It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Last year, nearly $4 trillion of U.S. economic productivity was the result of international trade.
However, with talk of a trade war heating up, there is a real possibility that the global trade landscape could shift dramatically over the coming months and years.
Any such shifts wouldn’t likely impact the country in a uniform and evenly distributed fashion – instead, any impending trade war would pose the largest direct risk to states that are dependent on buying and selling goods on international markets.
The States Most at Risk
Today’s visualization comes to us from HowMuch.net, and it shows every U.S. state and district organized by GDP size, as well as percentage of GDP resulting from international trade.
Here are the 10 states most reliant on international trade:
| Rank | State | GDP (2017) | Exports + Imports (2017) | Trade (% of GDP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Michigan | $515 billion | $200 billion | 38.9% |
| #2 | Louisiana | $243 billion | $94 billion | 38.7% |
| #3 | Kentucky | $204 billion | $78 billion | 38.1% |
| #4 | Tennessee | $345 billion | $112 billion | 32.6% |
| #5 | South Carolina | $219 billion | $70 billion | 31.9% |
| #6 | Texas | $1,692 billion | $527 billion | 31.2% |
| #7 | Indiana | $360 billion | $92 billion | 25.7% |
| #8 | Washington | $503 billion | $127 billion | 25.3% |
| #9 | New Jersey | $589 billion | $147 billion | 25% |
| #10 | Illinois | $818 billion | $201 billion | 24.6% |
On a percentage basis, Michigan tops the list with 38.9% of the state’s GDP reliant on international trade.
The Lowest Risk States
On the flipside, here are the states or districts with less to lose in the event of a trade war.
| Rank | State (or District) | GDP (2017) | Exports + Imports (2017) | Trade (% of GDP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #51 | District of Columbia | $132 billion | $2 billion | 1.5% |
| #50 | Wyoming | $41 billion | $2 billion | 5.0% |
| #49 | South Dakota | $49 billion | $3 billion | 5.1% |
| #48 | Hawaii | $88 billion | $5 billion | 5.4% |
| #47 | New Mexico | $98 billion | $6 billion | 6.0% |
| #46 | Oklahoma | $190 billion | $15 billion | 8.0% |
| #45 | Colorado | $341 billion | $28 billion | 8.1% |
| #44 | Virginia | $511 billion | $46 billion | 8.9% |
| #43 | Nebraska | $119 billion | $11 billion | 9.1% |
| #42 | Maine | $61 billion | $6 billion | 9.7% |
Washington, D.C. tops the list, with only 1.5% of its regional GDP tied to trade.
This makes sense since The District’s economy is mostly linked to the government, service, and tourism sectors. Nearby Virginia also has surprisingly little international trade, at just 8.9% of its economy.
Want to see more on international trade? See the numbers behind the world’s closest trade relationship in this infographic.
IGNOREd by the the fly-over REPENTED, RURAL, GROUPED/GATHERED, GUNNED, GARDENED, PROVISIONED and . . . S-I-M-P-L-I-F-I-E-D.
Are you/we having fun yet? No? Wait till the gov-roaches/Soros anti-fucks/SJWs/academic cry-bullies/fems/soy-boys/gun-grabbers/BAR-fly LIEyers/WS traders/legisTRAITORS and other socialized vermin got no more shadows/places to hide. Then its “shoot’m-up time” unless . . . the int’l financial [D]elites/PTB (Psychopaths That Bugger) decide it’s time for another big-ass WAR as ultimate/final historical method of DISTRACTION to [quietly] “exit, stage left” to their remote digs from which they fund ALL the belligerents and . . . then the REBUILD with fiat currencies – “FUNDED” into circulation on the “AUTHORized sigs of the pleb borrowers while the coupon/interest amt remains U-N-funded, of course.
Tariffs are protection that increase prices, decrease quality, and cause Trade Wars. I think Jimmy blocked food to Russia over something and it cost our farmers big money; like the Neo-Tariffs will. We should find ways to produce our products cheaper and better to beat the competition; but that runs smack into Socialism’s plethora of taxes, cornucopia of benefits, Luddite Unions and Wall Street Exploiters excessive profits; can’t touch any of those sacred pigs.
Everyone seems to think that we can only lose a “trade war”.
And when it turns out they were wrong we’ll see none of them admitting they were wrong about it.
The side that stands to lose in a trade war is the side with a balance of trade surplus, not the one with a balance of trade deficit.
Anon- Please post historical examples of countries benefiting from a trade war who began with a trade imbalance. TIA
Why?
Our situation is a relatively new and unique one, not one with a great deal of historical comparison.
With huge trade deficits -meaning our side is accumulating increasingly more debt to their side- it should be obvious we have nothing to lose by eliminating or reducing it.
Please explain why you don’t seem to think a trade imbalance is relevant.
We’ve been in a Trade War for 30 years, and getting our asses kicked. China has a 25% tariff on American made automobiles…There are any number of non-tariff barriers blocking imports into our trade partners….wake up.
the info here may be factual but i’d bet that it is also misleading,even if the compilers didn’t mean for it to be–
i’d bet that louisiana’s large amounts of exports are oil & chemicals,which are not easily replaceable–
on the other hand,some of the small % states may have one or two exporters who export huge amounts of product & if they’re driven out of business it could badly hurt a small state’s economy–
World demand will not decrease, so the overall imports and exports will stay the same with different nations changing who they import from and export to.
NPR had a story yesterday meant to explain why tariffs were baaaaad. Surprisingly, they seem to have felt the need for some answer beyond “President Adolf Trump wants them”. It’s hilarious how lefties have become free traders when it was only two years ago that their boy Bernie was calling for raised tariffs. NPR’s example of an American industry that will be hampered by tariffs was California wineries. I learned that California wineries’ exports to China have increased over the last ten years from $12 million to $78 million. That’s million with an “M”. Cue Dr. Evil “Seventy eight MILLION DOLLARS!” Big fucking deal. I also learned that China has pledged to increase tariffs on American wine by 15 points – from 48% to 63%. Lastly, I learned that the tariff China imposes on wines from Australia and New Zealand is… wait for it….ZERO.
So the free trade purists didn’t utter a peep when American wines were being taxed at 48% by China – to Australia’s 0% – but now we’re supposed to shudder in terror at the demise of the American wine producers because of the effect Chinese tariffs will have on their lousy $78 mil in sales. Cry me a fucking river.
We’ve been in a Trade War for 30 years, and getting our asses kicked. China has a 25% tariff on American made automobiles…There are any number of non-tariff barriers blocking imports into our trade partners….wake up.