TEc - Military spending by NATO members - The US has a point

A very relevant article that presents a stark picture providing enough food for thought.
Even if comparisons should need some detail to make them more representative, there is no denying that the US remains by far the dominant force within NATO on all counts. If a fairly modest set target of 2% of GDP has not been taken seriously by most member-countries after nearly a decade, then the US is fully entitled to call everyone's attention to listen up.
Among the other major economies of the West - Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain and France - the level of spending ranges from ridiculous to barely survival mode. Whatever reasons led successive governments to play down the military and scale back their budgets, the time is overly ripe for a policy and attitude reversal.
Germany's case (and Canada's in North America) is especially striking.
That a major country/biggest European economy whose coffers have been overflowing since long, should make a smaller effort than minor countries with dire public finances is utterly unacceptable.
Indeed, only the US still has the leverage to press German leadership to step up to the plate and do their share.

TEc - America, China and the risk of a trade war - stakes are high for both countries

No fair-minded person would suggest an all-out destructive US-China trade war. There would be significant losses inflicted on both countries and world trade generally would suffer as well.
Besides, it simply doesn't sound right to pursue such a confrontational path. An exercise in self-harm too.Yet the big question remains unanswered if not unaddressed at all:Can a country run a massive trading deficit indefinitely?The US has had a deficit with China since 1985.The issue, however, is that the deficit ballooned beyond any reasonable imbalance, particularly from 2000. Furthermore, it has transmuted into a structural shortfall by US manufacturing that gets plugged by Chinese production. We know about the supply chains in place in today's global economy. Isn't that exactly the problem?Trade balances are not righted by executive decree. It will be up to private industry (thousands of companies) to review and reset the geographic location of major/many suppliers. This is as much an industry problem as it is a policy issue arising from quick-paced free-for-all globalisation where only two variables ever mattered: cost (minimisation) and profit (maximisation).The sum total is clearly reflected in the goods trade figures that have so consistently built up. Menacingly, dare I say.To my mind, they are obviously unsustainable and have been for some time. Implications are far wider than economics.If 10-15 years have not been enough to extract useful insight, more of the same into the next 10-15 will see an entirely changed reality in China-US relations.Inevitable?Many will likely nod yes, others will shrug off with indifference.It is up to national government and policymakers to determine - as far as possible - the macro framework within which an economy operates.To my mind, free trade is only so good as long as there are winners on all sides. Or manageable deficits for a given time at worst.Not seemingly permanent winners and permanent losers that do not swap places.
The winners do not complain about the model in place.
Should the losers?

TEc - The busiest airports in Europe - is sky the limit?

The top 10 busiest airports in Europe show an adaptable 3-tier structure. Topmost is Heathrow well ahead of the pack, ParisCDG a distant second.
Not when it comes to aircraft movements presenting a far more mixed picture. 

Now a decision has been made to add a third runway to LHR it may be said that capacity there (movements and pax throughput) will rise by 50%. That would mean additional 40M passengers may go through its 5 Terminals into the future. Will they?
That begs a final question: what is LHR's ultimate capacity that will permanently saturate the facility, both Aerodrome and Terminals?

FT - EU looks to Merkel as rattled leaders weigh response to Trump - EU must do a lot more to disprove DJT

The EU badly needs its institutions - Commission, Council and Parliament + ECB - to gain prominence, power, initiative, independence and lead the EU from the front in the interests of every single member-State in the bloc. The reason Europe looks in a shambles is that Germany subtly acquired an overwhelming weight since the financial meltdown of 2007-8. Internally, nothing in the EU can move without its tacit or overt agreement. In many ways, the institutions work as near conduits or mouthpieces for the German interest. Inconsequential bodies in practice, in the minds of many Europeans tired and fed-up with a state of limbo that brings them no direct benefit.

In a nutshell, the so-called European political project is moribund, the result of accumulated weaknesses by the leaders from relevant countries not least AMerkel herself. The fact that she displayed remarkable will and strength on several matters - and must be applauded for that - does not hide from view her country's every major failing that so contributed to stalling the EU.

Brexit is primarily an internal UK issue - has long been - but majority opinion in Britain would never have swayed the way it did if not for the looseness of a drifting Union that lost its appeal to the learned let alone to the common man. Many Europeans may even eye AMerkel with sympathy but they resent coming under the German wing and always will. Germany as the EU's dominant force, which is, rightly or wrongly, a common perception. A Union that has seen one clear winner, a few satellite winners around it and far too many losers. Not to mention the domestic problems each country faces anyway.

Above all, no common EU goal appears in sight despite the Commission's official rhetoric.

Viewed from outside the reality of German dominance likely feels even greater.
And suddenly DJTrump comes along and now sits at the White House. His manner and style may not be right but is it not the case that the man does have a point on far too many issues? Or is it too hard to acknowledge just that because of strong dislike for the messenger?

Germany as the leading country in the EU now has the unique opportunity to show that it does stand fully behind the European project, the Eurozone, the Euro, European defence and all things European. Failure to do this will only prove DJT right over time.

Such a predicament would be very dire for the very survival of the EU as a force to reckon with.
I am factoring a 27-member bloc in the wake of the UK's already sure departure.