Monopoly Here Amp; Now Edition

[Favio Cassidy]

If you find the notion of buying Boardwalk for $400 or railroad companies ruling transportation to be ever-so quaint, if not downright dated, get ready to place your vote for "Monopoly: Here and Now."

Hasbro is conducting an online poll that marks the first time consumers will have a hand in the board design of Monopoly, in which players get a feel for what it's like to make deals like Donald Trump, acquiring real estate and wealth, while the losers go broke.

The new-wave Monopoly will say goodbye to the Atlantic City streets of the classic game, which has morphed into 200 different editions and sold more than 250 million copies in 80 countries since Parker Brothers, now a division of Hasbro, introduced it in 1935.

For "Here and Now," fans can vote at www.monopoly .com for landmarks from 22 cities, including New York's Times Square, Chicago's Wrigley Field, Honolulu's Waikiki Beach, Beverly Hills' Rodeo Drive and San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge.

Tim Walsh, author of "Timeless Toys: Classic Toys and the Playmakers Who Created Them" (Andrews McNeel Publishing, $29.95), sees "Here and Now" through the eyes of a historian, one who doesn't believe Monopoly - old or new - would ever make it if it had been released today instead of during the Depression.

"It would fail miserably because it's so complicated and it takes so much time to play," said Walsh, who adds that the long playing time and handling of even fake money were among its attractions back when.

Another thing the original game had was the identifiable markers from Atlantic City, N.J., "which was founded as America's city," Walsh noted. "The fact that this one particular city had a universal feel, and streets named after U.S. states or after seas like Baltic and Mediterranean, gave it a sort of universal appeal."

To up the ante of the updated game's appeal, rents will rise in accordance with recent rates, there will be new game tokens, airports will replace railroads and utilities will change as well. A United Kingdom version of "Here and Now" is already available, with landmarks such as Wembley Arena and Covent Garden and tokens such as cell phones and doubledecker buses.

Hasbro has had national polls for Monopoly before that did not involve the board design. In early 1999, a sack of money became the first token to be added to the game in more than four decades. The money bag won 51 percent of the vote, beating out a biplane, with 29 percent, and a piggy bank, with 20 percent.

No one is knocking the changes - so long as there's no permanent tampering with the original. As long as that's available, "real fans will not be irked at all, and this is another (edition) for collectors," Walsh said.

Today marks the two-year anniversary ofthe signing of the Executive Order creating the NationalExport Initiative (NEI), when President Obama set the ambitious goalof doubling U.S. exports over five years.

To mark this anniversary, we released new data today showing that jobssupported by U.S. exports increased by 1.2 million between 2009 and 2011.Building on strong growth in 2010, exports supported approximately 9.7 millionjobs in 2011 and the value of U.S. exports of goods and services exceeded $2.1trillion for the first time in U.S. history.

Also, the U.S. Commercial Service andU.S. Embassy in Bahrain successfully advocated for Great Lakes Dredge &Dock Company, LLC, to provide dredging and land reclamation services to theBahraini Ministry of Housing for the East Hidd Housing Development project. Thefinal project included $51 million in U.S. export content and supported 280U.S. jobs.

Our press release has an even longer list of successful steps the U.S.Department of Commerce has taken to help U.S. companies export globally andcreate jobs locally. And if you need a quick review of the last two years ofthe National Export Initiative, here is a short video to get you up to speed.

Today it is great to hear that the executive emergence order is starting to work. That is a great thing. However, in reality we are sacrificing our defenses for economy. For example, your statement that the US has double exports is in reality without doubt it has also doubled imports. As when the US seems to open trade with foreign countries. It is usually the foreign country earning the balance of payments in foreign treasury. Which then still leaves the US in stagflation. However, it is just a bigger number of stagflation. The idea that the US export initiative is working is but a cloud over the real problem. The real problem is the US's GDP to trade ratio. Which is still around 25-35% equatable. As every time the US goes and does business we feel have to import more from a country than we export. This is a problem. As most countries that have a normalized economy have about a 75% GDP to trade ratio. Which means their economy is primarily based on trade. Where in the US the reality is we are still heavily based on services and stagflation. Where the US's trade is so horrible imbalanced that it does not matter of we where to double our trade, as we are tripled in back debt and balance of payments, we are last in the world. Therefore, I am glad to hear this. Yet, I find the real article should have been, for a professional economic article writer. That the US has finally gained a substantial share of GDP to Trade ratio. Where the US is taken in more trade balance foreign currency than we are putting out in the world. As currently the US imports way more than it exports. Thus leaving us in a horrible trade deficit. As service jobs here in the US when we import are jobs. However, they are stagflation economic equation.

Stagflation means that the service jobs we gain from imports are not helping pay of our macro economy deficit. As the service jobs are not bringing in any foreign currency or treasury and the US is showing no value to the world. Therefore, the idea of exports imitativeness as you stated has come with the cost of allowing free trade with countries that are seriously going to dump on our economy. Thus meaning that the exports initiative is doubled out and crossed out and placed back on the stagflation economic equations. As such, the President in reality as not having a proper macro economic advisers has just done more harm than good with this trade policies of forcing a free trade agreements. So the US can get a small amount of exports compared to the massive amount of imports we are going to have to taken on due to unfair overhead costs.

The overhead costs of today that are causing this stagflation. In which in a free trade agreement force the US into a negative balance of payments. Is in reality because of economic terrorist. Today we see folks like Secretary Chu, stating he wishes to force gas prices to go higher in the US and EU. When the EU has had gasoline prices at $10 for over a decade, and the US seriously needs a competitive overhead price to get out of the last place balance of payments and deficit issue. Along with that then we get folks like Commerce Secretary Gary Locke who allowed 80% of our green tech stimulus to be drained from the US under his orders and watchful eyes. Not to mention because of the major lack of ability to gain a surplus in foreign treasury through trade of exports as per trade of imports balances. The US is having to raise its cost of utilities and taxes to upgrade our systems of natural civilized overhead.

Gasoline is one of the most important overhead issues the US has. As the whole supply lines of the US are based on it. If you where a foreign espionage agent, or a sympathetic agent to a foreign country wishing to take over our economy. The main thing you would want to do is to drive up the cost of fuel. As per Kevin Freeman's Secret Weapons. This is exactly what the Communist Muslim mercs are doing, along with Communist China and Russia. This is because of course they wish to keep our trade competition down so they can trade more. As in history trade routes are what take over the world's cognitional and trending balance of clout. Therefore, we can see that gas as the main supply root economic factor is a major issue. Over the last four years thanks to failed DOE policies we have seen the price of Gas rise from $2 a gallon all the way up to $5 a gallon. When the economy as it is constantly going deeper and deeper into debt needs gas to stabilize at a low cost so our business and our supply lines can have a low competitive overhead cost. So we can change our balance of export import payments from negative to positive. As other major competitors in the world, like the Communist Chinese and the Middle east get gas at the cost of about $.65 -$1. This is a major issue. However, the constant rising cost of gas has cost the US to lose export import balance of payments. Which the US keeps making worse. The main reason for this is an ideological perspective that if Secretary Chu drives up the price of gas. That we will move to better fuel systems and a variety of gas. The problem is that, that is like going from hoarses to cars. Cars did not catch for almost three decades from the time they where created. Even then the supply lines of gas and necessary issues to allow the US to have a normalized route system took just as long to catch up. Currently today in the world of macro economics. We do not have the protected economy as did in late 1800's. This means that the US does not have the niceness to force the price of hay and taxes on hoarse to go sky high to push folks into cars. In analogically today. We see the issue with gas being the hay. As such, the reality is that gas is hear for a long time, until we can get the proper supply line routes up for the new type of supply line overhead. Thus meaning the idea of forced price increase is like shooting our economy in the head. As it is not good for the macro whole of the economy. While it could slowly go into affect as gas stays low, as folks will still want to buy cars with better MPG even at $2 a gallon.

Then we get to fact that even if Chu was working on a project to help the US update our supply lines with new energy initiatives. Him Gary Locke and the Contracts Secretary all worked together to allow 80% of our green tech stimulus to be drained from the US. While the Communist Chinese subsidized their green tech industry with over 300 billion. The US barely spent 2.8 billion. Which 80% of that was sent over seas with our companies. While the remaining companies where completely destroyed from non competitive competition with Communist State Owned Enterprises. This then means, that the US as per Secretary Chu's policy to force seizure of our supply lines and cause major stops and crimps and raise hell of high overhead supply costs. Will also lead to a further decrease in the US ability to pay for its deficit. As the main supply lines he is pushing for. Will come from Communist China. This means even if they create their cars here. The majority of the earned surplus income will be going back to Communist China. While the stagflation economic equation will be staying here, as the fresh dollars we could have been making with exports in that industry are going to be collected purely by the Communist Chinese. As today, the majority of the US car companies and other supply line companies that wanted to trade with Communist China. As per Gary Locke and Secretary Chu allowed, used innovation laws to force seizure of all of our green tech US ideas. Thus, then they used 16 Cartelled SOE's to create a major stock pile of supply lines like trucks cars and other issues. In which they are waiting for Secretary Chu to make the cost of gas so high that the US will have no choice but to turn to them for cheap supply lines to try and spread through the US to compete with international needs of low cost supply lines.

3a8082e126