Capital is a product no less valid than a tangible product. Is the money you spend to go to a movie less important than the money you spend on an iPod? The fact that the iPod is tangible makes no difference as far as economic flows are concerned.That's a good point. But doesn't that process rely on continuous appreciation of the assets that are the targets of investment? What happens when you hit an inevitable down cycle and your assets are no longer good targets for investment? I'm specifically thinking of disasters in countries like Argentina when investment dried up.
The problem with Latin American and other places was not the trade balance but government spending and government loan guarantees. The market would quickly have sorted things out had politicians not been involved. The capital would have been used for investment rather than socialism. It's the difference between teaching someone to fish versus giving them a fish.
The problem in the US is out of control government, not out of control business. Business operates within constraints imposed by markets, which will be imperfect, but correct themselves quickly. Government operates outside those constraints. So asking government to constrain markets is like asking the wolf to guard the hen house.
I am a business professor with a PhD in marketing. To fully understand what I am talking about requires quite an education. I have had eight years, and still do not understand it fully. But certain things are well-known, even to liberals. One of them is that free markets are way more efficient than controlled ones.
The two industries with the most out-of-control pricing are health care and education. It is no coincidence that these are the two industries with the most government regulation. Imposing more restrictions on imports and exports would yield results comparable to those we face in education and health care: it would dramatically increase the price of everything and produce a semi-permanent class of people who produce nothing but useless paperwork.