Whether or not that's true in reality, it is true in the report that caused the headline.
From the article:
> A logistical consideration makes Wednesday’s report difficult to interpret: Imports subtract from the Commerce Department’s calculation of GDP, since they represent spending on foreign-made goods and services.
They do subtract as an accounting identity, but reasoning from that makes no sense. My net income can be calculated as how much I consume plus my net savings. I = C + NS. So withdrawing from savings "subtracts from net income" in the same sense - ie, it has no explanatory power. If I do a home remodel, spending a bunch of saved up money, the way to understand that situation is not "my income would have been higher if I had not withdrawn from savings".
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?
Whether or not that's true in reality, it is true in the report that caused the headline.
From the article:
> A logistical consideration makes Wednesday’s report difficult to interpret: Imports subtract from the Commerce Department’s calculation of GDP, since they represent spending on foreign-made goods and services.