>On the basis of the report below, it seems that if one counts exports of
>US corporations operating overseas as part of US exports,
But the production isn't here, and the wages and profits aren't booked here either. So they're not exports in any meaningful sense.
> then the trade
>deficit declines significantly.
Since they're not exports, it doesn't - and the increase in U.S. indebtedness is real.
> US companies make money exporting from
>China; Walmart makes money by importing from slave labor producers.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. There are labor shortages in China, and wages are rising.
> Is
>much of trade, as has been suggested, a "doctrinal fiction"? Why is it
>"export" and "import" when GM sends parts to Mexico for assembly and then
>brings them back to New York to sell, but not when it does the same from
>Indiana to Illinois to New York?
Leaving aside all the technical details about accounting for intermediate products like parts, there's no currency exchange involved in moving a part from IN to IL to NY; there is if it's between the US and Mexico. National borders still count.
Doug