The point of subtracting imports is so that it doesn't count as domestic production, and effectively zeros out the portion of C + G + I that was not produced domestically, but thats independent of how much is in exports.
But you can’t change the process mid way through your measurement. We don’t have a way of measuring “consumption of domestic products” so we just measure consumption and subtract the imports afterwards.
X-M is an accounting trick, but when you’re using this model you have to stick with it.
The idea that imports were deferred causes this accounting trick to show its weakness. (Presumably, looking at the data for all of 2025 when it’s available will “low pass” the deferred imports)
Let's try a very simple example of buying all our inventory in one quarter and selling it in another - what is supposedly behind our GDP woes.
Let's say in Q1, the only spending was on $1 trillion of imports into private inventories, thus: I=$1 trillion, C=$0, G=$0, X=$0, M=$1 trillion. That gives us a GDP of $0.
Next quarter, flush with product there's no need to import anymore and the entire inventory is somehow sold domestically, thus: I=-$1 trillion, C=$1 trillion, G=$0, X=$0, M=$0. That gives us again, a GDP of $0.
Yet articles claim that the GDP in Q2 would be higher due to the drop in imports and was reduced in Q1 due to an increase in imports.
So Q1 is $-1 trillion and Q2 is $1 trillion?
IIRC, Investment is more of I bought machinery to make socks not I have 100 nintendo switches.
That's why in my example Q2 investment goes negative since inventories get depleted when they are sold.
damn, my clothes are heavy, because I know how much I weigh.