Off-Topic Tangents

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

There is no mention of all 'mature' economies suffering deindustrialisation in the first piece.

It's recognised as a factor in the first para (introductory preamble) of the 2nd piece.

How many times do I have to tell you this same thing?

 

oh ffs, i've mentioned the reasons several times already.  

I've even given extra reasons for why it's a propaganda piece, such as how it blames the nasty bankers for 70s inflation but completely forgets to mention the biggest factor of all, the 1973 oil crisis.

Thanks.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

There is no mention of all 'mature' economies suffering deindustrialisation in the first piece.

It's recognised as a factor in the first para (introductory preamble) of the 2nd piece.

How many times do I have to tell you this same thing?

 

oh ffs, i've mentioned the reasons several times already.  

I've even given extra reasons for why it's a propaganda piece, such as how it blames the nasty bankers for 70s inflation but completely forgets to mention the biggest factor of all, the 1973 oil crisis.

Are we even comparing the same articles? I found the below quote mentioned in the redpepper article, but I couldn't find it in the other one:

By 1979 inflation was going down and North Sea oil was coming on stream. The 1974–79 Labour government was unlucky in that its time in office coincided with the capital investment phase of North Sea oil exploration rather than the results of that investment. Its Tory successor reaped the benefits and then squandered them, using North Sea oil revenues to fund tax cuts for the middle class and pay benefits to the more than three million it allowed to become unemployed, instead of using it as the basis for national economic recovery.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

There is no mention of all 'mature' economies suffering deindustrialisation in the first piece.

It's recognised as a factor in the first para (introductory preamble) of the 2nd piece.

How many times do I have to tell you this same thing?

 

oh ffs, i've mentioned the reasons several times already.  

I've even given extra reasons for why it's a propaganda piece, such as how it blames the nasty bankers for 70s inflation but completely forgets to mention the biggest factor of all, the 1973 oil crisis.

Second article - is this the part you mean?

The  subsequent fifty  years,  from  1960,  have witnessed  a  relative  decline  of  the  UK  manufacturing sector  –  relative  to  other sectors  of  the  economy,  and relative  to the  manufacturing sectors in other countries.   The  paper  considers  the  thesis  that  the  relative  decline  of  manufacturing is  a  natural outcome  of  the  development of  advanced economies,  and the  counterarguments  suggesting  that  decline  of  UK  manufacturing  reflected  economic weaknesses and  structural  imbalances.    We  argue  that  in the  case  of  the  UK,  the relative  decline  of  manufacturing has indeed reflected deep-rooted structural problems.  

So considers the argument that it's natural to mature economies, but rejects it.

Admittedly, redpepper doesn't explicitly reject it, but the whole article argues that it was not naturally occurring.

The second article I posted was explicitly discussing deindustrialisation, redpepper the industrial unrest of the 1970s.

[lost]

19 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Are we even comparing the same articles? I found the below quote mentioned in the redpepper article, but I couldn't find it in the other one:

The 1970's oil shock was caused by The U.S supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur war which lead to sanctions by the OPEC countries. Its nothing to do with the north sea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis

Edited November 18, 2019 by lost

[feral chile]

31 minutes ago, lost said:

The 1970's oil shock was caused by The U.S supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur war which lead to sanctions by the OPEC countries. Its nothing to do with the north sea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis

Thanks lost.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, feral chile said:

Are we even comparing the same articles?

are we even using the same language on the same planet? 

There's fuck all about deindustrialisation in what you quoted.

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, feral chile said:

So considers the argument that it's natural to mature economies, but rejects it.

rejects it within caveats.

When something is being considered and rejected, all the evidence is within the consideration. 

When there's no consideration or mention of a universally accepted factor, a writer is tampering with the evidence to create a false narrative.

Duh. :rolleyes: 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, feral chile said:

The second article I posted was explicitly discussing deindustrialisation, redpepper the industrial unrest of the 1970s.

is that what you really think? Or are you playing dumb here to try and justify your earlier dumbness?

That redpepper article is "look at what all the nasty capitalists did", utterly excluding not-about-class-war wider-world goings-on that fed into what was happening.

Deindustrialisation was *only* Thatcher; high inflation was *only* banking deregulation; etc, etc, etc.

 

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

are we even using the same language on the same planet? 

There's fuck all about deindustrialisation in what you quoted.

 

In which article? The second one was all about deindustrialisation, the redpepper one was mainly a defence of the unions.

The only thing I was taking from the redpepper article was that it was a more positive view of the 1970s.

At that stage, that was what we were discussing.

I was a bit surprised to be source-challenged at all, it was one of many saying the 1970s weren't all bad, spacehoppers kept getting mentioned for some reason, as a feelgood consumer barometer of lack of austerity.

It was only afterwards that I posted the deindustrialisation one, after you mentioned it.

My original intention was just "hey, the 1970s weren't all bad". The part I had focused on was the human rights bit, and the way governments used to manage wages etc., not whether they managed them well. I'm fascinated to think how governments and workers used to negotiate.

I hadn't expected it to be controversial at all.

I was born in 1960, my husband in 1954, neither of us can remember the 1970s as bad years. He's unskilled, and walked into manual jobs. He had much more trouble in the 1980s and 1990s. I left school on a whim, only applied for one job and got it. Our boss was a multimillionaire so it was said. His relatively small business was thriving.

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

In which article? The second one was all about deindustrialisation, the redpepper one was mainly a defence of the unions.

the redpepper one ignored the facts to paint a picture of evil capitalists.  

 

11 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The only thing I was taking from the redpepper article was that it was a more positive view of the 1970s.

it's easy to give a positive view with propaganda bullshit.

[feral chile]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the redpepper one ignored the facts to paint a picture of evil capitalists.  

 

it's easy to give a positive view with propaganda bullshit.

Neil, they're anti-capitalists. The article was written by a trade union official who has written books about the 1970s, has been published academically, etc.

My defence has never been that it wasn't biased. All sources are biased. The facts in there are correct. That academic article I posted was a bit mischievous, because it was also biased, despite its appearance of objectivity.

Again, my point is about sources and their validity. You accept the second one because it looks more official, appears impartial and objective, when it isn't. I find that much more an issue than a clearly biased anti-capitalist piece, in a publication clearly identifying as such.

They're both opinion pieces.

Everything you say is proving my point.

I could find scholarly articles to back up anything I wanted. I certainly found ones that contradicted the one I posted.

They prove nothing.

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I started researching the authors of that second article and stumbled across this, which he co-authored. He certainly writes a lot about austerity and inequality. I don't have time to read this yet.

https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/11/3/389/5146445

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, feral chile said:

they're anti-capitalists.

and therefore aren't giving a true reflection of what was really going on.

Trump tries wising people up with bullshit too.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, feral chile said:

My defence has never been that it wasn't biased

then why are we here, after you took exception to me pointing out it was biased...? 

 :rolleyes: 

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, feral chile said:

They're both opinion pieces.

and one is a crock of shit.

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and one is a crock of shit.

Sources? Evidence?

That seems a very biased and badly written statement for a man of your intelligence.

Lack of academic sources. No facts to be verified, emotive and value-ridden language.....

Lost, we could use your expertise here.

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Sources? Evidence?

a source is your 2nd piece. The evidence is available to be seen and measured in all 'mature' economies. 

Fuck's sake. It's like talking to a goldfish.

 

Quote

Lack of academic sources.

Unbelievable.  

I don't need to find sources to know what I'm talking about.

As you're asking for sources you don't even accept the sources you found for yourself so there's fuck all point me finding you another.

Edited November 19, 2019 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

then why are we here, after you took exception to me pointing out it was biased...? 

Go back to lost's post. I took exception to his double standards in holding me accountable for truth values in a comment about a subjective view of the 1970s.

Admittedly, I then went off on a tangent about academic bias etc.

It just irritates me that people repeat DM garbage everywhere, whether they quote it or not, and then sneer at other sources as invalid.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Go back to lost's post. I took exception to his double standards in holding me accountable for truth values in a comment about a subjective view of the 1970s.

Admittedly, I then went off on a tangent about academic bias etc.

that was nothing to do with your posts with me. 

I called the article out as biased. You took exception to it, and you claimed all things were equally biased.

A million posts later you're saying you don't care about the bias. Hmm, OK.  

[kaosmark2]

52 minutes ago, feral chile said:

It just irritates me that people repeat DM garbage everywhere, whether they quote it or not, and then sneer at other sources as invalid.

The Daily Mail has been being called out on these forums for years.

[feral chile]

48 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The Daily Mail has been being called out on these forums for years.

And still you all repeat misrepresentations that the DM spouts.

As does my GP. The DM started attacking the civil service,  one example was their sensationalism of flexitime, where apparently, civil servants were given 3 extra days holiday every month just for working outside office hours. There have been others, around sick leave and pensions, compressed hours, etc. The reality is vastly different from how they made it sound.

Anyway, off I went to my GP, I had experienced some extreme symptoms which I won't go into, that scared me then and still scare me now. The GP said, "you should be thankful for your job, with your flexi and pension". He clearly considered me a malingerer, based on my job, not symptoms, because Dr Google kept coming up with either an immune disorder or cancer.

Luckily, I refused to let him put me off and just saw other doctors, but it took a while to get my assertiveness back.

Given my recent history, the DM could have been the death of me if I was less arsey.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

that was nothing to do with your posts with me. 

I called the article out as biased. You took exception to it, and you claimed all things were equally biased.

A million posts later you're saying you don't care about the bias. Hmm, OK.  

No, I'm laughing at you for thinking one is biased and the other objective.

The conversation's moved on from whether the 1970s were good or bad, into epistemology.

Which is why I moved it over here, I love philosophy, it's my area.

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

I'm laughing at you for thinking one is biased and the other objective.

Fuck me you're too dumb or too troll for this conversation.

I called the first out as biased bullshit. You objected to me saying that, and and yet you're agreeing it's bullshit. 

I merely pointed out that the second article wasn't omitting a relevant fact that the first does omit. By definition that makes it more objective.  

[feral chile]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Fuck me you're too dumb or too troll for this conversation.

I called the first out as biased bullshit. You objected to me saying that, and and yet you're agreeing it's bullshit. 

I merely pointed out that the second article wasn't omitting a relevant fact that the first does omit. By definition that makes it more objective.  

Neither are bullshit, they both think the same about government management.

The point is, if I was quoting something about Corbyn or unions being shit, nobody would be questioning my sources.

I can also post academic articles that argue against the one I posted.

That's what academics do. They politely call bullshit on each other.

You must know these disciplines aren't science.

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Neither are bullshit, they both think the same about government management.

there's two people making an apple pie. One has apples and pastry, the other just pastry.

Only one has the potential to be a real apple pie. The other will only ever be a bullshit apple pie.  

I called it out as a bullshit article because it's a bullshit article. It deliberately lies thru omission, to paint an untrue picture.