The overwhelming majority of participants misinterpreted trade as a zero-sum game, where one side inevitably gets the short end of the stick. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3117627 …pic.twitter.com/fx1rZphYoc
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It's mutually beneficial but you got less of the gains-from-trade than usually. Furthermore, in a situation where you suspect the other got a bunch more of the gain (which may not be true if they pay big airport fees).
The invisible hand producing new supply in response to high prices is a positive-sum game built atop the zero-sum game of dividing the gains from positive-sum trade. I guess it's not too surprising that the muggles end up confused.
Waging a trade war to get a better deal on zero sum division of the positive sum game seems like a sound enough strategy right? The optimal strategy is sounding as serious as possible about increasing tariffs to negotiate down, then not impose them.
I know of no theorem, observation, or reputable economist saying that higher tariffs result in capturing more of the gains from trade. IANAE and perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I'd have expected to hear about that if it were a conventionally plausible possibility.
What else is not taken into account here is a huge inconsistency in human value estimation. It is a fare trade if you take 5 minutes interval, and a rip-off if you take 1 hour interval. When you say mutually beneficial you probably only mean momentarily measurement
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.