Connect with us

Published

on

In the midst of the financial crisis in October 2008, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffett made a significant late-night phone call to the then-Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson. Buffett aimed to share an idea that could potentially revive the struggling economy.

Don't Miss:Why Silicon Valley Elites Are Betting On This Startups Vision For Reuniting American Families

Paulson, exhausted from a long night of collaborating with his team on policy ideas to restore confidence in Wall Street, recalls his weariness during that period. He shares his experience in the documentary "Panic: The Untold Story of the 2008 Financial Crisis." The documentary features interviews with notable figures, including former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, providing insights from both the government and private-sector perspectives.

During this time, Congress had recently passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as the "bailout bill," along with the establishment of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to acquire assets from failing banks. Despite these measures, investor concerns remained unabated.

"While we were getting this legislation in Congress, the situation worsened," Paulson said. "We had the two biggest bank failures in U.S. history with Wachovia and Washington Mutual. We needed something that was going to work much quicker and be more powerful."Buffetts Proposal

Amidst the frantic search for an effective solution, Buffett reached out to Paulson with his proposal.

Initially caught off guard by the unexpected call and not recognizing the voice on the other end, Paulson humorously recalls his confusion, remarking, "My mom has a handyman named Warren. Im saying, Why is he calling me?'"

As Paulson gathered his bearings, he listened to Buffett's suggestion, acknowledging that it held the essence of what would eventually be implemented.

Buffett recalls saying, "It might make more sense to put more capital in the banks than it would to try and buy these assets."

Following Buffett's suggestion, a meeting was convened on Oct. 13, bringing together prominent bank CEOs such as John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Thain of Merrill Lynch, and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup. The objective was to discuss the proposal at the Treasury.

To stay updated with top startup news & investments,sign up for Benzinga's Startup Investing & Equity Crowdfunding Newsletter

While not all banks required immediate assistance, some CEOs expressed reluctance to accept cash injections, fearing it would indicate financial struggles and potentially lead to investor withdrawals. Nevertheless, Paulson stressed the crucial nature of the bailout to restore economic faith, eventually garnering unanimous agreement.

Mack recalls thinking, "Look, if I get lucky, my board will fire me, and I'll get out of all this craziness."

The outcome of the meeting resulted in the Treasury injecting $250 billion into the banking system using funds from TARP.Public Perception

The bailout's reception varied. Protesters took to the streets, expressing disapproval that taxpayer money was used to rescue wealthy Wall Street investors who, in the eyes of many, caused the crisis through their poor judgment.

One sign read, "CASH for TRASH?" Another read, "Bail Out Working People, Not the Rich!"

"I think there are still many people who believe that we bailed out companies and helped Wall Street because we were trying to help our friends in the financial industry and not out of our interest in defending the U.S. economy," former Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said.

Paulson, Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner emphasize that their actions were intended to aid Main Street by rescuing Wall Street. While admitting to imperfections in their crisis management, such as the inability to save Lehman Brothers from collapse, they stand by their decision to infuse funds into the economy through the banking sector.

See Next:This Startup Invented Programmable, Drinkable Plastic That Dissolves In Water In 60 Hours

Paulson highlights the steady recovery of the market and indexes like the S&P 500 since 2009, dubbing the bailout "the most successful program that is broadly hated in the history of mankind."

Echoing this sentiment, Bush believes it to be "probably the greatest financial bailout ever," even though he acknowledges the inability to provide irrefutable evidence, firmly believing that the intervention likely averted a severe depression.

A decade later in 2018, Buffett stated that another financial crisis is inevitable because of the same fundamental human traits jealousy and greed that contributed to the previous one 10 years ago. "That's a permanent part of the system," he said.

In March, a series of small to mid-size U.S. bank failures sent shockwaves through the global banking sector, resulting in a rapid decline in bank stock prices. Swift action by regulators aimed to prevent potential worldwide contagion. Buffett commended the government's intervention, emphasizing its role in averting a more significant crisis.

Buffett expressed little surprise at the banks' failures, attributing them to the growing complexity of the U.S. banking system. He revealed that he had been gradually divesting his holdings in bank stocks, beginning at the onset of the pandemic and continuing over the past six months. He cited increasing mismanagement within banks and their responses to flawed incentives as factors driving his decision.

"The American public doesn't understand their banking system and some people in Congress dont understand it any more than I understand it," Buffett said, highlighting the widespread lack of comprehension surrounding the intricacies of the banking industry.Getting Away from the Stock Market

The stock market has no shortage of volatility. From inflation to banking collapses the daily concerns of the modern investor continue to grow. Holding through the volatility can be difficult, which is why hundreds of thousands of investors have begun diversifying into startups with platforms like StartEngine and Wefunder. StartEngine allows anyone to invest in startups, including investing in StartEngine itself. This allows investors to diversify into a new asset class and shift their investment thesis to a more long-term approach circumventing much of the volatility associated with the open market. For example, Gameflip is a startup currently that is consistently raising millions from retail investors and venture capital alike.

See more onstartup investingfrom Benzinga. AI Startups Turn to Retail Investors To Fund the Growth of the $1.59 Trillion Artificial Intelligence Market Be An Owner, Not Just A Consumer: Retail Investors Are Taking Stakes In Their Favorite Startups To Own The Upside

Continue Reading

World

Donald Trump’s tariffs: What’s going on and what does it all mean?

Published

on

By

Donald Trump's tariffs: What's going on and what does it all mean?

Donald Trump has announced sweeping tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, kicking off a trade war that will affect the globe.

Here we look at the tariffs and what they all mean for the world:

What did Trump announce?

The US president said on Sunday that goods from Mexico and Canada will face 25% tariffs, while 10% taxes will be implemented on imports from China.

Canadian energy, including oil, natural gas and electricity, will be taxed at a 10% rate.

Trade war latest: Follow live updates

The levies were expected to all take effect on Tuesday, with Mexico and Canada both announcing counter-tariffs of their own in response.

However, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said in a news conference on Monday that implementation of the tariffs would be paused for a month, after she and Mr Trump had a conversation and came to an agreement.

But Mr Trump has also threatened to go further, saying tariffs on the European Union would be implemented “pretty soon”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s proposed tariffs

When questioned about the UK, the president said Britain was “out of line” when it came to trade but he thought the situation could be “worked out” without the use of tariffs.

What are tariffs, and how do they work?

Put simply, tariffs are taxes on goods that are brought in from other countries.

By raising the price of imports, tariffs aim to protect domestic manufacturers by making locally made goods cheaper.

Contrary to what Mr Trump has said, it is not foreign countries that pay tariffs, but the importing companies that buy the goods.

For example, American businesses like Walmart or Target pay tariffs directly to the US treasury.

In the US, these tariffs are collected by customs and border protection agents, who are stationed at 328 ports of entry across the country.

Tariffs graphic
Image:
Mr Trump’s proposed tariffs

To compensate for tariffs, companies then put up their prices, so customers end up paying more for goods.

Tariffs can also damage foreign countries as it makes their products pricier and harder to sell.

This can lead to them cutting prices (and sacrificing profits) to offset levies and maintain their market share in the US.

Why is Trump doing this?

Mr Trump has argued that imposing higher levies will help reduce illegal migration and the smuggling of the synthetic opioid fentanyl to the US.

On Mexico, the US leader claimed drug traffickers and the country’s government “have an intolerable alliance” that in turn impacts national security.

He further claimed that Mexican drug cartels are operating in Canada.

Tariffs graphic

On China, he said the country’s government provides a “safe haven” for criminal organisations.

He has also pledged to use tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing.

“We may have short term some little pain, and people understand that. But long term, the United States has been ripped off by virtually every country in the world,” he said.

His aim appears to be to force governments in those countries to work much harder to prevent what he calls illegal migration and the smuggling of the deadly drug fentanyl – as appears to have been agreed by Mexico. But, even if the countries do not do what America wants, it will still potentially benefit firms that produce goods in the US.

What could the consequences be?

Mexico and Canada are two of America’s largest trading partners, with the tariffs upending decades-old trade relationships.

Goods that could be affected most by the incoming tariffs include fruit and veg, petrol and oil, cars and vehicle parts and electronic goods.

New analysis by the Budget Lab at Yale University found that the average US household would lose the equivalent of $1,170 US dollars (£944) in income from the tariffs.

Read more: This is how US consumers will be affected

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why Trump’s tariffs could cost you

The research also found that economic growth would slow and inflation would worsen, as the tariffs forced up prices.

Immediate consequences were felt on Monday morning, as shares on Asian markets took a tumble.

Japan’s Nikkei opened down 2.9% while Australia’s benchmark – often a proxy trade for Chinese markets – fell 1.8%. Stocks in Hong Kong, which include listings of Chinese companies, fell 1.1%.

UK stocks were also significantly down, with the benchmark FTSE 100 index – containing the most valuable companies on the London Stock Exchange – dropped more than 1.3% on the open.

In Europe, stock markets opened sharply lower while the euro slid 1.3%. The Europe-wide index of companies, the Stoxx 600 dropped as much as 1.5%.

While Mexico’s peso hit its lowest in nearly three years.

‘Very scary path’

Sky News’ data and economics editor Ed Conway said the long term consequences of a trade war is that “everyone gets poorer”, which is what happened to the world before World War Two.

“As countries get poorer, they get frustrated and you get more nationalism,” Conway said, speaking on Friday’s Sky News Daily podcast.

“This is exactly what happened in the 1930s, and the world ended up at war with each other. It is a very, very scary path, and yes, we are basically on a potential of that path.”

However, Conway added that one positive of Mr Trump’s tariffs could be highlighting “massive imbalances” within the global economy.

He said Mr Trump may be able to shift the conversation to problems that “economists don’t want to talk about”.

👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

“At the moment, we have a dysfunctional global economy,” he explained.

“You have got massive imbalances like trade deficits [when a country’s imports exceeds the value of its exports] and trade surpluses [when a country’s exports exceeds the cost of its imports].

“There might well be a better way of everyone getting together and having a conversation and working out how to align their affairs, so we don’t have these imbalances in the future.

“And tariffs help to get you to this point.”

How has the world reacted?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted strongly against Mr Trump’s tariffs, saying his country would impose 25% tariffs on $155bn Canadian dollars (£85.9bn) of US goods in response.

He added that the move would split the two countries apart, and urged Canadians to choose domestic products rather than American ones.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tariffs against Canada ‘will put US jobs at risk’

Mexican President Ms Sheinbaum posted on X on Sunday to say she had ordered her economy minister to implement tariff and non-tariff measures to defend Mexico’s interests.

She said her government “categorically rejects” the claim that it has “alliances with criminal organisations” and called on the White House to “fight the sale of drugs on the streets of their major cities”.

A day later, she posted saying she and Mr Trump had a “good conversation” and “reached a series of agreements”.

These agreements include Mexico sending 10,000 troops to the border to “prevent drug trafficking from Mexico to the United States, particularly fentanyl”.

Mr Trump responded to the agreement with Ms Sheinbaum, saying negotiations between the two will be ongoing to try and achieve a “deal”.

Meanwhile, China has claimed the US action violates World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, and vowed to bring a case before the body that governs global commerce.

It also threatened to take “necessary counter-measures to defend its legitimate rights and interests”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Mexico responds to Trump’s tariffs

A spokesperson for the UK government reiterated that the US is an “indispensable ally” and one of the country’s “closest trading partners”.

They added that the trading relationship was “fair and balanced”, after Mr Trump criticised the UK, saying it was “out of line”.

European Union (EU) leaders have also taken a strong stance against looming US tariffs.

Kaja Kallas, the chief of foreign policy for the bloc, said there were no winners in a trade war, and if the US and Europe started one “then the one laughing on the side is China”.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz added that the EU is strong enough to “respond to tariffs with our own tariffs”, while French President Emmanuel Macron said declarations by the US were pushing Europe to be “stronger and more united”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

EU can react with its own tariffs

What’s the history of trade wars?

Imposing tariffs is not new to Mr Trump, or the US for that matter.

During his first term in the White House, he imposed higher levies on China and Vietnam.

In 2018, he imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminium from most countries, a response to what he said was the unfair impact of Chinese steel driving down prices and negatively affecting the US steel industry.

China then hit back with retaliatory tariffs on US imports, including 15% on 120 American products such as fruits, nuts, wine and steel pipes and a 25% tariff on US pork and recycled aluminium.

Before that, democrat Jimmy Carter went so far as to completely ban the sale of wheat to Russia, which remained in effect until Ronald Reagan ended it in 1981.

Read more:
Breaking economies could be just Trump’s first step
Trump’s changed tack to focus on Mexico and Canada – why?
Toronto Raptors fans boo US national anthem

In 2019, Mr Trump also used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the US.

A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Mr Trump’s tariffs the first time around failed to restore jobs to the American heartland.

The tariffs “neither raised nor lowered US employment” when they were supposed to protect jobs, according to Sky News’ US partner network NBC News.

Continue Reading

World

Swedish anti-Islam campaigner sentenced over Koran burnings days after co-defendant shot dead

Published

on

By

Swedish anti-Islam campaigner sentenced over Koran burnings days after co-defendant shot dead

A man who staged public burnings of the Koran in Sweden has been found guilty of hate crimes, five days after his co-defendant was shot dead.

Salwan Najem, a 50-year-old Swedish citizen, was given a suspended sentence and fined 4,000 crowns (£289) over the Koran burnings and derogatory comments he made about Muslims in the 2023 incidents.

His actions sparked unrest and anger towards Sweden in Muslim countries.

His fellow campaigner, Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika, 38, was shot dead last week on the day he had been due to receive his verdict in a parallel case.

Five people were detained over the killing but later released.

Swedish police said on the day after the shooting on 29 January that Momika was shot dead in a house in Sodertalje, a town near Stockholm. The case against Momika was subsequently dismissed.

Sweden’s prime minister expressed concern the shooting may be linked to a foreign power.

Read more from Sky News:
Boy, 15, dies after being stabbed at school in Sheffield
Girl , 17, killed by shark while swimming in Queensland

Burning the Koran is seen by Muslims as a blasphemous act because they consider it the literal word of God.

The Stockholm district court said Sweden had extensive free speech rights and that followers of a religion must accept that they would sometimes feel offended, but that Najem and Momika had “by a wide margin” overstepped the mark for reasonable and factual religious criticism.

The court said the Koran did not have any special protection just because it was a holy scripture for Muslims and that there could be cases where burning was not considered a hate crime.

Najem was found guilty of hate crimes for “having expressed contempt for the Muslim ethnic group because of their religious beliefs on four occasions”, the court said.

Najem’s lawyer has said he would be appealing against the verdict.

Continue Reading

World

Father pays tribute to British teen killed by drone while fighting in Ukraine

Published

on

By

Father pays tribute to British teen killed by drone while fighting in Ukraine

The father of an 18-year-old Briton who died on the frontline in Ukraine has described how attending his son’s funeral “was the most difficult thing I have ever done”.

James Wilton, from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, had just finished college when he decided he wanted to go to Ukraine as a volunteer fighter to help fend off Russia’s land, air and sea invasion of its smaller neighbour.

He was killed by a drone in July as he crossed open ground while carrying a heavy pack on his back. His friend, an American volunteer named Jason, tried to save him but was unable to.

Follow all the latest on the Ukraine war

James’s father, Graham Wilton, said his son had “only just turned 18” when he decided he wanted to go to Ukraine, where the war with Russia has been raging on for almost three years.

As he paid tribute to the “polite, likeable young man”, Mr Wilton said the teenager was resolved to go despite his mother and sisters being “dead set against him going”.

‘Some of the best days of his life’

Mr Wilton said his son “made it clear” that joining the fight in Ukraine was what he wanted, so he “did everything I possibly could to make sure he knew exactly what was involved and that he could be fully prepared for what may lay ahead”.

Mr Wilton said James, who “never really had a bad word to say about anyone or anything”, spent three months in Ukraine where he received combat training, and he described them as “some of the best days of his life”.

He said: “Unfortunately it was not to be and I guess you can never fully prepare for what happens on the battlefield.

“I thank Jason for his bravery in trying to save James in a bad moment and for getting him off the battlefield, even if it was in vain.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

North Koreans ‘blow themselves up’

Read more from Sky News:
Pro-Russian paramilitary leader killed in Moscow bomb blast
Why Trump has threatened to cut off future funding to S Africa

Jason told The Sun newspaper how they were crossing open ground, 20m apart, when James froze after seeing a Russian drone above them.

While they tried to run for cover, weighed down with backpacks, two more drones appeared and James was fatally wounded by one of them.

When Jason then went back to help the teenager, one of the drones hovered above him and he thought he was about to die as well, but it flew off without attacking him.

Jason was subsequently badly injured by a mine.

Speaking of his son’s funeral in Ukraine, Mr Wilton said: “This was the most difficult thing I have ever done.

“I spent two weeks in Kyiv and [with] James’ comrades and friends and it was a very emotional trip.

“I made some friends for life in James’ fellow soldiers and wish them all well.”

Continue Reading

Trending