Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

Yes, and it was wrong. Imports *DO* provide a benefit to GDP, and I gave numerous specific, undeniable examples of them doing so. The logic you gave... is wrong.

Which is illogical at face value. Does the fact that my TV was imported, mean that another person's domestically created TV, ceases to exist? If not, then why should the imported TV off set the domestic TV? Is it not true that BOTH TV provide a benefit to BOTH people? If they do... and they do.... then why should one TV be considered a negative, while the other is a positive?

It's not logical.

Further, as I have pointed out, imports support domestic production, domestic investment, and exports, all of which are considered positives.

Which doesn't change the fact that domestic production does benefit from imported goods, and that our citizens benefit from those imported goods.

This is false. It was false in post #109. It's false in post #123. Your claim from before, and from now, are both wrong. Sorry.. you can repeat it as many times as you like... it's still wrong.

This is also wrong, and I provided direct proof of this.

Again, you have not made the case that there is even a problem. You have failed to make the case that imports cause any of the issues that you assert. Thus, without a problem, there is no need for a remedy.

You claimed that imports harm wages, and harm jobs. I pointed out that during the time that imports were increasing, wages and jobs were both growing.

I made no claim at all, as to any cause or effect. *YOU* made the claim that greater imports (cause) would reduce wages and jobs (effect). That theory is false. The evidence is the completely reverse of what your claim is.

Again, you can repeat a lie as many times as you want. It's still a lie. You are wrong.

 

Originally Posted by Supposn1:
Andelusion, I stated (in post #116) that annual trade deficits are an immediate detriment to nations’ numbers of jobs and the purchasing powers of their median wage which are reflected within those nations’ GDPs.
I had explicitly stated the logic supporting that statement within post #109.

AnDelusion, I probably have already responded to what you describe as numerous and specific examples. I cannot be certain because you do not identify any post giving any one of the examples you allude to.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

Originally Posted by Supposn1:
AnDelusion, gross domestic production is an indicator of the nation’s production usually expressed in a particular national currency. GDP is a statistical description of the nation’s aggregate net production of goods and services. The expenditure method is the most generally employed methods of calculating GDP but all of the methods produce similar resulting amounts. All of the GDP calculation methods directly or indirectly factor in the nations’ net global trade balances.

Originally Posted by Supposn1:
The expenditure method includes nations’ exports because the final purchasers were not included within the exporting nations’ final purchases of goods and services but they were certainly produced by the exporting nation.
The expenditures’ method excludes nations’ imports because although they were included within the importing nations’ final purchases of goods and services they certainly were not produced within the importing nation.

Andelusion, [transcribed from post #109 of this thread; excerpted from the paragraphs’ entitled “Trade balances affects upon their nation’s GDP”
within Wikipedia’s article entitled “Balances of trade”]:
The economic differences between domestic and imported goods occur prior to the goods entry within the final purchasers' nations. After domestic goods have reached their producers shipping dock or imported goods have been unloaded on to the importing nation’s cargo vessel or entry port’s dock, similar goods have similar economic attributes.
Although supporting products not reflected within the prices of specific items are all captured within the producing nation’s GDP, those supporting but not reflected within prices of globally traded goods are not attributed to nations' global trade.
Trade surpluses' contributions and trade deficits' detriments to their nation's GDPs are understated. The entire benefits of production are earned by the exporting nations and denied to the importing nation.

Additionally in regard to USA imports supporting production of USA goods:
Transcribed from post #107 of this thread;

Mitigating trade deficits’ detriments to their nations’ numbers of jobs, median wages and thus their GDPs. … … To an extent nations’ lesser than otherwise GDPs due to their trade deficits can be mitigated or even overtaken due to their imported production supporting products. It is also conceivable for a nation’s laborers’ aggregate technical, craftsmanship and production superior accomplishments to similarly mitigate their trade deficit’s detriment to their GDP. Conceivably such mitigation could immediately or eventually match or overtake detriments due to trade deficits.

Unfortunately the USA’s trade deficit is not due to imported production support products and has not demonstrated knowledge, craftsmanship and management skills so superior as to eliminate our trade deficits of goods that have been occurring each year in excess of a half century’s duration.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

$29B trade deficit with China in May...

U.S. Ran $29,016,900,000 Merchandise Trade Deficit With China in May
July 6, 2016 | The United States ran a $29,016,900,000 merchandise trade deficit with China in May, according to the data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

See also:

GOP Senators Push for Free-Trade Agreement With Post-Brexit UK
July 6, 2016 -- Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Cotton (R-AR), are calling on President Obama to negotiate a new free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom (UK) following the UK’s “Brexit” from the European Union last month.