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.

FT - Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation - a viewpoint that commands thought

There are any number of ways to look at all the issues related to international trade. Yet I believe a few hard facts will have to be accepted largely undisputed regardless of the messenger:

1.The US has every right reason to worry about its ever bulging massive trade deficit that has disproportionately benefited China, Germany or Mexico. To label as protectionism every move a sovereign country makes to reduce longstanding eye-popping imbalances is simply wrong. Free trade is only so good as long as there are winners only. Not permanent winners and permanent losers that do not swap places.
When oversized surpluses are met by equally oversized deficits I take it can only last for a given period. Needless to point out the reasons, I would imagine.
At the end of the day, the wealth of nations is broadly at stake.
Current German leadership is smartly aware of it and has therefore chosen to keep a low, meek profile while reaping the rewards from multiple sources.

2.Germany has indeed been the one country to have profited the most from the Euro and globalisation of trade as has taken root. Eurozone woes remain as structural as ever with southern European nations struggling to get out of a very tight spot, mainly the regions' smaller economies. All has been said and written about the imbalances within the Eurozone but so far none has been addressed in earnest. Remarkably, to this day the view from Berlin is entirely different!

3.Tellingly, the world's most ardent supporter of globalisation is China, likely the single country to have benefited the most from it. Germany dug in solidly in an enlarged EU single market and selling China every capital and premium goods it wanted to buy.

Whatever the arguments made by the new American administration, I am in no doubt - and have been in a long while - that something has got to change to restore critical balances in trade flows around the world.

TEc - Fuel Folly - elevating risk to the highest level

Every air accident is a sad event - or any accident for that matter - but this one is sadder than most. The facts are pretty much exposed and hardly anything further is needed to reach a crystal clear conclusion: there can be no cutting corners when it comes to aircraft and flying. It is as simple as that, a longtime established fact - indeed since the dawn of aviation - that DOES NOT require any evidence whatsoever.
Because when it does show it takes the form of outrageous tragedies such as this one.
Then, there is the usual set of contributing fateful factors.
An accident that should never have been in the first place.

Flying remains the safest mode of transport by far, by all measurable accounts. But it is bound to fare the worst when human recklessness kicks in regardless of all else.

Precious lives have been cut short on a hillside in Colombia very close to their intended destination.
In this particular case, BASIC common-sense SAFETY was grotesquely bypassed. It cannot be underlined enough.

As always, there are accidents and accidents. Common to all is that every single one demands factual analysis to determine causes, contribute to further learning and importantly, prevent future recurrences.

TEc - The road to Brexit - Which road will it be?

Brexit is the topic of the day for learned opinion-makers as well as laymen across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
As it is the political fallout has been immense following a popular decision whose economic repercussions are beginning to sink in. The value of pound sterling is up to now the major practical barometer of things to come in a worst-case-scenario.Words such as hard or soft are commonly used to gauge the wide gap of possible consequences to the British economy.At the end of the day my own assessment indicates that it very much remains very early days to substantively assess anything at all. Even the currency's crash may be down to nervousness rather than a perceived deterioration of the UK's future trading conditions.Why then the rush of bad news when hardly anything is known about the UK's future relationship with the other 27 countries of the European Union? As the current UK government feels the ground ahead of invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission and several heads of government have publicly voiced their views.I am ever amazed at how unprepared hardline Brexiteers seemingly were about their case as much as the apparently orchestrated punishing statements made by leaders of Europe's other relevant nations hellbent(?) on exacting an expensive price on Britons for their irresponsible folly(?).Few seem to take the moderate constructive path that will ensure a positive outcome for UK citizens, European citizens at large and, above all, Europe as a geographic, cultural, economic and military bloc. Yet, that would seem to me the only acceptable way forward in the new context.If Democracy is the foundation, the cornerstone of the European edifice then it need be fully upheld and respected especially so when outcomes do not conform to the expected. Such is the case after the In/Out UK referendum result became known regardless of late discussions about the merits/demerits of calling for one on an issue as complex.The UK's future is neither as bleak as some are painting it to be nor as rosy as others would wish the rest of us to believe.Voting to quit the EU was a deeply political choice with major economic and social implications.Politicians on both sides of the Channel must rise up to the challenges and hammer out the best deal for the UK and the remaining 27 members of the EU.A potential lose a lot-lose something must be turned into a win-win for the benefit of Europe as a whole.