Yes he did. My transgression, as revealed at Cafe Hayek:
I respectfully disagree with this interpretation by David Altig of the current-account deficit:
The connection between the current account deficit and our net foreign asset position is pretty straightforward. The important thing to recognize is that foreigners do not provide us with more goods than we provide to them out of the goodness of their hearts. They do so because they expect to be paid back sometime in the future, and they collect promises to do so in the form of financial assets – like Treasury securities -- that pay off in dollars. A current account deficit therefore means that U.S. citizens are increasing their indebtedness to foreigners.
It’s true that when foreigners buy Treasury securities "U.S. citizens [because they are obliged to foot the bill for debts incurred by Uncle Sam] are increasing their indebtedness to foreigners." (I’d word it differently: "Whenever Uncle Sam borrows money, U.S. citizens are forced more deeply into debt." The fact that some, or even many, holders of this debt are foreigners strikes me as immaterial.)
But it’s unhelpful to describe the accumulation by foreigners of dollar-denominated assets such as American real-estate, equity in U.S. corporations, or dollars themselves, as increasing American indebtedness to foreigners.
Can't disagree with that. I should have said: "A current account deficit therefore means that foreigners are increasing their claims on future U.S. income." I might also have added that recently those claims have taken the form of more indebtedness to foreigners. In any event, I couldn't have said it any better than Don, who deserves his props for the clarification.