[dragonwriter]

A trade deficit has a well-defined meaning, and describes a thing that does really exist. It must, of necessity, be offset by a net capital flow from the partner with the surplus to the one with the deficit (usually, in the form of increased foreign ownership of firms and property in the country with the deficit.)

It's can't be made up for in financial services, because trade in services, including financial, are included in the calculation of the deficit or surplus.

[ArkyBeagle]

But in a post-Bretton-Woods US, it amounts to financial services - or what ever it is that Wall Street does.

[dragonwriter]

No, it amounts to assets, either financial or concrete (e.g., real property). And there's nothing special about the "post-Bretton Woods US". Financial assets are not the same thing as financial services.

[ArkyBeagle]

Not all financial assets are in real property. I'd call assets that are not real property pretty much an artifact of the financial services industry. I don't mean just fees.

Your usage is much more precise.

I invoked Bretton because Truman was running around trying to get as much of the finance industry for the US during Potsdam and thereafter. Bretton Woods was roughly the same time frame.