I didn't read all that went before on this thread but even before the election there were efforts to educate people about what 'trade deficits' are and what they are not.
Before I go to the hardware store and buy a new saw, I compare prices, convenience and quality with other stores. I might even factor in my liking the owner or desire to buy local. When I decide where to buy, it is not done with the expectation that that store reciprocate and buy something from me. I make sauerkraut. It's probably not something they want, and even if they did, I might not be the best option to buy from.
I now have a trade deficit with the hardware store. Did the store rip me off or take advantage of me? No.
A wealthy man buys more goods than I do. He may not make anything but earns his living as a doctor. has he been taken more advantage of or ripped off more because of his buying what he wants from the best supplier? No.
In simplest terms, when a wealthy nation has a trade deficit, it is evidence of a mature prospering postindustrial economy, not a crime.
When America buys luxury vanilla extract from the poor nation of Madagascar, they are not expected to match that purchase in computer tech or soybeans they don't need. They are already competing with Mexico and a dozen other suppliers and working on small margins. Because Madagascar sells us more that the poor country can buy from us, they have been hit with a 47% tariff on their goods. Your vanilla just became even more a luxury and imports from the island are almost certain to fall off dramatically, impoverishing their economy further when their crime was having a less diversified economy and being poor.
The richest nations of the world all have trade deficits with certain nations and that is normal and healthy free market economics.
Every nation makes their own policy, some are better than others. Some are based upon ignorance. Usually the damage is limited, but when the largest economy in the world makes dumb policy, the damage can be global.
