Ah professor I find this theory weak. Needs work do after line of progession of other grocery list.

The theory that the blance comes from trade deficits through foreign capital debt purchasing to create further debt a little disheartening to say economic ignorance is at hand when folks worry about the trade deficit. Here are my notes. I will look for proper papers on your theory. If found I will add them to my look over table. I have House of Levy at hand, then Stanford then an Economic Laureates paper, and I will add your theory to the table. As I find that my opposition to trying to get China to create a higher quality of domestic spending through more private ownership of business and deficit spending is being refuted by economists with half done equations. I as not a graduate can afford such things. However, the folks I plan to repudiate can't, as I will make short work of their theories, which will be fun exercises for my future class and research work at my graduate level.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/10/trade-deficit-capital-inflow-bop-0.html

1.  It's important for the general public to understand that trade deficits are offset by capital inflows on almost a 1:1 basis, resulting in a "balance of payments" for international transactions.

This leaves out numerous calculations from the trade deficits creating real value economics compared to financial sector economic power.

“economic ignorance” Ah professor your small little algorithm does not give you the proper equated power to say economic ignorance as ignorance is done by those who merely scratch the surface.

2. The trade deficit incurs negative public feedback. Now so will the improper balancing of this country’s economic sheets based on this theory I see which misses many calculations?

“has provided much needed debt capital that has also funded the expansion of American companies, along with providing debt capital for U.S. consumers in the form of mortgages, student loans, and car loans” This debt capital you speak of has nothing to do with actual international competition which the trade deficit is based on for the US to be allowed to have a higher Growth rate. With your economic ignorant theory professor since you feel to call names. You would have us believe that we should keep up the high trade deficit, because of debt capital coming in from foreign countries. However, again based on your theory the US’s growth rate has barely been sustainable during the times of your data sets. As such, this is mainly due to trade deficits. As trade surpluses create a reserve in capital. Were as trade deficits create a negative balance that gets bigger as our capital inflows are based on other countries deepening our debt by interest for the US to keep moving forward. Along with that debt capital if I understand you correct means that the foreign investors buying our debts, our real estate, and our other factors of foreign aid are funding our loans. Which is much different from our competitors who are funding their own loans on monetary reserves which the US and other free markets do not have because they use debt capital as given by purchasing debt of the US from other countries; meaning we are at their mercy and whims for our economics.

I would say that this blog calls not for those worrying about trade deficits on economic ignorance. As trade deficit is not worried about balance sheet economics. Yet many other factors, such as capital reserves, capital debts, help to create developing countries which takes reserves to do, and a myriad of other things that this blog post Professor shames me to hear you call economic ignorance of your opposition opinion. Name calling should be backed by much more than a 3 piece addition mathematic problem that does not have any variables or other proper multipliers or out of the box equations.