[throw0101d]

That's from 2003.

In a more recent interview in March 2025:

> Asked about how tariffs will affect the economy, Buffett stated, "Tariffs are actually, we've had a lot of experience with them. They're an act of war, to some degree."

> I asked, "How do you think tariffs will impact inflation?"

> "Over time, they are a tax on goods. I mean, the Tooth Fairy doesn't pay 'em!" he laughed. "And then what? You always have to ask that question in economics. You always say, 'And then what?'"

* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-buffett-on-legendary-was...

[rayiner]

> That's from 2003.

Would you argue that the period between 2003 and 2025 have strengthened or weakened the case for free trade?

[twoodfin]

Strengthened.

In the US this has happened:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96

Meanwhile across the entire world this has happened:

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.

[hn_throwaway_99]

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.

[leereeves]

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]

Oops, yes meant to post real median personal income:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

[rayiner]

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]

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]

George W Bush first term is “the left” now?

[vannevar]

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/uni...

So something reversed the trend Buffett was seeing in 2003.

[oh_my_goodness]

No fair bringing data. Share your feelings or move on.

[throw0101d]

> 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://www.csis.org/analysis/do-not-blame-trade-decline-man...

* 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/manufacturing-is-a-war-now

[mindslight]

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.

[AlchemistCamp]

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]

Strengthened. People really fucking hate rising prices.

[hayst4ck]

Blockades are an act of war.

How expensive does a tariff have to be before it is a de facto blockade?

I think that comparison is much more apt than it first appears.

[marcosdumay]

Blockades usually refer to impeding a country to trade with anybody. Tariffs are only comparable if you consider the US tariffs to be an act of war against the US.

(Having said that, it's not such a ridiculous concept as it seemed.)

[hayst4ck]

A second in command of the US military, Jim Mattis, during Trump's first term said:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort... I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

If you are ideologically in the group that he used the military against on American soil, or you are in the half of the divided country that he doesn't see as his supporters, then the concept is even less ridiculous sounding, cogent even. He's effectively taken a government that represents a whole country and turned it into a government that only represents half of the country. When you realize that all he supports are American oligarchs who are international in nature the comparison starts to get more and more and more cogent.

These are two of the complaints of America's founding fathers against King George III written in the declaration of independence.

  "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:"
  "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

The British government was the founding father's government.

As far a "acts of war" against their own citizens: Israel is Gaza's government and that blockade is so strong it is called an open air prison. Russia is fighting to be Ukraine's government. China is Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang's government.

In an authoritarian's government, it is not your government, it is only their government. Authoritarianism is in many ways a state of persistent war against people, which intuitively makes sense, because war is how you resolve disputes when negotiation doesn't work. War is the state of power alone resolving disputes, which is also what authoritarianism is.

[nabla9]

No amount of tariff turns into de facto blockade.

blockade, embargo, sanction, tariff. Each are different and have different meaning.

[hayst4ck]

While you are lecturing me on words meanings, I would advise you to look up the meaning of "de facto."

If you were America's founding fathers and King George 3, the leader of their government, decided to put a 10000% tariff on goods meant for the colonies, do you think they would have felt blockaded?

[nabla9]

No amount of tariffs makes a blockade. De facto blockade would mean that you can't trade with anyone.

But I give you something. US can de facto blockade itself by raising tariffs for everyone.

[throw0101d]

> "Over time, they are a tax on goods.

To pile on this point, tariffs are a tax and a subsidy:

> Executives from U.S. steel companies were enthusiastic backers of the 2018 tariffs and have urged Trump to deploy them again in his second term. They have called for the elimination of tariff exemptions and duty-free import quotas, saying those carve-outs allow unfairly low-price steel to enter the U.S. and undermine the steel market.

[…]

> Higher prices for imported steel are often followed by domestic suppliers raising their own prices, which then get passed through supply chains, manufacturing executives said. For consumers already reeling from rising retail prices and inflation, pricier steel and aluminum could further lift costs for durable goods like appliances and automobiles, as well as consumer products with aluminum packaging, such as canned beverages.

> “The issue with tariffs is everybody raises their prices, even the domestics,” said Ralph Hardt, owner of Belleville International, a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of valves and components used in the energy and defense industries. Steel and aluminum are Belleville’s largest expenses.

* https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-t...

So tariffs are (regressive) taxes in the sense that consumers are paying higher prices (with the money going to the government). But they are subsidies in that domestic companies don't have as much pressure on prices and can get more money.

So if you want to help a particular industry might as well just go with subsidies directly instead of the taxation add-on as well.