> Rather than magazine articles
There are many sources .. I linked to an opinion from two national economic advisors with careers in trade and economics.
You haven't countered their opinon or backed up your opinion, in fact you've strengthen my position that your axiomatic foundation is just another opinion of some.
See:
* When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
* Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work.
* Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Be charitable. I provided encyclopedic reference out of a mutual discovery interest. Magazine articles[/opeds] may—in your words—present “opinions of some,” whereas reference-grade material provides a broad and citable foundation—ostensibly what you are looking for (“your axiomatic foundation is just another opinion of some”).
> You haven't [..] backed up your opinion
In the spirit of “respond to the strongest plausible interpretation” and good faith, I think you may have missed the argument I was making above. :>
I am positing a reformulation/distillation of “positive trade balance preference” as “preference for foreign investment,” drawing on Palgrave, although perhaps controversially. The former is controversial, especially if seen as a-priori; the latter mundane.
:>