Yes of course! Merkel (Germany), Macron (France) and Trudeau (Canada) should be unsettled by President Trump wanting to carve-out a new trade structure, after all, since the end of World War II, the U.S. has bent-over backwards to resuscitate these Post-War Economies. The problem is that although the injection of inflationary monetary policies may have awakened their capabilities it will never, on its own, keep them alive and these Heads of State, and I’m speaking specifically of the EU and Canada, need the U.S. to help keep their social experiments, their Corporate Elite afloat. The Opposition-Press, by its insistence that the President has somehow offended our Allies, has once again injected its signature hyperbole into an issue it is ill prepared to intelligently discuss, for now however let’s leave it at this: One must understand that the public friction demonstrated by Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trudeau is not over national (public) interests but Corporate Financial/Economic Interests. In effect what the global-elite has accomplished is to have imbedded a fiat monetary policy concealing within it an incrementally expanding global trade policy built on the theory of comparative-advantage, the idea that some States perform certain things/tasks more effectively than others, ignoring the fact that this notion on its own serves to imbalance the equation whilst ignoring the fact that there are certain components of the “viable trade equation” that must ultimately achieve balance if they are to work; as it is (presently) we just blow them up and call it a recession/depression. Think of it this way: the U.S. may have an exemplary capacity for consuming things however for the scheme to work if it must also have a self-multiplying capacity to offset the drain, the ability to produce wealth from which it draws funds from to pay for its consumption, it doesn’t of course and therein lies the problem. In short order, nothing you are told that works the way it should works at all!
Where Trump is concerned, he has consistently demonstrated an ability and willingness to push the corporate elite toward his policy agenda although at times his intentions may not be entirely clear, e.g., the Chinese Phone Company, ZTE, which I believe is part of a quid pro quo on some other yet-to-be-known issue. The talking heads (let’s start with the O-Media) need to educate themselves because their ignorance is far too conspicuous. If what Trump is saying is even half-true (and it is because I’ve read the Trade Agreements) about the Canadian Tariffs on U.S. Dairy Products (270 Percent on Milk, 245 Percent on Cheese and 298 Percent on Butter) you must conclude that his opposition is perfectly valid after all; what nitwit came up with this and why would you ever call this “equitable trade”? Utter nonsense that a Canadian PM would attempt a slap-down of a U.S. President given the proven facts of the circumstances. Trudeau has lost all credibility with Trump.
Tariffs are a vitally important tool for balancing the inconsistencies associated with international trade and a worthy topic requiring much more focus than this forum will allow. And yet, out of deference to the doctrines of fairness I’d be doing you all a disservice if I didn’t make it known that it is supremely asinine to use the tool of tariffs in an era where the entire Trade Policy Scheme is nothing more than a referendum where Corporate Subsidies are metered out as part of the Globalist Trade Model, one that emphasizes Corporate interests above Sovereign Interests and Cheap Labor Policies over the Perfecting Rule of the Emancipated Human Being and the Devine Order of Creation, where dinky politicians and media personalities, the so-called experts who claim that “Tariffs are no longer necessary” and yet they can’t explain, with any level of command why they say this and on what grounds they base their feeble notions. Let me offer an element of precision to aid in understanding how perfectly malignant the statement is and how horrifically bleak the future remains should we (continuously) refuse to rip ourselves out from under this shroud of lunacy. Think of this: Since 1971 (thru 2016) the U.S. has lost, conservatively, approximately $12.1 Trillion in economic capacity the vast majority of which occurring since 1994 when President Clinton signed the GATT accord. Now then, ask yourself the following two questions: If the Global Banking & Trade Policy is so overwhelmingly successful, if the Globalists are so superior in their Economic Modeling then perhaps they can identify (for me) the economic engine that stepped in to replace the one they’ve exported? The “Service Economy”? Complete non-sense as the cycle of a “Service Economy” is largely a “consumption” process the only exception to this is in the case where a byproduct of a service has broad and leverageable appeal as a component or subassembly.
We must guard ourselves against the belief that we can monetize our futures on the backs of technology, that the economic cycle should be or that it is inevitable that it should be subsidized, in part, by the scuttling of human participation replaced by the lethargy of a “living-wage” architecture. It is for the good of Mankind that he should remain fully engaged in the tuning and perfecting instrumentation that sounds his place in the orchestration of creation and remain ever devoted to driving it forward to its highest and best, to perfecting of the Devine Ideal which is, without question, Mankind’s destiny.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
Yes, currency differentials, although less an issue than in the past, contribute to complexities in the valuation complex however these need to be left to forces in the marketplace for settlement and not be treated as a product-component of the process. CG