Task0778:
Totally wrong. A trade deficit does negatively impact the GDP number, but it does not necessarily impact the number of jobs.
Task0778:
I'm pretty sure the positive effects of an increased purchasing power resulting from increased competition due to cheaper foreign products is an absolute boon to every US family cuz their dollars go a lot further. Especially the families at or below the poverty level.
Task:
A reduction in GDP (also known as a recession or depression) obviously results in a loss of jobs because consumption and investment both decline. BUT, recessions and depressions clearly do not occur due to trade deficits, otherwise the US would've been in serious trouble over the past 40 some years when trade deficits blew up. Why? Because a TD does not necessarily translate to less consumption and less investment.
Task0778, you misunderstood. It’s not contended that trade balances alone consequential determined the consequential increase or decrease of their nation’s annual GDPs; but they always contributed or reduced their nation’s GDPs more than otherwise.
Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP. Thus, for the years the nation experienced annual trade deficits, their GDP were less than otherwise); (otherwise being if the nation had not experienced annual trade deficits). Unless a nation is blessed with reasonably full employment, reduction of GDP is detrimental to numbers of jobs and affects wage scales.
Respectfully, Supposn
Trade deficits ALWAYS drag upon their nation’s GDP.
Bullshit
Respectfully, Toddsterpatriot