But the point is that this can't be responsible for the reported contraction, correct?
Because imports are only subtracted from the higher spending on imports in the first place.
Conceptually, imports are not part of GDP. Imports are never subtracted from GDP. But to calculate GDP, part of that is to take total spending (a number larger than GDP) and then subtract spending on imports.
So the 0.3% contraction in GDP has to be a real thing. Unless there's some other deeper technical discrepancy, or some kind of time lag where spending on imports and the import subtraction are being counted in different quarters?
Because imports are only subtracted from the higher spending on imports in the first place.
Conceptually, imports are not part of GDP. Imports are never subtracted from GDP. But to calculate GDP, part of that is to take total spending (a number larger than GDP) and then subtract spending on imports.
So the 0.3% contraction in GDP has to be a real thing. Unless there's some other deeper technical discrepancy, or some kind of time lag where spending on imports and the import subtraction are being counted in different quarters?