> Sure, India was a colony and not a mere trading partner, so no need to argue about that. But the US is also an empire that has bases around the world and has many countries in an economic chokehold.

That seems to resolve the question you put. Britain and India weren't independent, so talking about a trade balance between the two doesn't really mean anything. If it favoured India, that was good for the British Empire. If it favoured Britain, that was also good for the British Empire. It didn't matter who was favoured or by how much because the British capitalists and Imperial officers were in control of both sides of the trade.

I personally think the US trade deficit is a huge problem ... for the US's trading partners who just gave it real stuff for paper. But your argument for why Britain-India experience was relevant doesn't hold together.