Not a Zero-Sum Game - Ludwig von Mises Institute

NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME
the game is over. Thus, it necessarily implies a coercive breach of
the general rules on which people planned and carried out
their exchanges.
Another frequent criticism is that the acquisition of the goods
was not equitable or just, even if it was legitimate. But, as we will
learn below from the example of the Law of Exchange, we have
no objective measure to determine what constitutes "equitable
gain" because we cannot laow the opportunity costs of those who
participate in an exchange.6 Nor do we have a definition of jus-
tice other than that which gives to each his due as a result of legit-
imate and voluntary contracts of exchange.
Critics often argue that people with fewer opportunities are
forced, by circumstances, to accept unjust conditions. But surely
those conditions cannot be imputed to those who are offering them
their best opportunity. On the contrary, when someone accepts an
offer to trade, he is signaling that this represents an improvement over
other opportunities he has, not to mention the opportunities that the
critics fail to provide.
The mutual gain that results from voluntary exchange is not
merely a subjective appreciation based on a reshuffling of exist-
ing goods. For a given expenditure of resources it produces a mate-
rial increase in real goods that both parties subjectively desire.
This was the outstanding discovery and contribution of David
Ricardo.7 I trust what follows will make it clear.
6. Opportunity cost is the forgone next best opportunity or satisfaction. Since the pertinent
opportunity cost is, of course, at the margin, it cannot be ascertained by anyone other
than the actor himself.
7. David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
(Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 2004), pp. 128-149.