Trump has claimed he will impose a 10% tariff on all countries except China, which will have a 60% tariff.
This market will resolve to YES if Trump wins the presidency, and then he imposes a 10% tariff (or greater) on at least most imports (as measured in dollar terms) to the US from all countries except China.
If Trump imposes a tariff in excess of 10%, that does count as a YES.
If Trump imposes a tariff less than 10%, that does not count.
If Trump does not win the presidency, the market resolves to NO, even if the winner imposes a tariff.
1,000People are also trading
I'm not sure if even Trump and his team know what the deal is with his 10% tariffs
But I guess it depends on the reading, I would read it as such:
He imposes a tarrif on most goods of 10% or greater on every individual country except for china.
I would lean towards that reading because the first sentence is: "Trump has claimed he will impose a 10% tariff on all countries except China, which will have a 60% tariff."
Therefore emphasizing the all countries, nowhere is there a qualifier to state to say average of countries, some may be exempt.
As it stands the tarrif applies to the vast majority of countries but not all.
I'm interpreting the line:
>Trump has claimed he will impose a 10% tariff on all countries except China, which will have a 60% tariff
As just providing context. I think the market should only resolve YES or NO based on what it says will make the market resolve YES or NO. That line doesn't mention the "majority of goods" wording used in the resolution criteria, either, but that doesn't mean we can ignore that wording.
@spiderduckpig I maintain that the most objective interpretation of the text and spirit refers to a majority of the sum total of goods, not a majority of every single country's goods.
https://chatgpt.com/share/67f42fe9-27b0-800c-b6a2-e93a399878fc
sorry I took a while to respond, this is what i wrote yesterday and idrk what to add yet but I'll share this to the mods
This market will resolve to YES if Trump wins the presidency, and then he imposes a 10% tariff (or greater) on at least most imports (as measured in dollar terms) to the US from all countries except China.
One thing this may be saying is that we look at all imports from non-china countries combined, and if say there's X dollars in imports, we need X/2 dollars or greater of imports that were tariffed at a 10% or greater rate, for this market to resolve YES.
One other thing this may be saying is that we look at all imports from non-china countries individually, and if say there's X_i dollars in imports from country i, we need X_i/2 dollars or greater of imports from that country to be tariffed at a 10% or greater rate, and for that to hold for all countries, for this market to resolve YES.
This seems pretty clear to me. A majority of goods coming into the US, even after excluding China, are now tariffed. The resolution criteria is clearly based on this "majority" wording and says it resolves YES in that case. This wording was clearly designed to avoid a race to the bottom of technicalities so that the market can actually capture useful information about global trade, instead of just nit-picking over technicalities, which are irrelevant because the market resolution only depends on the majority of goods.
And the most objective interpretation of the resolution criteria is clearly that it refers to a majority of the sum total of imports, not each individual nation (I asked ChatGPT about it because I'm obviously not objective here, and it prefers that interpretation, even when prompted to consider the alternative, see my other comment for the link to the ChatGPT conversation).
@spiderduckpig My reading is that for every country C, a majority of the goods from C have to be tariffed. That's much more restrictive than just a majority overall.
If any country is excluded because we import literally nothing from them due to sanctions, I think that still counts toward a YES resolution.
But we do still import from Russia, and they don't have tariffs:
@TimothyJohnson5c16 Yes, I talked about this in the other comment, it is my reading that it refers to a majority of the sum total of all imports to the US, excluding Chinese imports. I attempted to get a neutral (because obviously I am not neutral here) reading by asking ChatGPT, and it preferred this interpretation, even when prompted to consider the alternative. However, it does appear that the market creator is inactive, so ultimately the resolution will probably come down to how the mods interpret this.
@Tripping But there are excepted countries, so it resolves No in December unless things change.
@Panfilo No, the resolution criteria clearly specifies only a majority of total imports from all nations except China need be tariffed, see my other comment.
@NicoMach See @spiderduckpig's comment for one reason. Additionally, if we take the administration at their word, the reason for no formal tariffs on those is that sanctions perform the same function.
I think we should clarify the wording on the resolution criteria. The predominant interpretation seems to be that this is referring to a majority of the sum total of tariffs from all nations (so, if the US imported $2.8 trillion of goods from all nations excluding China, then this would resolve YES if over $1.4 trillion was subject to tariffs). However, there might be an alternative interpretation, that this requires a majority of imports from each individual country to tariffed.
I believe that the best interpretation of the resolution criteria (which takes precedence over any other criteria) is that it refers to the first interpretation. ChatGPT prefers that interpretation, even when prompted to consider the alternative. Also, it would be clearly against the spirit of the market if, say, this market resolved NO if Russia and North Korea are excluded from the tariffs because they are already subject to US sanctions.
@ArmandodiMatteo The resolution criteria is based on the description, not the title, otherwise no complicated resolution criteria could exist
@spiderduckpig in principle yes, in practice if the description is potentially ambiguous and the title only makes sense according to one of two possible interpretations of the description, I think it's way more sensible to use the title to guess what the author meant than to ask ChatGPT to guess (but asking the author @mfow is even more sensible)
@ArmandodiMatteo The title makes sense as a colloquial description which doesn't have to be entirely accurate, the tariffs are frequently described as being "on all nations" or "all imports," including in Trump's own executive order:
"Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries."
The purpose of the description is to resolve any specific details of the resolution criteria, the title is only meant as a colloquial description.
Imo, this far into trading, the resolution should only depend on the author's published text, not on any post facto additions by the author
@NicoMach That line you're referencing is just referring to Trump's claim, it does not affect the resolution criteria. The resolution criteria is different and explicitly and unequivocally states "This market will resolve to YES if Trump wins the presidency, and then he imposes a 10% tariff (or greater) on at least most imports (as measured in dollar terms) to the US from all countries except China."
It is clear that the intent of the market maker in this line is to provide flexibility and avoid this exact kind of technicality and nit-picking: "Oh, but we didn't tariff Cuba which we do zero trade with, etc." and capture the spirit of Trump tariffing imports from all nations. Trump has absolutely tariffed all nations in spirit, in fact his executive order fact sheet says he is "imposing a 10% tariff on all nations." And certainly, a majority of US imports from all nations except China are now tariffed.
@spiderduckpig kinda weird to appeal to the resolution criteria but then make up an unwritten spirit that’s nowhere to be found in the description.
@NicoMach The spirit I'm referring to is precisely "tariffing all nations" in spirit, which is also how Trump refers to the tariffs in the executive order: "Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries." What I'm saying is that the resolution criteria of only requiring a majority of imports to be tariffed is meant to align the text of the market with the spirit, and not on the technicality of if Russia or Cuba is tariffed (these nations collectively make up around 0.1% of US imports and already have major tariffs, sanctions, and embargoes).
@spiderduckpig I agree that that’s the spirit but you were the one saying the description should rule and the description does not, without some contentious interpretation, clarify the scope of the title. I have a tiny stake in this and don’t really care how it resolves.
@NicoMach I'm sorry, I think I failed to articulate my point, how does the description not clarify the scope of the title? I think it pretty directly states in what cases the market resolves YES and in what cases the market resolves NO. If you're referring to the "Trump has claimed he will impose a 10% tariff on all countries except China, which will have a 60% tariff," part, nowhere does it mention that that statement affects the resolution.
If a market description says:
"Trump says A...blah blah blah...
This market resolves YES if Trump does B"
Shouldn't it resolve based on if Trump does B?