2 ms·

> That's from 2003. Would you argue that the period between 2003 and 2025 have strengthened or weakened the case for free trade?

tekla 2y ago
Strengthened. People really fucking hate rising prices.
throw0101d 2y ago
> Would you argue that the period between 2003 and 2025 have strengthened or weakened the case for free trade? For the US specifically, various considerations: * https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1908189982789095677#m https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1908189982789095677#m * https://www.csis.org/analysis/do-not-blame-trade-decline-manufacturing-jobs https://www.csis.org/analysis/do-not-blame-trade-decline-man... * https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-trade-didnt-kill-the-middle-class-data-manufacturing-protectionism-policy-22d20f83 https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-trade-di... * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
twoodfin 2y ago
Strengthened. In the US this has happened: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 Meanwhile across the entire world this has happened: https://ourworldindata.org/history-of-poverty-data-appendix https://ourworldindata.org/history-of-poverty-data-appendix You can argue the growth of globalization & lowering of trade barriers were unrelated to this up-and-to-the-right, but it’s hard to argue they’re making things worse unless you really scope down to particular losers in a world of mostly winners.
- rayiner 2y ago
  But the political climate during that time period—starting on the left and now going to the right—has been that the middle class is being hollowed out. Is your argument that the Bush/Obama regime (recall that the Bush administration developed the bank bailout plan that Obama implemented) was basically correct? All the economy required was a little more regulation via Dodd Frank and the CFPB?
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    The argument that “the middle class is being hollowed out” is (IMO) pure dogma, there’s very little evidence to support it. Take the median US household by gross income in 2003 & compare it to that same household in 2025. The 2025 household will utterly destroy it across any economic or hedonic metric. If you control for household demographics and generational immigration history the gap becomes even more dramatic.
  - cherry_tree 2y ago
    George W Bush first term is “the left” now?
- leereeves 2y ago
  That first graph says the median income in 1974 was the equivalent of $5335 in today's dollars. I don't think it's adjusting for cost of living, because people lived a lot better in 1974 than you could live today on $5k per year.
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    Oops, yes meant to post real median personal income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I feel like those graphs and similar arguments are always trotted out, and they are an important piece, but there is more to the world than disposable income, and only using those stats completely ignores some very real negatives. You hint at it with "unless you really scope down to particular losers in a world of mostly winners", but I think you're vastly underestimating that: 1. Wealth inequality. Wealth inequality has exploded over the past few decades, and even if the median has gone up, the effects of widening wealth inequality can be very bad for society. First, as Charlie Munger once said, "The world is not driven by greed, but envy." Even if you're doing a little bit better, if everyone else is doing a ton better, this leads to you feeling like you're doing a lot worse. The rise of authoritarian politics in the West I think can be directly attributed by large swaths of society feeling left behind and like they are "getting screwed". 2. Related to the above, but finite resources, most especially land, are always vacuumed up by the wealthiest in society, regardless of any other level of incomes. So when there is a lot of wealth inequality, it can become prohibitively expensive to own land in any remotely desirable area, and this has huge negative societal effects (happy to go into this point more if you disagree). 3. The flip side of "optimized global supply chains" is incredibly brittle supply chains in the face of black swan events. Covid was a taste of this, though I think the global supply chain actually help up remarkably well for how enormous an impact Covid had. I think a better example would be something like chip production in Taiwan, which if it disappeared tomorrow would be absolutely devastating for the world economy. 4. Some countries that are now leaders in the world economy, like South Korea, had an extremely protectionist stance for decades in order to allow crucial industries to develop and not be undercut by cheap imports. I certainly don't think it's the only reason, but one reason Africa struggles so much is because they are flooded with cheap goods (or free goods in the guise of "charity") that prevent native industries from developing.
mindslight 2y ago
Hindsight weakens the case for free trade in 2003, along with the realization that the government would do very little [0] to mitigate the specific harms using the centralized gains (from massive monetary creation without much corresponding price inflation). But in 2025, tariffs are closing the barn door after the horse ran out, went to horse college, settled down, had some foals, and saw them grow up and move into their own doorless barns. But that's populism for you, always responding to the previous crisis with an approach that will enrich its sponsors and then cause the next crisis. [0] The Republican party's fake "fiscal responsibility" where most of that money was just handed to banks instead, driving up the asset bubbles. I'm saying this as a general libertarian from a conservative Austrian economics view, not as a Democratic partisan booster. But blame where blame is due.
vannevar 2y ago
Worth noting that the deficit bottomed out around 2006, then improved throughout the Obama administration before leveling out. It declined again post-pandemic. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/trade-balance-deficit https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/uni... So something reversed the trend Buffett was seeing in 2003.
- oh_my_goodness 2y ago
  No fair bringing data. Share your feelings or move on.
AlchemistCamp 2y ago
Another interesting question is, would you rather trust the thinking of a 70 year-old or a 90 year-old Warren Buffet. For the vast majority of people, I’d pick the 70 year-old version even if they did live to 90. With Buffet, I’m not so sure.

tekla 2y ago

Strengthened. People really fucking hate rising prices.

throw0101d 2y ago

> Would you argue that the period between 2003 and 2025 have strengthened or weakened the case for free trade? For the US specifically, various considerations: * https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1908189982789095677#m https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1908189982789095677#m * https://www.csis.org/analysis/do-not-blame-trade-decline-manufacturing-jobs https://www.csis.org/analysis/do-not-blame-trade-decline-man... * https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-trade-didnt-kill-the-middle-class-data-manufacturing-protectionism-policy-22d20f83 https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-trade-di... * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now

twoodfin 2y ago

Strengthened. In the US this has happened: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96 Meanwhile across the entire world this has happened: https://ourworldindata.org/history-of-poverty-data-appendix https://ourworldindata.org/history-of-poverty-data-appendix You can argue the growth of globalization & lowering of trade barriers were unrelated to this up-and-to-the-right, but it’s hard to argue they’re making things worse unless you really scope down to particular losers in a world of mostly winners.

rayiner 2y ago
But the political climate during that time period—starting on the left and now going to the right—has been that the middle class is being hollowed out. Is your argument that the Bush/Obama regime (recall that the Bush administration developed the bank bailout plan that Obama implemented) was basically correct? All the economy required was a little more regulation via Dodd Frank and the CFPB?
- twoodfin 2y ago
  The argument that “the middle class is being hollowed out” is (IMO) pure dogma, there’s very little evidence to support it. Take the median US household by gross income in 2003 & compare it to that same household in 2025. The 2025 household will utterly destroy it across any economic or hedonic metric. If you control for household demographics and generational immigration history the gap becomes even more dramatic.
- cherry_tree 2y ago
  George W Bush first term is “the left” now?
leereeves 2y ago
That first graph says the median income in 1974 was the equivalent of $5335 in today's dollars. I don't think it's adjusting for cost of living, because people lived a lot better in 1974 than you could live today on $5k per year.
- twoodfin 2y ago
  Oops, yes meant to post real median personal income: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I feel like those graphs and similar arguments are always trotted out, and they are an important piece, but there is more to the world than disposable income, and only using those stats completely ignores some very real negatives. You hint at it with "unless you really scope down to particular losers in a world of mostly winners", but I think you're vastly underestimating that: 1. Wealth inequality. Wealth inequality has exploded over the past few decades, and even if the median has gone up, the effects of widening wealth inequality can be very bad for society. First, as Charlie Munger once said, "The world is not driven by greed, but envy." Even if you're doing a little bit better, if everyone else is doing a ton better, this leads to you feeling like you're doing a lot worse. The rise of authoritarian politics in the West I think can be directly attributed by large swaths of society feeling left behind and like they are "getting screwed". 2. Related to the above, but finite resources, most especially land, are always vacuumed up by the wealthiest in society, regardless of any other level of incomes. So when there is a lot of wealth inequality, it can become prohibitively expensive to own land in any remotely desirable area, and this has huge negative societal effects (happy to go into this point more if you disagree). 3. The flip side of "optimized global supply chains" is incredibly brittle supply chains in the face of black swan events. Covid was a taste of this, though I think the global supply chain actually help up remarkably well for how enormous an impact Covid had. I think a better example would be something like chip production in Taiwan, which if it disappeared tomorrow would be absolutely devastating for the world economy. 4. Some countries that are now leaders in the world economy, like South Korea, had an extremely protectionist stance for decades in order to allow crucial industries to develop and not be undercut by cheap imports. I certainly don't think it's the only reason, but one reason Africa struggles so much is because they are flooded with cheap goods (or free goods in the guise of "charity") that prevent native industries from developing.

mindslight 2y ago

Hindsight weakens the case for free trade in 2003, along with the realization that the government would do very little [0] to mitigate the specific harms using the centralized gains (from massive monetary creation without much corresponding price inflation). But in 2025, tariffs are closing the barn door after the horse ran out, went to horse college, settled down, had some foals, and saw them grow up and move into their own doorless barns. But that's populism for you, always responding to the previous crisis with an approach that will enrich its sponsors and then cause the next crisis. [0] The Republican party's fake "fiscal responsibility" where most of that money was just handed to banks instead, driving up the asset bubbles. I'm saying this as a general libertarian from a conservative Austrian economics view, not as a Democratic partisan booster. But blame where blame is due.

vannevar 2y ago

Worth noting that the deficit bottomed out around 2006, then improved throughout the Obama administration before leveling out. It declined again post-pandemic. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/trade-balance-deficit https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/uni... So something reversed the trend Buffett was seeing in 2003.

oh_my_goodness 2y ago
No fair bringing data. Share your feelings or move on.

AlchemistCamp 2y ago

Another interesting question is, would you rather trust the thinking of a 70 year-old or a 90 year-old Warren Buffet. For the vast majority of people, I’d pick the 70 year-old version even if they did live to 90. With Buffet, I’m not so sure.