Hotdigr wrote:

Digg3r wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:50 am Housing, energy and alcohol is expensive in Australia.

Food is quality and cheap.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3010 using Tapatalk

Not having a go at you Diggr, but how long has it been since you've been back mate? I went back in December for the first time in 5 years and was absolutely blown away by how expensive food has gotten. $28 a kg for T-bone steak in Coles and Woolies, that isn't a patch on the export quality I can get here for $19. B grade beef mince for $9.00, again 2 bucks more expensive then better quality here, Lamb shanks that restaurants sell here for around $10 are close to $15 in supermarkets. Limes - 3 for $2, Mangos - almost $2 each. Even a bloody Toblerone costs 4 bucks in Coles now.

hatchelt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:28 pm 1994 (juuust after we got over Kurt Cobains death) to 2001 (juuust before the world changed forever with 9/11)

Although I think we probably peaked in 1999 with the release of Window Licker by Aphex Twin, realising music would never be this good again. It was also just a bit before the build-up to the millennium became painfully tedious.

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:19 pm

hatchelt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:28 pm 1994 (juuust after we got over Kurt Cobains death) to 2001 (juuust before the world changed forever with 9/11)

Although I think we probably peaked in 1999 with the release of Window Licker by Aphex Twin, realising music would never be this good again. It was also just a bit before the build-up to the millennium became painfully tedious.

tbh i thought Come to Daddy was a better track than Windowlicker, loved the video though

hatchelt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:30 pm

Jamie_Lambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:19 pm

hatchelt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:28 pm 1994 (juuust after we got over Kurt Cobains death) to 2001 (juuust before the world changed forever with 9/11)

Although I think we probably peaked in 1999 with the release of Window Licker by Aphex Twin, realising music would never be this good again. It was also just a bit before the build-up to the millennium became painfully tedious.

tbh i thought Come to Daddy was a better track than Windowlicker, loved the video though

That EP was a game changer for sure.

AlonzoPartriz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:33 am

shnoukieBRO wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:58 pm One thing is true. As Asia becomes more modern changes are occurring, and not always for the best for travellers. Whilst i remember the better times of Snookie, i must also think that maybe things are getting better moreso for a locals point of view. Cambodia isn't there for tourists, but for the local people.

Think of Thailand, when it was cheap. Back then shoestring travellers spent nothing, and the locals didn't benefit. It was a one sided story, back then.

The good old days may have been great for travellers, but not necessarily for locals.

I would strongly disagree with that statement. Not only did budget travellers add to the local economy enough to allow the 'real' locals to save and invest, but the tourists did a pretty good job of keeping the place tidy.

By real locals I mean the villagers that actually came from the villages, and not wealthy connected businessmen who came running from the cities to build large hotels etc that stole the locals land and​ destroyed their fishing with untreated sewage etc. Offerring them short time employment low wage contracts at the same time as destroying their livelihoods and leaving them to starve for the off season.

Nothng worse than mass two week tourism.

A lot of those local villagers in Goa are now multi millionaires, because they took what they were making from the budget travellers and invested it in Bombay real estate at a time when prices were cheap. Pretty much the same model applied in most places with budget travellers in the past.

Nowadays, there is a lot more wealth for a small number of local people, but even more Cambodians suffering from inflation caused by 7% growth, and tourists who arrive without an understanding of economies outside their own narrow experience. My critiscism of them is not so much the not understanding, but the complete lack of even wanting to know. Unlike the majority of budget travelers in the past. But then they were in the main coming for different reasons. SEA has been an exception to that because of the prostitution element.

All they are concerned about is directly comparing specific prices with economies as disparant as having a GDP of $54,000 with ones that have GDPs of less than a $1000. It's​ only really usefull as an exercise in showing how expensive undeveloped countries have​ become in comparrison with developed top tier ecconomies, as opposed to trying to prove how cheap they are.

shnoukieBRO wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:34 am

AlonzoPartriz wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:33 am

shnoukieBRO wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:58 pm One thing is true. As Asia becomes more modern changes are occurring, and not always for the best for travellers. Whilst i remember the better times of Snookie, i must also think that maybe things are getting better moreso for a locals point of view. Cambodia isn't there for tourists, but for the local people.

Think of Thailand, when it was cheap. Back then shoestring travellers spent nothing, and the locals didn't benefit. It was a one sided story, back then.

The good old days may have been great for travellers, but not necessarily for locals.

I would strongly disagree with that statement. Not only did budget travellers add to the local economy enough to allow the 'real' locals to save and invest, but the tourists did a pretty good job of keeping the place tidy.

By real locals I mean the villagers that actually came from the villages, and not wealthy connected businessmen who came running from the cities to build large hotels etc that stole the locals land and​ destroyed their fishing with untreated sewage etc. Offerring them short time employment low wage contracts at the same time as destroying their livelihoods and leaving them to starve for the off season.

Nothng worse than mass two week tourism.

A lot of those local villagers in Goa are now multi millionaires, because they took what they were making from the budget travellers and invested it in Bombay real estate at a time when prices were cheap. Pretty much the same model applied in most places with budget travellers in the past.

Nowadays, there is a lot more wealth for a small number of local people, but even more Cambodians suffering from inflation caused by 7% growth, and tourists who arrive without an understanding of economies outside their own narrow experience. My critiscism of them is not so much the not understanding, but the complete lack of even wanting to know. Unlike the majority of budget travelers in the past. But then they were in the main coming for different reasons. SEA has been an exception to that because of the prostitution element.

All they are concerned about is directly comparing specific prices with economies as disparant as having a GDP of $54,000 with ones that have GDPs of less than a $1000. It's​ only really usefull as an exercise in showing how expensive undeveloped countries have​ become in comparrison with developed top tier ecconomies, as opposed to trying to prove how cheap they are.

Disagree with the 1st or 2nd part?

Since when did anybody in India properly treat sewerage. The place was a huge open air sewer.