scholarly journals TRUMP BAIDEN WHO IS BETTER? ANSWER PRACTICE AND THEORY

2021 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Valeriy Yarmolatiy

The article presents an expanded understanding of the reasons for the tough struggle for the presidency in the United States of two strategic directions of development of the US economy. The direction that subordinates the development of the country to the global capital base, the world government, the second direction is the development of the country's economy of jobs. An idea of imperialism and its emergence are given. A variant of the organization of the economy without crises, which turns imperialism into a form of a market of free competition, is outlined. The positive prospects of this direction for the country and the world were noted.

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (196) ◽  
pp. 17-25
Author(s):  
V.N. Minat ◽  

As part of the study of agricultural production, as one of the leading export-oriented sectors of the US economy, the dynamics of foreign trade in American agricultural products, which is objectively recognizable in the categorical and economic evolution of spatial patterns, is considered. The latter are considered in the context of the global regional structure of agricultural exports and imports of the United States in 1946–2019 and the features of stimulating the export of American agricultural products in the context of the main regions and countries of the world for the same period of time. Based on the synthesis of historical/evolutionary and spatial approaches, methodologically filled with methods of abstract-logical and statistical-economic analysis of official American statistics, the provisions on geo-economic conjuncture, expansionism and protectionism of US foreign trade in the world/global agricultural market are empirically proved.


Author(s):  
O. V. Zhuravliov ◽  
О. М. Simachova

The US economy is one of the richest and most diversified economies in the world and keeps its leadership in the global economy for the past 100 years. The United States is a global leader in computer technology, pharmaceuticals and the manufacture of medical, aerospace and military equipment. And although services make up about 80% of GDP, the US remains the second largest producer of industrial goods in the world and is a leader in research and development. President Donald Trump was elected in November 2016, promising a big gap with his predecessor’s regulatory, tax and trade policies. Therefore, the current socio-economic status of the USA and the possible ways of its development in the future are interesting for studying the impact on other economies, in particular, on the Ukrainian economy and the search for new and optimal ways of developing relations between the United States and Ukraine. Key macroeconomic indicators of the US economy in 2011–2018 are analyzed, demonstrating the influence of Donald Tramp’s new policy on changes in the indicators of the economy, the labor market, trade, etc., as well as possible ways of development in the coming years. The review of key macroeconomic indicators gives grounds for classifying the American economy as healthy one. Rates of GDP growth will remain in the range of 2 to 3%. These rates of growth in the world’s largest economy are callable to ensure a substantial increase in the global activity. But uncertainties in the politics may hinder global growth and have clearly negative impact on the investment growth in developed and developing economies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Kapic˘ka

I construct measures of technology capital and country openness for the US economy and the rest of the world for 1982–2007. The key identifying assumption is that firms equalize returns on tangible and technology capital. For the US economy, technology capital is about one-third of tangible capital, and the degree of openness is between 0.61 and 0.70. I provide both a two-country estimation and a multicountry estimation, and find that the US estimates are almost identical in both cases. The welfare loss from totally closing the US economy is small, but the welfare gain from totally opening the US economy is large. (JEL E22, F41, O30)


Author(s):  
Judge Glock

Despite almost three decades of strong and stable growth after World War II, the US economy, like the economies of many developed nations, faced new headwinds and challenges after 1970. Although the United States eventually overcame many of them, and continues to be one of the most dynamic in the world, it could not recover its mid-century economic miracle of rapid and broad-based economic growth. There are three major ways the US economy changed in this period. First, the US economy endured and eventually conquered the problem of high inflation, even as it instituted new policies that prioritized price stability over the so-called “Keynesian” goal of full employment. Although these new policies led to over two decades of moderate inflation and stable growth, the 2008 financial crisis challenged the post-Keynesian consensus and led to new demands for government intervention in downturns. Second, the government’s overall influence on the economy increased dramatically. Although the government deregulated several sectors in the 1970s and 1980s, such as transportation and banking, it also created new types of social and environmental regulation that were more pervasive. And although it occasionally cut spending, on the whole government spending increased substantially in this period, until it reached about 35 percent of the economy. Third, the US economy became more open to the world, and it imported more manufactured goods, even as it became more based on “intangible” products and on services rather than on manufacturing. These shifts created new economic winners and losers. Some institutions that thrived in the older economy, such as unions, which once compromised over a third of the workforce, became shadows of their former selves. The new service economy also created more gains for highly educated workers and for investors in quickly growing businesses, while blue-collar workers’ wages stagnated, at least in relative terms. Most of the trends that affected the US economy in this period were long-standing and continued over decades. Major national and international crises in this period, from the end of the Cold War, to the first Gulf War in 1991, to the September 11 attacks of 2001, seemed to have only a mild or transient impact on the economy. Two events that were of lasting importance were, first, the United States leaving the gold standard in 1971, which led to high inflation in the short term and more stable monetary policy over the long term; and second, the 2008 financial crisis, which seemed to permanently decrease American economic output even while it increased political battles about the involvement of government in the economy. The US economy at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century was richer than it had ever been, and remained in many respects the envy of the world. But widening income gaps meant many Americans felt left behind in this new economy, and led some to worry that the stability and predictability of the old economy had been lost.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 502-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick W. Mayer ◽  
Nicola Phillips

AbstractSince US President Donald J. Trump took office in January 2017, the future of the global economy has looked distinctly uncertain. This is not because a process of clear and purposeful change can be said to be underway. Instead, it is because of a pattern of piecemeal, inconsistent and contradictory fragments of policy, both domestic and international in orientation, in the arenas of trade, taxation, business relations, finance and banking, social and welfare provision, immigration, and environmental protection, whose cumulative significance remains unclear. The modest task of this essay is therefore to sketch the contours, patterns, inconsistencies and confusions presented by the Trump administration's approach to shaping the US economy and, by extension, the global economic order, and on that basis to offer an interpretation of its emerging implications for inequality both within the United States and across the world.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda J. Bilmes

AbstractThe United States has traditionally defined national security in the context of military threats and addressed them through military spending. This article considers whether the United States will rethink this mindset following the disruption of the Covid19 pandemic, during which a non-military actor has inflicted widespread harm. The author argues that the US will not redefine national security explicitly due to the importance of the military in the US economy and the bipartisan trend toward growing the military budget since 2001. However, the pandemic has opened the floodgates with respect to federal spending. This shift will enable the next administration to allocate greater resources to non-military threats such as climate change and emerging diseases, even as it continues to increase defense spending to address traditionally defined military threats such as hypersonics and cyberterrorism.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Biba

Abstract As the Sino-American Great Power competition continues to intensify, newly-elected US President Joe Biden's administration now seeks to enlist the support of its allies and partners around the world. As Europe's largest economy and a, if not the, leading voice within the European Union, Germany represents an important puzzle-piece for Biden. But Germany, at least under outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel, has been reluctant to take sides. It is against this backdrop that this article looks into Germany's past and present trilateral relationships with the US and China through the theoretical lens of the so-called strategic triangle approach. Applying this approach, the article seeks to trace and explain German behaviour, as well as to elucidate the opportunities and pitfalls that have come with it. The article demonstrates that Germany's recently gained position as a ‘pivot’ (two positive bilateral relationships) between the US and Chinese ‘wings’ (positive bilateral relations with Germany and negative bilateral relations with each other) is desirable from the perspective of the strategic triangle. At the same time, being pivot is also challenging and hard to maintain. Alternative options, such as entering a US–German ‘marriage’ directed against China, are also problematic. The article therefore concludes that Germany has tough decisions to take going forward.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (04) ◽  
pp. 92-106
Author(s):  
Vitaly KOZYREV

The recent deterioration of US–China and US–Russia relations has stumbled the formation of a better world order in the 21st century. Washington’s concerns of the “great power realignment”, as well as its Manichean battle against China’s and Russia’s “illiberal regimes” have resulted in the activated alliance-building efforts between Beijing and Moscow, prompting the Biden administration to consider some wedging strategies. Despite their coordinated preparation to deter the US power, the Chinese and Russian leaderships seek to avert a conflict with Washington by diplomatic means, and the characteristic of their partnership is still leaving a “window of opportunity” for the United States to lever against the establishment of a formal Sino–Russian alliance.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israa Daas ◽  

Abstract The Palestine-Israel conflict is probably one of the most pressing problems in the Middle East. Moreover, the United States has been involved in this conflict since the 1970s. Therefore, the present research aims to learn more about the American perception of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was conducted using a survey that addressed Americans from different backgrounds, focusing on four variables: the American government’s position, solutions, the Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem. The research suggests a correlation between political party and the American perception of the conflict. It appears that Republicans seem to be against the withdrawal of the Israeli settlements, and they believe that the US government is not biased toward Israel. Nevertheless, Democrats tend to believe that the US government is biased in favor of Israel, and they support withdrawing the Israeli settlements. Moreover, there might be another correlation between the American perception and the source of information they use to learn about the conflict. Most of the surveyed Americans, whatever their resource of information that they use to learn about the conflict is, tend to believe that the US is biased in favor of Israel. It is crucial to know about the American perception when approaching to a solution to the conflict as the US is a mediator in this conflict, and a powerful country in the world. Especially because it has a permanent membership in the UN council. KEYWORDS: American Perception, Palestine-Israel Conflict, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements


2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-419
Author(s):  
Krishnakumar S.

With Donald Trump as President of United States, multilateralism in the world economy is facing an unprecedented challenge. The international economic institutions that have evolved since the fifties are increasingly under the risk of being undermined. With the growing assertion of the emerging and developing economies in the international fora, United States is increasingly sceptical of its ability to maneuvre such institutions to suit its own purpose. This is particularly true with respect to WTO, based on “one country one vote” system. The tariff rate hikes initiated by the leader country in the recent past pose a serious challenge to the multilateral trading system. The paper tries to undertake a critical overview of the US pre-occupation of targeting economies on the basis of the bilateral merchandise trade surpluses of countries, through the trade legislations like Omnibus Act and Trade Facilitation Act. These legislations not only ignore the growing share of the United States in the growing invisibles trade in the world economy, but also read too much into the bilateral trade surpluses of economies with United States and the intervention done by them in the foreign exchange market.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document