G7 Summit Ruled by EU Commission

The G7 Summit is taking place in Quebec under the tutelage of Trudeau.   The purpose of the Summit is to talk about global topics chosen this year by Trudeau to include:  ocean pollution, trade tariffs, and climate change.  The Summit was originally created in 1973 by George Schulz.  It was to be attended by the finance ministers of four countries;  West Germany, UK, US and France.  It has historically evolved to include Canada, Italy, Japan, and Russia, although Russia was expelled in 2014.  

The President’s of these countries basically get together, have some food, meander around the property, and talk.  The only spouse to accompany her husband was Macron’s.  After two days, they go home and nothing changes.  From the perspective of a businessman, it is a huge waste of time.  From the perspective of the various politicians attending it gives them airtime. For Macron, it gives him hug time.

For example, in February 2009, the group of finance ministers met in Rome and pledged to take all necessary steps to stem the financial crisis.  That was the sum total of the meeting.  Seems to me a phone call could have accomplished that at a considerable fraction of the cost.

But it has become a media hype and everyone wears their Sunday best.  Furthering division, the summit conspicuously omits other global countries; Ireland, India, Scotland, The Netherlands, China, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, etc.., etc…  Instead it is more of a good ol’ boy platform wherein tradition is the only rationale.

The end result of this meeting seems to be that Trump and the EU will talk about trade in two weeks. Macron thinks the US should be expelled from future summits.  And as representative for ALL EU countries, Merkel stated that they all agree Russia should remain expelled.  I wonder if the ‘other countries’ were notified of their agreement before or after her statement?

Apparently, the new PM of Italy, Giuseppe Conte, stated that he felt Russia should be reinvited. However, the EU Council President, Donald Tusk, speaking on behalf of Conte said that Italy would toe the line and be a follower, not a leader.  I wonder if Conte is royally miffed!

Why would the EU Commissioner and EU Council President be at the G7?  They are not countries. 

In 1977, the UK PM, James Callahan, made the unilateral decision to henceforth include the EU Council and EU Commission as a part of the summit.  Supposedly, Juncker and Tusk are there as a united front to represent the remaining EU countries that are not invited.  Why?   Why not let sovereign nations speak for themselves?   Because in reality they are not sovereign, their voice is censored.

If the G7 Summit is really about the EU, and given Canada is a parcel of the Queen of England, why would the US or Russia have any desire to participate?  Both Tusk and Juncker are representatives of ‘open society’ and globalization.   They have collectively taken over the Summit which was originated in the US.

After losing a re-election bid in Poland, Tusk became the EU Council President.   He has since been openly accusatory that the current President of Poland and his conservative party are puppets of Putin.  In addition, he claims that the EU values are quite polar opposite from the values of Poland under conservatism and nationalism. In 2017, Juncker initiated an investigation into the President and his Party claiming ‘judicial independence concerns’.  

The bottom line is the fact that according to the EU any country that is not governed by a Socialist Party towing the line of the EU ‘values’, is operating under a fascist government and sanctions will be levied including being stripped of voting rights.

Hungary is also facing potential sanctions by the EU for their stance on conservatism.   Hungary has come under attack for expelling Soros and refusing to bow to the EU demands for African immigrant quotas.

Slovakia is facing condemnation for similar stances.

BREXIT is meaningless as long as Theresa May continues to be a pawn of MI6 and the Merkel.  What is more relevant is the growing number of countries that are standing up to the Royal Arm of the EU Commission and Council who tend to act much like the Wizard of Oz – behind a red curtain.

Which country in the EU will be next?

The Trade Deficit Is A Serious Debt!

As the Trade Tariff hubbaballoo points a finger back at Trump it is interesting to note that not one country was willing to negotiate. Given the inconsistencies in the current tariffs that truly are penalizing US products, not one country saw fit to simply come to the table with a proposal. Canada’s Trudeau was probably the worst example because his retaliation was more of a childish response calling out Pence because the deal had an expiration limit of five years, and then refusing to talk any more.   Are these people really college graduates?   Did their business acumen come from a cereal box? They are truly acting like five year olds.

Who is really the villain here? The EU countries, Canada and Mexico have all created an advantage for their economies and trade, Trump was closing the gap and every country balked and instead chose a ‘tit-for-tat’ business approach…

The argument tapped by Liberal media is that trade includes goods and services, and when services are added to the overall picture – Canada is a surplus partner – albeit everyone else – isn’t. Ok. Trump offered Canada an out – and they refused.

So what is the point?   The point is we need to close the gaps.

The Washington Post goes on to declare that a trade deficit does not mean the US is actually losing real money, it just means American’s buy more goods from other countries than other countries buy from the US. How incredibly inane.

“A trade deficit represents an outflow of currency” – definition courtesy of Investopedia.  

In 2007, The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco wrote a white paper that gives greater perspective to the deficit. According to their research the balance began to shift to a deficit in the early 1990’s when Clinton was President. In order to finance the deficit, the US borrows from abroad and/or sell assets to foreign countries to cover the imbalance.

The paper quotes various views of the cause of the deficit and whether it is a concern.   Of course, if the US has to borrow or sell off assets to pay for the deficit each year, ultimately there will be no assets left to sell, and borrowing will come to an end.

The cause of the deficit is debatable. But economists would agree that many factors contributed to the crisis, and therefore many factors will have to change in order to alter the consequences.   Including; government budget deficits, national savings and domestic investment.

In addition trade is affected by exchange rates and tariffs. A weaker dollar makes US goods more affordable for foreign purchasers.   Tariff’s create an unfair added cost.

Bottom line the US trade deficit is a serious issue that has a finite consequence.   It’s borrowing to pay for your borrowing, ultimately, the money/assets will run out. By doing nothing – it is certain death.   It is selling America to the highest bidder. And Trump is trying to stave off the disaster set in motion by Billy Clinton and Georgie Bush – both of whom are entrenched in the Cabal and Swamp.