> they are going to try to say that a “balance of payments” problem is a “payments problem”

"The balance of payments consists of two primary components: the current account and the...financial account" [1]. The current account is the trade deficit or surplus in goods and services. The financial account (a/k/a the capital account) tracks movement of money.

If you have a free-floating currency, your balance of payments is always zero. This is the principle advantage of a free-floating currency: your exchange rate adjusts to finance trade deficits and invest surpluses [2]. America does not have a balance of payments problem because America doesn't fix the price of a dollar.

The best the U.S. could argue for § 122 jurisdiction is that a trade deficit constittues a fundamental international payments problem. That is, of course, nonsense from an economics perspective. But I don't know how these terms have been used in U.S. trade law. (My strongest argument against the author's argument woudld be that the Congress passing statute that "no longer applied by the time the Trade Act was introduced" merits deeper scrutiny of Congressional intent.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

[2] https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/meltzer/fribal67.pd...