The article analyzes the origins and causes of public resistance in the United States about the issue of preservation of monuments,  symbolizing the period of the Confederacy in the U.S. South during the Civil war (1861-1865). Indicates that the main factor in  the confrontation was a victory in the presidential elections of 2016  of D.Trump, who in the minds of his Democratic Party supporters is  associated with racial ideas of “white supremacy”. With the coming  to power of D. Trump in the U.S. relatively powerful movement emerged, mainly in the southern States for the  demolition and dismantling of Confederate monuments, which  symbolize, in the opinion of left-liberal forces, the ideas and theories  of superior and inferior races, who were believed to be sunk into  oblivion after the adoption in the 1960-s of civil rights laws.  Currently in the U.S. there are more than 1.5 thousand artifacts  relating to or symbolizing the period of the Confederacy and glorify  its military leaders. The specific histories of the dismantling of  monuments of the Confederation in various States are outlined.  However are considered and the counteractions of the opponents of  dismantling the legacy of the Confederacy are considered, which  created in the recent years the strong legal barriers for the  protection of Confederate monuments under the pretext of  protecting the cultural heritage of past historical periods. It is stated  that in retrospect, the current wave of dismantling of the  Confederate monument is to some extent а justified step because for  the first 30 years of the twentieth century these monuments  were erected as political symbols of the segregation-racist regime of  apartheid established in 26 U.S. States after the adoption of the so- called laws of “Jim Crow” at the turn of XIX-XX centuries. In the  conclusion it is stated that under the President D. Trump the severity  of the problem of the removal/preservation of Confederate  monuments and other monuments of the past American history will  remain in the foreseeable future.

The article deals with the issue of African American identity in the  post-segregation period (after 1968). The problem of African  Americans’ “double consciousness”, marked for the first time yet in  the late 19th – early 20th century, still remains relevant. It is that  descendants of slaves, who over the centuries have been relegated  to the periphery of the American society, have been experiencing and in part are experiencing an internal conflict, caused  by the presence of both American and African  components in their identities. The authors focus on Afrocentrism  (Afrocentricity) – a socio-cultural theory, proposed by Molefi Kete  Asante in 1980 as a strategy to overcome this conflict and to  construct a particular form of “African” collective identity of African  Americans. This theory, based on the idea of Africa and all people of  African descent’s centrality in world history and culture, was urged to  completely decolonize and transform African Americans’  consciousness. The Afrocentrists proposed African Americans to re- Africanize their self-consciousness, turn to African cultural roots in  order to get rid of a heritable inferiority complex formed by slavery and segregation. This article presents a brief outline of the  history of Afrocentrism, its intellectual sources and essential  structural elements, particularly Africology. The authors analyze the  concepts of racial identity, “black consciousness” and “black unity” in  the contexts of the Afrocentric theory and current social realities  of the African American community. Special attention is paid to the  methodology and practice of Afrocentric education. In Conclusion,  the authors evaluate the role and prospects of Afrocentrism among  African Americans in the context of general trends of their identities transformations.

Tax cuts and spending cuts go hand in hand at the beginning of the  Trump epoch. The paper focuses on the social effects of the tax  reform and new budget priorities which come along with steps aimed  to move more people from welfare into the workforce. For a  vast majority of Americans, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will lower their  federal tax bill in the coming years due to the new rates, new  tax brackets, much larger standard deductions, expanded child tax  credit. The high quintiles pay the biggest share of the tax burden, so  they will receive the largest volume in tax cuts. Income tax cuts, coming along with growing defense and infrastructure spending may significantly increase the budget deficit and national debt in the  nearest future, and require huge slashing federal spending which  would affect welfare programs for the low-income Americans. There  are nо plans to cut Social Security benefits as the main driver of  federal spending; but social expenditures which comprise cash  benefits, direct in-kind provision of goods and services are proposed  to being cut. The category of funding targeted by the Trump plan  covers a wide rangeof basic services, from medical care to education programs, child care, housing assistance for low-income families.

Grounded in analysis of specific features of the federal school reform  undertaken in the U.S. in early 21st century, this article demonstrates that the U.S. government attempted to reduce  the number of students lagging behind and thus to increase  students’ average performance by means of stimulating them to  transfer from underperforming to better schools, including from  public schools to schools of other types, which offer higher quality of  teaching. The article distinguishes three stages of the reform. On the first stage, in late 20th century, new types of schools emerged in the  U.S.: in addition to pre-existent public, private and religious schools, as well as home schooling, magnet schools  emerged in 1970s, and charter schools emerged in 1990s. On the  second stage, during George W. Bush Administration, U.S.  government assumed the powers to stimulate transfer of students  from underperforming public schools to charter schools, and to  stimulate increase in the number of charter schools. On the third  stage, during Barack Obama Administration and the first year of Donald Trump Administration, U.S. government faced the  impossibility to significantly increase the number of charter schools, to stimulate mass transfer of students from public schools  to charter schools, and to significantly improve average students’  performance over short time. Even if U.S. government assumes the  powers to stimulate transfer of students also to private schools, as  Donald Trump Administration proposed, it will hardly have a positive  effect in the short run. The article concludes that the model of school reform applied in the U.S. cannot solve the puzzle, because it  concentrates available resources around elite schools, while most  students lagging behind concentrate around traditional public schools.

The article focuses on the changes in US monetary policy since the  beginning of the 21st century and reveals the impact of this policy  on the national economies of other countries, especially emerging markets. The US monetary policy influenced the emerging  markets both through the real and financial channels. Through the  latter, the main impact was on the Treasury bills rates and on the  exchange rates. At the same time, the influence on different  countries varied in different periods. For example, interest rates in  Thailand, Mexico and Pakistan before the global economic and  financial crisis in general followed the cycle of US monetary policy.  The “quantitative easing” policy, the statements and the follow-up  actions to abolish it, have influenced cross-border capital flows to  emerging markets. A number of countries, including Russia,  experienced the impact of US monetary policy through the dynamics  of oil prices. Emerging markets face restrictions on their monetary  policy from the US monetary policy, but in practice they seek to  circumvent them through exchange rate regulation, restrictions on  crossborder capital flows and the pursuit of an independent monetary policy, not following the  cycles of interest rate changes in the US.

The article considers the USA role and place in the global  manufacturing and trade. Key aspects of the world economy  transformation in the context of globalization, internationalization  and liberalization are studied. As shows, USA and China are the two  largest economies in the world. United States is the world’s largest  economy by nominal GDP and second largest by purchasing power  parity (PPP). It holds a 15.4 percent share of global GDP in PPP  (2016). China is the world’s largest economy by PPP, accounting for  17.8 percent of global GDP. The USA share of world GDP declined by  a total of 3.8 percentage points between 2006 and 2016. At the  same time, the United States possesses great economic strength. It  is also the world leader in innovation. China’s success has mostly  been in lowerend innovation. This country has been less successful in  higher-end innovation, where USA currently maintain a lead. The  United States holds a leading position in aerospace, instrument  making, cloud computing, ICT, robotics-related technologies, nanomaterials, biopharmaceutical and other high-tech  industries and China significantly lags behind. Special attention is paid to the U.S. foreign trade. It is shown that the USA is one of  the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods and services. It  accounts for 10.5 percent of global goods and services exports in  2016 (second place after China) and 13.3 percent of global imports  (first place). Despite the world’s second place after China in some economic indexes such as gross domestic product (at PPP),   size of manufacturingand merchandise trade, USA ranks first in the  world in terms of quality indicators of economic development. It  remains the most powerful economy in the world. The author’s  conclusion is that, the loss of US world leadership in terms of output  indicators has not yet become a global problem for other countries  and world economy in the whole.

The article explores the Trump administration’s trade policy,  characterized by: attempts to rewrite the rules of international trade  according to the regulations established by the American side, “skepticism” with respect to the international regulatory  institutions of foreign trade, a course on the renegotiation of the  existing agreements. In a relationship with a number of countries,  manifestations of “ultimatizm” – the desire to negotiate with them from a position of strength are becoming increasingly evident.  Relapses of economic isolationism under the slogan “Restore the Greatness of America” periodically are being transformed into  concrete protectionist actions. The number of imposed import restrictions is growing, and their arsenal is expanding. It is  concluded, that tightening of the market access to the domestic  market for foreign suppliers is unlikely to lead to a significant  reduction in the US trade deficit. Bet on abandoning multilateral  arrangements in favor of bilateral trade agreements, conscious  downplaying of the role and importance of the WTO and other  international institutions can also be counterproductive. Focus on  dominance in the sphere of foreign economic activity apparently will remain the main direction of Trump trade policy until the end of the  term of his administration. However, under pressure from competitors, and because of the lack of real allies, the United States  will be forced to demonstrate greater flexibility and pragmatism, the  propensity to compromise and to establishment of temporary or  permanent blocs with their main trading partners. The idea of  “normality”, refraining from populism, will gradually begin to return  to the trade policy of this country. If, however the Trump  government will continue to act in isolation, without taking into  account the opinion of the world community, an increasing number  of partners of the United States will perceive it not as a leader, but as a violator of the rules of international trade. Under certain  circumstances, such a policy can provoke local and global trade  conflicts. In addition, the United States not necessarily will have to be the winner in them.

In the article the reasons for the deceleration of the average annual rates of economic growth of the United States are analyzed.  The rates declined in one and the half decade of the XXI century twice in comparison with the last three decades of the  twentieth century. Leading American economists and analysts  associated the main cause of the slowdown in economic growth with  a double drop in the rate of total factor productivity (TFP). This  indicator reflects the synergistic effects of the interaction of physical  and human capitals in the production process. The gradual decrease in the synergetic value of the interaction of labor and  capital in the US economy, other things being equal, also means a  decrease in the contribution of sinergetic factor to the rates of  economic growth and a greater priority in the state socio-economic policy of the capital factor in economic development. In  turn, the increasing role of capital in the economic development of  the US turns around with a sharp increase in inequality in income  distribution among different social strata of American society,  resulting in the bulk of the increase in economic production to  primarily 20% of the wealthiest layers of American society. The  growth of injustice in the distribution of goods and services in recent  decades in the United States was due to the lack of purposeful state  policy of the income redistribution. me. The absence of such a policy  stemmed from a growing crisis of most components of the  reproductive logistics of the American economy. In the end, general  conclusion is that the trend towards long-term decline in economic  growth will continue in the future because the US will be forced to invest trillions of dollars for infrastructure modernization in the  economy, which will not bring back quick economic returns in the short and possibly medium term.

PPP (public-private partnership) is traditionally considered as a  supplementary tool of spurring economic activity in specific areas.  But in innovations such a union proves to become especially vital in  modern situation of NBIC-revolution (Industrial Revolution 4.0). The  article examines why and how a Network of Radical Innovation PPPs  in USA (Manufacturing USATM) became the major zest of Obama’s  economic policy and what can be done for their more active  development under President D. Trump, should such a will become  real under his rule. As shown below, the Manufacturing USA Network  creates basis for Greenfield birth and/or sprouting of new  NBIC-technologies through traditional industrial clusters, reviving  their most perspective segments and elements and thus giving  chances for new sustainable competitive growth of USA economy  within global market. Notwithstanding general assumption of US  national innovation system as decentralized and based on private  innovation entrepreneurship (corporations), contemporary economic  reality gives little chance for US firms to be competitive in cutting- edge technologies of the future without pre-competitive cooperation  with each-others, with the State and with academic sector (research universities) using smart PPP models. Radical innovation  PPPs (RIPPPs), thus, are turning into indispensable new element of US innovation mechanism. Perspectives of US innovation and  industrial system without RIPPPs look gloomy as without joint federal and academic support US-based corporations (both  transnational corporations and nationally-oriented firms) cannot  timely obtain substantial sustainable competitive technological  advantage over their foreign counterparts. Usage of PPP tool is not uncommon for America as back in 1987 USA established world’s  first Innovation PPP called SEMATECH aimed at fostering  semiconductor industry in face of Japan growing global leadership in  semiconductors. But today such cooperation is needed throughout a bunch of mutually-dependent and interconnected NBIC- technologies among which IT is only a separate one. The article  shows that RIPPP system has both theoretical, pragmatic and  political aspects and US leading parties do not coincide on this  important subject. Author proves that RIPPP is in the interest of all  sectors of economy as RIPPPs develop mainly radical general- purpose technologies (as, for example, was ICT-technology for USA  in 1980-1990). Notwithstanding that no progress yet made in  Innovation PPPs by administration of D. Trump, Manufacturing USA  net grows and new international innovation partnerships with US  participation demonstrate growing internation al importance of such  cooperation: BRAIN Initiative declared at the Australian Academy of  Science in Canberra in December 2017 by representatives of the  United States, Australia, Europe, Japan and Korea is declared to  unite USA with major countries of former Trans-Pacific Partnership  Trade Agreement, TPP (Including USA, Australia, Japan, Korea) notwithstanding the fact that D. Trump forced USA to leave TPP in  2017. This International RIPPP is the first example of precompetitive cooperation in artificial intelligence (AI) field. International RIPPPs  tend to form an important new node in global innovation system.

Article analyzes the changes in the space economy, as well as the U.S. federal policy for preserving American domination in this area. The evolution of the space economy in the United States is briefly considered, including formation of venture businesses since late  1990s (due to the computer and Internet revolution and development of space technologies). Of particular importance is  a so-called Astropreneurship – growth of startups, developing space  launch systems and spacecrafts. Amid technological factors, the  main driver for the rise of Astropreneurship was a suboptimal  technological and market strategy of Boeing and Lockheed Martin  duopoly. It created conditions for disruptive innovation development  in the industry and transition to a new, more open model of  innovation processes there. Although in the 1980–1990’s federal  government enacted a business-friendly regulations for the commercial space sector and set measures to support it through  public procurement, a new situation in the markets and in sectoral innovation system has become a challenge for national  policy, enforced by budget constraints and other factors. Catastrophe of the Columbia space shuttle in 2003, which raised the  issue of maintaining independent U.S. access to the International Space Station and, in the future, to other orbital  operations after shuttles’ phase-out, triggered changes in federal  policies for the industry. As a result, since 2006 NASA (with some  DoD support) initiated several programs to develop new space  launch and delivery systems. These programs were based on the  public-private partnerships with active involvement of small and  medium innovative enterprises, primarily startups. The results  turned out to be more significant than originally intended: formation of a new model of federal industrial and technological  policy in the space sector, almost similar to the DARPA principles. The new policy assumes the role of NASA and, more  broadly, the federal government as an equal (rather than a  dominant) participant in space industry innovative processes and as  a more active organizer of the industry`s innovation system (considering changes in its nature). Despite all activities are  mission-oriented, more attention is paid to the development of  complex partnerships, ecosystems, etc. – with an emphasis both on  satisfaction of government needs and on ensuring market leadership  of the U.S. companies. However, this new model faces  sever al problems: ambiguity of federal expenditures on space- related research and development; need to restructure NASA science and technology organization; efficiency of federal efforts in support  of new partners and processes – taking into account specifics of  available policy instruments. The future of federal efforts will be  determined by the solution of these problems and by the need to  extend new model and practices to the key (in terms of market size  and technology advances) segments of space economy – satellite  manufacturing and the use of space data.