Coca Cola and Free Trade: SDGCK REPORTS. September 14th, 2026. By Troy Meiink, SDGCK Director. Wouldn't we sell more products globally if there was free trade and then also hire more people? Free trade is what Coca Cola has advocated for decades. You are hoping that of we cancel free trade or the bottlers and offices for Coca Cola or Budweiser in other countries, then there would be more work for Americans at home. You fail to see that work of that kind is done by a machine. Also, you are too confident that the world will be willing to buy the Coca Cola in the same quantities with added tariff costs and see the cans or bottles shipped. Coca Cola loses time and money in this idea. Tariffs slow down trade. The machine is doing the work. A market with an able and properly financed consumer is what you need if all Americans or North Americans have at least $ USD 1000.00 per week as the minimum benefit paid to all North Americans. The world is really a market for goods; mostly European goods now anyway after Mondelez; some American goods also. TARIFFS do not help this fact scenario. S.R. Covey talked about the win-win in every deal or negotiation. It's quoted by many. With tariffs, there is no win-win. But you should not let pirate scavengers into your economic war room to make decisions; not a business man but a mannequin avatar who is really a pirate scavenger. If no one else took full opportunity, you believed he would based on his alleged business background. Nothing is true. Study him and understand. This could not really happen again or continue for another day yet if it did, we would now understand that we cannot rely on a personality, a very inflexible, chiselled, imitable personality to design roads, highways, subways and economies. He is otherwise a cunning con artist. After we accept free trade and automation are the global rule, shuffle off anxiety about employment as an economic indicator but it's a factor, but then focus on consumption, enabled by consumer income support funding. We establish national guaranteed maximums and minimums and enforce the same based on the states input, believing in states expression of some states power or some independence. The minimum is $48000.00 per year and the maximum is $80000.00 per year. New York and Wisconsin are at $48,000.00 per year currently. North America has come to accept that they are a proud and exciting Creole population regardless of complexion (white, black, brown, red and yellow) and that they are not the most powerful community on earth but on the contrary, one of the weakest with weak national standards for benefits or commitment to pay but now must live for improvement, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and success in this busy world but not as economic subordinates; preferably instead as a powerful international consumer population with a powerful global worthy benefit for all North Americans. Then they will have a better market for all the world's goods; in particular European goods. Only a deficient humanity would tolerate a deficient economy. Only a self defeated population tolerates a defeatist economy. Lysol evaporates in the atmosphere as cesium 137, causing oxygen depleted, radiated rain, then depleted grass or cow cud for a depleted milk. Click here.

  Coca Cola and Free Trade: SDGCK REPORTS.

September 14th, 2026.

By Troy Meiink, SDGCK Director. 

Wouldn't we sell more products globally if there was free trade and then also hire more people? Free trade is what Coca Cola has advocated for decades. You are hoping that of we cancel free trade or the bottlers and offices for Coca Cola or Budweiser in other countries, then there would be more work for Americans at home. You fail to see that work of that kind is  done by a machine. Also, you are too confident that the world will be willing to buy the Coca Cola in the same quantities with added tariff costs and see the cans or bottles shipped.  Coca Cola loses time and money in this idea. Tariffs slow down trade. The machine is doing the work.  A market with an able and properly financed consumer is what you need if all Americans or North Americans have at least $ USD 1000.00 per week as the minimum benefit paid to all North Americans. The world is really a market for goods; mostly European goods now anyway after Mondelez; some American goods also.  TARIFFS do not help this fact scenario.   S.R. Covey talked about the win-win in every deal or negotiation. It's quoted by many. With tariffs, there is no win-win. But you should not let pirate scavengers into your economic war room to make decisions; not a business man but a mannequin avatar who is really a pirate scavenger. If no one else took full opportunity, you believed he would based on his alleged business background. Nothing is true. Study him and understand. This could not really happen again or continue for another day yet if it did, we would now understand that we cannot rely on a personality, a very inflexible, chiselled, imitable personality to design roads, highways, subways and economies. He is otherwise a cunning con artist.  

After we accept free trade and automation are the global rule, shuffle off anxiety about employment as an economic indicator but it's a factor, but then focus on consumption, enabled by consumer income support funding. We establish national guaranteed maximums and minimums and enforce the same based on the states input, believing in states expression of some states power or some independence.   The minimum is $48000.00 per year and the maximum is $80000.00 per year. New York and Wisconsin are at $48,000.00 per year currently. 

North America has come to accept that they are a proud and exciting Creole population regardless of complexion (white, black, brown, red and yellow) and that they are not the most powerful community on earth but on the contrary, one of the weakest with weak  national standards for benefits or commitment to pay but now must live for improvement, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and success in this busy world but not as economic subordinates;  preferably instead as a powerful international consumer population with a powerful global worthy benefit for all North Americans.  Then they will have a better market for all the world's goods; in particular European goods. 

Only a deficient humanity would tolerate a deficient economy.   Only a self defeated population tolerates a defeatist economy. 

 Lysol evaporates in the atmosphere as cesium 137, causing oxygen depleted, radiated rain, then depleted grass or cow cud for a depleted milk. 

Click here.    

What else would you do with the economy as a free white or black  indentured servant? What would you do with the economy as a white business operator? 

What if you could be a political leader and sure that everyone of your citizens has an income support benefit and is always the dominant group in the country regarding benefits. But could you be the most powerful man on the earth and not sure if every citizen has an income support benefit or not sure if everyone in your trading zone has a benefit?  The King of English is the more powerful man when he ensures every Canadian and every UK citizen receives their benefit.   Also, you break trade deals that help your businesses trade and sell US goods  more seamlessly.  Now, you will be paying Canadian tariffs on California peaches and other farm produce sold in Canadian grocery stores of they get that far. The sales on such produce is cancelled.  They found other suppliers on a zero tariff deal within the Commonwealth; products from South Africa, Australia, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. If Coca Cola did not have a factory in Canada, the cost of selling goes up for Coca Cola under all of this unnecessary, wicked, childish, evil talk about tariffs.  It could be banned and then Canadians will have to rely on a Canadian cola with less Cesium 137 and less sugar.  That is not a bad thing though. Canadian small distilleries are encouraged to set up shop in America to survive as they suffer what lack of synergies this anti free trade stand represents.  We have free trade with England and Europe so this is good for Europe and the Canadians will enjoy better food quality if they can afford  it. The income support is too low for them to survive without tenacious human survival tactics like stealing whole shipments of food intended for sale at a supermarket.  The anti free trade is kind of evil  in the modern world between such closely interwoven Anglo populations.  But it is attention getting.  It seems aggressive at the lowest levels  of human cognizance but no matter what,  everyone loses.  

Click here. 

This dilemma cuts to the core of political philosophy: the fundamental choice between internal social security and external global power.

The Domestic Contract vs. Global Power A leader who guarantees universal income benefits to every citizen is operating on the principle of a strong social contract. By directing state resources inward, governance prioritizes baseline human security, domestic trust, and social cohesion. Political theorists like John Rawls argue that a state's primary duty is securing the welfare of its citizens. However, prioritizing complete internal equity often requires distinct borders, focused spending, and targeted policy—limiting how aggressively a nation can project power abroad.

The Hegemon's Trade-Off In contrast, serving as the world's most powerful leader shifts focus from domestic perfection to geopolitical dominance and international market oversight. Managing vast trading zones, global security, and transnational economics introduces incredible complexity. At that scale, resources are diverted to defense, foreign aid, and trade leverage, making it nearly impossible to guarantee uniform economic safety nets for every individual within your influence. Universal coverage is sacrificed for market reach and geopolitical weight.

The Strategic Choice Ultimately, a leader must decide which metric defines successful governance:

• Internal Stability: Ensuring no citizen falls below a dignified standard of living, accepting a smaller footprint on the world stage.
• Global Influence: Exercising unmatched political and economic power worldwide, accepting that safety nets within expansive trade networks will remain fragmented and uncertain.

Balancing both remains one of the hardest challenges in statecraft, as global reach almost always dilutes local focus.

Which of those two leadership models do you think builds a more resilient society in the long run?