Why are Japan, China, and South Korea singled out for foreign investment..

[_Jumper_]

...attacks?

When the federal government is criticized for running large deficits critics often cite the fact that a large chunk goes to the aforementioned countries. Indeed they are the top three investors. However, why are they singled out? Why isn't #4 Britain or the #5 country mentioned? Why aren't they all just mentioned as foreign investors? What difference does if an investor buying T-bonds is Japanese, German, or Brazilian? Is singling them out a subtle use of the race card?

[Milspec]

1. Hi Jumper I'm not sure I understand?

I don't see this a a "race card" issue as much as a "Money Card" issue?

[_Jumper_]

2. Race

It may be racial because the top three, which are all Asian, are singled out for criticism. Foreign investment is foreign investment. Why single out specific countries? However, it may just be a result of them buying a lion's share of US bonds but I doubt that there is a huge gap between #3 and #4 (UK).

[On the Road]

3. Those Countries Have Large Trade Defecits with the US

They also have a reputation (justified or unjustified) for suppressing demand for US goods even under WTO rules. In other words, the countries (at least Japan and China) are seen as running trade defecits as a deliberate strategy.

Trade with Europe or Mexico is more balanced between exports and imports, and therefore less of a threat to the dollar or the US economy.