Virtually no economists believe that it makes sense for the U.S. government to attempt to balance imports and exports with each country. "It's an important, and usually overlooked point, that countries don't trade, only people and businesses trade," explains Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan's Flint campus and creator of the popular economics blog Carpe Diem. "And every international transaction by definition has a satisfied buyer and a satisfied seller, and those engaged in those mutually beneficial trades aren't countries, but individuals and corporations. As we explain in the first week of an economics class, trade is always win-win."

Economists have understood for centuries that trade deficits are not a good indicator of a country's economic well-being. For example, the U.S. trade deficit has been lower in times of recession. Moreover, the U.S. "trade deficit" is "exactly offset" by America's "investment surplus" that reflects our ability to attract foreign investment, notes Daniel Griswold, a Mercatus Center senior research fellow and co-director of the Program on the American Economy and Globalization. "If politicians try to 'fix' the trade deficit, they will only succeed in cutting off the net inflow of foreign investment."

In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said it best: "Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded." You can trust Adam Smith on trade or you can trust Donald Trump. You can't trust both.

When it comes to manufacturing jobs, trade is being blamed instead of other factors. "According to a study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, 85 per cent of these [manufacturing] jobs losses are actually attributable to technological change - largely automation - rather than international trade," reports the Financial Times.