent from its November peak.
Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, said on Sunday on the NBC program “Meet The Press” that he saw “no reason” to expect a recession.

Comment: "No reason to expect a recession". Ooookayyy...

Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:
The financial titans who backed Trump are now dealing with the fallout from his tariffs. They spent the weekend surveying the damage of last week’s major sell-off.

There was little rest on Wall Street this weekend. There was plenty of anger, anxiety, frustration, and fear.
Anger at President Trump for a brash and chaotic rollout of tariffs that erased trillions of dollars in value from the stock market in two days. Anxiety about the state of the private equity industry and other colossal funds with global investments. Frustration among Wall Street’s elite at their sudden inability to influence the president and his advisers.
And fear of what may come next. Major banks played out emergency scenarios to guess whether one client or another would fail in the cascading effects of an international trade war.
In conversations with The New York Times over the weekend, bankers, executives and traders said they felt flashbacks to the 2007-8 global financial crisis, one that took down a number of Wall Street’s giants. Leaving out the brutal, but relatively short-lived market panic that erupted at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the velocity of last week’s market decline — stocks fell 10 percent over just two days — was topped only by the waves of selling that came as Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.
Like then, the breadth of the sudden downdraft — with oil, copper, gold, cryptocurrencies and even the dollar caught up in the sell-off — has Wall Street’s biggest players wondering which of their competitors and counterparties was caught off guard. Banks have asked trading clients to post additional funds if they want to continue borrowing money to trade — so-called margin calls that haven’t nearly reached the level of a generation earlier but are nonetheless causing unease.
“It definitely feels similar to 2008,” said Ran Zhou, a New York hedge fund manager at Electron Capital, who canceled weekend plans and put on a button-up shirt to sit in his Manhattan office and read Chinese news sources to get the jump on China’s plans.
There were some bright spots. Several bank and hedge fund executives pointed out that, despite the frenzied selling, trading in the wake of the tariff announcement had so far proceeded without any unexpected glitches, a point that Mr. Bessent also made on Sunday. A senior executive at one major bank also said there was relief after a call on Friday night with the bank’s regional heads and top executives that nobody could point to a specific client in danger of immediate implosion.
The true depth of the impact is yet to be determined. Bank of America estimates that profits for companies in the S&P 500 may fall by one-third if retaliatory levies are enacted by the countries subject to Mr. Trump’s tariffs. But the dire assessments could change, if countries begin to strike agreements with the White House that will lower the tariffs.
Two private equity executives said they expected that market turmoil and souring global relations would make it more difficult for private firms like theirs to raise money, adding to the challenges they are already facing as a dwindling deals market has made it harder to return cash to their investors. Pressures on those firms will only increase as the businesses they invest in begin to feel the impact of tariffs, these executives said. Shares of Apollo and KKR fell more than 20 percent on Thursday and Friday.
One prominent deals lawyer described himself as “flabbergasted” as he grappled with how far the share prices of his clients had fallen. A top Goldman Sachs executive summed up the frustration with Mr. Trump succinctly: Someone has to stop him.
Steve Eisman, the investor made famous in “The Big Short” for having foreseen the 2007-8 housing market collapse, said some humility was in order: “Everybody in the stock market went to college and everyone who went to college took Econ 101 and had it drummed into their heads that trade wars are bad,” Mr. Eisman said on Saturday. He suggested that investors were ignoring the potential that the United States, thanks to its economic strength, may be the best positioned of any nation to prosper in such scenarios.

A wee bit of Econ 101 for the less informed.
Tariffs have always and will always have a direct effect on national and world economies. And, taking it slow here, national and world economies have a direct effect on world financial markets. (Links supporting these facts below.)
If they are significant enough, or if they are so insanely ridiculous that it appears they were pulled out of a punch bowl, they will have a HUGE effect on world stock, bond and FX markets. (See US & world market activity, 04/03/25-Current.)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/
Excerpt:
The findings suggest that tariffs have a detrimental effect on output, with the negative effect larger for higher tariff increases and persisting over time, at least over the next four years or so. The residualized growth tends to be in negative territory in all four years following an increase in protectionism. For example, after the second year, the residualized output growth is −0.4/−0.8 for one/three standard deviation(s) increases in tariffs, respectively. After four years, tariff increases are associated with an annual negative output growth of 1.5 percent when tariff increase is above three standard deviations.
https://www.epi.org/publication/tariffs-everything-you-need-to-know-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
Excerpt:
These uses are not trivial: Tariffs are absolutely a key tool of smart industrial and trade policy. But on their own, tariffs cannot and should not be the centerpiece of a national economic strategy. Doing so would represent a gross overuse of a tool for a task it’s not suited for and would cause damage to the wider economy.
Reducing damaging trade deficits cannot be achieved solely through trade policy—except in the extreme case where trade policy measures are so severe that they essentially shut down all international trade, which would cause radical disruption to the U.S. economy. Instead, more balanced trade will only result from macroeconomic policies that are consistent with lower trade deficits—including exchange rate management to realign an overvalued U.S. dollar and a reasonable mix of fiscal and monetary policies.
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/tariffs-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-work/
Pretty basic stuff for anyone who has ever extended their financial knowledge base as far as Econ 101.