Curious as to why anyone could support the G7 with the knowledge of the fact that we have a trade deficit of over $150 billion with the European Union, $60 billion of which is with Germany. It's also common knowledge that certain players including the EU have been taking us to the bank on trade matters for decades, while no previous administration has bothered to get the offenders to agree to a more fair and equitable deal. So what gives?
They have also NOT been paying their "fair share" for NATO; we were paying it all. That made NATO weak. For evidence of that weakness, look to the Ukraine, and Crimea recent invasion by non-Nato country. Did NATO defend them from the Russians?? Nope.
It's about time!! I know they are already sending down sugar pies, french fries, pea soup, etc!! What's next.....french babes?? When will it all end??
The perception that trade deficits are bad is not correct. Historically our periods of highest economic growth have occurred hand in hand with high trade deficits. http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2018/03/misconceptions-about-trade-deficits.html Trump will have us in a recession soon, and that will solve our perceived trade deficit issue.
So conversely, if we were able to turn the tables and *they* were to have a huge deficit instead of us, it would be good for them, right? Now I see why they're fighting so hard to put themselves in a deficit lol. Ah. More hyperbole. Sounds a lot like your statement about Brexit. Light on fact, heavy on emotion and hatred. For someone who prides themself as "educated" , you sorely lack critical thinking skills.
double edged sword do you send NATO troops to defend the Crimea, or do you allow it to happen and castigate Russia with sanctions? Which do you believe would be most effective? From what I've read, Crimea was happy to be annexed. This has more to do with Ukraine than anything. Or, maybe we should just stay the fuck out of other countries business? Deficit or no, I can't understand why other countries have been so adamant about not paying their fair share.
Take your creepy old self over to google and type, "are trade deficits bad", then have a read about trade deficits so you can at least engage in the conversation. Brexit -> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ey-financial-services-businesss-a8390006.html
Where do you find objective statistical information? I only ask because pre-November 2016 the unemployment numbers were rigged (according to Trump), now numbers from that same source are held up as a badge of honor by Trump. Is it just when the info doesn't fit your narrative that it becomes heavily bias? This is one of my biggest struggles with Trump. Sept '16 unemployment (according to Trump) was 25% now it is at record low. Are you guys seriously trying to tell me in 2 years the unemployment rate has dropped 20%? Or was that 25% total BS and you have no interest in holding him to his words like you did with Barry? I'm asking this sincerely. The lack of logic here bothers me for some reason.
I don’t use Google anymore, that’s for sure. I’m not debating anything here other than my dislike for that company and what they have become and stand for. I cannot trust that they are providing me with all of the information, to make my own mind up on such matters. I don’t want their bias affecting my search results. That company needs to be reigned in a bit. They have become too powerful and affects the business market place too much.
But what about the statistics provided by Trump pre election versus now? Do you find numbers from Trump more credible than Google?
That wasn’t what my comment was about. I realize most everybody uses Google to search for things. It wasn’t until recently (last year) that I decided to change that. I deleted Google search from my phone. I use Bing now, but they probably aren’t much better. If you got any ideas of where I can find an unbiased search engine let me know.