Right, not at all partisan.

The problem lies with the structure of the world economy, and the problems with how countries, regardless their political leanings, handle things like currency. We see how countries go to great lengths to protect their own economies from the predatory practices of other countries. Whether it's currency manipulation, protective tariffs, industrial espionage, theft of intellectual property, etc., governments will do what's necessary to insure the survival of that particular country.

We place great stock in patent and intellectual property (copyright, etc.), and little thought is given to how those protections affect others. Just one example is the invention of the light bulb with a sturdy filament. Thomas Edison is generally given credit for this invention, but the idea he used was in play in at least six different countries besides the U.S. The same goes for the telephone. Alexander Bell was among four inventors who had the same idea. As a result of those patents, other countries were forced to pay royalties to build telephones and light bulbs, costing the citizens of those countries untold millions of dollars in extra-high prices. And when countries like China, steal or otherwise ignore patents and intellectual property, we end up with political problems.

The above just illustrates the intricacies and complexity of even the most simple of inventions.

The Labor Force Participation rate is at rates not seen since the early-mid 1970's. It remains below 63%, and no economy can grow successfully with so few people participating in the economy. The LFP is the most accurate measurement of employment there is. The state-reported unemployment numbers are rife with political "adjustments"; failure to report on time, so-called "seasonal adjustments", all contribute to skewing statistical data.

The Labor Department statistics don't tell the true unemployment number. They ignore anyone who's not actively looking for a job. Those folks are de facto unemployed. Actual unemployment is probably over 15%, with some estimates as high as 20%.

While Obama likes to brag about the length of the recovery, it's a mile long, but only half an inch deep. GNP needs to grow at, or above 4%; and there have been too many months of less than 1%, even 0% reported even after 2012.

PS - The Labor Department purposely skewed unemployment numbers during the Great Depression to keep peace. Estimates of real unemployment during the period 1931-1942 ranged up to 40%, even higher in some states.

That, sir, is the result of a capitalistic economy. If people can afford the homes, new cars, garages, updated kitchens, golf clubs, etc., why do you even care? It's their money, earned honestly and disposed of on what the individual wants or needs. It's none of my, nor anyone else's business. Every new golf club keeps another golf club maker's employee in a job. Every home, remodel, etc., keeps a carpenter, electrician, tiler, tool maker, etc., employed. That's the very basis of capitalism. Money doesn't sit under mattresses, floorboards, or cans in one's backyard. It's put to work, generating jobs, new capital, etc.

If another photographer owns ten Nikon D750's, why do we even mention it? Good for him/her, that they can afford them, or the lenses and accessories that go along with the cameras.

Capitalism depends on the diverse investment of capital and resources to grow economies. How those economies grow should be the business of the consumer, and not any government, since governments do not contribute to economies; they only take away.

Don't think for one minute that China's ascendance is based solely on "western corporate greed". China is no paragon of economic virtue. China has only allowed capitalism because their Communist economic system was falling under its own weight. While the Beijing government is hard line, the smaller, local party bosses had to allow capitalism to invade, else the local citizens would have starved to death. China also doesn't give a rat's behind about emissions, and is the largest consumer of bituminous coal. The recent development of the Yangtze River and its tributaries wasn't an ecological blue print, either.

China uses capitalistic economics to prop up its Communist philosophy. China has also manipulated the value of the Yuan, in order to maintain competitiveness in the global market. China only begrudgingly recognizes some intellectual property, something not inherent in its philosophy. (China is not the only Asian country which does this.)

Labor is not a flexible cost. It's inelastic, and will move to its lowest cost, wherever that may be. Until and unless true free trade becomes a reality, the discussion is merely academic. Countries will always act in their own interests.

You do know that when the wife says, "Go ahead and buy one", that it's a dare and not permission.

Amen! I moved to the area more than 30 years ago, and in that time, I've seen nothing but decay, especially outside the downtown and New Center areas. Although the urban decay predates Coleman Young, his attitude about the 'burbs hit home with a lot of suburbanites. The politicos looted the city coffers with bad investments, outright theft, and pure incompetence; and a lot of that still exists. I avoid the east side like the plague, and I've never entered the city unarmed. Kwame Kilpatrick was just the latest in a string of con men.

The Heidelberg Project should have been torn down the first time an old refrigerator was left there and called "art". Maybe it's been burned out for good.

The renewed areas are still virtual enclaves, required by a still high crime rate.

By most politicos, news folks, etc., Detroit is now undergoing a true Renaissance. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in selected areas for sports arenas, stadia, restaurants, shopping, and revitalized housing. All well and good.

However, not more than two miles away from all the spending, are neighborhoods which still look like the proverbial war zones. Literally blocks of abandoned, falling down houses, overgrown lots, streets with bad pavement. On one lot is a long-dead tree, which still stands, despite decay and termite ravaging. It has some unique bark still remaining. Here are photos of the tree, and a close up of some of the bark. Original colors are so dreary, the images are better served in black and white (converted in Photoshop)

http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu331/pendennis1947/Dead%20Tree%20Scotten%20Street%20Detroit_zpsvxo2ddb1.jpg

http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu331/pendennis1947/Tree%20Bark%20Dead%20Tree%20Scotten%20Street%20Detroit%20-%20BW_zpst7lftaxm.jpg

As the 50 offers slight magnification, it's not perfect by any stretch. As I mentioned, my instructor insisted on single-lens usage for a lot of assignments. I used everything from 28mm, up through and including, the 200mm as "normal". I knew several photographers at the local newspaper. Their "normal" lens was the 105mm f2.5. This was a short telephoto. However, it allowed the photographer to get "up close and personal", without getting up too close and too personal. Since Tri-X was usually pushed to 800 or 1200, the f2.5 aperture worked.

"Normal" is really a misnomer. There are ideal focal lengths for most any shot, and use of a zoom does make the job easier.

Since my photography class was an art elective, it was all about lighting, composition, and exposure. A lot of folks used Yashica TL Electro's, Canon QL RF's, almost any camera that wasn't point and shoot.

Some years ago, either Modern or Popular Photography published a photo of a Nikon with a bullet hole through the lens. The photographer did not survive.

Although the Nikkor 50mm seldom gets much use anymore, it was invaluable when I took photography classes in the '70's. My instructor would insist on us using the 50 for learning how to frame, working out distances, angles, etc. We would get assignments in which we could use only one lens, usually the 50.

It's not a do-all, see-all lens. It is a quite useful tool in learning the basics. Before 35mm became so popular, and fixed lens cameras were the majority of what was sold, people did learn how to use them effectively. That stated, there are an awful lot of bad photos out there taken with a 50, when another focal length would be far better to use.

Wein makes a device which fits your hot shoe, and it protects the circuitry of your camera. All the older handle mount Strobonars have fairly high trigger voltages. I wouldn't risk any modern camera with them.

A Sunset tripod, with a geared center column in the early '70's. The geared mechanism was so poor, that the crank would skip cogs, etc. My dad looked at it, and took it to his maintenance shop, and had a machinist repair it. He ended up making new bushings, gears, etc., and I ended up with a custom-built tripod. Next opportunity was to buy a Leitz Tiltall.

Lesson learned: Never skimp on quality!

After upgrading, in June, from a Nikon D200, to a D500, I realized I needed a FX camera, and it came to me in the D750. Great camera, and I use it most of the time now. It seems I learn something new about it every time I take it out.

After selling my F5, N90s, and FE a couple of years ago, I really missed having at least one film camera. A few months back, I found a mint condition F6. It's in "test mode" with Fujichrome 100 right now. Since I also have a D750, I already have a battery of FX/35mm lenses.

I also use a Mamiya 645 TL, and a C330s for medium format.

After being a bit idle in photography for several years, I decided to dive in again, and upgrade, with a different focus on the art. I bought a D500 and a D750; and added several lenses specific to DX format. I already had a number of FX/35mm format lenses, and have still added a few. No regrets for the chosen format. However, the clarion call of film hasn't gone away, despite having sold all my film equipment a few years ago. I remedied that by locating a Mamiya 645 Pro TL kit, and now I've added a number of lenses for it. I also like shooting a TLR, and a local shop had a very nice C330s, which I bought just for the 6x6 format.

The Mamiya even with a larger screen and split image, is still a bit difficult to use, but I owe that to the laziness of using nothing but AF on the Nikons.

I've gotten some test results back from 120 transparencies scanned, and I'm headed out this week to shoot more film.

Oh, and by the way, 35mm is back in play for me. A local seller had a mint condition F6, and it's getting its initial shake out now.