China Is Run by Engineers. America Is Run by Lawyers

Not sure what is the solution, but if people say they would prefer younger "options" and they don't materialize on the ballots, that is a sign that the system does not work as intended.

Had to double check the dates on Churchill - very impressive

"In 1953, during his second stint as prime minister, Winston Churchill had a stroke after dinner. “No one seemed alarmed by [his] slurred speech and unsteadiness on his feet, one of the advantages of having a reputation for enjoying alcohol,” writes Andrew Roberts, a historian. For several weeks, as Churchill was incapable of governing, his son-in-law and private secretary in effect ran the country. He never fully recovered, yet refused to stand down until 1955, when he was 80. " https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/07/03/senility-in-hi...

If the plan is to reduce the reach of Washington to Virginia and DC then Churchill would be a great choice of leader and if that is the explicit goal then ok sure. If the plan is to maintain a peaceful status quo as a powerful and successful country people like Churchill in the leadership are a very bad sign indeed.

You have to assume the UK had no power to influence its internal or world affairs to conclude that its political class were competent through the last century. Which is a crazy stance given where they were in the early 1900s.

It’s in the definition. Words have meaning.

All of them? No. But I also could introduce you to plenty of 25 year old's that aren't "agile and flexible enough, mentally to perform these positions". And it's often not even "mental agility" that is the problem with people in power, it's corruption, greed, and just plain old hate that is the problem. Those things don't have any age limits except maybe below 6 years old, and even then I've met some pretty nasty, spoiled toddlers.

I don't know, it seems like it's a weird argument but it's definitely a thought I've had too. When I was eyeballing the Egyptian dynasties I was bit shocked to notice how short lived they all are, compared to what I expected. The majority struggle to get to 150 years, no one gets past 300. In fact old man America will soon be an older polity than all of them except the much maligned Ptolemies (275 years). Same deal for the (well documented) Chinese dynasties. People think kingdoms and states are long enduring, measured in multiple centuries, but they're actually pretty unstable.

It seems like a weird unexamined law of the universe. Dynasties/polities struggle to make it past 300~ without some major interruption or something going wrong, if they haven't imploded earlier. There are exceptions. The Korean Joseon managed an eye watering 500+ years. And the Catholic Papacy has been going on continuously for closer to 2 millenia. But still, 249 years is pretty long in the tooth.

The fact that the supreme court even exists shows that this is far from the whole truth. Besides that, and even if it were the case, there is a pretty clear effort underway to do an end-run around large chunks of that constitution.

> You haven't even changed regime yet. Only every been a republic

Right I think that's literally the point that GP was making? The US main legal framework is the same one from 250 years ago, which is not the case for the vast majority of Europe et al. Which leads to some weird interactions, and in some people's minds a lot of anachronisms. Like you gotta deal with the law written by armed revolutionaries protecting the right to own cannons and warships and whatnot (which continued pretty well into the 1800s), with the modern day of like.... maybe not allowing private ownership of 127mm naval guns or JDAMs.

Though no practice for Europeans.

You see how stupid you sound?

And somehow sentence from "The good, the bad and ugly" movie (state by Italy born actor) fit on that subject: "If you want freedom you become a priest or a bandit"...

And remember to all the time stick a smile to your face and, internet even, conversations. That is sure fire way to have everything look positive.

It is as long as the person really cares about their family. You sure they all do?

I said anyone can be a cost cutter, and that includes engineers.

Where engineers are unique is in their ability and training to be efficiency and value creators. They are productivity increasers.

Their value comes from productivity increases - not their ability to cut budgets. Cutting a budget might be a side effect of a productivity increase, but the profitability increases that finance first leaders push for is often at the expense of long term productivity rather than because of it.

Hope that makes more sense!