Good Articles That Don't Deserve Their Own Threads

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,478

fxh

OG Party Suit Wearer
Supporter
Messages
6,667
I wouldn't have gone to see the Stones in the last 30 years - wasn't interested- if they came again I would - it starts to get interesting. Neil Young - yes - . Cohen was great - Bob I've always seen - hes never let me down. Always fresh
 

Dropbear

Member in Good Standing
Messages
3,312
I wouldn't have gone to see the Stones in the last 30 years - wasn't interested- if they came again I would - it starts to get interesting. Neil Young - yes - . Cohen was great - Bob I've always seen - hes never let me down. Always fresh
My dad saw them in ‘67 in LA and thought they were amazing, and again 1977 at the WACA and thought they were already a joke. I told him that if they tour again, we are both going.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,426
^With regard to phone usage surpassing TV usage, I think that it's partly a function of people using mobile phones more of the time now. People use them on public transport, while eating, while sitting on the couch, while in bed, even while sitting on the toilet. You can be almost anywhere and use your mobile phone, but the only place you can use your TV is when you are in the room with the TV in it.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,478
I wouldn't have gone to see the Stones in the last 30 years - wasn't interested- if they came again I would - it starts to get interesting. Neil Young - yes - . Cohen was great - Bob I've always seen - hes never let me down. Always fresh
Watched the Rolling Thunder Review documentary by Scorsese on Netflix. It's almost frightening the cultural differences from then '75 and '76 to now. Yet Dylan's performances transcend that. He looks back in bemusement at his old self and has a little dig at Allen Ginsberg for being very far from a ''father figure'' and Joan Baez when she got in with the wrong crowd and was self-identifying as Bob Dylan because of whatever she was taking.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,478
This is an interesting article:

This be the the sentence: ''The truth is that globalisation, the central political dream of Clinton and Blair, Obama and Cameron, was never real. It was a process by which advanced Western economies unilaterally surrendered their manufacturing capacity to a rival, growing power, China, which instead of reciprocating according to the Panglossian calculations of the neoliberal theorists, practiced a traditional and ruthless mercantilism in pursuit of its own interests.''

Neoliberalism, now in a very decadent Woke phase, looks like the rock USA status and influence will perish on. In the poetry of W.B, Yeats:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


And in the words of the Clash: it's Armagideon time!
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,426
This be the the sentence: ''The truth is that globalisation, the central political dream of Clinton and Blair, Obama and Cameron, was never real. It was a process by which advanced Western economies unilaterally surrendered their manufacturing capacity to a rival, growing power, China, which instead of reciprocating according to the Panglossian calculations of the neoliberal theorists, practiced a traditional and ruthless mercantilism in pursuit of its own interests.''
This makes it sound as though the whole thing was some sort of cunning plot by China.

In fact, it's simply capitalism. Owners of capital will seek out opportunities to obtain the best return. Prior to China, companies moved production around various other countries - southern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and other places. China offered low wages, low safety regulations, secure and stable investment environment and a massive, well-educated workforce and so capital flocked to invest.

If India, Nigeria or similar countries could offer the same things but at a lower price than China, then capital would move there.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
8,669
This makes it sound as though the whole thing was some sort of cunning plot by China.

In fact, it's simply capitalism. Owners of capital will seek out opportunities to obtain the best return. Prior to China, companies moved production around various other countries - southern Europe, South Korea, Taiwan and other places. China offered low wages, low safety regulations, secure and stable investment environment and a massive, well-educated workforce and so capital flocked to invest.

If India, Nigeria or similar countries could offer the same things but at a lower price than China, then capital would move there.
Three cheers for capitalism! The best system humanity ever devised. Good for people, good for the planet and great for your pocket.
 
Top Bottom