What insights did Jim Cramer provide regarding the potential implications of tariffs on stock market behavior? How does he analyze historical contexts like Smoot-Hawley to draw parallels with current economic situations? What does Cramer believe about the future of Microsoft’s stock compared to other AI investments? What does he mean by "gunboat diplomacy" in the context of foreign policy, and how does he connect this to stock market strategies?
In a recent appearance on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, Jim Cramer discussed potential actions by the Federal Reserve in response to President Trump’s tariffs. Trump has denied having any plans to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, and Cramer commented on the historical context of the current tariffs and Powell:
“Anyone who knows Powell knows that he’s a deep historian of the marketplace. And he’s obviously looking at Smoot-Hawley, the tariff in 1930 and that’s, you could argue, a 33% tariff. And arguing a second that this is higher, and that he knows history, and he knows that Smoot-Hawley was one of the things that caused the Great Depression. So, unless you’re ahistorical, you can’t disagree with him.”
The CNBC TV host also discussed how people who were alive during the Smoot-Hawley era are no longer with us, so it’s impossible to put it in a real-life framework. According to him:
“Well, I mean, we do have Grapes of Wrath, David. Now I think that truth lies in novels. It’s very hard to get the real truth unless you go to novels. . . alright, when you’re a journalist covering homicide, like I was, my editor . . . I try to do this, he goes, Jim that’s for, only fiction can tell the truth about homicide. You just tell the facts. What I’m saying is that if I look at the fiction of what happened in the Great Depression, I have a better feeling than when I actually look at the statistics.”
Cramer also stressed that the recent stock market selloff meant that the Magnificent 7, as a term, continued to be irrelevant. “We don’t use that anymore that’s gone,” he said. “Yeah that’s gone. Yeah I don’t know it’s not like the Mag 7. . .no we’re done with that, Mag 7, whole thing. Now it’s the Wild Bunch. . . we’re switching, it’s no more, I mean honestly, Wild Bunch was actually a better movie,” Cramer said.
As for AI, Cramer believes that “[t]his is a winner takes all, loser takes none, just like Google was; this is a $200 billion business. Whoever gets the mind share… right now I have every one of these. I’ve got Grok, I’ve got Gemini, I’m not going to go, believe me, one year from now, I’m only gonna have one. And right now it’s Grok.”
On diplomacy, he shared that “one thing we haven’t done yet is gunboat diplomacy. I’m waiting for that.” So what is Jim Cramer’s gunboat diplomacy? Well, according to him:
“You put something in the straits of… of every strait, yeah… the Straits of Hormuz and then of course the Strait of Taiwan… gunboat diplomacy, the pursuit of foreign policy objectives through conspicuous displays of military especially naval power.”
To make our list of the stocks that Jim Cramer talked about, we listed down the stocks he mentioned during CNBC’s Squawk on the Street aired on April 17th.
For these stocks, we also mentioned the number of hedge fund investors. Why are we interested in the stocks that hedge funds pile into? The reason is simple: our research has shown that we can outperform the market by imitating the top stock picks of the best hedge funds. Our quarterly newsletter’s strategy selects 14 small-cap and large-cap stocks every quarter and has returned 373.4% since May 2014, beating its benchmark by 218 percentage points.
Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) has seen its fortunes somewhat change this year. It once again became the world’s most valuable company earlier this month after the US-China trade war gutted Apple’s share price. Recently, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) has made headlines with reports that it is slowing down data center spending – a decision that goes against the surge in AI-related industry spending. Here’s what Cramer said on the matter:
“Microsoft better get its act together. They are falling behind in the arms race. That’s how I felt.”
Overall, MSFT ranks 2nd on our list of stocks that Jim Cramer discussed. While we acknowledge the potential of MSFT as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and doing so within a shorter time frame. There is an AI stock that went up since the beginning of 2025, while popular AI stocks lost around 25%. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than MSFT but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about this cheapest AI stock.
Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
$80 Billion Isn’t Enough, Partner
In recent years, the conversation surrounding funding for various initiatives—ranging from infrastructure improvements to healthcare and education—has taken on newfound urgency. With budget proposals reaching staggering numbers, one particular figure has been thrown into the spotlight: $80 billion. While it’s tempting to see such a sum as a substantial investment in the future, we must critically assess whether $80 billion truly suffices to address the myriad challenges facing our society today.
The Context of $80 Billion
To put $80 billion into perspective, let’s consider what it would entail. The investment could be directed toward vital areas such as education reform, climate change initiatives, healthcare access, and technological advancement. Yet, despite its sheer size, this figure pales in comparison to the depth and breadth of the issues we face. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified existing inequalities, strained healthcare systems, and exposed the fragility of our infrastructure. Moreover, ongoing climate crises demand extensive adaptation and mitigation strategies, which require far more robust funding than temporary relief packages can provide.
The notion that $80 billion could single-handedly solve these systemic problems is not just optimistic; it is dangerously naïve. For example, consider the infrastructure needs of the United States. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), several trillion dollars are needed over the coming decades to repair and upgrade our roads, bridges, and public transit systems. An $80 billion investment might help fund several high-priority projects, but it would scarcely make a dent in the overall need for comprehensive infrastructure overhaul.
Education: A Deep Well of Need
In the realm of education, the challenges are even more apparent. Funding disparities have long existed between affluent and underprivileged districts, creating a cycle of inequality that is difficult to break. An $80 billion education initiative might cover immediate needs—such as hiring teachers, improving technology access, or updating facilities—but it cannot rectify the historical neglect that has plagued marginalized communities. A long-term investment approach, potentially in the trillions, is required to foster a genuinely equitable educational landscape.
Moreover, with the rise of technology-driven learning and the increasing need for skills-based training, the question arises: How many of our citizens can we realistically uplift with such a finite amount of funding? As we stand on the precipice of a global labor market reshaped by automation and artificial intelligence, the ability to adapt quickly and effectively becomes imperative. This urgency calls for larger investments that span beyond mere financial allocations, heralding innovative solutions and a proactive approach to workforce development.
Climate Crisis: An Existential Threat
Perhaps the most concerning area where an $80 billion budget appears inadequate is climate change initiatives. The science is clear: climate change represents an existential threat to humanity, and the costs of inaction continue to escalate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that necessary investments to mitigate impacts could reach trillions annually. While $80 billion could indeed support certain renewable energy projects, retrofitting buildings for better energy efficiency, or preserving natural habitats, it is merely a drop in the bucket for an issue that requires global cooperation and sustained financial commitment.
Transitioning to a sustainable economy demands not only substantial upfront investments but also continuous funding to ensure long-term viability. From developing carbon capture technology to rebuilding climate-resilient infrastructure, the implications of climate action extend far beyond a one-time expenditure. Therefore, merely presenting an $80 billion earmark as a solution is tantamount to applying a Band-Aid to a gaping wound.
The Multiplicative Factor: Partnerships Matter
The notion that $80 billion is enough rests on the assumption that funding is the sole solution to our societal woes. However, the complexities of modern challenges require multi-faceted solutions beyond financial investments. Building partnerships becomes paramount. Collaborations among public entities, private sectors, non-profits, and communities can leverage limited resources, harnessing innovative ideas and amplifying the effects of investments.
Through strategic partnerships, stakeholders can address issues holistically, combining knowledge and capabilities. For example, a collaboration between tech companies and educational institutions could lead to the development of comprehensive training programs for future job markets—something that an $80 billion fund alone could never achieve effectively.
Conclusion: Rethinking Funding Approaches
In conclusion, while $80 billion may seem like a monumental figure, it reflects only a fraction of what is needed to tackle the pressing challenges of our time. As a society, we must engage in a deeper conversation about the resource allocations we need, the importance of partnerships, and the pursuit of systemic changes that will yield lasting impact. Facing crises head-on necessitates bold, transformative ideas that extend beyond mere figures on a balance sheet. Only then can we aspire to create a more resilient and equitable future.
The phrase “$80 Billion Isn’t Enough, Partner” suggests a scenario in which a significant financial commitment is being discussed, likely in a business or investment context. It implies that the current offering of $80 billion may fall short of expectations or needs.
In this context, the speaker could be expressing a sentiment that additional resources, support, or investment are required to meet a particular goal or to ensure the success of a venture.
A discussion surrounding such a statement could cover various aspects including the reasons why $80 billion wouldn’t suffice, potential areas where additional funding might be necessary, and the implications for stakeholders involved in the venture or project.
Such conversations often take place in sectors like technology, infrastructure, healthcare, or government spending, where large sums are involved, and strategic planning is crucial for achieving long-term objectives.
Overall, this phrase may reflect broader themes of ambition, resource allocation, and the challenges of meeting financial needs in a complex and dynamic environment.