“Flat screen TV’s are not wealth.”
“Oh, then you will give me yours for free then?”
In two years, yes. Come and take it away!
“If it’s not wealth, then you are saying it is worthless.”
Nope.
It’s not either “wealth” or “worthless”.
Consumer goods are not “wealth”.
Even though they have value (for now), You don’t accumulate wealth by buying flat screen tvs.
Capital, such as the factories that produce the TV’s, or interest/dividend paying wads of cash, is wealth.
“In two years, yes. Come and take it away!”
No, the ones we are getting right off the boat from China. Those are worthless, according to you, so give me one of those for free.
“It’s not either “wealth” or “worthless”.”
If it’s not “wealth”, then it must be “worthless”. There is no in-between state. This is an absolute binary quality:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth
“4 a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
b : all material objects that have economic utility; especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time (national wealth)”
“Consumer goods are not “wealth”.”
Then give them to me for free.
“Even though they have value (for now), You don’t accumulate wealth by buying flat screen tvs.”
How one “accumulates wealth” is an entirely separate question from the current question, which is whether the trade between China and the US is imbalanced, so your objection is irrelevant.
“Capital, such as the factories that produce the TV’s, or interest/dividend paying wads of cash, is wealth.”
No, capital is capital. Wealth is wealth. I suggest you take a refresher economics course, or just crack open a dictionary.