Is the United States of America content to follow rather than lead?

Sounds like trying to stir up trouble to me. I won’t bite.
I prefer Fluther friendly.

I kind of like the idea of the US becoming more insular. It has created opportunities for a number of other countries. It has already shown up in Canadian retail sales numbers – less cross-border shopping , more money being spent here, more jobs . The report today was a surprise to the economists who’d forgotten to take the travel drop into account.

The current administration does not want to lead the world anymore. They have made that clear. I think it is short sighted, as it means we lose our ability to influence outcomes.

Angela Merkel is now the Leader of The Free World.

At the next G-8, I expect the US will be seated at the kid’s table.

If the US is going to lead, it means taking responsibility. And if one thing is clear, it is that current leadership will do anything to avoid taking responsibility.

Obama tried, but he was cut off at the knees by the (not very) loyal opposition.

For the record. Many of us don’t want that “power.” Don’t think that we have the right to do what we’ve done. And don’t support the current role of the US…

The President of the United States was once considered leader of the free world but that role is unthinkable for a man like Trump who is a laughing stock. That doesn’t mean America is irrelevant to the rest of the world, it’s economic and especially its military power is still huge but it will lack moral authority and respect while Trump is in charge. Trump is never going to change and I hope his supporters are beginning to see the light.

He doesn’t want to support NATO anymore. He would be happy if the UN was dismantled. He doesn’t want to support science research or healthcare. He doesn’t believe in free trade agreements. He is dismantling the areas that the US once led in.

It looks like he’ll be impeached now, so that’s a point of light to focus on.

Sounds like a bunch of whiney anti-Trump rhetoric to me. Our economic and military power is unrivaled in the world. We can survive just fine without NATO or even the UN. They cannot without the USA. Trump is not trying to dismantle either one of those but he’s not willing to be their ‘whipping boy’ either. The days of Obama’s leading from behind’ (by definition, that’s following) are over. Once the economy begins to recover we will be even stronger. Don’t judge our leadership by the feckless policies of Obama. He’s gone, thank God.

Sounds like a bunch of US-centric hubris, @Jaxk . When oil starts getting traded in Euros, you’re fucked. If the trade restrictions and tarriffs go up, like Trump wants them, you are toast. America is losing its special ‘snowflake-unicorn’ status. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Your academic elite is going to go elsewhere. You aren’t going to be the centre for technology, medical, scientific advancement. The trade practices are going to leave the US a dumping ground for second best goods because there is going to be less margin on them because of imposed tariffs. Don’t confuse spending with power.

Don’t get me wrong. Taking into account the years from 1776 to 2016, I love America. I will always love the idea of America. I just hope that she finds her way back.

@cazzie – I doubt the dollar as the world’s currency will be lost. If it is, it will be the result of our massive debt (thanks Obama). If it is lost, I doubt it will be replaced by the Euro. As for the technical leadership, I don’t see that going anywhere. If we can reduce the burden of regulation, business will take off again.

I will agree that I also love the idea of America but believe that we are already on the road to recovery. The stagnation of the Obama years hurt us but we’re not mortally wounded.

^No connection to reality….

If you think the ‘Obama years’ stagnated America…. I can’t even begin to discuss the real world with you.

^Yeah. There was too much to address…

Big business has no interest in innovation. The payoff is too distant to keep Wall Street investors interested. If they are lucky, they get new tech via consolidation, but that serves only to eliminate competition as well. Once you have a lock on the market, there is even less incentive to innovate. See link

Obama was hardly an impediment to mergers and consolidation. I don’t see what @Jakx is talking about…business had very little to worry about with the republican effort (and success) to stop anything Obama proposed. Link

@jwalt Good articles and I have no objection to the data. I think the conclusions however are somewhat missing the point. 20 years ago I might have bought their conclusions hook, line, and sinker. Unfortunately there is more to it. You can’t say that a company like Apple doesn’t innovate. They do and they do it well. There are companies like Cisco Systems that their business strategy is to acquire technology through acquisition. What you seem to be missing is that if the technology is acquired, that means that someone is still inventing it. The reason that new technologies are stymied or that new companies are dwindling is regulation. Regulation favors the big guys while crippling the small ones. The small businesses simply can’t compete, the regulatory burden is a much larger piece of my revenue stream than it would be if I owned 100 or a 1,000 stores. Regulatory issues consume most of my time and energy and I only owner a small gas station and convenience store.

I could go on and on about this but until you try to start a business, any business, you can’t grasp the full impact. Sorry but this is my pet peeve.

Oh, regulation is in place to favour the big guys and the big guys lobby for it. They tried to do it with soapmakers in the US and it was a serious issue for hobbyists. Don’t mistake regulation for government. It’s headed by big business.