I'm unconvinced by this article for a number of reasons. The significance placed on trade deficits always struck me as somewhat misguided so the author's uncri

I'm unconvinced by this article for a number of reasons. The significance placed on trade deficits always struck me as somewhat misguided so the author's uncritical focus on this crude metric is off putting. In aggregate, inward and outward flows have to match by definition. If an American company builds and sells a car to a foreigner this reduces the US deficit but if it builds and sells a house to a foreigner, then this has the effect of increasing it. So in the modern world, running a trade deficit just means you are selling more things like houses than cars. If running a trade deficit was impoverishing, then you'd imagine that the two lists of countries with the biggest trade deficits and surpluses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_a... ) would be dominated by the poorest and richest countries respectively. But they are not - it just depends on the economic specialities of the countries. Also I am suspicious of anyone who uses a dismissive phrase like "so called experts" as part of their argument. In my experience, this generally is a strong signal that the author has a very superficial understanding of the subject. Not that I claim any expertise in the area.