[Comfortably Numb]

House passes stimulus bill, moves to Senate
http://www.fanforum.com/f117/economi...rong-62864036/
http://www.fanforum.com/f117/700-bil...tory-62857273/

Banner by 4N6 DNA

[simcalovestvd]

The Still Unsolved Problem of the Economy
By Arian Forrest Nevin, J.D.


This is not the first time a recession or a depression has occurred. It is an event that happens again and again, a recurring problem, which has yet to be solved. It is unlikely Congress will be able to solve this problem on its own. Senator Byron Dorgan recently admitted that Congress does not understand what is wrong economically nor how to fix the problem, “[N]one of us have been here before. And nobody in the country really understands what is the right medicine to fix what is wrong with this economy.” Actually, the workings of the economy are not so mysterious that none can hope to understand.

Congress and the Federal Reserve have undertaken a flurry of actions, but they have yet to do anything effective to make the economic situation better. They continue to put together various so-called stimulus packages which will not solve the problem. Their use of the crude medical analogy of “stimulus” demonstrates their ignorance. The economy is not suffering from a lack of stimulus. It does not need the economic equivalent of a sudden jolt of electricity or an injection of steroids to continue. This is like using drugs to mask symptoms, while ignoring the root cause. What the economic system needs is fundamental reform. There is no magic pill solution.

In the 1920`s, before the great depression, Nobel Prize winning scientist Fredrick Soddy said about economic crises, “if we do not understand how the existing system works and wherein it fails, we are likely to make it worse rather than better.” So let us start with one aspect of how the existing system works, where it fails, and what needs to change to solve our economic problem: the money system.

Almost all money is created by banks rather than by the government. Bankers admit that banks create money. As the Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, H.W. Whyte, said in his evidence before the New Zealand Monetary Commission, “The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn`t quite realize it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we all must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit.”

Commercial banks create money simply through making entries in the bank`s database. Most money exists solely as entries in such databases. The central bank, The Federal Reserve, in addition to the above method, can also create money through the additional mechanism of printing money, which it loans to the government and to commercial banks. Thus money exists both as paper and coins and as electronic entries in computers.

It is impossible to maintain the framework of the current money system and at the same time solve our economic problems. A new money system is integral to any solution. Here is why: As it stands now, money exists primarily for the purpose of creating interest yielding debts to banks. The primary purpose of the current money system, which is integral to our economy, is to provide interest income to banks. Money should be issued solely by the government to facilitate the optimal functioning of our economy. At present, money is issued by banks to maximize their profits.

A closely related issue is inflation. Inflation is the gradual theft over time of the value of everyone`s money through the creation of new money. Banks create new money to loan; this dilutes the value of all presently existing money. It is impossible to eliminate inflation so long as money is created for the purpose of creating debts. Because of interest payments, more money must be repaid to banks than was initially loaned by banks. Where does this additional money come from? The only way this additional money comes into existence is when banks loan ever more and more money over time, thereby creating the additional money needed to pay the interest. This practice constantly increases the total quantity of money in existence. Another way of stating this is people, corporations, and the government must necessarily go ever deeper and deeper into debt for banks to create and loan new money. All so that interest payments can be made. The inch and the meter never change, shorter one day and longer the next, neither should the value of money. The value of money should remain constant over time so the people are not robbed.

We are constantly inundated with propaganda decrying how irresponsible Americans are to be so in debt. This is to blame the victim. Every major government in the world is massively in debt. The National Debt of America is much greater in amount than the debt of the entire third-world combined. Almost everyone is in debt. College students, home owners, corporations, along with the government are all in debt. Why is there universal indebtedness? People simply accept this situation as a fact of life. The cause is not questioned. But, the cause is simple. The money system requires it to be so.

Because money is created by banks for the purpose of lending it at interest, rather than created by the government for the common good, everyone must be in debt in order for money to exist at all. Whenever a loan from a bank is paid back, the bank destroys an amount of money equivalent to the amount of the original loan and keeps the interest payments. The electronic money banks create is all temporary money, though there is always a certain amount of it in existence. Their money creation is like a yo-yo. Money goes out with loans, and money comes back when the loans are repaid. The simplest example is a credit card. The moment a person makes a $100 purchase with a credit card, a bank creates $100 of electronic money that did not exist before. When that same person pays back the $100 several days later, the bank destroys $100 of electronic money. The money created by the bank only exists until the debt is repaid. Of course, because there are so many entities in debt, there is a certain amount of money permanently in existence. But banks are constantly creating and destroying money. It is a normal everyday affair. Most people do not realize it is ongoing.

Money only comes into existence when people borrow from banks. Money is destroyed by banks when people pay back loans. If nobody owed money to banks, then we would not have any money. Therefore, though it is possible for individuals to eliminate their debt, it is completely impossible for the whole of the nation to ever get out of debt as long as the money system remains as it is.

Who owes the debt to banks can be shifted around. Half the populace can owe money to banks, while the other half owes nothing, but it is impossible for everyone to get out of debt. Individuals can get out of debt, but everyone cannot be out of debt at the same time. Eliminating all bank loans, by paying off all debt, would eliminate almost all money. Some have to be in debt to banks in order for the money banks create to exist. Of course there is no reason that the creation of money need be tied to loans by banks. In an honest money system, the government would simply create money for the common good and spend it rather than lend it. The fact that banks create money today is solely the result of a historical accident and not the result of a conscious choice.

The government and Federal Reserve have announced a one-trillion dollar plan to “boost lending.” Another way of stating the aim of this plan is: The government is trying to “boost indebtedness.” Every money loan by a bank also creates debt. The government`s solution to our economic problem is for everyone, including the government, to go even deeper into debt. While in the short-term this may help, because people will have more money from loans, in the long-term our problem is only growing, because we are sinking deeper and deeper into debt. We need to get out of debt, not go deeper into debt.

We are liable to make the situation worse if we don`t understand how the existing system works and how it fails. The economic system works basically the same the world over. Everywhere banks function as debt and money factories. The system fails in that we have a private money monopoly and not a national money system. The government is only making our situation worse by creating more debt for all of us through its “stimulus packages.” All of this “stimulus” and bailout money comes from increasing the National Debt and the amount of additional debt will soon total well over a trillion dollars. One trillion is a thousand billions. What we really need is to get out of debt. The only way to do this is to start with an honest money system.

Soddy also said, “There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth. An honest money system is the only alternative.” An honest money system is one wherein the government, not banks create money, and the value of money remains constant over time. What money is worth today is what it will be worth tomorrow. Any government program to fix the economy that does not include the elimination of money creation by banks with the creation of money by the government instead, cannot possibly work in the long-term. How can going deeper and deeper into debt solve the economic crisis? An honest money system is part and parcel to an effective economic solution. This is not the first time a recession has occurred nor will it be the last until the sovereignty of the people is taken back from banks.

If you always do what you`ve always done, you’ll always get what you`ve always gotten. What we have the world over now is debt. Through our passive consent, we all contribute to this monstrous monetary injustice. We have nothing to lose except debt. We have everything to gain from an honest money system.

Source: National Economy | Home Of The National Economist

[sunnykerr]

Thanks for the new thread!

I've added the tags and brought ^ this article over since this seems the best place for it.

The notion that banks create money outside of government control seems to indicate that this is an American perspective, since I'm almost positive this is not the way it happens in Canada.

But as little of it made sense to me, I figured I might as well let others make their own minds about it.

[Comfortably Numb]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/07/07/technology-apple-amazon-app-store.html

Apple loses round 1 in Amazon 'appstore' fight

CBC News Posted: Jul 7, 2011 11:31 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 7, 2011 3:55 PM ET Read 160 comments160Back to accessibility links Supporting Story Content Story Sharing Tools Share with Add This Print this story E-mail this story Related Related Links Microsoft fights Apple's claim on 'app store' Apple sues Amazon over term 'app store' External Links Court judgment U.S. Patent and Trademark Office case status (Note:CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.) End of Supporting Story Content Back to accessibility links Beginning of Story Content Amazon Appstore for Android, launched in March, offers software for smartphones and tablets running Google's Android operating system.Daniel Wallis/Reuters A preliminary bid by Apple to stop Amazon from using the term "appstore" has been denied by a California judge. Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court of Northern California turned down Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against Amazon that would bar it from using the term while Apple's trademark infringement lawsuit against Amazon moves forward. Apple, which runs Apple's App Store, launched the lawsuit against Amazon in March, shortly after Amazon unveiled its Appstore for Android, a website that offers software for smartphones and tablets running Google's Android operating system. Apple is trying to trademark the term "app store" in the U.S., and it alleged in its suit that Amazon was engaging in trademark infringement and unfair competition. Apple said Thursday that while it did not get the preliminary injunction it wanted, the case is still moving forward. "We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers," the company said in a statement. Hamilton acknowledged in her judgment that Apple had spent a lot of money on promoting and advertising its app store and sold a lot of apps. But she said it has not established that the term "app store" is famous, and it appeared to be "more descriptive than distinctive." She noted that many other companies use the term to describe a place to obtain software for mobile devices. She also wrote there was no evidence that Amazon intended to create an association between Android and Apple apps. Apple had argued that inappropriate content, viruses or malware on the Amazon store could tarnish Apple's reputation. But Hamilton said there was no evidence to support that argument, since Amazon does not offer apps for Apple devices. Apple filed in July 2008 to trademark the term "app store" in the U.S. Microsoft is challenging the application, which is currently before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

I don't think anyone should own catch phrases. It's advertising, establishing a market identity but I don't think we should be able to own words.

[Comfortably Numb]

http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/07/walmart-canadian-tire-in-targets-crosshairs/

Walmart Canada Corp. has the most to lose when Target Corp. begins opening stores in Canada, according to the latest research on consumer loyalty. But Canadian Tire Corp. might face a serious threat as well because of its stores’ proximity to current Zellers locations and its overlap with Target in key household categories, says Mark Satov, founder of the Toronto consulting firm Satov Consultants, which conducted the study. Researchers asked people who identified themselves as frequent consumers at chain stores — including Walmart, Canadian Tire, Sears and The Bay — which retailers they would be less likely to shop at when Target arrives. The Arkansas-based big-box chain topped the list, with 57% of customers saying they would be less likely to shop at Walmart. Sears Canada was next with 44%, followed by the Bay at 37%. Canadian Tire was cited by only 19% of those surveyed, but Mr. Satov said its proximity to Zellers locations that might become Target outlets and its product mix mean Canadian Tire is likely facing a serious threat. Six weeks ago, Target announced the first 105 proposed store leases that it was acquiring from Zellers. Earlier this year it paid $1.8-billion to Zellers owner Richard Baker for up to 220 leasehold interests of Zellers locations. Two weeks ago, Walmart signed a deal to acquire leases at up to 39 sites now operated by Zellers from Target Canada. “Walmart [faces] the biggest risk,” he said. “You know you need to shop there because they will have it at the cheapest price, but if there is another option consumers might take it.” That Target has managed to achieve such brand resonance in Canada two years before opening and without any mass communication efforts is a remarkable feat, Mr. Satov said. Mr. Satov said it is a clear sign that Canadians are primed to at least try the chain when it opens up to 150 stores in 2013. (Prior research by Toronto retail consultancy Kubas Primedia published in May bears that out, with 61% of consumers across the country saying they would be “very” or “somewhat” interested in shopping at Target stores when they open in ­Canada.) But the potential market impact is not as clear-cut as a one-to-one consumer defection to Target from any particular retailer, according to Mr. Satov. It’s a question of how much of a potential bite Target will take from strong Canadian banners. “You don’t lose shoppers, you lose trips,” he explained. “If your average non-food Walmart shopper shops there 12 times a year, 57% of those people would see some of those trips shift to Target. With a food shopper, [Walmart] becomes a part of their routine and [store visits] could range from 26 to 52 trips a year. The question is, how many [customer] trips will Walmart lose?” Target’s status as a potential grocery player is uncertain in Canada and hinges, initially at least, on leasing restrictions in the malls where Zellers operates. Many of those malls are already anchored by another full grocery store, Mr. Satov noted. A strong established base in food is an asset Canadian Tire does not have, however. “If I were Canadian Tire, I’d worry a whole lot more than the data would indicate. They have gone more into housewares, which is Target’s sweet spot, and the location overlap is rather high…. And if Target gives them a great experience I think they should worry about losing female customers. Target has apparel and housewares, and Canadian Tire does make a lot of money on housewares and cleaning products.” Canadian Tire does not appear to be sitting by idly; the retailer just announced a vast expansion of its sporting goods category — one which Target carries only minimally — with the $770-million purchase of sporting goods chain Forzani Group Ltd. As for Sears, the retailer caters to an older demographic and there is less geographic overlap with potential Target sites than with Canadian Tire and Walmart, Mr. Satov said. While Walmart seems to have the most to lose, it’s unlikely the retailer will suffer significantly unless it changes its core brand positioning, Mr. Satov said. Whereas Target’s positioning is about offering stylish products for less than expected, Walmart is much more focused on offering the lowest prices available on many goods. “The data is a warning sign, but it’s not the whole answer,” he said. For Walmart, Target and Canadian retailers who want to stay at the forefront of consumers’ minds, “a lot of the game is knowing who you are. I don’t think that if Walmart sticks to its guns its business is going to collapse in Canada.” Satov Consultants’ research was conducted at the end of January and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.

I can’t stand Walmart. I don’t find the prices any better than other stores on average and they pay their employees next to nothing. Honestly its’ nice to see Walmart sweat for once. However I wish Canadians and Americans would shop at individually owned stores than these chains, but they are mostly more expensive.

[sunnykerr]

Oh, I love Target.

Mind you, this isn't likely to affect me much, since the type of locations they're talking about are way outside my access, but I do love Target.

Mostly, though, I love Target for the advantageous prices. I just bought two watches for $10 each over the weekend. Of course, when they come over here, those prices will go up, as every American chain adjusts prices for the Canadian market.

[Comfortably Numb]

I love getting discounts but I often think that buying locally is the right thing to do. I really don't like what chains do to local economies.

[sunnykerr]

Well, I can't really afford to buy locally, so it's either do the best I can with what I have or have a good conscience but no clothes.

[Comfortably Numb]

That's the thing, there is more deals with bigger chains.

Bell pitches new usage-based internet billing idea

Canada’s telecommunications regulator is hearing competing ideas about how independent internet service providers are billed by large internet service providers such as Bell — rules that could affect prices and options available to regular internet users. The CRTC hearings could affect how much smaller ISPs charge customers who go to them because of their higher limits on downloading and uploading. P.O.V.: Does the CRTC need more powers to regulate the internet? Bell spent much of Monday morning before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission arguing in favour of its new proposal to charge independent internet service providers based on their customers’ total internet usage. The proposal, known as “aggregate volume pricing” allows independent ISPs to buy pre-paid network access based on a cap on the total amount of internet usage by their customers. Bell proposed charging $200 per terabyte, plus a surcharge of 29.5 cents for each gigabyte over the allotted block. About the hearing The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission in Gatineau, Que., is looking into new pricing models proposed by such large telecommunications companies as Bell to determine how they charge independent ISPs for access to their networks. "The pricing model for wholesale high-speed access services should drive large companies and independent ISPs to invest in their respective networks and maximize innovation," CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein said in the written text of his opening remarks Monday. "In addition, we will examine the proposals with a view to providing independent ISPs the flexibility to offer innovative services and pricing options." The hearing was expected to last four days. Von Finckentstein said the CRTC will make the "final determination on the rates for wholesale residential high-speed access services." Bell first proposed the new model in March after its previous proposal caused outrage among small ISPs, internet advocates and internet users. That model was based on usage-based caps and “overage” charges per user, and was similar to the way Bell charges its own retail customers. Critics argued that would effectively force independent ISPs to provide packages identical to Bell's retail packages, making it impossible for them to differentiate themselves and driving them out of business. In response to questioning by CRTC commissioners, one of Bell's spokespeople argued consumers are happy with their retail pricing despite the firestorm of controversy over usage-based billing last winter. "I don't think that's an indication of users having a problem" with the prices Bell offers, Mirko Bibic said. Bell maintains usage-based billing is necessary to deal with network congestion caused by heavy internet users. “At this point, almost all parties acknowledge that wholesale pricing for internet services should have a usage-based component,” Bibic, Bell’s senior vice president of regulatory and government affairs, told the CRTC. Bibic said the ISPs that make up Bell’s wholesale customers are responsible for 29 per cent of the traffic on Bell’s network in Ontario and Quebec, even though they only service 17 per cent of the customers on the network. 'Disproportionate' share of congestion “Clearly, wholesale users contribute a disproportionate share of total traffic, and by extension, congestion,” he said. The Canadian Network Operators Consortium, which represents small internet service providers, has proposed an alternative nicknamed the "95th percentile" model, based on peak traffic. The model would take snapshots of an ISP's network usage on a sample basis to determine its peak, then use a method called the “95th percentile measurement” to bill the ISP for usage pushed through at times of peak traffic. Bob Allen, president of the British Columbia Broadband Association, which represents 28 small ISPs, supported that model when he appeared by videoconference Monday afternoon. He said it will allow independent ISPs to help manage congestion with creative solutions such as time-of-day pricing. It would also prevent users and independent ISPs from paying an “unduly large amount” for internet traffic during off-peak hours when congestion is not an issue, he said. However, Bell said the model won’t provide an incentive to reduce congestion and could lead to billing disputes, depending on when the “peak” measurements were taken. Critics have disputed whether network congestion is a major problem, and argue that if it is, companies such as Bell should invest more in their networks. But Thomas Little, president of Bell Canada’s wholesale unit said Bell spent more on its internet revenue infrastructure last year than it brought in from sales of internet services. “The model for recovering those costs is broken,” he said. “The solution is to ensure that those who use the most pay the most.” Usage peak doesn't exist: Telus Telus Corp. supported Bell’s solution in its presentation to the CRTC. Aggregate volume pricing is simpler and easier to implement than the 95th percentile system, said Michael Henessy, senior vice president of regulatory and government affairs. He added that current internet usage patterns no longer create a peak, but heavy usage in a wide part of the day. “There really isn’t any period in the day to which usage will move,” he said. “In fact, if video is a key driver of increased traffic, it is very unlikely that internet customers will delay video streaming to the early hours of the morning. “ If there is no peak, he said, then “peak usage” and “total volume” should look very similar. Both billing methods should therefore give similar results. Telus said it currently doesn’t charge its wholesale customers based on usage, but would like to reserve the right to do so in the future if congestion becomes a problem. The CRTC will hear Tuesday from: The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, a consumer advocacy group based at the University of Ottawa. Cable internet providers. Canadian Network Operators Consortium, which represents a number of small internet service providers. A panel of consumers from western Canada.

I really am not sure what is going on here other than an obvious pump in prices in our future. This is what happens when monopolies form, the consumer gets gauged. If Bell was so concerned with congestion, wouldn’t their focus be on creating a system which can handle it?

[Comfortably Numb]

LINK

Newfoundland, Labrador to face worker shortage CBC News Posted: Jul 13, 2011 2:25 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 13, 2011 2:25 PM ET Read 9 comments9Back to accessibility links Supporting Story Content Story Sharing Tools Share with Add This Print this story E-mail this story Related Related Links Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market Outlook 2020 End of Supporting Story Content Back to accessibility links Beginning of Story Content N.L. Human Resources Minister Darin King says his province will face a major labour shortage over the next decade. CBCNewfoundland and Labrador is facing a major shortage of workers over the next decade as baby boomers retire and resource development projects get underway, according to a provincial government report. Released Wednesday, the report titled Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Market Outlook 2020 projected that there will be 70,000 job openings in the province by 2020. "In recent years our focus has been on building the skilled trades workforce that we need for our major project developments," said N.L.'s Minister of Human Resources, Trade and Employment Darin King at a news conference on Wednesday. "Now we need to build on this approach, broaden our focus to all all sectors across our economy." The report said in addition to skilled trades, the vast majority of job postings will be in health, sales and service, and management. The jobs will be spread all over the province. The report also indicated that jobs could be filled by new post-secondary graduates, immigrants, people moving to Newfoundland and Labrador from other provinces, and seniors taking on second careers. 'We're looking at an incredible sea change. Where we've had an oversupply of workers and not enough work, to a situation where we're going to have incredible opportunities for working people in our province.'—Lana Payne, president of the N.L. Federation of Labour "We're looking at an incredible sea change," said Lana Payne, the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, after King's presentation. "Where we've had an oversupply of workers and not enough work, to a situation where we're going to have incredible opportunities for working people in our province." Payne said she expects some industries will restructure as a result of these labour changes, and current workers will need retraining to move into areas where there are job shortages. She added that there will be competition for workers across Canada as other provinces face aging populations, so local unions and management must develop recruitment and retainment strategies for workers during collective bargaining. Richard Alexander, executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council, agreed that competition for workers will be intense. But for employers in Newfoundland and Labrador to retain workers, he said the government must lower employer taxes. "We still have that payroll tax, the health and postsecondary education tax, we still have the highest workers' compensation premiums that go right on the salaries that employers pay in this province." Alexander said if government lowers those taxes, employers will be able to offer higher wages and benefits to workers.

I just hope this translates into more jobs/higher wages and not just richer employers.

[sunnykerr]

I think the province is looking at the same challenge as all other provinces. That's what we get for having an aging population.

[Comfortably Numb]

I think that's good news for younger people coming into the workforce.

[sunnykerr]

I used to think so, too. But I've found that it's not really the case. Not in the economy we're in anyway.

Armor Holdings pays fine for 'bribing UN official' The American security manufacturer Armor Holdings has paid a $16m (£10m) fine to settle bribery charges. From 2001 to 2006, Armor Holdings paid a UN official to help it deliver a contract to supply body armour for UN peacekeepers, according to US authorities. The alleged misconduct happened before the company was acquired by British defence giant BAE Systems in 2007. BAE said it had "co-operated extensively" in the investigation. "It is important to acknowledge that all of the matters in question occurred well before Armor's acquisition by BAE Systems," spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told the BBC in an e-mailed statement. 'Reprehensible' Florida-based Armor Holdings agreed to pay the fines in order to avoid facing criminal prosecution on charges brought by the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the SEC, the firm paid a total of $222,750 in 92 separate payments to an intermediary, with the understanding that some of that would be given to the UN official. The UN official has not been named publicly. He or she is alleged to have tipped off Armor Holdings about the price competitors were tendering, and to have advised the company how much it should bid in order to secure the contract. The company made $7.1m in revenue and $1.5m in profit through the UN contract, the SEC said in court filings. In addition, from 2001 to June 2007, the company paid $4.4m to intermediaries who brokered the sale of its products to foreign governments, then improperly disguised the payments on its books, the SEC said. With those acts, the SEC said, Armor Holdings violated the US laws prohibiting bribery of foreign officials, as well as record-keeping laws. "Illicit payments to UN officials are no less reprehensible than bribes to foreign government officials," Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's enforcement division, said in a statement. "The important process of selecting body armour for peacekeepers should not be affected by which company pays the best bribes."

Source

The thing I love about this story is that the fine they were made to pay is, like... what? almost 15 times the amount they got in profit in this whole affair. It's rare that crimes like these don't pay, even after fines are imposed.

The really disturbing part, to me anyway, is that these military contracts they bribed to obtain are right in that time bracket that news was reporting that American troops had really substandard equipment. So, obviously the two are not the same thing. UN army equipment is not U.S. army equipment. But it does make you think that those financial investments could have benefited servicemen and women elsewhere.

[_vega_]

I'd be a little worried if I lived in N.L., labor shortage is definitely not a good thing.

One has to wonder though, what is considered substandard equipment by the news. Compared to that used by other military, they can seem a little priviledged at times. Maybe the same kind was the one given to the UN forces and they just didn't mind it as such because it was cheaper .

[sunnykerr]

I would imagine quite a lot of residents of N.L. (especially youth) are looking elsewhere for opportunities. I know that's what I did. It's what tends to happen in small towns anyway.

As for subpar equipment... I think they are referencing the gap between what the perception is of adequate equipment and what the reality is, which I'm sure can seem like champagne problems for much of the world. But if you tell a soldier's mom that he's going off with the best equipment available... you shouldn't be lying.