segnosaur

Of course they do... some children are tough and stringy, and need to be tenderized before cooking. What?

Ok, let me address that little issue: First of all, it should be noted that every major national political party has, at one point or another supported the use of Canadian planes in international military actions.. The Liberals under Jean Chretien had the CF18s deployed during NATO missions in the Balkans, and the Conservatives deployed them in Libya; the Libyan deployment was also supported by the NDP. (Now, I don't know what the BQ, Green Party or Marijuana party thought of deploying our planes in those actions, but they are unlikely to be forming a government any time soon.) Thus, even if you did not personally support such military deployments, there is probably an 80-90% chance that a party you voted for DID support such actions. And considering each of the parties has supported such actions, it would be incredibly hypocritical for a political party (or its hardcore supporters) to demand military action on one hand, while denying the military the tools it needs to carry out those actions. Secondly, while the F35 is called a "strike fighter", a better term for it would be "multi-role" fighter. Even if Canada never ever deploys its fighter planes in a foreign country again, even if we become complete isolationists, we would still require some fighter, for even such basic jobs as preventing planes from going off course. Remember, much of the discussion here has not just been about the abilities of the plane in combat; much of the discussion has been about costs. While you seem to be under the assumption that the F35 is "too expensive", there is plenty of evidence that over the long term its costs will not necessarily exceed that of the alternatives. Our current fleet is decades past its original expected life time. As they get older the cost of maintaining them increases. They are not expected to be viable past around 2020, at which point metal fatigue will become an increasingly significant issue. Given the long lead time in procuring any sort of military hardware in Canada, steps must be taken YEARS in advance of any delivery. Yes, lets talk about attrition, shall we? Now, I know you like to jump up and down, and drool over every piece of bad news about the F35. However, the fact is, despite repeated delays, despite cost overruns, and despite smaller initial orders from other countries, the F35 is going ahead, and it looks like it will be a main-stay fighter for many air forces for decades to come. Whatever plane we purchase will suffer some degree of attrition. What that means is that, in the future, if one of our F35s requires spare parts or replacement, we will likely be able to make purchases from a functioning assembly line. On the other hand, consider one of its potential competitors, like the F18 Super Hornet. Currently it only has 2 users, and although some countries have expressed an interest in buying it, they do not have any firm orders, and the production line is slated to end in a couple of years. From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/17/airshow-dubai-boeing-fighter-idUSL2N0J20BA20131117 Boeing is scrambling to drum up additional orders for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler electronic attack plane before its production line is slated to end in 2016. ... Boeing had good odds of winning a big Brazilian fighter competition, but that was derailed earlier this year after revelations of U.S. spying on President Dilma Rousseff. Malaysia, which was also considering the F/A-18, has postponed its fighter tender due to budget pressures, and talks about a possible order from Qatar are still in the early stages. And then last month, the U.S. Navy abruptly revoked a notice on a federal procurement website about a possible order of 36 F/A-18s or EA-18G electronic attack planes... So, if we go with something like the Super Hornet, in 2 decades we may find ourselves in an even worse spot than we are now: - No assembly line from which to buy spare parts and/or new planes. So, we would ether be forced to buy extra spare parts or planes NOW (thus negating any cost benefits for buying a cheaper plane), or we'd have to have the assembly lines restarted (which would be even pricier). Or, we could go to a "mixed fleet", but that also involves significant overhead. - If and when any modifications are needed (e.g. to maintain communications capability with our allies, etc.), Canada would have to pay the complete development costs. On the other hand, if we purchase the F35 (which will have more global users), any development costs for upgrades can be divided among multiple countries. So yes, Attrition is an issue that hasn't really been discussed. But like other issues, if attrition IS discussed, the F35 ends up looking even better than the alternatives.

Sorry for the late delay in posting this. (I have been too busy with other stuff to post around here, but thought a few things needed to be said...) I think I might have an explanation. The Canadian forces have begun a program to try to extend the life of the CF-18, by limiting some of the conditions they fly under, reducing their flying hours, and swapping them in and out of service. In addition, the age of the planes means more difficulty in maintenance, and less times the planes are available to fly. From: http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo7/no2/roberds-eng.asp When originally purchased, the CF-18 had a serviceability rate of 80 percent. Since it has passed its original 20-year life expectancy, there are problems arising that normally would not have been encountered in a projected service life. These problems often require parts that need to have special assembly lines established to produce parts for an obsolete aircraft. In no small measure due to the age of Canada’s Hornet fleet, the current unclassified serviceability rate is a little more than 50 percent. So, while we may have roughly 80+ planes in our fleet, the number that we would have available for use at any one time (for air patrols, missions, training, etc.) is much less. If/when we buy new planes (whether the F35 or some alternative that's currently in production) we will no longer need to baby them; we won't have to let some of the planes sit idle to extend their life time, And when things DO break, we will be able to obtain spare parts relatively quickly. So, of the proposed 65-plane fleet, a much higher number will be available at any one time (as compared to the CF18s).

if the theory is that people watch soccer because they can play, why wouldn't the reverse hold true? Actually I never said the only reason people watch soccer is because they can play. I said it was likely part of the reason. In North America, soccer will likely always be the red-headed stepchild of professional sports because there are alternatives (football, hockey, backetball) that are already ingrained into our culture. Other countries have fewer alternatives (you won't see too many professional hockey teams in south America because they don't have the climate or infrastructure.) So, you end up with a continent where soccer is about the only affordable alternative to play.

Sorry I did miss that. I think that a requirement to have Israeli inspectors in Iran is an unnecessary roadblock. Why is it a roadblock? Is it because Iran really considers the deal as a sham, something they don't intend to honor, and they don't want to even pretend to play along if some of the Inspectors are Israeli? Actually, both Iran and Israel are members of the IAEA, and the IAEA will likely be doing the monitoring. So no, the inspectors don't have to be members of the negotiating countries. Wow, you really don't like to read other people's posts, do you. I already explained my rational.... Iran likes to pretend its become more "moderate". They claim they want a deal. Using inspectors from Israel would be a true test to see how serious they really are. Here's a suggestion.... before you go and hit that little button marked 'post', try actually reading what you might be responding to. You might find whatever point you're trying to make has already been addressed.

What do you mean "dog and pony show"? There are plenty of real moderates in Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_Iranian_election_protests Wow.... just totally wow. I'm amazed. Really I am. Here's the thing... go back and look at my post. I never said that there weren't moderates. What I questioned was whether those moderates had the ability to influence any sort of change within Iran. The fact that you can miss the point of my posting was really quite impressive. As for your link to Wikipedia... Yes, there were protests. But did those protests overthrow the government? Nope... the same dictator who was in power before is still in power. Did it improve freedoms? Well, plenty of people got arrested, and during the protests certain elements of censorship were actually enhanced. Maybe, maybe not. If "supporting the moderates" means giving Iran (the country has a whole) something beneficial, it could actually backfire... Things like an easement of sanctions (along with the economic benefits it would provide) might actually give those in charge more leverage to stay in power. ("Hey look, we're improving your lives. No need to rebel against us!") That's what I meant by "dog and pony show". Pointing to the protests gives people like you the ability to say "See? Moderates!". But if those who actually DO have power are unaffected, then you're not really benefiting anybody. That doesn't mean that dialog is completely useless; nor does it mean I necessarily oppose the deal. But suggesting its something that's going to "benefit the moderates" is rather naive.

That governments (both dictatorships and democracies) regularly lie is not in doubt. What I thought was curious was the way that if there are lies made by Iran on the issue, they seem to be exposed by contradictory statements that Iran was involved in, rather than some uncovered new evidence. As for the part about "wiping Israel off the map"... keep in mind that when lies are made, it is usually done in order to make the liar appear better than they are. ("Hey I drive a solid gold ferarri!") Making a comment like "wiping Israel off the map", if it is a lie, would seem to do the opposite... it would make Iran appear more barbaric/bloodthirsty than they really are.

"Doveryai no proveryai" / "Trust but verify." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-s-wrong-headed-position-on-iran-1.2441379 Umm... in case you missed it, the point of my post was not that there should be verification, but that Israel (a country that is viewed negatively by Iran and other Islamic states) should be supplying the inspectors. If Iran is serious about being more open about its nuclear plans, it will accept the inspectors. If instead it is a ploy, or if its hatred of Israel is more important than its quest for peace and better relations, it will reject the inspectors. Then we'll have a better idea of where exactly they stand.

Keep in mind that even if there are 'moderates' in Iran, it remains to be seen whether those moderate individuals actually hold any sort of power or influence in Iran, or whether they're just being trotted out as a "dog and pony show". Iran is a dictatorship, and while the current president (Rouhani) is considered less extreme than Ahmadinejad (although one who is not sure the Holocaust happened), it the same Supreme leader who is ultimately in charge, and who had no problem with Ahmadinejad's follys. At the risk of derailing the thread... this reminds me of people who claim the U.S. shouldn't have bombed Hiroshima because "Japan was ready to surrender". Only problem is, those that wanted to surrender prior to Hiroshima did not have the ability to do so, and their authority was completely overruled by those that wanted to continue the war.

Yes he did... But the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Many people who become 'fans' were previous participants (e.g. when they were children), or at least friends of previous participants. And without a certain critical number of participants in a sport at the lower levels, you will not have enough players to establish high-calibur professional leagues (which will draw in the fans.)

I'm not saying the deal is good or bad. (At this point I haven't made up my mind.) However, here is something to consider: Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty... They've been claiming they need to enrich uranium for "peaceful purposes". Ummm... ok. But now they're saying they'll reduce some of the enrichment they've already done (downblending it). That means that either: - They were enriching to higher levels than they need to for for "peaceful purposes", which suggests they were lying about not trying to obtain nuclear weapons - They are lying about their plans to keep their enrichment at 5% - They need a higher enrichment for their nuclear reactors, but will keep the enrichment low, basically meaning they will be wasting money Here's my solution... agree to the plan, but ensure that all the inspectors responsible for verifying Iranian compliance are from Israel. Then we'll really know how serious they are about the deal.

Actually, no.... In May 2003, Browne predicted to Larry King that she would die when she was 88. She was off by 11 years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/sylvia-browne_n_4317470.html I think James Randi said it best: It's unfortunate that she only stopped hurting so many people by dying.

Research into remote viewing done by the military? Yes. Proven that it works? Nope. How do you know that? What makes you think that at least some of them didn't google information about the place before hand? And what was their "accuracy rate"? Did they know the full name of the deceased? Or was it a case of "It was a white male with a name that started with a C or maybe a K, who died of a heart attack or maybe a massive fart"? How many of their guesses actually went wrong? And more importantly, there are hundreds of millions of people in North America... if there are real "psychics" around, and their common enough for you to have interacted with them, how come none have been willing to have their powers tested by groups like the James Randi Educational Foundation? Here's a question... why have none of these psychics ever tried to claim the "Million dollar prize"? Ok, they claim that they aren't in it for the money... but heck, why not win the prize, and then give the money to charity? And if they really did have psychic powers, it would do so much to advance our scientific knowledge. Isn't it rather selfish of them not to do so? And by the way, if they never brag or boast, how do you know they're actually psychic? They must have said something to SOMEONE. No, some are merely deluded. There has never ever been a case where a psychic has provided information to police that was critical in the arrest of the offender (at least not information that they wouldn't have known otherwise.) Here's the problem though.. in the case of a major crime, the police often have to deal with dozens/hundreds of "tips", many of which are useless and lead nowhere. At least some of these will come from supposed psychics. I suspect most of these "police psychics" are the same... call into some tip line, cop records the information. Crime is solved (regardless of the psychic advice). Psychic claims they "helped police" despite the cops not using the information. Now, obviously with thousands upon thousands of police officers in North American I can't definitively say that no policeman has ever consulted a psychic. But solving a crime with one? Nah, doesn't happen.

A little context is important here... While it is true that the amount of actual "play" in a typical American (or Canadian) rules football game may only be on the order of 10-15 minutes, each second of that play is dynamic (with events happening both in and around the quarterback, and downfield), and each moment has the opportunity to drastically affect the outcome of the game. (On a given play, you could in theory score a touchdown, or have one scored against you. Even making or failing to make a first down can seriously affect the outcome of the game.) On the other hand, while soccer may have a full 90 minutes of "play" not all of that will be of interest... some of that time may consist of a player idly kicking the ball at midfield, passes between players where there is no chance of interception, etc. So, it has more "quantity" of play, but not necessarily more high "quality" of play. Not really. As another person pointed out, part of that popularity might be due to the low cost for individuals to play. And if you're going by shear popularity, keep in mind that "Jersey Shore" and "Honey Boo Boo" both regularly attracted millions of viewers, and higher ratings than other more respected TV shows. So, going by the number of "fans" is no indication of overall quality.

Yes it would be cheaper. The problem is, you're assuming that those countries we might plan on "dropping bombs on" are run by people who are willing to change their actions based on whatever talking is done. Sometimes you can have 2 opinions/viewpoints that are so diametrically opposed that there is no compromise possible. "I want all Elbonians exterminated!" "Ok, lets talk... lets come to a compromise". "Ok, how about only half of all Elbonians exterminated?" "Deal!" It is in those situations that the user of military power is useful. Now, that doesn't mean that it is wise to use the military in ALL cases. For example, it may not be a good idea in Syria (since whomever might rise to power might be more of a problem than Assad.) But, in certain circumstances it can lead to solutions that would be unobtainable in other ways.

Really? Do you have any links to support your claims? Well, lets see... there is this opinion column from the National Post. (While I don't typically use "option" columns for proof, I am referring to it because it has the numbers pre-calculated and easily accessible) From: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/ ...the Australian Auditor-General put the acquisition cost of 24 Super Hornets at A$3.54-billion (C$3.67-billion) and the sustainment costs for 10 years at A$1.38-billion (C$1.43-billion.)...the cost is $272-million each for purchase and maintenance over a 20-year period. We know what the government says are the equivalent costs for the F-35 because they have just been released. The government says it will spend $8.9-billion on acquisition and $7.3-billion on sustainment over 20 years on 65 aircraft – or $249-million each. And keep in mind that that was only for a 20 year period... we will likely be flying these planes for 40 years... decades after Boeing has stopped producing the Super Hornet (while the F35 will probably continue to be manufactured.) Of course what do the Aussies know? They're too busy avoiding getting eaten by poisonous koala bears and drinking their Fosters while watching reruns of Crocodile Dundie. And then there is this article from the CDA (Conference of Defense Associations). From: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-i-the-f-a-18e-super-hornet Boeing is set to close the line in 2015, after their final delivery to the US Navy. This may be extended by a year... but it is unlikely to go past 2016 (see footnote 3). This would force the Canadian government to advance its purchase of the fighter significantly ahead of schedule ... It is likely that, after 2025, the US Navy will reduce funding upgrades to the Super Hornet... Thus, it would require the Canadian government to fund all upgrades for its self-​defence, communications, targeting and weapon systems in order to keep it operationally relevant. More importantly, the requirement for such a unilateral Canadian follow-​on development process would have a very significant impact on long-​term sustainment costs. Oh, and while critics are so quick to jump on every little problem with the F35, keep in mind that the Super Hornet has not been without controversy: From: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/17/costly_flaws_found_in_navys_top_jet/ Engineers have uncovered a flaw in the Navy's top fighter jet that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life... (The flaw has been corrected and won't affect Canada should we buy the F18E, but it just goes to show that every plane has 'teething' problems. Keep in mind that much of the CBC article was based on claims made by Boeing. You know, the company that's trying to sell us the F18E. In fact, the operative phrase in the text you quoted is if Boeing's figures hold up. As the article I referenced earlier, sometimes Boeing's financial arguments don't match up with what others have found.

Au contraire: "According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636 Of course the F35 currently costs a lot to operate. (To be honest I'm surprised the costs are as close as they are; I thought the F35 would be even more expensive). It also currently costs a lot more to purchase.. its a brand new plane, and the kinks are currently getting worked out. Eventually, the problems they have will be solved. Production will be ramped up, economies of scale will kick in, and the price of both purchasing and maintaining the plane will fall. Meanwhile the Super Hornet, with a smaller number of users and planes in use, will eventually see its costs increase as the planes require spare parts.

Then get the money from somewhere else besides the taxpayer. Here's the problem....While the 'taxpayer' is the one who ultimately pays, they are often ill-equipped to understand how military purchases are made. They hear of "multi-billion dollar" purchases and think its extravigant even if its totally in line with what what the equipment costs. And they are unfamiliar with the longer procurement cycles of military purchases and the economic impact of the longer life span that we expect from our military equipment. Thus, people fall for Chretien's "Cadillac of the Air" rhetoric when the government was going to replace the Sea King , not understanding the costs (in terms of manpower, etc.) of keeping the Sea Kings flying. And they claim we "don't need no stinkin' expensive stealth fighter", without understanding how production and maintenance costs can vary. Of course, you can also get the rather schitzophrenic situation, where we expect the military to follow 2 different requirements which are completely contradictory. (e.g. expecting the military to do a task that we don't pay for.) So yes, we don't want to give cart blanch to the military to do whatever they want. But we should also be hesitant at micromanaging their purchases too. We should recognize limitations in our knowledge, and if we do choose to state an opinion we should at least get educated.

Minor point... The Super Hornet is a substantially different airplane that the CF18 hornets Canada currently flies... much larger, different engines, different avionics, etc. The fact that we "know how to fly and fix 'em" is irrelevant; the amount of training that will be required for both the pilots and air crew will be roughly equivalent regardless of whether we buy the Super Hornet or F35. Of course the Super Hornet will cost more to maintain in the long run (having 2 engines, the part of the plane that probably costs the most to maintain will do that). But why should that matter if we can score political points by criticizing the Conservatives?

Did it ever occur to you (or anyone else) that the problem is not the ignorance of those opposing the Insite operation, but the faulty arguments put forward by its supporters? I can point to plenty of incorrect arguments, both from the original article and from the article in the opening post. For example: Here's the thing... without context, we don't know how useful that particular fact is. Given the number of users who use InSite, how many would we have expected to die? If we would have expected a dozen deaths every year (given the number of users of InSite, number of times injecting, etc.) then yes, its probably a good thing. But if overdose deaths were relatively rare to begin with, then pointing out "no overdose deaths" isn't that impressive, and if that's the case, the local and/or provincial government would be more successful at saving lives if they (for example) improved emergency rooms, bought more MRI machines, etc. This reminds me of a Simpsons episode, where Springfield has brought in a "bear patrol" to prevent bear attacks... Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work.Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. Reducing the spread of HIV is a useful goal... it saves lives (both for addicts, AND potentially for non-addicts) and potentially reduces health care costs. Here's the problem though... there is at least some evidence that harm-reduction strategies might actually be counter-productive (studies were looking at needle exchange programs, but the same might apply to something like InSite). It may sound rather... backwards (after all, if you're reducing needle-sharing you're reducing the chance of HIV). The problem is, even though addicts may use something like InSite or needle exchange programs sometimes, they will not use them all the time. What was found was that in some cases, needle exchange programs were giving the opportunity addicts to meet that might never have done so before. So, you end up creating a concentrated population whom regularly engage in risky behavior, not all of which will be done under the watchful eye of the InSite staff. Again, I want to point out that at this point in time the evidence is.... mixed. There are plenty of studies that show reduced HIV transmission...but they are far from universal, and there are some studies (real scientific studies, done by real universities. By guys in lab coats!) that show the opposite effect. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/994.full.pdf This is another one of these "facts" that needs proper context. Has HIV decreased in the area? Quite possibly. But to know whether that's a useful statistic we'd have to compare its situation at areas with similar demographics. If HIV transmission has decreased among InSite users, but has remained stable or increased among non-InSite users then InSite might be contributing positively; if the rate is identical to those other populations then you can't really make the claim that its preventing HIV infections. A lot of things have been happening over the past few decades... the population as a whole has gotten older, thousands of immigrants have arrived (who may be from cultures less interested in drug use), new anti-virals have been developed. Before trumpeting a decrease in HIV as a result of InSite, we need to rule out other factors which might be contributing. I have no problem believing that the area around the InSite location is safer. But here's the problem.... When InSite was opened up, the police assigned an addition 40 officers to patrol the area. I rather suspect that any neighborhood will see a decrease in crime if you assign dozens of more police to watch out. Again, I want to stress... I am not against the InSite site. I'm saying that the claims of "success" are often based on questionable arguments, and simply labeling all opponents as "ignorant" is not constructive.

However, large portion of taxation is not pay for mutually useful. I don't think the previous poster would deny that money raised through taxation is sometimes wasted. However, every economic system will occasionally have waste. A 'capitalist' system (based on harnessing 'greed') will generate more wealth, so that it can afford situations of waste, and still provide a better standard of living for all citizens. Normally I try not to criticize people for their typos, but I can't quite figure out what you're saying here. Are you complaining about interest charged on loans? In that case that's not a tax. (And I'd have to say that the interest isn't paying for the 'selfishness of banks'.. its partly paying for the risk the bank is taking should you decide to default, and its paying for lending you money instead of using it for something that could earn revenue in some other way.) Not sure what you're complaining about here. ARe you suggesting all of the money in the CAS should be given directly to the children? I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying. Even if our politicians are subject to selfishness and human nature, they are still limited by our democratic system. Anyone who tries to let their selfishness override their work as a politician will probably find themselves out of a job. Again, your grammar makes it a little hard to figure out what your saying. However, our current system is anything but 'failed'. Yes, we do occasionally have recessions and other economic problems. But the standard of living in western democracies with capitalist systems (with taxation to support social programs) is typically far better than those in countries with command economies. And that also extends to the "poor". (An individual that would be consider 'poor' in the U.S., Canada, or western Europe would be considered rather affluent when compared to an individual living in a communist country).

Thanks. Its been a long time since I took an economics course, so my terminology is a little... rusty.

8% is a huge number. Err.. no its not. Remember, there's still 92% of people who hold U.S. debt that are not China. Most of those people who have purchased that debt are not doing so because they want to affect the value of the dollar; as I pointed out (and you seem to have ignored) countries like Russia hold hundreds of millions in U.S. debt, even though they don't do significant trade with the U.S. You're right... that was a typo on my part. But that's all it was... a typo. Actually what keeps labor costs down is the lower standard of living exhibited by workers in China. Regardless of whatever currency fluctuations happen, labor in china will probably always be cheaper (at least in the forseable future) because they're used to working long hours in poor conditions. Not really. In the long run, currency values become irrelevant. We use money as a medium of exchange, but ultimately its the flow of products, resources and services which dictate the true value of trade and the economy. Yeah those are the same credit ratings firms, that stamped AAA on securities derived from mortgages... Ok, a few things... Yes, the credit rating agencies were complicit in the financial problems causing the meltdown of 2008. Yes they overrated certain securities. But context is important. The reason it was giving those high ratings was because they had incentives to give higher ratings to those securities. (e.g. they were paid more for "higher ratings"). On the other hand, there is no such incentive for giving false ratings for the U.S. government. They do not get paid more for saying "U.S. bonds are AOK". Secondly, these latest ratings were done after the meltdown of 2008. Following the meltdown, the rating agencies reevaluated the investments to give proper rating values. Hey had their hand in the cookie jar, got slapped, and are behaving better now. (New regulations certainly helped.) Lastly, as I have pointed out before... there are plenty of countries and private individuals who have invested in American bonds and T-bills (and who do not benefit by currency functions and their effect on trade.). The central banks have people who are capable financial analysts, and they recognize the safety and value of purchasing American debt. Why do you think that is? Uh, no.... they run trade surpluses because they're capable of producing more than they need to purchase, and having citizens with jobs is better than having citizens without jobs.

Ok, first of all, your statement was incorrect. While there were fewer positions added than originally forecast, that doesn't mean that the job market contracted. In fact, 10s of thousands of jobs were added... just not as many as they were hoping. Secondly, the fact that there are continued economic problems is not surprising. There are still a lot of issues out there... gridlock in congress, political instability in the middle east, etc. Some months the economy will do better than expected, some months it will do worse. A couple of months ago, growth in the U.S exceeded expectations. (See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-27/canadian-dollar-gains-as-european-confidence-fuels-risk-appetite.html). That doesn't mean that we were entering some sort of "boom" period.... it just means that there was a minor fluctuation. Heck, even the article you referenced was not all bad news... while fewer jobs were added than expected, hourly wages and dividends were both up. And factory jobs also increased (which is a good sign for the manufacturing sector.)

Where do these people who give up go? Underground, do they drift away on an ice floe or donate themselves to medical research? How does one actually give up in a world where you either produce or die? Crime seems to be the only reasonable alternative to dying. Often, 'unemployment rates' are measured by counting people who are actively looking for work (handing out resumes, going to interveiws, etc.) and/or are on unemployment. Some individuals may 'give up' at some point... they may resort to welfare, they may move in with relatives ("Hi mom, can I live in your basement?"), etc. So the "Unemployment" rate doesn't necessarily count those who could work but aren't. The claim that 'unemployed people have left the job market' is a rather common one made by economic analysts, so I don't mind seeing it (since it does explain why a decreasing unemployment rate isn't matched by a corresponding increase in jobs in some cases.) But, the problem is when it gets too much emphasis.