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

[Toddsterpatriot]

I did point out that trade deficit’s immediate detriment to the nation’s GDP

Why are you so consistently afraid to say what you have against free trade?
You want welfare for American manufactures and to pretend the moral hazard won't make them even less competitive and less world class.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

Edward Baiamonte, many factors affect GDP but our aggregate trade deficits’ most clearly a net detriment to our GDP and our median wage. Because of the extent of voter’s general dissatisfaction with foreign goods proportion of SA’s domestic market sales and the relative ease to remedy it, our trade deficit is a more (than other politically likely candidates), a factor to be modified for the improvement of our GDP.

I believe many of those who are not populists are uncomfortable with, (if not actually opposed to) higher purchasing power for USA’s median wage. Most of those people are not so foolish as to actually believe that trade deficits are of benefit to their nations’ economies but they cannot accept trades deficits’ being in themselves detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Most of us share the common logical fault of first determining the outcome we prefer and then rationalizing why others should behave in a manner to fore fill our desired results. Most of those who believe themselves to be conservatives will not admit that they are opposed to increased purchasing power for the median wage and lesser increased portions of our population that earn significantly less than the median wage.

I’m not opposed to free trade or free enterprise. I am opposed to a trade policy that is detrimental to USA’s median wage’s purchasing power or the numbers of USA jobs per capita. This market driven IC policy would increase our GDP, the purchasing power of our median wage, and (because IC’s additionally subsidize USA exports), it will increase USA’s total of aggregate imports plus exports.

The proposal “caps” USA global imports of assessed goods to that of our exports. It limits USA wage earners’ disadvantage to cheaper foreign labor. You believe cheap foreign goods compensate USA wage earning families for our trade deficit’s detriment to the median wage?

The proposal’s not absolutely pure free global trade, is absolutely pure free enterprise, retains and will expand USA’s global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

Edward Baiamonte, many factors affect GDP but our aggregate trade deficits’ most clearly a net detriment to our GDP and our median wage.

$453 billion in oil last year shows that a trade deficit is not a net detriment to our GDP.
Just imagine our GDP if we stopped all oil imports.
How high would domestic oil rise?
How badly would that higher price hurt employment, GDP and median wages?

 

[expat_panama]

...Why be so afraid to say why you are opposed to free trade and are for a tariff??? What does your fear tell us??

We see that a lot with economics, how socialists deny they're socialists, same w/ Marxists. Nobody's got the stones to admit they want a state controlled economy. Those of us who're able to feed ourselves just want to be left alone.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why are you so consistently afraid to say what you have against free trade?
You want welfare for American manufactures and to pretend the moral hazard won't make them even less competitive and less world class.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

Edward Baiamonte, many factors affect GDP but our aggregate trade deficits’ most clearly a net detriment to our GDP and our median wage. Because of the extent of voter’s general dissatisfaction with foreign goods proportion of SA’s domestic market sales and the relative ease to remedy it, our trade deficit is a more (than other politically likely candidates), a factor to be modified for the improvement of our GDP.

I believe many of those who are not populists are uncomfortable with, (if not actually opposed to) higher purchasing power for USA’s median wage. Most of those people are not so foolish as to actually believe that trade deficits are of benefit to their nations’ economies but they cannot accept trades deficits’ being in themselves detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Most of us share the common logical fault of first determining the outcome we prefer and then rationalizing why others should behave in a manner to fore fill our desired results. Most of those who believe themselves to be conservatives will not admit that they are opposed to increased purchasing power for the median wage and lesser increased portions of our population that earn significantly less than the median wage.

I’m not opposed to free trade or free enterprise. I am opposed to a trade policy that is detrimental to USA’s median wage’s purchasing power or the numbers of USA jobs per capita. This market driven IC policy would increase our GDP, the purchasing power of our median wage, and (because IC’s additionally subsidize USA exports), it will increase USA’s total of aggregate imports plus exports.

The proposal “caps” USA global imports of assessed goods to that of our exports. It limits USA wage earners’ disadvantage to cheaper foreign labor. You believe cheap foreign goods compensate USA wage earning families for our trade deficit’s detriment to the median wage?

The proposal’s not absolutely pure free global trade, is absolutely pure free enterprise, retains and will expand USA’s global trade.

Respectfully, Supposn

Edward Baiamonte, many factors affect GDP but our aggregate trade deficits’ most clearly a net detriment to our GDP and our median wage.

$453 billion in oil last year shows that a trade deficit is not a net detriment to our GDP.
Just imagine our GDP if we stopped all oil imports.
How high would domestic oil rise?
How badly would that higher price hurt employment, GDP and median wages?

the liberal approach to competing is always government magic or in this case an old fashioned Smoot Hawley Great Depression tariff, but never beating the competition.

Why not makes liberal unions illegal again and eliminate liberal corporate taxes so we can compete and win in world markets?

Moreover, trade deficits are really impossible anyway since a dollar spent abroad must be spent back in the USA!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...Why be so afraid to say why you are opposed to free trade and are for a tariff??? What does your fear tell us??

We see that a lot with economics, how socialists deny they're socialists, same w/ Marxists. Nobody's got the stones to admit they want a state controlled economy. Those of us who're able to feed ourselves just want to be left alone.

Yes if Barry wanted to have the first honest moment of his his entire rotten life he'd say, I had two communist parents, I voted to the left of Bernie Sander, and I'm a communist. Let's debate it"

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

 

[Supposn]

goofy liberal still pushing what even Buffett calls a tariff ??????
did you know we have free trade because virtually all economists agree that the more you trade the richer you get and the less you trade the poorer you get??

Imagine if you had to make everything yourself??

Edward Baiamonte, ICs are similar to tariffs but they have critical differences. That why they are not equivalent to each other. You are arguing in support of global trade. ICs are completely compatible and would increase USA’s aggregate volumes of global trade. The IC proposal is not absolutely pure free trade but it is absolutely pure free enterprise.

You argue in support of global trade because you’re unable to logically defend our nations’ trade deficits.
(Your ineffective statistical argument reverses cause and effect).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Imagine if you had to make everything yourself??

Edward Baiamonte, this trade proposal would be of some net advantage to any USA producer that competes or aspires to compete with foreign goods within or beyond our borders. Its entire net expenses are borne by USA purchasers of foreign goods to the extent that they contribute to USA’s trade deficit.

[Trade deficits are always an immediate detriment to our nation’s GDP and to the extent our imports of goods do not support USA production and thus eliminate or reduce USA’s future trade deficits, they are ALWAYS more than otherwise detrimental to our nation’s GDP].

The proposal does not guarantee anything other than USA’s imports of assessed goods will not exceed our exports; thus it proportionally caps trade deficit’s detrimental effect upon USA’s median wage’s purchasing power.

The proposal itself cannot affect the market of mineral materials appearing within a list of specific materials identified as scarce or precious and to the extent that those specific minerals are integral to any goods, those goods are also unaffected.

Inhibitions of imports are limited to the open global market IC price per assessed dollar of imported goods. Generally accepted wisdom is demand being inversely affected by prices; (i.e. This trade proposal is driven by U.S. markets’ rather than governments’ determination). IC prices and U.S. export subsidies are primarily supported to the extent of USA purchasers’ demands foreign goods.

Suggesting inhibition of all imports is predicated upon USA purchasers having no desire, (i.e. effective demand) for foreign goods; that’s nonsense.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

you’re unable to logically defend our nations’ trade deficits

It's not the existing trade that needs defending but rather your proposed state control intended to reduce trade deficits. Another thing is that you need to provide proof to convince us because you're the one presenting the proposal and we're the ones that have not yet bought in. The reason we haven't been swayed by economic models (GDP = other stuff - trade deficits) is because we see past GDP changes having a shown strong correlation with trade deficits.

Maybe you could convince us instead with a practical example: if I get a million yuan by selling the rights to a really neat song I made up, and I use that Chinese money to buy Chinese gasoline that I unload in the US at 10% below market, how does the $160,000 increase in the trade deficit hurt America?

 

[Supposn]

......................Maybe you could convince us instead with a practical example: if I get a million yuan by selling the rights to a really neat song I made up, and I use that Chinese money to buy Chinese gasoline that I unload in the US at 10% below market, how does the $160,000 increase in the trade deficit hurt America?

ExPat_Panama, this trade proposal does not affect and is not affected by global trade of any materials specified upon the list of scarce or precious materials, or intangible items, or information or any other intellectual property or legal rights such as patents or copyrights.

Scarce and precious us minerals are excluded due to economic reasons; both domestic and international politics are additional reasons for excluding scarce minerals. Inclusion of those specified mineral materials themselves or integral within other assessment of goods would undermine the most important advantage due to this proposal; (i,e. retention of USA's jobs and median wage's purchasing power).

[This proposal caps USA’s losses of jobs and reduction of our median wage’s purchasing power while acting as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods]

This proposal is not appropriate for application to global trade of services, information, intellectual property or legal rights. Such intangible items are also excluded from this proposal.

In this discussion thread I argue this specific IC proposal’s superiority to all other trade policies within the scope of trade goods applicable to this proposal. Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

......................Maybe you could convince us instead with a practical example: if I get a million yuan by selling the rights to a really neat song I made up, and I use that Chinese money to buy Chinese gasoline that I unload in the US at 10% below market, how does the $160,000 increase in the trade deficit hurt America?

ExPat_Panama, this trade proposal does not affect and is not affected by global trade of any materials specified upon the list of scarce or precious materials, or intangible items, or information or any other intellectual property or legal rights such as patents or copyrights.

Scarce minerals are excluded due to political and economic reasons; precious minerals are excluded are additionally excluded because they would undermine the most important advantage due to this proposal; (i,e. USA's jobs and median wage).

[This proposal caps USA’s losses of jobs and reduction of our median wage’s purchasing power while acting as an indirect but effective subsidy of USA exported goods]

This proposal is not appropriate for application to global trade of services, information, intellectual property or legal rights. Such intangible items are excluded from this proposal.

In this discussion thread I argue this specific IC proposal’s superiority to all other trade policies within the scope of trade goods applicable to this proposal. Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.

Respectfully, Supposn

Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.

Of course not, because they make most obvious the error of your claims.

 

[Supposn]

......................Maybe you could convince us instead with a practical example: if I get a million yuan by selling the rights to a really neat song I made up, and I use that Chinese money to buy Chinese gasoline that I unload in the US at 10% below market, how does the $160,000 increase in the trade deficit hurt America?

ExPat_Panama,...................In this discussion thread I argue this specific IC proposal’s superiority to all other trade policies within the scope of trade goods applicable to this proposal. Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.
Respectfully, Supposn

Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items.

Of course not, because they make most obvious the error of your claims.

ExPat_Panama, no, because excluded trade items are separate issues.

If you would honestly contrive a scenario regarding goods that are actually subject to this trade proposal, I’d try to respond.

Due to the exclussions from assessments of global traded goods within this trade policy as proposed, USA's trade deficit, GDP or median wage cannot be affected (more than otherwise).

You want to cripple the proposal by inserting your own modifications and then argue the proposal will not work?

Note that within this proposal, all assessments are of values at USA port’s docks in U.S. dollars. Prices beyond USA borders or foreign exchange rates are inconsequential to this proposal’s assessments of goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

the liberal approach to competing is always government magic or in this case an old fashioned Smoot Hawley Great Depression tariff, but never beating the competition.

Why not makes liberal unions illegal again and eliminate liberal corporate taxes so we can compete and win in world markets?

Moreover, trade deficits are really impossible anyway since a dollar spent abroad must be spent back in the USA!

Edward Baiamonte, when Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr. A 750% difference of labor costs is not a factor that Maytag could ignore.
Sacrificing the purchasing power of USA’s median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our nation’s economic problems.
If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, if there were no Illinois labor unions, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA.
Mexico does not produce superior refrigerators and they do not produce them faster. Excluding differences due to physical conditions such as temperatures and humidity, similar production line tools operate in similar manners regardless of their geographic locations.

Respectfully, Supposn

.......................................Moreover, trade deficits are really impossible anyway since a dollar spent abroad must be spent back in the USA!

Edward Baiamonte, you don’t seem to understand what are or not factors of a nation’s global trade balance.
Transfers of wealth are not factors of GDP or of nation’s balances of trade. Interest or dividend payments, profits due to the sales of assets, deposits into financial funds are all transfers of wealth that are not factored into the nations’ GDPs or balances of global trade.

When ExPan_Panama wrote of the sale of a copyright, it is not a factor into the calculation of nations’ GDPs or their global balances of trade. The sale of a legal right is the sale of an asset that is not goods or a service product.
Interest or dividend payments, profits due to the sales of assets, deposits into financial funds are all transfers of wealth that are not factored into the nations’ GDPs or balances of global trade. I suppose copyright sales would be included within capital accounts but capital accounts are not factors of nations’ GDPs.

Nations’ balances of payments always zero balance because when there’s a short fall, the nation in effect deposits the money to correct it. In the case of the USA, the U.S. treasury covers any differences. (There's a reconcilliation account set aside just to keep USA's payments in balance). If the Federal Reserve determines we need more cash to cover it, they just increase the output of our printing press.

Trade deficits are explicitly explained and understood and accepted as the convention by all economic communities throughout the world.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[expat_panama]

...if I get a million yuan by selling the rights to a really neat song I made up, and I use that Chinese money to buy Chinese gasoline that I unload in the US at 10% below market, how does the $160,000 increase in the trade deficit hurt America?

...Global trade items not applicable to this proposal are completely separate issues and I will not entertain discussions of such items...

Of course not, because they make most obvious the error of your claims.

Exactly.

As soon as we look at actual examples of real life trade, we not only see how that so-called trade-deficit is no problem, but we begin to understand why the GDP goes up when that so-called trade-deficit becomes "worse".

America is better off when free people trade real life items on the capital account for real life items on the current account.

 

[Supposn]

Exactly.
As soon as we look at actual examples of real life trade, we not only see how that so-called trade-deficit is no problem, but we begin to understand why the GDP goes up when that so-called trade-deficit becomes "worse".

America is better off when free people trade real life items on the capital account for real life items on the current account.

ExPat_Panama, you and I interpret the same statistics differently. We cannot prove anything to each other by using historic statistics because we disagree upon cause and effect.

I understand your position to be trade deficits are among the primary drivers of GDP and the statistics prove trade deficits to be beneficial to their nations’ GDPs? Am I correct?

I’m among those contending although USA’s trade balance is a significant factor of USA’s GDP, it is a minority factor that contributes but is among the primary drivers of GDP.

[There are many that also believe in the USA its consumer demand that’s THE major driver of USA's GDP].

We additionally contend that (regardless of the nation’s economic condition), trade deficits are ALWAYS (immediately) detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

[I.e. regardless of the nation’s relative economic condition, (within better or lesser economic conditions), the GDPs of nations with trade deficits are less (than otherwise) due to their trade deficits].

We also argue individuals’ cannot spend the same dollar twice (unless they recover the dollars they previously spent). If trade deficits’ consequences are fewer jobs per capita and/or lesser purchasing power of the median wage, then to that extent trade deficits are detrimental to their nation’s GDPs and their median wage.

We argue this is exactly USA’s case. Cheaper foreign goods do not compensate wage earning families from the detrimental effects of lesser GDP and/or median wage’s purchasing power due to their nation’s trade deficit.

These are the points of contention between us.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly.
As soon as we look at actual examples of real life trade, we not only see how that so-called trade-deficit is no problem, but we begin to understand why the GDP goes up when that so-called trade-deficit becomes "worse".

America is better off when free people trade real life items on the capital account for real life items on the current account.

ExPat_Panama, you and I interpret the same statistics differently. We cannot prove anything to each other by using historic statistics because we disagree upon cause and effect.

I understand your position to be trade deficits are among the primary drivers of GDP and the statistics prove trade deficits to be beneficial to their nations’ GDPs? Am I correct?

I’m among those contending although USA’s trade balance is a significant factor of USA’s GDP, it is a minority factor that contributes but is among the primary drivers of GDP.

[There are many that also believe in the USA its consumer demand that’s THE major driver of USA's GDP].

We additionally contend that (regardless of the nation’s economic condition), trade deficits are ALWAYS (immediately) detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

[I.e. regardless of the nation’s relative economic condition, (within better or lesser economic conditions), the GDPs of nations with trade deficits are less (than otherwise) due to their trade deficits].

We also argue individuals’ cannot spend the same dollar twice (unless they recover the dollars they previously spent). If trade deficits’ consequences are fewer jobs per capita and/or lesser purchasing power of the median wage, then to that extent trade deficits are detrimental to their nation’s GDPs and their median wage.

We argue this is exactly USA’s case. Cheaper foreign goods do not compensate wage earning families from the detrimental effects of lesser GDP and/or median wage’s purchasing power due to their nation’s trade deficit.

These are the points of contention between us.
Respectfully, Supposn

We additionally contend that (regardless of the nation’s economic condition), trade deficits are ALWAYS (immediately) detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Your contention is obviously wrong.
Reduce our trade deficit by immediately cutting oil imports to $0.
Gas prices would easily triple. How does that help our GDP?

 

[Supposn]

.....................Reduce our trade deficit by immediately cutting oil imports to $0.
Gas prices would easily triple. How does that help our GDP?

Toddster Patriot, within this trade proposal, anything that’s excluded from assessments of goods cannot affect the nation’s global trade.
Such items to the extent that they’re integral to global trade goods cannot induce or inhibit the nation’s global trade of goods. Additionally this trade proposal cannot affect the nation’s global trade of services or intangibles.
I believe you’re fully aware of this. To write of this proposal reducing "our trade deficit by immediately cutting oil imports to $0" is disingenuous rather than ignorance.

Information is the remedy for ignorance. Similar to liars, disingenuous people must find within themselves the will and integrity to remedy their own character fault.

Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.....................Reduce our trade deficit by immediately cutting oil imports to $0.
Gas prices would easily triple. How does that help our GDP?

Toddster Patriot, within this trade proposal, anything that’s excluded from assessments of goods cannot affect the nation’s global trade.
Such items to the extent that they’re integral to global trade goods cannot induce or inhibit the nation’s global trade of goods. Additionally this trade proposal cannot affect the nation’s global trade of services or intangibles.
I believe you’re fully aware of this. To write of this proposal reducing "our trade deficit by immediately cutting oil imports to $0" is disingenuous rather than ignorance.

Information is the remedy for ignorance. Similar to liars, disingenuous people must find within themselves the will and integrity to remedy their own character fault.

Supposn

For the twentieth time, I'm not talking about Buffet's silly big government trade proposal, I'm simply showing the error of your claim that all trade deficits hurt a nation's GDP.

To keep avoiding the subject is disingenuous.

 

[expat_panama]

America is better off when free people trade real life items on the capital account for real life items on the current account.

...we disagree upon cause and effect...

Let's talk 'cause and effect' only after we first see together that GDP gets better when the trade deficit gets worse, and when the trade deficit gets better the GDP gets worse. Say what you want about your opinions, but these are the facts that make up reality. Only after looking at actual real life GDP's & trades can we proceed to deduce causes.

Assuming we both accept reality, our choice of causality theories is between bigger trade deficit = more GDP, or it's trade deficit is irrelevant. I can respect either view. The bottom line here is that a formula is a model that's useful only when it corresponds to reality. If it doesn't then it's either misapplied or or misunderstood. Clinging with absolute conviction to something that diverges from real life is a 'split with reality', and that's the original meaning of the term 'schizophrenia'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sacrificing the purchasing power of USA’s median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our nation’s economic problems.

too stupid!! when factories move to China prices here go down and Americans have more purchasing power!! Welcome to Econ 101, class one day one!!!

Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA.

too stupid!! China and Mexico and Bangladesh and Pakistan, etc etc have always been far far cheaper but America still produces 20% of all manufactured goods just as it always did and thats with liberals unions and liberal taxes and liberal regulations etc etc. and budget deficits!! What planet are you on???

Moreover, trade deficits are really impossible anyway since a dollar spent abroad must be spent back in the USA![/quote]

Edward Baiamonte, you don’t seem to understand what are or not factors of a nation’s global trade balance.
Transfers of wealth are not factors of GDP or of nation’s balances of trade. Interest or dividend payments, profits due to the sales of assets, deposits into financial funds are all transfers of wealth that are not factored into the nations’ GDPs or balances of global trade

As I said a Walmart dollar in China has to be respent in America. Why not tell us what happens to it??

When ExPan_Panama wrote of the sale of a copyright, it is not a factor into the calculation of nations’ GDPs or their global balances of trade. The sale of a legal right is the sale of an asset that is not goods or a service product.
Interest or dividend payments, profits due to the sales of assets, deposits into financial funds are all transfers of wealth that are not factored into the nations’ GDPs or balances of global trade. I suppose copyright sales would be included within capital accounts but capital accounts are not factors of nations’ GDPs.

Nations’ balances of payments always zero balance because when there’s a short fall, the nation in effect deposits the money to correct it. In the case of the USA, the U.S. treasury covers any differences. (There's a reconcilliation account set aside just to keep USA's payments in balance). If the Federal Reserve determines we need more cash to cover it, they just increase the output of our printing press.

Trade deficits are explicitly explained and understood and accepted as the convention by all economic communities throughout the world.

Respectfully, Supposn

too stupid!! Friedman said there were, in effect, no trade deficits and that you cant cure a nation's non competitiveness with liberal magic!!
Now listen to this!!!! You have to actually be more competitive to remain world class!! If you shield your industry behind a tariff and trade war all the free nations pull ahead of you. As a liberal idiot you want to accelerate the decline with government magic (what even Buffet calls a tariff) rather than correct it.

 

[Supposn]

Let's talk 'cause and effect' only after we first see together that GDP gets better when the trade deficit gets worse, and when the trade deficit gets better the GDP gets worse. Say what you want about your opinions, but these are the facts that make up reality. Only after looking at actual real life GDP's & trades can we proceed to deduce causes.

Assuming we both accept reality, our choice of causality theories is between bigger trade deficit = more GDP, or it's trade deficit is irrelevant. I can respect either view. The bottom line here is that a formula is a model that's useful only when it corresponds to reality. If it doesn't then it's either misapplied or or misunderstood. Clinging with absolute conviction to something that diverges from real life is a 'split with reality', and that's the original meaning of the term 'schizophrenia'.

ExPat_Panama, USA’s gross domestic product, (GDP) is composed of the algebraic sum of two major components. The first is U.S. purchases (of goods and service products) and our global trade balance is the second. USA’s purchases are further divided by consumer, investment and government spending.

[Note that investment is spending for goods and service products; transfers of wealth such as stocks, bonds, deposits into financial funds do not themselves produce additional products and thus they're not factored into calcuilations of GDP.

When GDP increases, that increase is generally accompanied by increases of both USA purchases of domestic and imported products; (i.e. when we’re spending more, we’re generally spending more for both domestic and foreign products).
Similarly when we’re spending less, we’re generally spending less or both domestic and foreign product.
I contend this explains why USA's GDP and imports increase or contract in unison with each other.

There is no reason to expect USA’s aggregate domestic and imported goods to be homogenous to each other. Their sales increase or decrease together and if their percentage of changes should ever be similar, that similarity is not likely to be due to other than random chance.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Someone inquired “a Walmart dollar in China has to be respent in America. Why not tell us what happens to it?”.

Most of those “Walmart dollars” were spent within wealth transfers transactions. They purchased USA assets and thereafter those assets earn (for their purchasers), the additional financial benefits due to ownership of those assets previously owned by USA entities.

Transfers of wealth are not factors within the calculation of GDPs; (i.e. they contribute absolutely nothing to USA’s GDP). Thereafter the ownership of those assets previously owned by USA entities, and all future incomes derived from those assets are dedicated to the benefit of foreign entities.

They are not factors of USA’s GDP because they did not cause any additional USA production.

Respectfully, Supposn