Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
He who spends the most, must do so in order to keep the game going.
true, it is a function of the system and merely a survival mechanism. As an Orioles fan, i know all too well how the NYY and BOS maintain their status at the top, by consistently outspending their opponents. Operating within the rules of the game. rules,,,,,
It will make for some fine line tip toeing for the Bama admin, as they roll out the attacks on Mitt Rmoney. They can't really bash the guy for being a 1% super rich wall street guy, without it backfiring when anyone with open eyes realizes that Obama falls in the same 1% category.
I don't have the hard data, but i've heard both 90 and 95% of incumbents gain re-election. With the level of disdain for all politicians, this signals that something is broken in our system, when we don't like the pols yet they retain power time and time again. Democracy, bought and paid for by the highest bidder
The incumbent president may draw faithful followers at the ballot-box, and it may demonstrate to not be amenable to allure the American citizenry away with Rmoney-2012 ideas (marketing strategies), even if beyond Rmoney-2012 telling the party-base and target electorate what they want to hear, the objective substance of those ideas are in fact superior to the Obama marketing $trategies. For example, is the keyed instrument you use to type from your computer, the most capable and resourceful design of its kind offered to consumers? The answer, without argument, no. However, the particular design you use, continues to keep in possession an iron grip of the market due to its design layout being the product which nearly universally, users have become accustomed with.
The American citizenry have become accustomed to strategies, in direct contrast to a reality that is complicated, where the future remains unknown in the global game, where there is no fixed, certified conclusion to the great American decline. Thus, politicians in this complicated reality, are unable to construct the optimal strategy. Behavior changes over time, and even if agents in Washington had complete information about behavior at any position during this American decline, nothing is entirely transparent. Washington never knows for certain the movement of their opponent or the full scale list of genuine moves which say, China, will choose from at any given point in time, even if they are playing by the identical rules. China, for example, unlike the U.S., are not required to plan for the short term, China are without elections, where short-term incentives matter.
To create a portrait of a future that is unknown, in the 1400s, it was amusingly ridiculous to suggest that Western culture and trade would come to dominate the world as we know it it today. Between 1405-1424, China sailed the north coast of Australia, Greenland and Africa, before the age of European exploration had began. Such voyages were not to trade, but to assert Chinese supremacy. When the Chinese emperor during this period died, so did the dream of Chinese overseas expansion. The impact under his successors was that maritime voyages ceased. Later in 1500, anyone found building a ship with more than two masks was liable to the death penalty. In 1551, it became a crime in China to even go to sea on a multi-mask ship. China essentially turned inwards, failed to progress, and allowed the fiery ‘competition’ between small competitive Western European countries to take the opportunity that they failed to capitalize on, overseas expansion, triggered in Western Europe when the Portuguese went looking for an alternate route to corner the spice trade, which set off a maritime space race. By 1915, Western Empires controlled half of the territory and population of the globe and eighty-percent of economic output. Sixty-five years later, the average American was seventy-times richer than the average Chinese, and it was amusingly ridiculous at the time in 1980 (as it was in the 1400s with respect to European countries), that China, was within a single generations reach of becoming the worlds largest economy, a position along side India that it held back in the 1400s. China’s key economic reformer during the 1980s, focused on the Chinese missed opportunity of the early 1400s to dominate the world, and how its decisions at a critical point to cease expansion at a time, when like America today, it was involved in costly wars, which placed it in fiscal problems, were in part, the cause for its failure to produce an Isaac Newton of the East. Recently, when the financial storm hit, China and India were not even subject to a recession. Even during the most turbulent period of the U.S. and Euro downward slope towards decline, these Eastern powers grew on average approx eight-percent and continued to assert themselves.
China has signaled that it is not going to make the same mistake twice, and I guess it would be amusingly ridiculous as it was in the early 1400s with Europe, or the 1980s with China, to suggest that even after Greece has been stripped of all material wealth, and its people, bleed dry by the bankers, their rights taken away, and the same fate that await Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Belgium, Ireland and France has come to pass, that Germany who had a trade surplus of one-hundred-and-fifty-eight billion Euro last year, will have its empire. Washington needs to promote competition to spark innovation and invest in a future generation of skilled workers in key growth sectors.