You're mischaracterizing the source through selective quotation of a summary of a 29 page article on the subject. For some context around your quotation:
"""Foreigners who sell America goods will either spend the dollars they earn on US exports or assets or exchange the dollars with someone else who wants to buy US exports or assets. Thus, America’s international accounts are always balanced.
* The United States runs a deficit in trade and a surplus in investment and lending, meaning that foreign investors step in to make up for the shortfall in domestic savings. As long as domestic savings lag behind investment, foreign investors will make up the difference.
* Deficits with a single country are meaningless. Just as individuals have “trade deficits” with their grocery store, so do nations run deficits and surpluses unevenly with one another, and it is impossible to eliminate these deficits without addressing the gap between domestic savings and investment.
CONCLUSION
America’s commercial trade with the rest of the world is a part of a complex, interrelated system. If the US government intervenes by turning the spigot to change the flow of dollars through one set of pipes, it will of necessity change the flow through other pipes. It is a contradiction to decry the outflow of dollars to buy imports while at the same time seeking to increase sales of US exports or investment in the US economy."""
Again even within that quote it's: "on US exports or assets or exchange"
You are ignoring the or, if it said 'on US exports such as assets' then you would be correct in your interpretation.
Exports are a subcategory of total trade, which again is a useful distinction otherwise they would say trade not Exports. This was intended to confuse without being wrong, but exports and trade are meaningfully different and used in context correctly, but you are interpreting them as the same thing when they are not.
PS: Another way of stating this is trade must be balanced. I exchange one apple for one orange then by the existence of the trade the implication is the orange and the apple have equivalent value with each side valuing the others item more than their own. That's still true if you replace apple with Yen or whatnot which is again why trade deficits are only meaningful when you only look at goods.
"""Foreigners who sell America goods will either spend the dollars they earn on US exports or assets or exchange the dollars with someone else who wants to buy US exports or assets. Thus, America’s international accounts are always balanced.
* The United States runs a deficit in trade and a surplus in investment and lending, meaning that foreign investors step in to make up for the shortfall in domestic savings. As long as domestic savings lag behind investment, foreign investors will make up the difference.
* Deficits with a single country are meaningless. Just as individuals have “trade deficits” with their grocery store, so do nations run deficits and surpluses unevenly with one another, and it is impossible to eliminate these deficits without addressing the gap between domestic savings and investment.
CONCLUSION
America’s commercial trade with the rest of the world is a part of a complex, interrelated system. If the US government intervenes by turning the spigot to change the flow of dollars through one set of pipes, it will of necessity change the flow through other pipes. It is a contradiction to decry the outflow of dollars to buy imports while at the same time seeking to increase sales of US exports or investment in the US economy."""