im not even goinghave you ever actually done the math to laugh at howrealise, using your calculation thinks imports are both 439 and 143own head, that the global average math of the formula is 2.. it doesnt equal 67 nor 34
even the usr explainer says its 2
Yes,
I did, and showed that you're wrong.
ill just show you your math in colours and let you work it out using colours instead of math .. maybe you will work it out like a 5yr old then
(exports - imports) / imports = (438947.4 - 143545.7) / 438947.4 = ~0.673
Just admit it already, you divided by the wrong number (exports instead of imports). Imports is the larger number, thus deficit. How many more walls of text are you gonna post about your math error?
also exports from china is the bigger number
let m_i>0 represent total imports from country i, and let x_i>0 represent total exports
remember the formulae
xi -
mi xi is e
xportports from china____
m is i
mport
from china mi438947.4 -
143545.7________________ = 2.057893
143545.7im also not gonna laugh how you ignore the formula's own explainer page that says the answer overall is 2
as global average meaning 50% discountim not also gonna laugh how even the source whitepaper the formula came from also comes to 2
as global average 50% discountim not even gonna laugh how even the WTO came up to the answer 2
as global average 50% discount
im also not gonna laugh how chinese economists unrelated to trump came to same conclusion as to the reason for the RECIPROCAL rate of /2
..
you really need to realise the country rate(67) is not the "reciprocal
rate"
you keep on trying to think the formula is about the country rate when its about deciding what discount level as global average to use
the countries individual rate is done using completely different stats and math based on the MFN vs non MFN rate and other vat's and stuff
if you cant tell the difference between the country rate vs the reciprocal peg discount rate. and instead want to ignore doing real calculations and instead muddle up your own math of calling imports both numbers to get different result to try to get to something that looks
coincidentalcoincidentally close enough so must be the reason.. to then say how the formula is then meaningless and silly and dumb.. shows how bad you got things wrong
anyways..
do the pretty colours
atleast make your mistakes more noticeable and now make it easier for you to work out
the simple number of 2?
the explainer, the whitepaper the other sources all done all the calculations for all countries and the average came to 2 for global average, which is then used as the discount factor(RECIPROCAL RATE)