I've read it, and it seems to be the same kind of mercantilist thinking that I'm criticizing. It's more of this "take an accounting identity, ignore the effects

I've read it, and it seems to be the same kind of mercantilist thinking that I'm criticizing. It's more of this "take an accounting identity, ignore the effects of one-half of it, bemoan the 'imbalance' of the other half." I mean, you could solve the US 'trade imbalance' by making it extremely hard for foreigners to invest capital in the US. But of course this would have knock-on effects that make it harder for companies and workers in the US to access investment capital. Or you could shut out foreign goods - and ignore the costs of more expensive domestic goods for US consumers. None of this actually benefits people. I see nothing in this article to distinguish it from the historically-always-wrong mercantilism that just kept drawing boundaries around areas and then yelled and shouted whenever more of one particular class of good went in than came out.