Warren Buffett, the legendary investor whose career spans more than eight decades, issued a stark warning at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholder meeting, declaring that the US dollar is “going to hell.” The remark, delivered with characteristic candor, has reverberated across financial circles and prompted widespread speculation about the future trajectory of both the dollar and the broader American economy. Some observers liken Buffett’s pronouncement to a “Last Dance” * moment -- a final, dramatic flourish from one of the market’s most influential voices.
Buffett’s critique was unsparing. He took direct aim at Washington’s fiscal management, highlighting what he sees as reckless spending and an ever-expanding national debt that threatens the dollar’s long-term stability. “I think the problem of how you control revenue and expenses in the government is one that is never fully solved. We're operating at a fiscal deficit now that is unsustainable over a very long period of time,” Buffett told shareholders. He further cautioned, “It’s a big mistake, in my view, when you have seven and a half billion people that don’t like you very well, and you got 300 million that are crowing in some way about how well they’ve done. I don’t think it’s right, and I don’t think it’s wise.” The subtext was unmistakable: Buffett’s frustration with the direction of US economic policy, particularly under the Trump administration, runs deep.
Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate Buffett leads, now commands a market capitalization exceeding $1 trillion and holds $300 billion in liquid assets. As investors contemplate the company’s future in a post-Buffett era, questions abound: Will Berkshire shift its focus toward assets denominated in yen or euros? Despite his global perspective, Buffett ultimately reaffirmed his faith in the United States, asserting, “I do think that the more prosperous the rest of the world becomes-it won't be at our expense-the more prosperous we'll become and the safer we'll feel and your children will feel someday.” Fudan University Professor Shen Yi has noted that while Buffett demonstrates a clear-eyed understanding of America’s economic challenges, he is careful not to sound overly pessimistic, choosing instead to voice his concerns without resorting to alarmism.
Buffett’s warnings are not new. In the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, he sounded the alarm to both Wall Street and policymakers in Washington, though his cautions went largely unheeded. In the aftermath, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, speaking in a US interview, identified the sustainability of American hegemony -- not merely the perils of monetary expansion -- as the central issue. Lee argued that the United States cannot remain the world’s preeminent power if it fails to maintain its position in the Pacific. To preserve that role, he said, America must avoid worsening deficits and a weakening dollar. Should these trends persist, Lee warned, global financiers and hedge funds may lose confidence and shift their assets elsewhere, precipitating a crisis. In his view, fiscal discipline and a stable dollar are prerequisites for continued US leadership on the world stage.
Even as he acknowledged America’s vulnerabilities, Lee Kuan Yew at that time remained fundamentally optimistic about its prospects and was reluctant to overstate China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific. He observed that while China is poised for decades of robust growth and aspires to surpass the United States, it will likely take at least a century to match America’s standards of living and technological sophistication. Lee further noted that contemporary Chinese leaders recognize the gap, particularly in technology and military capabilities, between their nation and the West.
The scale of America’s fiscal challenge is daunting. In 2009, US national debt stood at $12.4 trillion. According to recent figures from Xinhua, that figure has now soared to $36.2 trillion, with approximately $9.2 trillion set to mature in 2025 -- representing more than a quarter of the total.
Unless a radical solution such as issuing 100-year bonds that cannot be resold, pay no interest, and are purchased proportionally by over 190 countries, American hegemony could face a reckoning as soon as 2025. Should that scenario materialize, the dollar’s descent into “hell” may become more than just a metaphor.
*”The Last Dance” is currently one of the most popular Hong Kong-made movies featuring a family engaged in the funeral service.
Deep Blue
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Wang Yi just put the world on notice. "The international situation is getting more turbulent and intertwined," he said. "Unilateral bullying is intensifying. The sudden change in Venezuela has drawn high level of attention from the international community."
He then added: "We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman, nor do we agree that any country can claim itself to be an international judge."
This isn't diplomatic chitchat. Wang Yi added that "the sovereignty and security of all countries should be fully protected under international law." It's a warning shot fired directly at Trump's so-called "New Monroe Doctrine"—and it signals China will push back hard against neo-colonialism. One story from China's past shows exactly what that means.
The Incheon Gamble
In mid-September 1950, MacArthur pulled off the audacious Incheon landing—later hailed as "the most successful gamble" in military history. He bet everything on one card: that North Korean forces would be lax defending a port with terrible geography. The bet paid off. US forces achieved total surprise, cut enemy supply lines, and reversed the early disasters of the Korean War.
The Korean Peninsula was strategically vital to both China and the Soviet Union. They planned to back North Korea. At 1:00 a.m. on October 3, Zhou Enlai urgently summoned K. M. Panikkar, India's ambassador to China. His message was blunt: "If US forces cross the 38th parallel, we cannot stand by—we will have to step in."
The CCP's official Party history records this moment and emphasizes one critical word: "管" (to intervene). The Chinese term posed a translation challenge. If the wording was too soft, the Americans might miss China's intent. So Premier Zhou asked his foreign affairs secretary, Pu Shouchang, to choose carefully. Pu used "intervene"—making China's intention crystal clear. China would step in and interfere. The message reached Washington quickly through India. Yet "the US side chose to ignore it, and US forces brazenly crossed the 38th parallel on October 7."
Crossing the Yalu
American troops didn't just cross the 38th parallel—they surged in force toward the Yalu River and raced along the China-North Korea and North Korea-Soviet borders to the Tumen River. What happened next? On October 19, 1950, the Chinese People's Volunteers crossed the Yalu River. After five successive campaigns, they drove UN forces back from the Yalu area to near the 38th parallel.
On July 27, 1953, China, North Korea, and the UN Command signed the Korean Armistice Agreement. Many believe Mao Zedong's decision to send troops delivered China a stunning victory—a weaker power defeating a stronger one. People now say China "won so hard it felt unreal."
MacArthur—that "godlike general"—couldn't let it go. After his success at Incheon, the more he thought about it, the more he wanted to expand his gains. He proposed a radical escalation to Washington: first, blockade China's coast; second, use naval and air power for unlimited bombing to completely destroy China's industrial production and infrastructure; third, bring in Nationalist (KMT) forces to "retake the mainland" and tie China down. Then fourth, MacArthur went even further with a wild proposal—drop 20 to 30 atomic bombs on China and create a radioactive "death zone" along the Yalu River between China and North Korea.
Trump's MacArthur Moment
Today's Trump thinks arresting Venezuela's president and his wife means he can bulldoze the whole world. One moment he talks about "taking over" Venezuela. The next he claims he can make personnel arrangements for that country, sending Marco Rubio to serve as a "governor." Meanwhile, US oil giants are poised to "swallow up" Venezuela's petroleum assets. Trump's ambition follows the same logic as MacArthur's back then.
MacArthur's recklessness enraged America's allies. They feared World War III. More importantly, the Soviet Union—which also possessed atomic weapons—was deeply dissatisfied with the US and warned that "bombs can be answered with bombs." President Truman faced an impossible choice: keep his war hero or keep the peace. He chose peace. On April 11, 1951, Truman fired MacArthur—ending the career of America's most celebrated general. MacArthur became one of the century's biggest cautionary tales.
The lesson is simple, direct, and brutal. Trump thinks everyone is scared of him and that he can keep throwing out ever more outrageous "deals" at will. That will invite disaster—because it crosses the tolerance threshold of the great-power balance. The major powers will have to "intervene."
How will they intervene? Great powers have many tools in their toolbox. Think of Schrödinger's cat—you open the box yourself and you'll find out the outcome. This isn't a joke. Do you dare try?
