Interesting, and worrying at the time, but he clearly turned out to be wrong. The trend never stopped [1] and is not obviously responsible for any negative economic trend. The trend has continued [2]. The thing to worry about is probably not that it is happening, but who is holding these investments.

[1]: https://www.bea.gov/data/intl-trade-investment/international...

[2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1HrHY

The way he views net investment and net foreign ownership seem wrong.

He uses the analogy of a farm owner selling bits of their farm to fund their trade deficit.

But in the real world, it's not zero sum like this. The pie isn't fixed to the size of the farm. New companies serving new needs can be created.

If you're a poor country wanting to escape poverty, you want FDI to be high because you realize it's not zero sum.

Yeah, foreigners now own 20% of your stock market due to negative net investment, but it's now 1.5x as big so your slice increased in size to 0.8*1.5 > 1 and everyone is happy.

Given this, I struggle to understand if his argument still has merit.

He has a point about national debt but it's not a new one.

It's moments like right now that the white collar class seems forget the wealth inequality in the US that's been widening over the last 50 years.