[alfredallan1]

Thanks for raising that point. I skipped a lot of detail and nuance since I really didn’t want to write an essay.

It is true that trade deficits are calculated on full value, not the “value-added”. Even with this distinction the argument still holds. E.g. in 2014, the "value added" trade deficit was USD 200 Billion while the official “full” value was USD 315 Billion. So it’s not like a tiny fraction, but rather a significant portion. This is one of the reasons people still use the old system - it is inaccurate but not at all grossly misleading (and inveting a new “global” system is really painful). This difference of USD 200 Billion is still too large for the US to willingly accept.

Here’s a link in case you wanna check a couple of figures. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-18/big-u-s-c...