Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit

[Supposn]

I am not opposed to USA’s participation global trade nor do I advocate its volumes be limited.

Recognizing that trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs, I’m a proponent of the transferable Import Certificates, (ICs) proposal. It will not tolerate USA’s assessed values of import goods exceeding our exports and the global markets’ IC prices effectively subsidize U.S. exports.

This IC proposal would indirectly increase the sum of USA’s aggregate imports plus exports. (The trade policy’s entire USA expenses are eventually borne by U.S. purchasers of foreign goods).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Tariffs vs. Import Certificates.

Although there are similarities between tariffs and Import Certificate, (IC) policies, their differences are critical.
[Refer to the topic of “Transferable Import Certificates Vs a Tariff policy”].

Because the IC global price is market driven, no industry or product type is immune from competition.

Although within the IC proposal assessed imports cannot exceed our exports, it is not a quota system.

There’s no limit upon exports.

There’s no limit upon any particular types of goods or national origin.

Anyone, from anywhere, can export or arrange to have exported anything from the USA and thus acquire IC’s for their exported goods assessed.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

A VAT on imported goods is more properly called a "tariff." Smart people already know why those are bad.

Bripat9643, VAT is a sales tax administration method. Unlike a trade policy, VAT’s applicable to both domestic and imported goods.

Additionally it’s applicable to all links of transaction chains until the product reaches the ultimate consumer or user or leaves the administrating governments’ jurisdiction. When Vat products cross a border the new administrators will collect their VAT.

Why are you mentioning it?

Although there are similarities between tariffs and Import Certificate, (IC) policies, their differences are critical. Similarly tariff rates and ICs global markets’ value determine the additional price of imports sold to U.S. purchasers.

The market rather than the government determines the additional price of imports to U.S. purchasers.
The ICs global market value also determines the indirect but effective price discount of USA exports sold to foreign purchasers.

Increased exports rather tariff derived revenues will be of much more economic benefit to our nation.

Unlike tariffs, (regardless of IC’s global market price) there will never be a U.S. trade deficit of assessed goods values.

Because the IC global price is market driven, no industry or product type is immune from competition.

Refer to the topic of “Transferable Import Certificates Vs a Tariff policy”.

Respectfully Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...Recognizing that trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs...

--but not recognizing the fact that GDPs always increase--

--with their nation's trade deficits.

 

[Supposn]

...Recognizing that trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs...

--but not recognizing the fact that GDPs always increase--

--with their nation's trade deficits.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

It’s contended that ALWAYS trade surpluses contribute and deficits are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. You correctly respond historically its usual for USA’s trade deficits and GDPs the rise or fall simultaneously.

These are not contradictory concept. Nations’ net global trade balances are only one of the factors determining GDP. Trade balances alone do not determine their nations’ annual GDP changes; but trade surpluses contribute and deficits ALWAYS are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Annual GDP and trade deficit are both statistical reports of what occurred within the same year. It’s logical that they should rise or fall almost simultaneously; they are both driven by the same economic forces at approximately the same time.

Within less than robust economic durations, sales volumes within USA’s domestic markets’ similarly decrease; they decrease for both our domestic goods and our imports. Economists have said when the U.S. has a cold; the remainder of the world suffers pneumonia. During such periods (while USA's GDP is less than otherwise), our trade deficit's also decreases.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...Recognizing that trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs...

--but not recognizing the fact that GDPs always increase--

--with their nation's trade deficits.

Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

It’s contended that trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs. Responders to my messages point out historically its usual for USA’s trade deficits and GDPs the rise or fall simultaneously.

These are not contradictory concept. Nations’ net global trade balances are only one of the factors determining GDP. Trade balances alone do not determine their nations’ annual GDP changes; but trade surpluses contribute and deficits ALWAYS are detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Annual GDP and trade deficit are both statistical reports of what occurred within the same year. It’s logical that they should rise or fall almost simultaneously; they are both driven by the same economic forces at approximately the same time.

Within less than robust economic durations, sales volumes within USA’s domestic markets’ similarly decrease; they decrease for both our domestic goods and our imports. Economists have said when the U.S. has a cold; the remainder of the world suffers pneumonia. During such periods our trade deficits decrease. During such periods (while USA's GDP is Less than otherwise), our trade deficit's also decreases.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[bripat9643]

A VAT on imported goods is more properly called a "tariff." Smart people already know why those are bad.

Bripat9643, VAT is a sales tax administration method. Unlike a trade policy, VAT’s applicable to both domestic and imported goods.

Additionally it’s applicable to all links of transaction chains until the product reaches the ultimate consumer or user or leaves the administrating governments’ jurisdiction. When Vat products cross a border the new administrators will collect their VAT.

Why are you mentioning it?

You said a VAT "on imported goods." That's a tariff. If you put a VAT on everything, then it's not a tariff. However, I would still be against it.

Although there are similarities between tariffs and Import Certificate, (IC) policies, their differences are critical. Similarly tariff rates and ICs global markets’ value determine the additional price of imports sold to U.S. purchasers.

The market rather than the government determines the additional price of imports to U.S. purchasers.

The ICs global market value also determines the indirect but effective price discount of USA exports sold to foreign purchasers.

I said your "import certificates" were just a glorified quota, not a tariff.

It's impossible to have a debate with someone who can't get your position on the issue correct. The effects of your IC are exactly the same as the effects of a quota. In fact, they are worse because they force foreigners to buy stuff for which there may be no demand. All it does is complicate transactions and make them more expensive.

Increased exports rather tariff derived revenues will be of much more economic benefit to our nation.

You have yet to demonstrate that your IC's would actually cause exports to increase. They may start a trade war and cause all trade to decrease. There could be numerous other unintended effects.

 

[Supposn]

Although there are similarities between tariffs and Import Certificate, (IC) policies, their differences are critical. Similarly tariff rates and ICs global markets’ value determine the additional price of imports sold to U.S. purchasers.

The market rather than the government determines the additional price of imports to U.S. purchasers.

The ICs global market value also determines the indirect but effective price discount of USA exports sold to foreign purchasers.

I said your "import certificates" were just a glorified quota, not a tariff.

It's impossible to have a debate with someone who can't get your position on the issue correct. The effects of your IC are exactly the same as the effects of a quota. In fact, they are worse because they force foreigners to buy stuff for which there may be no demand. All it does is complicate transactions and make them more expensive.

BriPat9643, within the transferable Import Certificates proposal, no government or entities (other than the importers themselves), determines the total assessed values, of goods each importer may introduce into our nation;
[i.e. there’s no quota enforced upon importers of goods into the USA]. Importers are limited only by their abilities and capital to acquire sufficient import certificates to achieve their own purposes. Challenges upon importers differ little from that of entrepreneurs within other types of commercial endeavors.

Similarly there’s no quota enforced upon exporters of U.S. goods from the USA or upon imports from any particular foreign nation.

This proposal is not “pure” free trade (but regardless of your opinion) it’s certainly pure free enterprise, market rather than government driven and it is NOT a quota system.

The effects of this IC proposal would be similar to a quota determined by administrator with beyond human judgment abilities. Only such an administrator could consistently “out guess” global markets.

How did you ever reach the conclusion that this proposal could or would “force foreigners to buy stuff for which there may be no demand”?

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from Quota - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary .
Definition of QUOTA
1: a proportional part or share; especially: the share or proportion assigned to each in a division or to each member of a body

2: the number or amount constituting a proportional share

3: a fixed number or percentage of minority group members or women needed to meet the requirements of affirmative action.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat9643, within the transferable Import Certificates proposal, no government or entities (other than the importers themselves), determines the total assessed values, of goods each importer may introduce into our nation;[i.e. there’s no quota enforced upon importers of goods into the USA].

the fact that some complex formula is used rather than simple number is irrelevant. It's a limit on the number of units that can be imported. In other words, it's a quota.

Importers are limited only by their abilities and capital to acquire sufficient import certificates to achieve their own purposes. Challenges upon importers differ little from that of entrepreneurs within other types of commercial endeavors.

In other words some arbitrary government regulation limits the amount they can import. It's a quota.

Similarly there’s no quota enforced upon exporters of U.S. goods from the USA or upon imports from any particular foreign nation.

Immaterial. Your regulation places a limit on imports. In other words, it's a quota.

This proposal is not “pure” free trade (but regardless of your opinion) it’s certainly pure free enterprise, market rather than government driven and it is NOT a quota system.

It is a quota system. All your rhetorical dancing doesn't change the facts. Any economist who isn't a complete hack would describe it as a quota.

The effects of this IC proposal would be similar to a quota determined by administrator with beyond human judgment abilities. Only such an administrator could consistently “out guess” global markets.

The effect is exactly the same as a quota because that's what it is: a quota.

How did you ever reach the conclusion that this proposal could or would “force foreigners to buy stuff for which there may be no demand”?

How are they going to get "IC's" if not by buying stuff that otherwise wouldn't normally sell on the open market? Isn't that the whole point of your quota system, to force foreigners to buy American products they don't really want?

 

[editec]

So what happens when the benefits of EXPORTING FOOD becomes large enough to dramatically increase domestic food prices?

think that that will never happen?

Better read about the IRISH potato famine, kids.

Ireland was EXPORTING food while millions of Irish starved on the streets.

Market forces are NOT the panacea some of you imagine them to be.

Marekt forces solve problems for the market, not necessarily for the society.

 

[DSGE]

There's nothing inherently bad about a trade deficit. A trade deficit just means that people want to consumer more now than they're producing. That's like saying credit is bad for the economy.

Keep in mind that people only trade if both parties are being made better off. Stopping people from being able to import unless they've got a certificate saying an equivalent amount of value has been exported is stopping people from engaging in a transaction that would make both parties better off. Absurd, right? Like saying you're not allowed to take out a loan to buy a house. If you want to buy a house you have to save enough money (ie, produced enough already) to buy it outright.

 

[editec]

There's nothing inherently bad about a trade deficit.

There is when that trade deficit is causing a MACROECONOMIC decline in industry, employment, and tax revenues in the nation with that trade deficit.

A trade deficit just means that people want to consumer more now than they're producing.

No it does not "JUST" mean that. it certainly might be part of it, but that is hardly all it means.

That's like saying credit is bad for the economy.

It is nothing like saying that.

Keep in mind that people only trade if both parties are being made better off.

You're confusing the microeconomic benefits of the traders and thinking that the MACROeconomic advnatages or disadvantages don't exist, Lad.

Stopping people from being able to import unless they've got a certificate saying an equivalent amount of value has been exported is stopping people from engaging in a transaction that would make both parties better off.

Yes, that is true. It will have that MICROeconomic effect without doubt.

Absurd, right?

No, not absurd.

Like saying you're not allowed to take out a loan to buy a house. If you want to buy a house you have to save enough money (ie, produced enough already) to buy it outright.

No it is nothing at all "like" that.

 

[DSGE]

There is when that trade deficit is causing a MACROECONOMIC decline in industry,

Can you explain what that means.

employment

If the fall in employment is because a certain industry faces a competitor with a comparative advantage, then A) that industry should fail and allow its workers to be employed where they'll produce more value, B) that'll happen anyway under balanced trade or a trade surplus.

and tax revenues in the nation with that trade deficit.

So what? We collect taxes elsewhere and when those who leave the industry are directed to where they're more productive there will be a long run increase in the tax base.

No it does not "JUST" mean that. it certainly might be part of it, but that is hardly all it means.

It does just mean that. A trade deficit just means that your nation is consuming more than it's producing (ie, your nation is a net borrower from other nations or you have a capital account surplus). A surplus means it's consuming less than it's producing (ie, your nation is a net saver or has a capital account deficit).

You're confusing the microeconomic benefits of the traders and thinking that the MACROeconomic advnatages or disadvantages don't exist, Lad.

Difference between micro and macro in this case?

No it is nothing at all "like" that.

It's exactly like that. It's saying you can't consume more than you produce.

 

[Supposn]

BriPat9643, within the transferable Import Certificates proposal, no government or entities (other than the importers themselves), determines the total assessed values, of goods each importer may introduce into our nation;[i.e. there’s no quota enforced upon importers of goods into the USA].

the fact that some complex formula is used rather than simple number is irrelevant. It's a limit on the number of units that can be imported. In other words, it's a quota.

Importers are limited only by their abilities and capital to acquire sufficient import certificates to achieve their own purposes. Challenges upon importers differ little from that of entrepreneurs within other types of commercial endeavors.

In other words some arbitrary government regulation limits the amount they can import. It's a quota.



Immaterial. Your regulation places a limit on imports. In other words, it's a quota.



It is a quota system. All your rhetorical dancing doesn't change the facts. Any economist who isn't a complete hack would describe it as a quota.

The effects of this IC proposal would be similar to a quota determined by administrator with beyond human judgment abilities. Only such an administrator could consistently “out guess” global markets.

The effect is exactly the same as a quota because that's what it is: a quota.

How did you ever reach the conclusion that this proposal could or would “force foreigners to buy stuff for which there may be no demand”?

How are they going to get "IC's" if not by buying stuff that otherwise wouldn't normally sell on the open market? Isn't that the whole point of your quota system, to force foreigners to buy American products they don't really want?

BriPat9643, regardless of your opinion this proposal’s certainly pure free enterprise that’s market rather than government driven. Any competent economist that understands the dictionary’s definition of “quota” would also understand that this proposal is NOT a quota system.

The purpose of an Import Certificate system is to eliminate USA’s trade deficit of assessed goods in a market rather than a government driven manner that will increase USA’s GDP and indirectly increase our median wage.

I regret that you do not share my confidence in entrepreneurs functioning within our competitive markets. You prefer to continue enduring USA and foreign governments’ negotiations and manipulations of USA’s global trade. I’m generally opposed to government’s’ choosing winners or losers.

I’m a proponent of a unilateral trade policy; all governments’ are entitled to determine what enters their borders but we should not discriminate between foreign nations and similarly we should defend USA from foreign nations’ treating our products in a lesser manner than their imports from other nations.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

There's nothing inherently bad about a trade deficit. A trade deficit just means that people want to consumer more now than they're producing. That's like saying credit is bad for the economy.

Keep in mind that people only trade if both parties are being made better off. Stopping people from being able to import unless they've got a certificate saying an equivalent amount of value has been exported is stopping people from engaging in a transaction that would make both parties better off. Absurd, right? Like saying you're not allowed to take out a loan to buy a house. If you want to buy a house you have to save enough money (ie, produced enough already) to buy it outright.

DSGE, certainly trade deficits are economic malinancys.
They are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs; where trade deficits exist, the nation’s GDP is less than OTHERWISE.

[Similarly, Trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute to their nations’ GDPs more than OTHERWISE]. Balance of trade generally understates, (but never overstates) nations’ global trade affects upon their GDPs.

Regardless of signers' benefits, the agreement itself is subject to the law and can be deemed as illegal. There are many instances within our laws identifying and prohibiting agreements or activities that are contrary to our societies best interests. The quote about “your right to swing your arms terminates where my nose begins” explains that legal concept very well.

I’m opposed to better paying jobs migrating beyond our borders not because they can make it better or faster but only because their labor is cheaper.

When Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr. If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA.

A 750% difference of labor costs is not a factor that Maytag could ignore and sacrificing our median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our problems.

Sovereign nations’ governing their own global trade regulations should be the determiners of their own best interests. Within circumstances of corporations’ and the nations’ best interests diverging, governments’ policies should favor their own nation. That’s not USA’s practice.

I‘m a proponent of a transferable IMPORT CERTIFICATE policy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[DSGE]

DSGE, certainly trade deficits are economic malinancys.
They are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs; where trade deficits exist, the nation’s GDP is less than OTHERWISE.

That's absolutely untrue. Imports increase consumption and investment in a country. I believe where you're going wrong is with the income-expenditure identity: Y = C + I + G + X - M. Y being GDP and M being imports; at first glance it seems like imports lower GDP. In fact, the "- M" term is there to avoid counting consumption of things we haven't produced which get included in the C and I terms.

Let Cd be domestic consumption and Cf be consumption of foreign goods and the same for investment. Without imports, our GDP is: Y = Cd + Id + G + X. With imports, it becomes: Y = (Cd + Cf) + (Id + If) + G + X. But uh oh, we didn't actually produce Cf and If. So we have to subtract M = Cf + If: Y = (Cd + Cf) + (Id + If) + G + X - M = Cd + Cf + Id + If + G + X - (Cf + If) = Cd + Id + G + X + Cf - Cf + If - If => Y = Cd + Id + G + X. Exactly as before. The -M is just an accounting trick. It doesn't mean imports lower GDP.

That's the accounting of it, but the intuition is pretty simple: GDP measures how much is produced domestically. When I import something, that doesn't change how much has been produced domestically, so it doesn't affect GDP. However, when we borrow from abroad to import things, it lets the country consume and invest currently more than it is producing. It's not a bad thing.

[Similarly, Trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute to their nations’ GDPs more than OTHERWISE]. Balance of trade generally understates, (but never overstates) nations’ global trade affects upon their GDPs.

As above, they actually don't. But even if you thought they did, obviously not everybody can run a trade surplus since global trade must sum to zero: If I export something, giving me a trade surplus, that's something that you've imported, giving you a trade deficit. So who are we all gonna run surpluses against? Mars?

I’m opposed to better paying jobs migrating beyond our borders not because they can make it better or faster but only because their labor is cheaper.

When Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr. If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA.

A 750% difference of labor costs is not a factor that Maytag could ignore and sacrificing our median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our problems.

Why do you assume it impacts our median wage? It certainly makes goods cheaper for the consumer, but why do you think it'll affect wages?

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted from world wide web .USA-Trade-Deficit.blogspot.com :

When local producers have perceptively modified their volumes of productions, there is often obvious resonating production modifications within the community. Producers of completely unrelated products and services can be affected, (i.e. factory production affecting beauty parlors revenues). Modification of a community's gross production affects local employment and wage rates. This same phenomenon occurs when the initial catalytic producers were small but acting in concert. (That's often the case within single or allied industries). On a national scale this is all generally dispersed and thus less obvious but no less real.

For over a half century USA's continuously increasing annual trade deficits have been such a significant catalyst. Our annual GDP and median wage has been less than otherwise due to our pursuit of pure unrestricted free trade (among nations that are unwilling and/or unable to sufficiently compensate their laborers).

Trade deficit's detriment to the GDP exceeds the amount of the deficit itself. Anything detrimental to the GDP is also generally detrimental to the median wage. Our trade deficit's net detriment to USA's economy is greatly under-estimated by those influential within and outside of our government; (because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[DSGE]

Excerpted from world wide web .USA-Trade-Deficit.blogspot.com :

When local producers have perceptively modified their volumes of productions, there is often obvious resonating production modifications within the community. Producers of completely unrelated products and services can be affected, (i.e. factory production affecting beauty parlors revenues). Modification of a community's gross production affects local employment and wage rates. This same phenomenon occurs when the initial catalytic producers were small but acting in concert. (That's often the case within single or allied industries). On a national scale this is all generally dispersed and thus less obvious but no less real.

For over a half century USA's continuously increasing annual trade deficits have been such a significant catalyst. Our annual GDP and median wage has been less than otherwise due to our pursuit of pure unrestricted free trade (among nations that are unwilling and/or unable to sufficiently compensate their laborers).

Trade deficit's detriment to the GDP exceeds the amount of the deficit itself. Anything detrimental to the GDP is also generally detrimental to the median wage. Our trade deficit's net detriment to USA's economy is greatly under-estimated by those influential within and outside of our government; (because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)?

Respectfully, Supposn

You mean an excerpt from your blog? Is that supposed to count as evidence of some sort...?

I showed you above dude; a trade deficit doesn't reduce GDP at all.

 

[Supposn]

Topic's “Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs”
transcribed first message:

Nations’ entire production of goods and service products contribute to their GDPs but prices of individual products do not always reflect the entire goods and services that supported the production of those products. Also individual product prices certainly do not reflect their productions’ inducement of additional goods or services productions.

All production contributes to producing nations’ gross domestic product, (GDP). The production is not statistically lost; but to the extent that production costs of globally traded goods are understated, nations’ global trade imbalances’ affects upon their GDPs are not fully attributed to global trade.

////////////////////////////////// Further Explanations ///////////////////////
For example governments often induce producers to establish their factories within their jurisdictions by granting them favorable tax considerations or providing infrastructure that’s particularly favorable to targeted enterprises. Governments and other non–profits often co-operate by favoring enterprises with research, loans of equipment, or access to their expertise. These production supports are of lesser or no cost to the favored enterprises and thus those enterprises products are lesser priced.

All of a nation’s production, (including production support that’s not reflected within produced products prices), are included within the producing nations’ GDPs. But domestic production support not included within the supported export products are not to that extent attributed as exports’ contributions to the producing nation’s GDP.

Production of products can support or induce the production of other unrelated products.
For example increasing the production rate of export goods can increase the factory’s payroll and induce increasing revenues for local beauty parlor service products. This is an additional example of exports additionally increasing the nation’s GDP but the addition is not attributed to the nation’s global trade.

[We cannot spend the same money twice. That’s why the GDP calculation formulas are reduced by the amount of the nation’s imports. When U.S. purchasers perceiving their own individual benefits chose to purchase imported products their transaction reduces their nations’ GDPs. Trade surpluses increase their nations’ GDPs.]

Trade surpluses ALWAYS contribute and trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.
This is baked into the formula defining and calculating GDP; it is not matters of opinion.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[DSGE]

Nations’ entire production of goods and service products contribute to their GDPs but prices of individual products do not always reflect the entire goods and services that supported the production of those products.

Yes they do. Can you explain this in more detail?

Also individual product prices certainly do not reflect their productions’ inducement of additional goods or services productions.

How is this relevant?

All production contributes to producing nations’ gross domestic product, (GDP). The production is not statistically lost; but to the extent that production costs of globally traded goods are understated, nations’ global trade imbalances’ affects upon their GDPs are not fully attributed to global trade.

What does that mean?

For example governments often induce producers to establish their factories within their jurisdictions by granting them favorable tax considerations or providing infrastructure that’s particularly favorable to targeted enterprises. Governments and other non–profits often co-operate by favoring enterprises with research, loans of equipment, or access to their expertise. These production supports are of lesser or no cost to the favored enterprises and thus those enterprises products are lesser priced.

Most of this post is hard to make sense of.

All of a nation’s production, (including production support that’s not reflected within produced products prices)

What production is not reflected in prices? Fair enough stuff like mowing your own lawn or cleaning your own house and stuff, but when goods and services are exchanged all levels of production are reflected in the final price.

are included within the producing nations’ GDPs. But domestic production support not included within the supported export products are not to that extent attributed as exports’ contributions to the producing nation’s GDP.

Yeah I don't know what any of this means. Could you please try to be a little clearer?

Production of products can support or induce the production of other unrelated products.
For example increasing the production rate of export goods can increase the factory’s payroll and induce increasing revenues for local beauty parlor service products. This is an additional example of exports additionally increasing the nation’s GDP but the addition is not attributed to the nation’s global trade.

No it doesn't because the central bank effectively sets nominal domestic income. There is no multiplier effect since the central bank isn't constrained to fix the money supply.

[We cannot spend the same money twice. That’s why the GDP calculation formulas are reduced by the amount of the nation’s imports. When U.S. purchasers perceiving their own individual benefits chose to purchase imported products their transaction reduces their nations’ GDPs. Trade surpluses increase their nations’ GDPs.]

I've explained already how they don't. Instead of continuing to ramble, why don't you quote and address the points I made about how it doesn't lower GDP.