Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.

Supposn

Gold Member
Jul 26, 2009
2,735
368
130
Excerpted from Wikipedia’s “Balance of Trade” article:

“Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.
Exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP”. …
… Refer to:

Expenditure Method
http://www.bea.gov/methodologies/index.htm#national_meth
http://www.britannica.com/topic/gross-domestic-product”.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise. A lesser GDP reflects upon, and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year. I’m unaware of any nation that enjoyed full employment while experiencing an annual trade deficit.

Proving trade deficits are beneficial or not detrimental to nations’ GDPs by statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning.

[Within a nation’s markets, both their domestic and imported goods are sold. (We have no general rules applicable to aggregate types of goods and the proportional volumes between domestic and imports sold within each nation’s domestic markets during each of their markets differing conditions].

Generally, we expect that during a nation’s periods of improved GDP, the sales volumes of their domestic markets similarly improve; when their GDPs are stagnant or declining. we expect those sales volumes to similarly be stagnant or decline. Demonstrating trade deficits are reduced during times of lesser national GDPs only indicates that less imports are sold within the nation’s domestic markets during those periods.

Regardless of a nation’s annual GDP, a positive trade balance increased it or a negative balance reduced it.

There are some production supporting goods and service products that are not fully reflected within the prices of final products because their entire costs were not passed on to the final producers; (for example, government provided infrastructure, reduced utility rates, government or university research and development may be provided to producers at less than their actual costs, although they all contribute to the producing nations’ GDPs.)

If entire production support is not reflected within nations’ globally traded goods’ prices, those nations’ trade balances are understated and trade deficit’s reductions or trade surpluses contributions to their nation’s GDPs are similarly understated.

Nations attract investment due primarily to expectations of investments’ security and rates of return rather than by the nation’s trade volumes or trade balances.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Transcript of post within the thread:
A Republican trade deficit solution?

I can tell you with confidence that trade deficits have absolutely no effect on anything. It's just a number, and all the number tells us is the ratio of imports/exports between two trade partners.

Onyx, if retaining your confidence is your upmost goal, don't refer to the thread:
Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.

Respectfully, Supposn
/////////////////////////////////////////
Onyx, Yes and additionally it describes the nation’s GLOBAL balance of international trade.

We’re not discussing USA’s balance with any individual nation. It is the annual GLOBAL balances of USA’s global trade that’s integral and thus effects USA’s annual GDPs.

If a nation experienced an annual trade surplus, (i.e. a positive balance of global trade), the nation’s GDP was increased due to that balance. Similarly, if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, it consequentially reduced their total GDP that year.

Trade balance is not the only factor that affects their nation’s GDP and does not singularly determine the nation’s GDP; but nations’ annual global trade surplus always contribute, and their annual global trade deficits are always detrimental to their individual nation’s GDPs.

Balance of trade’s affect upon individual nations’ GDPs are integral to the expenditure formula for calculating GDP. This is the formula commonly utilized and referred to when creditable economists and statisticians throughout the world are referring to GDP. The effects of trade balances upon their individual nations’ annual GDPs are not matters of opinions, they are irrefutable facts.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
We’re not discussing USA’s balance with any individual nation. It is the annual GLOBAL balances of USA’s global trade that’s integral and thus effects USA’s annual GDPs.

If a nation experienced an annual trade surplus, (i.e. a positive balance of global trade), the nation’s GDP was increased due to that balance. Similarly, if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, it consequentially reduced their total GDP that year.

Nope, the number has absolutely no correlation with GDP. It's literally not relevant in anyway, besides to show how much a country imports relative to its exports.
 
If a nation experienced an annual trade surplus, (i.e. a positive balance of global trade), the nation’s GDP was increased due to that balance. Similarly, if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, it consequentially reduced their total GDP that year.

Nope, the number has absolutely no correlation with GDP. It's literally not relevant in anyway, besides to show how much a country imports relative to its exports.

Onyx, and the U.S. dollar value of our annual goods and service production is unrelated to our numbers of jobs and the purchasing power of our median wage?

The checks you issue upon your checking account do not “correlate” to your account balance, they reduce your account balance.
USA’s chronic annual trade deficit reduced our annual GDPs. Annual trade surpluses increase their nation’s annual GDPs. Why do you think the nation's balance of trade is a significant term within the formula to calculate their GDP?

USA’s annual trade deficits indicated we produced less goods and service products than we consume; we had lesser numbers of jobs than otherwise; which in turn dragged upon our median wage.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
USA’s annual trade deficits indicated we produced less goods and service products than we consume; we had lesser numbers of jobs than otherwise; which in turn dragged upon our median wage.

this is true!! and we should end the liberal policies that caused this to happen: primarily, taxes and regulations and secondarily, the liberal war on our families children schools and churches that has rendered many Americans unfit for middle class jobs..
 
...if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, it consequentially reduced their total GDP that year.
Nope, the number has absolutely no correlation with GDP. It's literally not relevant in anyway, besides to show how much a country imports relative to its exports.
Those are all really nice ideas about whether exports/imports change how much is produced in the U.S., but it's time to see what actually happens:
gdptrddef.png

What we got is the fact that when the trade deficit grows, so does the GDP, and when the trade deficit shrinks U.S. production stops growing (like in 2001 or it falls (like in 2009). This makes sense. If we import iron ore we produce more steel. We import more laptop screens and we produce more laptops. Yeah, when we need to calculate U.S. production it's easiest if we add up all the consumption and then subtract the imports but hey, facts are facts. Reality must be accepted on its own terms.

Something else we can see is that since '09 we've really actually been having a serious problem w/ the trade deficit. Namely, it stopped growing ---and consequently GDP growth has been way below average. If we're smart we'll start stepping up imports of stuff like iron ore and laptop screens so we can make America great again maybe.
 
...if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, it consequentially reduced their total GDP that year.
Nope, the number has absolutely no correlation with GDP. It's literally not relevant in anyway, besides to show how much a country imports relative to its exports.
Those are all really nice ideas about whether exports/imports change how much is produced in the U.S., but it's time to see what actually happens:
gdptrddef.png

What we got is the fact that when the trade deficit grows, so does the GDP, and when the trade deficit shrinks U.S. production stops growing (like in 2001 or it falls (like in 2009). This makes sense. If we import iron ore we produce more steel. We import more laptop screens and we produce more laptops. Yeah, when we need to calculate U.S. production it's easiest if we add up all the consumption and then subtract the imports but hey, facts are facts. Reality must be accepted on its own terms.

Something else we can see is that since '09 we've really actually been having a serious problem w/ the trade deficit. Namely, it stopped growing ---and consequently GDP growth has been way below average. If we're smart we'll start stepping up imports of stuff like iron ore and laptop screens so we can make America great again maybe.
 
Expat_Panama, if a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise. A lesser GDP reflects upon, and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year. I’m unaware of any nation that enjoyed full employment while experiencing an annual trade deficit.

Proving trade deficits are beneficial or not detrimental to nations’ GDPs by statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning.

[Within a nation’s markets, both their domestic and imported goods are sold. (We have no general rules applicable to aggregate types of goods and the proportional volumes between domestic and imports sold within each nation’s domestic markets during each of their markets differing conditions].

Generally, we expect that during a nation’s periods of improved GDP, the sales volumes of their domestic markets similarly improve; when their GDPs are stagnant or declining. we expect those sales volumes to similarly be stagnant or decline. Demonstrating trade deficits are reduced during times of lesser national GDPs only indicates that less imports are sold within the nation’s domestic markets during those periods.

Regardless of a nation’s annual GDP, it was affected by its balance of trade. A positive trade balance increased it or a negative balance reduced it.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Expat_Panama, if a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise. A lesser GDP reflects upon, and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year. I’m unaware of any nation that enjoyed full employment while experiencing an annual trade deficit.

Proving trade deficits are beneficial or not detrimental to nations’ GDPs by statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning.

[Within a nation’s markets, both their domestic and imported goods are sold. (We have no general rules applicable to aggregate types of goods and the proportional volumes between domestic and imports sold within each nation’s domestic markets during each of their markets differing conditions].

Generally, we expect that during a nation’s periods of improved GDP, the sales volumes of their domestic markets similarly improve; when their GDPs are stagnant or declining. we expect those sales volumes to similarly be stagnant or decline. Demonstrating trade deficits are reduced during times of lesser national GDPs only indicates that less imports are sold within the nation’s domestic markets during those periods.

Regardless of a nation’s annual GDP, it was affected by its balance of trade. A positive trade balance increased it or a negative balance reduced it.

Respectfully, Supposn
When liberals drive our corporations out with the highest taxes in the world and some of the most insane regulation in the world that hurts our GDP most
 
...if a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise...
Please lets get together on the facts first.

We can start w/ what GDP is, namely: total production. Next let's agree on what a 'trade deficit' is. it's when we trade the financial assets we've created for the goods'n'services that foreigners have created.

If we're still together then we can also get clear on what isn't. GDP is not consumption, and that's why we subtract the trade deficit (consumption of foreign goods'n'services") from total domestic consumption (of things produced both inside and outside the U.S.). If my factory produces 1,000 cars, those 1000 cars are still produced no matter how many foreign cars are imported.

Finally, the trade deficit is not a loss of U.S. dollars. Foreigners have their own money, they don't use dollars. We got those foreign goods'n'services when they swapping 'em for our financial assets. Something else is that we're not going to eventually run out of financial assets any more than this means foreigners are going to run out of goods'n'services. We can produce assets forever just like they can produce products forever.
...statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning....
Oh yeah? Well, I can snark back saying that the fact that your sophistry is mendacious makes it even worse than specious.

[ooooh, that felt gooood! ;) ]

OK, back to work. Let's understand that saying a trade deficit reduces GDP requires explaining why in real life a bigger trade deficit also comes w/ a bigger GDP.
 
...if a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise...
Please lets get together on the facts first.

We can start w/ what GDP is, namely: total production. Next let's agree on what a 'trade deficit' is. it's when we trade the financial assets we've created for the goods'n'services that foreigners have created.

If we're still together then we can also get clear on what isn't. GDP is not consumption, and that's why we subtract the trade deficit (consumption of foreign goods'n'services") from total domestic consumption (of things produced both inside and outside the U.S.). If my factory produces 1,000 cars, those 1000 cars are still produced no matter how many foreign cars are imported.

Finally, the trade deficit is not a loss of U.S. dollars. Foreigners have their own money, they don't use dollars. We got those foreign goods'n'services when they swapping 'em for our financial assets. Something else is that we're not going to eventually run out of financial assets any more than this means foreigners are going to run out of goods'n'services. We can produce assets forever just like they can produce products forever.
...statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning....
Oh yeah? Well, I can snark back saying that the fact that your sophistry is mendacious makes it even worse than specious.

[ooooh, that felt gooood! ;) ]

OK, back to work. Let's understand that saying a trade deficit reduces GDP requires explaining why in real life a bigger trade deficit also comes w/ a bigger GDP.

anyone concerned with international or intercity trade deficits should be concerned with making goods more competitive on the international or intercity market. Any other solution just makes the problem worse by enabling non competitive goods to survive.
 
Something else is that we're not going to eventually run out of financial assets any more than this means foreigners are going to run out of goods'n'services.
thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:

1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.
 
[QUOTE="EdwardBaiamonte, post: 16936680, member: 34008
When liberals drive our corporations out with the highest taxes in the world and some of the most insane regulation in the world that hurts our GDP most[/QUOTE]

EdwardBaiamonte, this discussion thread,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/trade-balances-effects-upon-their-nations-gdps.583778/#post-16933620 discusses USA’s chronic annual trade deficits.

Trade deficits are matters of fact (rather matters of opinion). They're negative net balance of their nation's trade. Due to the expenditure formula for calculating GDP, when nations experienced a trade deficit, their GDP was reduced. Due to USA’s chronic annual trade deficits, USA’s lesser than otherwise GDP reflects upon and is also reflected upon by our consequential lesser numbers of jobs. Anything that drags upon our numbers of jobs to some extent drags upon our median wage.

I’m a proponent for unilateral significant reduction of USA’s chronic annual trade deficits.

The thread
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/a-republican-trade-deficit-solution.583736/#post-16929211
is a comparison discussion of two such proposals; it compares an Import Certificate proposal or a modification of our corporate income tax, (i.e. border adjusted tax). Both proposals were drafted to significantly reduce USA’s trade deficits.

You apparently are a proponent of some other methods or proposals. I can only respond to your concepts if you explicitly describe them within threads devoted to what’s of your concern.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars. The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade since our goods are not competitive and our financial assets get more costly in dollars until trade eventually slows and stops. So what happens along the way is:
1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers.

The only solution for Americans is to eliminate taxes and most regulations to become competitive again.

EdwardBaiamonte, both the quality and price of products are affected by the time and quality of labor that was devoted to the products. (Note; differing quality of labor command differing wage rates).

The price advantages of imports from lower-wage nations exist even among their mass-produced products; labor’s required to create and maintain the mass production tools, assembly lines and infrastructures to support the production of goods].

USA’s labor or management are not at fault because they’re unable to compete with foreign nation’s lower wages’ purchasing powers. We should not fault USA purchasers because they seek the optimum value for the money they spend.
We must all function within our environment. USA’s trade policies encourage our annual trade deficits. Change the policies and we change purchasing decisions.

Your equating our inability to produce cheaply as being an inability to produce quality is nonsense.

Regarding your general comment that we reduce taxes rather than modifying our trade policies:
The purposes of those taxes are to provide government tax revenues.
Please refer me to the discussion thread where you explain which expenditures we no longer need to fund or did you intend we reduce tax revenues and increase federal borrowing?

I don’t doubt that you have a list of expenditures in mind but many of us others also have a list. Our lists do not correlate with your list. I’m more inclined to believe that our government is not spending too much but rather we are not receiving the best values for our amounts of spending.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Something else is that we're not going to eventually run out of financial assets any more than this means foreigners are going to run out of goods'n'services.
...thats a really tricky issue it seems to me. China just bought Waldorf, for example, with their surplus dollars....
That's great! So we build another hotel and sell it to the Chinese next. Then another and another. Hey, you don't like them Chinese moving next door? That's ok because we're selling them hotels we built outside the U.S. too. Bottom line is that the bigger the 'trade deficit' the better we get at creating assets like new hotels.
...The more dollars they have the more we can raise prices for financial assets and the more this discourages China from wanting to acquire dollars from us through trade....
We Americans are not idiots, we set our prices so as to rake in the biggest profits.
...what happens along the way is:

1) Americans lose jobs because they don't produce competitively
2) Americans who also want to buy financial assets must pay the higher prices too so are rendered, in effect, poorer just like American workers...
No that's not what happens along the way. Here's the historical record for past levels of U.S. total private wealth (total assets minus debts) plotted along w/ the 'trade deficit'.
netwrthtrade.png

The bigger the trade deficit the richer we get. A shrinking trade deficit means we lose money.
...statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning...
Yeah, you can call me "specious" all you want and I'll cry all the way to the bank.
 
Excerpted from Wikipedia’s “Balance of Trade” article:

“Trade balances effects upon their nation's GDPs.
Exports directly contribute and imports directly reduce their nation's balance of trade (i.e. net exports). A trade surplus is positive net balance of trade, and a trade deficit is a negative net balance of trade. Due to balance of trade being explicitly added to the calculation of their nation's gross domestic product using the expenditure method of calculating gross domestic production (i.e. GDP), trade surpluses are contributions and trade deficits are "drags" upon their nation's GDP”. …
… Refer to:

Expenditure Method
http://www.bea.gov/methodologies/index.htm#national_meth
http://www.britannica.com/topic/gross-domestic-product”.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If a nation experienced an annual negative balance of global trade, (i.e. a trade deficit), that nation’s GDP was less than otherwise. A lesser GDP reflects upon, and is reflected upon by the nation’s lesser numbers of jobs during that same year. I’m unaware of any nation that enjoyed full employment while experiencing an annual trade deficit.

Proving trade deficits are beneficial or not detrimental to nations’ GDPs by statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning.

[Within a nation’s markets, both their domestic and imported goods are sold. (We have no general rules applicable to aggregate types of goods and the proportional volumes between domestic and imports sold within each nation’s domestic markets during each of their markets differing conditions].

Generally, we expect that during a nation’s periods of improved GDP, the sales volumes of their domestic markets similarly improve; when their GDPs are stagnant or declining. we expect those sales volumes to similarly be stagnant or decline. Demonstrating trade deficits are reduced during times of lesser national GDPs only indicates that less imports are sold within the nation’s domestic markets during those periods.

Regardless of a nation’s annual GDP, a positive trade balance increased it or a negative balance reduced it.

There are some production supporting goods and service products that are not fully reflected within the prices of final products because their entire costs were not passed on to the final producers; (for example, government provided infrastructure, reduced utility rates, government or university research and development may be provided to producers at less than their actual costs, although they all contribute to the producing nations’ GDPs.)

If entire production support is not reflected within nations’ globally traded goods’ prices, those nations’ trade balances are understated and trade deficit’s reductions or trade surpluses contributions to their nation’s GDPs are similarly understated.

Nations attract investment due primarily to expectations of investments’ security and rates of return rather than by the nation’s trade volumes or trade balances.

Respectfully, Supposn

I believe the right wing needs to, "ante up", better products at lower cost instead of simply "playing shell games with statism" by merely renegotiating free trade agreements.
 
... If we're still together then we can also get clear on what isn't. GDP is not consumption, and that's why we subtract the trade deficit (consumption of foreign goods'n'services") from total domestic consumption (of things produced both inside and outside the U.S.). If my factory produces 1,000 cars, those 1000 cars are still produced no matter how many foreign cars are imported. ...

Expat_Panama, USA’s trade deficit is not calculated by counting net production of vehicles, washing machines, movie scripts, building designs and square feet of mopped and waxed floors. It is the approximate U.S. dollar value of goods and services paid by their final USA consumers, government and investing purchasers plus the nation’s net balance of trade.

The nation’s net balance of trade is included within that calculation because we’re unable to separate imported products from the final total products sold to purchasers in the USA.

Trade surpluses are added to the calculation because they were not finally paid for by USA purchasers. Trade deficits are subtracted from the final calculation because the final USA purchasers did not purchase USA products.

Every calculation of a nation’s GDP includes their net balance of trade. Since USA has experienced negative annual trade balances each year in excess of a half century, our annual GDP’s were less than otherwise due to those trade deficits within each of those years.

USA’s trade deficits indicate less than otherwise USA production. If the U.S. dollars spent to purchase imported products were again spent by foreign entities to purchase USA products, there would be no USA trade deficit. If they are invested to purchase portions of USA enterprises or are loans to USA entities, then they’re future commitments of USA production to pay for foreign debt service or investments in our enterprises.

Trade deficits are a drag upon the U.S. dollar’s rate of exchange in global currency markets and that reduces the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar; (i.e. that increases our currency inflation). That reduces the purchasing powers of wages, profits, dividends, or anything else paid with U.S. dollars.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Excerpted from 9:49 AM, 2Apr2017 post:

Proving trade deficits are beneficial or not detrimental to nations’ GDPs by statistical “proofs” are based upon specious reasoning.

[Within a nation’s markets, both their domestic and imported goods are sold. (We have no general rules applicable to aggregate types of goods and the proportional volumes between domestic and imports sold within each nation’s domestic markets during each of their markets differing conditions].

Generally, we expect that during a nation’s periods of improved GDP, the sales volumes of their domestic markets similarly improve; when their GDPs are stagnant or declining. we expect those sales volumes to similarly be stagnant or decline. Demonstrating trade deficits are reduced during times of lesser national GDPs only indicates that less imports are sold within the nation’s domestic markets during those periods.

Regardless of a nation’s annual GDP, it was affected by its balance of trade. A positive trade balance increased it or a negative balance reduced it.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from Expat_Panama's 9:53 AM post of 2Apr2017:

Oh yeah? Well, I can snark back saying that the fact that your sophistry is mendacious makes it even worse than specious.

[ooooh, that felt gooood! ;) ]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////

Expat_Panama, someone who employs such an abstruse word as “mendacious” to accuse me of lying should be able to logically refute my argument.

When logic serves you, use it; but if you’re unable to logically respond to the argument, your tactic is to seek shelter among esoteric words and hope to benefit from any confusion?

Try to respond, I believe you can do better.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
...a 'trade deficit' is. it's when we trade the financial assets we've created for the goods'n'services that foreigners have created. If we're still together...
...USA’s trade deficit is not calculated by counting net production of vehicles, washing machines, movie scripts, building designs and square feet of mopped and waxed floors. It is the approximate U.S. dollar value of goods and services paid by their final USA consumers, government and investing purchasers plus the nation’s net balance of trade...
Ah, we're not together and it seems we're running too fast thru definitions of Balance of Payments, 'trade deficit', and their relationship to the GDP. Maybe if we get clear on what we're talking about then we can get clear w/ eagh other on what's going on.

All these numbers come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Balance of Payments (International Transactions) Quarterly and annual estimates of transactions with foreigners, including trade in goods and services, receipts and payments of income, capital-account transactions, and transactions in financial assets and liabilities.


GDP: U.S. National Income and Product Accounts Definitions Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production.

The problem w/ defining the 'Trade Deficit' is that it's a political term and not and econ term; it only shows up in the BEA's informal blog (Trade Deficit | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis) where they end up just talking about the the goods and services deficit from the News Release: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services).

Please tell me, will you agree that U.S. GDP is U.S. production and that the trade deficit is not?
 
...a 'trade deficit' is. it's when we trade the financial assets we've created for the goods'n'services that foreigners have created. If we're still together...
...USA’s trade deficit is not calculated by counting net production of vehicles, washing machines, movie scripts, building designs and square feet of mopped and waxed floors. It is the approximate U.S. dollar value of goods and services paid by their final USA consumers, government and investing purchasers plus the nation’s net balance of trade...
Ah, we're not together and it seems we're running too fast thru definitions of Balance of Payments, 'trade deficit', and their relationship to the GDP. Maybe if we get clear on what we're talking about then we can get clear w/ eagh other on what's going on.

All these numbers come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Balance of Payments (International Transactions) Quarterly and annual estimates of transactions with foreigners, including trade in goods and services, receipts and payments of income, capital-account transactions, and transactions in financial assets and liabilities.


GDP: U.S. National Income and Product Accounts Definitions Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy less the value of the goods and services used up in production.

The problem w/ defining the 'Trade Deficit' is that it's a political term and not and econ term; it only shows up in the BEA's informal blog (Trade Deficit | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis) where they end up just talking about the the goods and services deficit from the News Release: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services).

Please tell me, will you agree that U.S. GDP is U.S. production and that the trade deficit is not?
I no longer take the right wing seriously about economics or the law. They usually have, nothing but fallacy while proclaiming they are for the "gospel Truth" of any given argument.
 

Forum List

Back
Top