There must indeed be quite a conflict between imports not being counted in GDP, or being subtracted from exports, and the fact that imports must contribute towards GDP by way of profit margins for wholesalers, transporters and retailers and all the secondary economic activity that they generate by way of buying goods and services.

The idea that GDP is a useful measurement with which to compare different countries is just full of knobs.

GDP in different countries has very different contributing factors – such as…

…population growth and the ratio of economic effort put into servicing the growing population with their basic requirements to that put into real long-term improvements in services and infrastructure…

…the ratio between imports and exports and how much both of these contribute to GDP…

…the ratio between economic activity generated from primary resources, simple value-adding industries and ‘technosavvy’ enterprises…

… and the degree of change in all of these.

We are not comparing apples with apples. Not by a very long way.

I was talking to a retailer shop-owner friend today who deals in imported goods.

When I pointed out that GDP includes exports minus imports, she agreed. And then when I said: but all the stuff you import and sell goes onto GDP by way of your profits and your secondary economic activity when you are purchasing goods and services. She agreed.

She appreciates the quandary and could offer no explanation, despite being an astute business person of many years’ standing.

So Pericles, we need you to tell us how this aspect of GDP works…. Please.

ludwig..its clear the old guy..has exceeded his gnosis

YOU MUST RECALL that the ex banker now no longer a mere shadow minester;is in real stress[atending the b 20..no less]
and informing rupert/of what he can do for him;[

Rupert..is trying to buy;..[corner the market]..by buying time-warner*
for 85 billion dollars..[us?]..anyhow the point being..

*if you had a spare 85 billion..what would you spend it on?
HOW WILL THAT TAKE-OVER AFFECT GDP[ITS MAKING NEW DEBT]
BUT NO VALUE-ADDING UP ASSET.

SURE ASETS.have only a limited life
if we returned to proper ..patent right its all long gone

ruperts living off past glories
and colluded exclusive licence
but the media lies[ie he is infit;as he owns the lying media\

[to reply my own question
i would make mew media/not buy up the old media
[but if i did ..i would imortalise myself../rupert\..by giving it back to the people..the last man to ever control he media..thus the world..then helped us to harvest..in its time

is our media too powerfull?
is centralising the media..into one pair of hands wise?

And I wonder why it is so difficult to think a little, to get it into our heads that television news and photojournalism manipulate our thoughts and emotions. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1689647

oh and shadow[wheres the satalite photoes
we can search them just like we searched the sea..inch by inch
but they reveal the stoRY/USA MOSAD AND AMSTARDAM;WOULD RATHER NOT BE TOLD.

But why, Ludwig?

>>So Pericles, we need you to tell us how this aspect of GDP works…. Please.<<

You will undoubtedly fail to understand the answer, in the same way that you have failed to understand every other aspect of GDP to date.

Let me see if am right.

You are confusing the economic activity generated by imports and exports, and the value of the imports/exports themselves. Try to think of them as two separate items.

Once you have accomplished that, you will be able to follow the logic of the formal explanation contained in the following:

"When a country exports goods, it sells them to a foreign market, that is, to consumers, businesses, or governments in another country. Those exports bring money into the country, which increases the exporting nation's GDP. When a country imports goods, it buys them from foreign producers. The money spent on imports leaves the economy, and that decreases the importing nation's GDP."

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/imports-exports.html

This refers only, repeat only, to the monetary value of the goods and services themselves. The economic activity generated in the creation of those exports, and the economic activity generated by the handling, marketing, selling etc. of the imports are a separate measurement entirely.

Next question.

Or are you going to argue with that explanation?

HellOOOOw Pericles!

I almost fell awff me chair just then when I got an email notification of your post.

Thankyou for returning.

I shall respond in full later.

<< You will undoubtedly fail to understand the answer, in the same way that you have failed to understand every other aspect of GDP to date. >>

It does your credibility no good at all to make this sort of statement. You know full well that I understand GDP pretty damn well, and when I find something that I don’t understand, I seek to learn.

There is much about it that we agree on. As this thread has progressed, it seems that we are finding more and more agreement…. and it is becoming clearer all the time as to just how incredibly ‘blunt’ GDP is, how unrelated it is to all sorts of important parameters, as you keep emphasising, and how terrible it is as an indicator or measure of anything useful, which you incongruously seem to refuse to accept!

Ok, to the matter at hand: Thanks for the Infoplease link. But…. Dare I say it…. it doesn’t answer my question.

The closest it comes to pertaining to my question is this:

< The economic activity generated in the creation of those exports, and the economic activity generated by the handling, marketing, selling etc. of the imports are a separate measurement entirely. >

YES, completely separate.

So, on one hand, imports are subtracted from exports to give a net figure to add to… oow, I mean; include in, GDP!

And on the other hand, they are treated completely separately and do actually contribute to our GDP when they are sold or consumed and when the profits of this activity is used for secondary purchases.

It would appear that you agree with this. So you must agree then that imports are treated in a totally duplicitous and contradictory manner as it concerns GDP…. and that this yet another glaring flaw in the way in which GDP is formulated, yes?