I agree that it's almost impossible to make some big changes in the U.S., but I would argue whether we relly need them. We are the most prosperous nation in the whole world but I guess it's a human nature to be always unhappy.
How the World might look like in 2017?
- Thread starter felixbocharov
- Start date
Just feeding a billion people is big. They were big long before Plymouth Rock. I suppose if you call ancient Greece and Rome democratic you could say they did something big before they collapsed. Meanwhile, China just keeps chugging along. It looks like the only thing that could ever bring down China is democracy.
The thing is right now China enjoys the prevailing export due to their low currency and cheap labor, but if Trump is a president a lot of things are going to change. Of course, right now China tries to change orient on the internal market, but this market is too weak today.
Gold appears to be a solid investment. I expect gold to creep up in 2017. It should be a good year for precious metals. In Marc Faber's words, the mining sector is now on a bull run. Gold, silver, palladium and platinum are good buys at the moment.
Asian economies are bright spots for investment. Global investors point to Vietnam and Thailand as great opportunities to park your cash. A good look at the Chinese economy would be a good idea in exploring equity market ventures.
Asian economies are bright spots for investment. Global investors point to Vietnam and Thailand as great opportunities to park your cash. A good look at the Chinese economy would be a good idea in exploring equity market ventures.
I am forced by facts to strongly disagree. Although much of government has a life of its own, and the president usually has comparatively little influence except through his choice of Department Heads, there are some areas of government the President affects profoundly and directly. Here is a quote from Goldberg's detailed article in the Atlantic Monthly:
[Obama] has, late in his presidency, accumulated a set of potentially historic foreign-policy achievements—controversial, provisional achievements, to be sure, but achievements nonetheless: the opening to Cuba, the Paris climate-change accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and, of course, the Iran nuclear deal. These he accomplished despite his growing sense that larger forces—the riptide of tribal feeling in a world that should have already shed its atavism; the resilience of small men who rule large countries in ways contrary to their own best interests; the persistence of fear as a governing human emotion—frequently conspire against the best of America’s intentions. But he also has come to learn, he told me, that very little is accomplished in international affairs without U.S. leadership.
Whether we agree or disagree with the President's decisions in these matters, we can not truthfully say he has not gotten things done! Please read the entire Goldberg article. You will discover other remarkable achievements of this president.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
Last edited:
Good article, thank you. Of course, he achieved a lot as a president, far more than Bush, but during his last cadence Russia invaded Ukraine, Islamic state become a real threat to the World's security, our main partner - Europe - stuck with a refugee crisis.
yes, the one good thing we can say about Obama is other than the ACA he has not "gotten a lot done" which is how you democrats measure success. Everytime something gets "gotten done" the democrats win and the conservatives lose.
Both you and me my friend will be watching ACA in 2017. It's the only thing that was gotten done and we will see how getting things done works out.
I wouldn't myself consider the ACA a highlight of the Obama Presidency, nor can I blame its defects on Obama alone. He had help from those in both parties who were bought by the vested interests. By the time it passed, the most effective cost containment measure had been thoroughly wrung out of it. And leaving McCarran Ferguson intact meant that the originally-intended competition among insurers had no hope of working well. It is unrealistic to have expected Obama to veto the Bill as finally passed, but that's what he should of done. Had he, he would have called attention to the deceit of those intent on ruining the legislation.
Thank you for reading it. My own view is that Obama's single most important achievement, and the one that made his foreign policy initiatives possible, was his decision to break from standard responses and practice. We don't yet know how these initiatives will work out. It will take a number of years for that, but I remain hopeful. With time, I believe Obama has become more of a realist. He now seems to have accepted the limitations and downside of conventional military action. He plainly wanted to avoid another Iraq-like fiasco.
You've identified three world events that occurred during Obama's Presidency where the NATO Nations might have conceivably intervened earlier and with much more presence. Even though the results in these instances are not as we would have liked, it isn't clear at this point that the decisions made were not the best that might have been made, given the information, and assessments of risk and probability of success. We live in a complicated world. Ideally we will always choose well educated, experienced, psychologically stable and well balanced leaders, and then trust them to make the best decisions. We don't always to that, and that is the downside of our particular way of choosing our leaders.
Last edited: