Resolution Criteria

This market resolves to YES if there is clear evidence that global trade is a zero-sum game (where one country's gain is necessarily another country's loss of equal magnitude). It resolves to NO if the evidence indicates that global trade is not a zero-sum game (where multiple countries can simultaneously benefit from trade).

Background

Donald Trump has repeatedly characterized international trade as a zero-sum game, where one country's gain must come at another's expense. This view underpins his trade policies, including the use of tariffs and his focus on trade deficits as evidence that the US is "losing" in trade relationships.

In economic theory, a zero-sum game is one where the total of gains and losses among participants equals zero. In contrast, a positive-sum game is one where the total gains can exceed the total losses, creating net benefits for participants collectively.

Most economists argue that international trade is a positive-sum activity where countries can specialize in producing goods and services based on their comparative advantages, leading to increased efficiency, productivity, and benefits for all trading partners. This view, dating back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, forms the foundation of modern trade theory.

Considerations

• Trump's perspective on trade aligns more with mercantilist views from the 17th and 18th centuries, which emphasized trade surpluses and minimizing imports.

• The focus on goods trade deficits often ignores the role of services, investment flows, and other economic interactions between countries.

• While certain sectors or workers may experience negative effects from trade, this doesn't mean that trade overall is zero-sum at the national level.

• Tariffs and trade restrictions can disrupt global supply chains and potentially harm both the imposing country and its trading partners.