The Economist - It ain’t necessarily so

Five things Donald Trump thinks about trade that are not true

AMERICA’S president has a winners-and-losers perspective on most, perhaps all, transactions. He thus believes that persistent trade deficits are by definition a problem.

Click to expand...

This is wrong. The willingness of other countries to send America more stuff than America sends back to them has meant that for most of the past four decades Americans have been able to consume more than they produce. That is, without question, a good position to be in. It also means that America owes money to the rest of the world, in the form of low-yield bonds. The rest of the world likes holding these, and America benefits from selling them.

Americans earn more on their foreign investments than foreigners earn on American bonds. America could have made much better use of this line of cheap credit than it has. But that is America’s problem, not the trading system’s.

Having taken against it, Mr Trump thinks America’s trade deficit can be fixed by tariffs. But studies of tariffs show that though they reduce trade, they do not reliably increase the tariff-raising country’s trade balance. In part this is because if imports fall, foreigners will get fewer dollars, and the dollar will gain value through scarcity. A strong dollar makes American exports less appealing, so they drop just as imports do, and the deficit persists. Mr Trump also thinks his steel and aluminium tariffs will mean less unemployment. This is highly unlikely. A lot more jobs hinge on using these metals than providing them; higher prices hurt those jobs. And better technology has seen employment in steel and aluminium industries fall much faster than production. Increased production will not necessarily provide more jobs making metal in the long term.

Mr Trump has also argued that if another country has higher tariffs on American goods than America has on its goods, America should be able to raise its tariffs. This goes against the “Most favoured nation” rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which require a country to extend tariff cuts agreed with one country to everyone else. This principle of non-discrimination is supposed to stop countries from bullying their trading partners by threatening tariff increases, and protect them from being discriminated against. To abandon this principle would be to abandon the WTO.

Bringing down the WTO might not matter to America if, as Mr Trump has tweeted, trade wars are easy to win. He seems to base this on the fact that America buys more than it sells, so its trading partners have more to lose. But although most households buy more from their local supermarket than they sell to it, they would not be better off growing their own food. Blocked imports, higher prices and broken supply chains would harm America’s economic potential.

Yet one of Mr Trump’s beliefs on free trade is true. The people who voted for him do not like it. Just over half of all Americans think free trade is a good thing. But white Americans, older Americans and less-educated Americans are all less likely to think so than their typical fellow citizen.

Click to expand...

Donald Dork is a brainlessly elected PotUS purely by the accident of a two centuries-old misconceived Electoral College imbalance with the popular-vote (which Hillary won by more than 2%).

Americans cannot seem to bring themselves to a thoughtful consideration of how to "improve their democracy" by removing the impetus to knee-jerk lowering of Upper-income Taxation, which is centrally responsible for America's long-term Income Disparity. Which America has brought about by multiple Replicant administrations' genuflection at the altar of Mammon.

Is the American public up to realizing the key affliction of Income Disparity and want to do something about it? The Romans didn't more than 2000 years ago, and look what happened to their "empire".

Only time will tell ...

"America’s trade deficit can be fixed by tariffs"

This isn't Trump's position at all. He believes the trade deficit can be fixed by free and reciprocal trade. Tariffs are only an negotiating tool.

"steel and aluminium tariffs will mean less unemployment"

The writer doesn't mention the REAL reason for the steel and aluminum tariffs: preventing our steel and aluminum industries from going bye-bye.

So...the usual spin, speculation and hyperbole.

The argument that higher domestic prices are bad is, somehow, not considered valid when the left tells us that higher domestic labor prices are good when proposing that the federal MW be doubled or that more union labor is better. Of course, the left also argues the opposite position when it comes to (the necessity of?) using (ever more?) third world (legal or illegal immigrant) laborers to keep US labor prices down.

Mr Trump also thinks his steel and aluminium tariffs will mean less unemployment. This is highly unlikely. A lot more jobs hinge on using these metals than providing them; higher prices hurt those jobs. And better technology has seen employment in steel and aluminium industries fall much faster than production. Increased production will not necessarily provide more jobs making metal in the long term.

Click to expand...

Debt resulting from trade deficits (consuming more than we produce) is said to be both good and bad. I maintain that borrowing simply to support consumption is always a bad idea.

The willingness of other countries to send America more stuff than America sends back to them has meant that for most of the past four decades Americans have been able to consume more than they produce. That is, without question, a good position to be in. It also means that America owes money to the rest of the world, in the form of low-yield bonds. The rest of the world likes holding these, and America benefits from selling them.

Americans earn more on their foreign investments than foreigners earn on American bonds. America could have made much better use of this line of cheap credit than it has. But that is America’s problem, not the trading system’s.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Five things Donald Trump thinks about trade that are not true



Donald Dork is a brainlessly elected PotUS purely by the accident of a two centuries-old misconceived Electoral College imbalance with the popular-vote (which Hillary won by more than 2%).

Americans cannot seem to bring themselves to a thoughtful consideration of how to "improve their democracy" by removing the impetus to knee-jerk lowering of Upper-income Taxation, which is centrally responsible for America's long-term Income Disparity. Which America has brought about by multiple Replicant administrations' genuflection at the altar of Mammon.

Is the American public up to realizing the key affliction of Income Disparity and want to do something about it? The Romans didn't more than 2000 years ago, and look what happened to their "empire".

Only time will tell ...

Click to expand...

What a load of tripe. :doh

The USA became a powerhouse economy back in the good old days for all sorts of reasons, none of them being dependence on trade deficits.

Just the opposite in fact. First, like the "Roman Empire" by unfettered expansion, in our case first into the American West, and then into the world market. Second, by building industry and the innovations developed to do so (mass production, transportation, natural resource development). Third, by being the only major nation whose industrial capacity was not devastated at the end of the Second World War.

That last item, our solid industrial base after WWII, was the cause of all that American prosperity your Baby Boomer generation talks to you about. The rest of the free world was dependent on both our loans to them to rebuild and our production of consumer and necessary goods.

That back then Grandpa and Grandma had good paying jobs in both production and service areas, and the USA was the major debt-holder...not the major debtor.

Lots of things worked to change this, not least among them those free trade deals which allowed us to favor development of foreign means of production by American corporations using cheap labor in sweat-shop factories not hindered by American OSHA, EPA, and Fair Work regulations. That destroyed the production middle class and increased the gap between the wealthy American overseas investors (like the Walton's of Wal-Mart) and the rest of working class America.

That whole Article you cite twists things to push the idea that making America dependent on being a debtor nation to foreign economic interests is a good thing, and trying to reinvigorate American production and development of home resources a bad thing.

American's do like free trade, when it is fair and balanced. They don't like "free trade" that makes the rich richer and practically eliminates our own middle class while turning the rest of us into debt-ridden drones or social welfare victims.

Trump is at least TRYING to balance that equation.

Meanwhile:

Captain Adverse said:

No. :no:

Production is key to a thriving economy.

Services are provided to other's who work and have the wherewithal to pay...

...Allowing production to concentrate outside the home economy makes the home economy more and more dependent on that source of production.

It would be better to have home grown production for the vast majority of our necessities, rather than cede control to outside forces.

This so as to reduce dependence to only those resources we cannot obtain in our own lands to produce the things we need, making for a far healthier economic system.

Even if we opt to automate, there would still be local jobs maintaining and improving those automated systems and our service industry would be secure.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

"America’s trade deficit can be fixed by tariffs"

This isn't Trump's position at all. He believes the trade deficit can be fixed by free and reciprocal trade. Tariffs are only an negotiating tool.

Click to expand...

Right, he's going to try and fix our trade deficit with tariffs. You just restated the position, but it's still idiotic. The trade deficit isn't actually a problem.

Mycroft said:

The writer doesn't mention the REAL reason for the steel and aluminum tariffs: preventing our steel and aluminum industries from going bye-bye.

Click to expand...

Not true, but even if it were the point is that Trump doesn't believe that.

Mycroft said:

So...the usual spin, speculation and hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Yes, you did spin reality as usual.

MrWonka said:

Right, he's going to try and fix our trade deficit with tariffs. You just restated the position, but it's still idiotic. The trade deficit isn't actually a problem.

Click to expand...

He's going to fix the trade deficit by enacting free and reciprocal trade. Tariffs are just ONE of the tools used to enact free and reciprocal trade. He's using a variety of tools including renegotiating trade deals, negotiating new trade deals and, yes, tariffs.

For you and the writer to claim he is fixing the deficit using tariffs is disregarding everything else he is using. That's that spin and hyperbole I was talking about. It's also disingenuous.

Not true, but even if it were the point is that Trump doesn't believe that.

Click to expand...

Trump and ALL of his administration have said their main reason for the steel and aluminum tariffs was to protect those industries. They've all told us what'll happen if we DON'T protect those industries. So, yes...that is the REAL reason.

I guess it's easy for you to say what "Trump doesn't believe", but your statement doesn't mean a thing if you don't justify it. Can you justify your statement?

Yes, you did spin reality as usual.

Click to expand...

LOL!! Thanks, but I'll take unspun and unhyperbolized reality over your version.

Mycroft said:

He's going to fix the trade deficit by enacting free and reciprocal trade.

Click to expand...

What part of the Trade Deficit isn't a Problem do you not grasp? We want a trade deficit. It tells us that Americans are doing really really well because we have the ability to consume more than we produce. America is rich, the rest of the world is poor. We get paid more for doing less. The rest of the world has to work harder to produce more, and still doesn't get paid what we do. That's a good thing. Even poor people in this country have big screen tvs and cell phones. They can afford a new pair of shoes at least once a year. If the trade deficit is reduced that tells that countries around the world are getting richer, while America remains stagnent or gets poorer.

Mycroft said:

Trump and ALL of his administration have said their main reason for the steel and aluminum tariffs was to protect those industries.

Click to expand...

Yes, protectionism. We got it. It's still stupid, and it's just going to hurt some other industry.

MONSTROUS INCOME DISPARITY

Captain Adverse said:

The USA became a powerhouse economy back in the good old days for all sorts of reasons, none of them being dependence on trade deficits.

Click to expand...

So what? Powerhouse, me arse.

You think the economy is like a baseball game, and the billionaires are all "winners". And that makes America "great"? (Wow, have you got blinders on!)

Exactly the same attitude is what brought down Rome and numerous other countries in the history of mankind the sole purpose of which was to concentrate economic success in the hands of privileged few who exploited the work of others for their own personal gain.

Wakey, wakey ...

Captain Adverse said:

That last item, our solid industrial base after WWII, was the cause of all that American prosperity your Baby Boomer generation talks to you about. The rest of the free world was dependent on both our loans to them to rebuild and our production of consumer and necessary goods.

Click to expand...

There you go again, rattling on about the economy. I'm an economist - believe me GDP is NOT THE ONLY ECONOMIC CRITERIA IN PLAY?

Far more important is how economic success is distributed. Which is why above I mentioned the Gini Coefficient.

Do you know you are in a "Economics Forum" here and not a Message Board. And there are economic analytical means to measure fairness in distribution. Meaning who gets what and how much. Which is why I refer often to such indices as the Gini Coefficient - the usage of which indicates the incidence of economic unfairness in the distribution of Income.

The US is the worst of any developed nation. So, while you are blathering about "economic achievement", economists are talking about "who gets what" in a fair-share distribution of income. No, we should not all get the same! That does not work in a effective capitalist market-economy. (We know that!)

But neither should this aberrancy happen:

Captain Adverse said:

That whole Article you cite twists things to push the idea that making America dependent on being a debtor nation to foreign economic interests is a good thing, and trying to reinvigorate American production and development of home resources a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Nope, never said that. Nor intimated it.

What I said or intimated is that since the world is willing to hold in reserves America's dollar-debt, then let them. But, there is a flip-side to that coin. When they don't want to hold those dollars anymore - Uncle Sam will be dead meat.

Production and development is a mainstay of the American economy. We are people who react quickly to New Ideas that create New Markets. We're good at that. Which is why we are ahead of the 8-ball. But, if economy ever stops running efficiently, then the rich had better beware. (The taxation trickery that allowed them to build their wealth will be marked on their gravestone.)

But we are far less good at spreading the additional Wealth that new-markets generate from the economy. And especially so in the US that seeks only to glorify the fact of being rich.

Which is ridiculous. People showing other people how "they made it as a billionaire" in a world largely suffering from Monstrous Income Disparity ...

MrWonka said:

What part of the Trade Deficit isn't a Problem do you not grasp? We want a trade deficit. It tells us that Americans are doing really really well because we have the ability to consume more than we produce. America is rich, the rest of the world is poor. We get paid more for doing less. The rest of the world has to work harder to produce more, and still doesn't get paid what we do. That's a good thing. Even poor people in this country have big screen tvs and cell phones. They can afford a new pair of shoes at least once a year. If the trade deficit is reduced that tells that countries around the world are getting richer, while America remains stagnent or gets poorer.

Click to expand...

Almost a trillion dollars...our money...is going OUT of our country. That's money that is generated by, and could be used by us, our people and businesses. That money could be used to rebuild OUR infrastructure. That money could be used to ensure OUR security. That money could be the matter of health...or death...of OUR citizens.

Reducing that deficit won't cause us to get poorer or to be stagnant. It'll enable us to have better lives.

Yes, protectionism. We got it. It's still stupid, and it's just going to hurt some other industry.

Click to expand...

A stronger economy won't hurt. The economy isn't a zero sum game.

Mycroft said:

Almost a trillion dollars...our money...is going OUT of our country. That's money that is generated by, and could be used by us, our people and businesses.

Click to expand...

No, it couldn't. Because if we're forced to spend it on things made here it won't buy as much. If I have $50, I can spend it on two t-shirts and some new socks that are made in Taiwan, or I can buy one shirt made in America.

Mycroft said:

That money could be used to rebuild OUR infrastructure.

Click to expand...

No, it can't. Much of our infrastructure is built with things like steel and aluminum. Your stupid tariffs made those goods cost more, not less. You've made our infrastructure cost more.

Mycroft said:

Reducing that deficit won't cause us to get poorer or to be stagnant. It'll enable us to have better lives.

A stronger economy won't hurt.

Click to expand...

It's not a ****ing stronger economy! Get that through your thick skull. We have a trade deficit because our economy is so unbelievably strong, that we can afford to purchase all the products America makes, plus have plenty of money left over to buy products from someone else.

Let's see if I can dumb this down further for you...

An American worker A works for 1 hour making $10 and producing 2 widgets.

A Chinese worker C works for 1 hour making $5 and producing 5 widgets.

A Mexican worker M works for 1 hour making $5 and producing 5 widgets.

Then we all make a trade. A buys all the widgets made by C and M, whereas C and M each get 1 widget back from A. Technically we gave them more money than they each gave us, but we got more stuff back, and our workers didn't have to work nearly as hard. Who would you rather be? A, C, or M? A makes more money and ends up with more goods in the long run.

Now if you make A buy widgets from another A worker he can only afford 2 widgets. His salary is the same, but it now buys less.

You're focused only on the money aspect of things. That's ****ing stupid. We're giving them pieces of paper with an American face on it that we can just print ourselves, and they're giving us valuable consumables that take work to make.

MrWonka said:

Get that through your thick skull.

Let's see if I can dumb this down further for you...

Click to expand...

You are now dismissed until you learn how to make your point without being verbally abusive.

Lafayette said:

MONSTROUS INCOME DISPARITY



So what? Powerhouse, me arse.

You think the economy is like a baseball game, and the billionaires are all "winners". And that makes America "great"? (Wow, have you got blinders on!)

Exactly the same attitude is what brought down Rome and numerous other countries in the history of mankind the sole purpose of which was to concentrate economic success in the hands of privileged few who exploited the work of others for their own personal gain.

Wakey, wakey ...



There you go again, rattling on about the economy. I'm an economist - believe me GDP is NOT THE ONLY ECONOMIC CRITERIA IN PLAY?

Far more important is how economic success is distributed. Which is why above I mentioned the Gini Coefficient.

Do you know you are in a "Economics Forum" here and not a Message Board. And there are economic analytical means to measure fairness in distribution. Meaning who gets what and how much. Which is why I refer often to such indices as the Gini Coefficient - the usage of which indicates the incidence of economic unfairness in the distribution of Income.

The US is the worst of any developed nation. So, while you are blathering about "economic achievement", economists are talking about "who gets what" in a fair-share distribution of income. No, we should not all get the same! That does not work in a effective capitalist market-economy. (We know that!)

But neither should this aberrancy happen:

Nope, never said that. Nor intimated it.

What I said or intimated is that since the world is willing to hold in reserves America's dollar-debt, then let them. But, there is a flip-side to that coin. When they don't want to hold those dollars anymore - Uncle Sam will be dead meat.

Production and development is a mainstay of the American economy. We are people who react quickly to New Ideas that create New Markets. We're good at that. Which is why we are ahead of the 8-ball. But, if economy ever stops running efficiently, then the rich had better beware. (The taxation trickery that allowed them to build their wealth will be marked on their gravestone.)

But we are far less good at spreading the additional Wealth that new-markets generate from the economy. And especially so in the US that seeks only to glorify the fact of being rich.

Which is ridiculous. People showing other people how "they made it as a billionaire" in a world largely suffering from Monstrous Income Disparity ...

Click to expand...

Gee, can you read your own chart or what?

Look at where the growth in the American bottom 90% household wealth start to soar... 1940. When did it begin to slide down? 1990's.

NAFTA was enacted in 1993.

WTO came into force? 1995.

Gee, I wonder if there is any correlation? :coffeepap:

Mycroft said:

You are now dismissed until you learn how to make your point without being verbally abusive.

Click to expand...

Awww... did I trigger you? Where I come from if you don't like being condescended to you try not to say dumb ****.

Donald Trump's entire campaign strategy was to be verbally abusive to his opponents. His supporters don't get to then turn around and complain about the way in which we talk to them.

The truth is that you have no counter-argument.

MrWonka said:

No, it couldn't. Because if we're forced to spend it on things made here it won't buy as much. If I have $50, I can spend it on two t-shirts and some new socks that are made in Taiwan, or I can buy one shirt made in America.


No, it can't. Much of our infrastructure is built with things like steel and aluminum. Your stupid tariffs made those goods cost more, not less. You've made our infrastructure cost more.



It's not a ****ing stronger economy! Get that through your thick skull. We have a trade deficit because our economy is so unbelievably strong, that we can afford to purchase all the products America makes, plus have plenty of money left over to buy products from someone else.

Let's see if I can dumb this down further for you...

An American worker A works for 1 hour making $10 and producing 2 widgets.

A Chinese worker C works for 1 hour making $5 and producing 5 widgets.

A Mexican worker M works for 1 hour making $5 and producing 5 widgets.

Then we all make a trade. A buys all the widgets made by C and M, whereas C and M each get 1 widget back from A. Technically we gave them more money than they each gave us, but we got more stuff back, and our workers didn't have to work nearly as hard. Who would you rather be? A, C, or M? A makes more money and ends up with more goods in the long run.

Now if you make A buy widgets from another A worker he can only afford 2 widgets. His salary is the same, but it now buys less.

You're focused only on the money aspect of things. That's ****ing stupid. We're giving them pieces of paper with an American face on it that we can just print ourselves, and they're giving us valuable consumables that take work to make.

Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong questions.

1. WHY does it cost more to produce goods in the United States and less in those other nations?

2. WHY is it an American is only able to make 2 widgets while his Chinese or Mexican counter-part is able to make 5 widgets in the same time?

Could the answer involve OSHA, EPA, Fair Labor Standards, which the USA is "burdened" with while those other nations are not?

Could it also involve the fact that the cost of living (as well as comparable expectations of standards of living) in those other nations is radically different from that of the USA?

3. Why must things cost so much in the USA?

It is because of the basic profit motive which Corporations, slaves to investors who have no more stake in the companies than how much and how quickly they can turn the most profit, work for.

They charge 60%-80% more than it costs them to make the items overseas. We still think they are cheap because we have been taught we are getting a better deal than if they were made in the USA...but ONLY because to get the same levels of profits vs expense the corporations would have to charge 140% over costs. This thanks to the same rules and regulations designed to create safe, healthy, and desirous workplaces while protecting the environment and recycling wastes.

Instead they can make extreme profits using the old tried and true sweatshop, unsafe, environmentally destructive manner the old Robber Barons in the USA used to use.

4. Are we really getting that much benefit out of this process?

Americans are in massive debt to buy these allegedly "cheaper" goods. Credit card debt, student loan debt, pay-day loan debt, mortgage debt, car loans, furniture rentals, lay-away...all for supposedly cheaper goods.

Yet if corporations were dealing with us fairly and under a little more enlightened rather than rapacious capitalism...which is responsible for what wealth we have finding its way into that top 1%, we could buy thing of good quality made HERE instead of cheap but crap stuff made over there.

Captain Adverse said:

Gee, can you read your own chart or what?

Look at where the growth in the American bottom 90% household wealth start to soar... 1940. When did it begin to slide down? 1990's. NAFTA was enacted in 1993. WTO came into force? 1995. Gee, I wonder if there is any correlation?

Click to expand...

Your remark is spurious. The two treaties had an effect to bolster economic growth but not the ONLY EFFECT. Besides, you fail to understand economic growth, and internal income-taxation that decides first and foremost WHO BENEFITS MOST.

You are misreading the infographic to support your own selfish views regarding Income Disparity in the US.

Like most of the Miscreant Right you simply refuse to acknowledge that it exists.

Captain Adverse said:

You are asking the wrong questions.

1. WHY does it cost more to produce goods in the United States and less in those other nations?

2. WHY is it an American is only able to make 2 widgets while his Chinese or Mexican counter-part is able to make 5 widgets in the same time?

Could the answer involve OSHA, EPA, Fair Labor Standards, which the USA is "burdened" with while those other nations are not?

Could it also involve the fact that the cost of living (as well as comparable expectations of standards of living) in those other nations is radically different from that of the USA?

Click to expand...

Yes, all those things are true. But you seem to be listing them as bad things. They are good things. We have better working conditions here in America than do most people around the world. We pay higher wages to our workers than other nat

Captain Adverse said:

Americans are in massive debt to buy these allegedly "cheaper" goods. Credit card debt, student loan debt, pay-day loan debt, mortgage debt, car loans, furniture rentals, lay-away...all for supposedly cheaper goods.

Click to expand...

That is an entirely different and unrelated problem.

MrWonka said:

Yes, all those things are true. But you seem to be listing them as bad things. They are good things. We have better working conditions here in America than do most people around the world. We pay higher wages to our workers than other nations

Click to expand...

They are bad things as far as corporate bottom line profit calculations are considering. You conveniently left out their counter to these "problems".

Instead they can make extreme profits using the old tried and true sweatshop, unsafe, environmentally destructive manner the old Robber Barons in the USA used to use.

Click to expand...

Meeting OSHA, EPA, Fair Labor standards is too costly, so what to do? Go someplace and use labor where these costs don't exist, and where wage expectations are extremely lower.

That is why things cost us less, despite the massive profit mark-ups. But it seems in your economic world-view as expressed in the above posts, that's perfectly okay as long as we get tee-shirts and tennis shoes 50 cents cheaper than we used to when American's made the items.

MrWonka said:

That is an entirely different and unrelated problem.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It is a problem directly related to the loss of production jobs here in America to cheap, sweat-chop labor overseas.

Captain Adverse said:

Wrong. It is a problem directly related to the loss of production jobs here in America to cheap, sweat-shop labor overseas.

Click to expand...

Why do you care so much about production jobs? We have plenty of jobs. Whether they are production, sales, service, IT... is a silly thing to focus on. In the future, most manufacturing type jobs will increasingly be done by robots at which point it will make more and more sense to bring them back to America to avoid shipping costs and lead times. If our economy is too heavily based on manufacturing there's a lot of people that will lose their jobs as this transition happens. Better to get ahead of the game now, and start moving towards a more service based economy.

Lafayette said:

Five things Donald Trump thinks about trade that are not true



Donald Dork is a brainlessly elected PotUS purely by the accident of a two centuries-old misconceived Electoral College imbalance with the popular-vote (which Hillary won by more than 2%).

Americans cannot seem to bring themselves to a thoughtful consideration of how to "improve their democracy" by removing the impetus to knee-jerk lowering of Upper-income Taxation, which is centrally responsible for America's long-term Income Disparity. Which America has brought about by multiple Replicant administrations' genuflection at the altar of Mammon.

Is the American public up to realizing the key affliction of Income Disparity and want to do something about it? The Romans didn't more than 2000 years ago, and look what happened to their "empire".

Only time will tell ...

Click to expand...

Lafayette, regardless of President Trump's reputation, annual trade deficits are always detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus also drag upon their numbers of jobs.

This is not an opinion but a fact based upon the balance of trade component within the expenditure formula that's the most commonly used method of GDP calculation. That's the conventional formula used by statistician and economist communities throughout the world. All U.S. Government's references to GDP are based upon that formula; Calculation of national GDP by any other other formula that could have been creditable, if not directly, then indirectly is consequentially similarly effected by the nation's balance of trade.

Annual trade Surpluses, (positive trade balances) contribute; annual trade deficits, (negative trade balances) reduce their nation's annual GDP.

Trade surpluses contributions and trade deficits' reductions proportional to their nations' GDPs are to some extent greater than the proportion of their nations' balances of trade to their GDPs. Balance of trade's understatements occur when production supporting goods and services are not entirely reflected within the prices of nation's globally traded products. To those extents Balance of trades' proportional contributions to the GDPs of trade surplus nations or detriments to the GDPs of trade deficit nations are understated.

Refer to the the Encyclopedia Britannica's GDP article.

Respectfully, Supposn

MrWonka said:

Why do you care so much about production jobs? We have plenty of jobs. Whether they are production, sales, service, IT... is a silly thing to focus on. In the future, most manufacturing type jobs will increasingly be done by robots at which point it will make more and more sense to bring them back to America to avoid shipping costs and lead times. If our economy is too heavily based on manufacturing there's a lot of people that will lose their jobs as this transition happens. Better to get ahead of the game now, and start moving towards a more service based economy.

Click to expand...

MrWonka, If a production could be entirely automated as to not requiring direct labor on the”production line”, the producers would require infrastructure and people to maintain, repair, and update the infrastructures and the production line mechanisms. The production line products are imported, all of those production supporting goods and service products are also generally provided by labor and enterprises beyond our borders.

Trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nations' GDPs and drag upon their numbers of jobs; (refer to post #20).
Regardless of a nation's economy in any particular year, (i.e. in better or poorer years), if a nation experienced an annual trade deficit, their annual GDP and numbers of jobs in those years were less than otherwise; (otherwise being if they had not experienced an annual trade deficit). USA has experienced annual trade deficits of goods every year in excess of a half century.

If as you contend, “in the future, most manufacturing type jobs will increasingly be done by robots”, just as we now import other products from nations of lesser labor costs, automated production by robots produced in foreign nations will continue to produce our imported products.
Why would you believe otherwise?

I'm a proponent of USA adopting the trade policy described by Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article.

Respectfully, Supposn