I don't think that's the case at all. 1)Trade surpluses and deficits are an accounting measure that give a sense of the balance of your economy but cutting you

I don't think that's the case at all. 1)Trade surpluses and deficits are an accounting measure that give a sense of the balance of your economy but cutting your trade deficit (or increasing a surplus) is not good or bad in itself. In spite of a lot of focus on these measures by the current US administration, economists as a whole (and therefore most non-US economic policymakers) take the view of Adam Smith, who said in "Wealth of Nations" Book IV, Chapter 3, that “Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade.” ...and therefore don't target the balance of trade in their decision-making. 2)These days most high-value products have complex supply chains and therefore exports are for the most part made up of components which are themselves imports. So even if you want to affect the balance of trade just devaluing the currency would not work the way you seem to think. 3) It seems to me you would want your currency to be cheap relative to others if you had assets in foreign currencies and debts in your sovereign currency. However typically most countries run a budget deficit and therefore have to issue new debt. If your currency is depreciating, on an on-going basis you can buy less and less hard assets with the currency that comes from issuing new debt because your currency is devaluing relative to other currencies which are also chasing those same assets.