Foreign Politics or: how i learned to stop worrying and love the parliamentary democracy

[Spicyryan]

the idea the royal family generates more revenue through tourism than they cost is mostly propaganda from royalist shills and has never been corroborated by an academic study

the absence of hard evidence does not disprove the notion of course, there is simply a lot of legerdemain that occurs when royalists trot out the talking point. exempli gratia, they count every visitor, every ticket sold, every bit of merchandise that comes out of Buckingham Palace as revenue generated by the royal family. but were the royals to get guillotined tomorrow does anyone really think Buckingham Palace would cease to be a tourist destination? Versailles gets more visitors as a monument to a long-dead monarchy.

the economic question is only would the delta between revenue generated by a living British monarchy versus an extinct one outweigh the costs of supporting a living monarchy. and the issue is so politically charged in Britain it is not easy to get unbiased analysis.

Correct, the place is a destination dead or alive. It is unfortunate that people buy into the propaganda that clearly benefits the wealth of the royal family.

[thetruepandagod]

the british people don't really deserve any better though

[Spicyryan]

the british people don't really deserve any better though

Sure they do. They have nothing to lose, but their chains.

[thetruepandagod]

the chains they put on others were the ones they wore all along. deep.

[Gredival]

the chains they put on others were the ones they wore all along. deep.

They didn't enslave others to bland food though

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

They didn't enslave others to bland food though

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Churchill may have had his hand in the Bengal famine, but he was too late. As the famine of flavor that is British cuisine was long since there already.

[NynJa]

There have been hearings to see if the use of the Emergency Act back in February to clear out the Ottawa Convoy was legitimately used or of it was an overreach of power.

Every right wing politician who spent the past 6 months crying "fuck Trudeau the dictator" is refusing to show up to the hearings to testify why the EA was not necessary and was government overreach. I want to be surprised, but I'm really not.

[Andalusian girls]

Brazil in a tight one, with 60% of the vote in Lula and Bolsonaro separated by of 0.2%

Brazil wonks say the outstanding vote ought favor Lula and he's been making up a sizable Bolsonaro lead all afternoon, but we shall see

[Krandor]

with 670% of the vote in

Damn that's some serious ballot stuffing

[Andalusian girls]

stuff your face with some pie funny guy

[Andalusian girls]

Lula has taken the lead. if projections hold out he should sail the rest of the way and increase the distance but there is currently a 9,000 vote delta with 82 million votes cast, bout as close as it can get.

[Zealot]

I haven't been keeping up with this one because I didn't expect Bolsonaro to lose; is Lula actually any better?

[Andalusian girls]

he's a social welfare populist whose defining achievements were major anti-poverty programs. also big against deforestation in the Amazon + pro-environmental in general. not a socialist though he favored adults in the room financial measures, worked with the IMF, Brazil's banking system, foreign investors etc, made Brazil a creditor nation briefly. kind of a Jerry Brown fiscal moderate with a strong sense of progressivism.

he got bopped with corruption charges, because his party was extremely corrupt when in power, but if we're taking an honest inventory every Brazilian president in its history ought to have been jailed for corruption. was released because the judiciary found out the investigation / prosecution against him was also extremely corrupt in what we call a certified Latin American hood classic.

so yes corrupt or no better in near every sense than Bolsonaro

also his lead is up to a million votes he's gonna win this thang gg wp Brazil no re

[Zealot]

That's amazing, good on ya Brazil, maybe the planet buys a few more years.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[6souls]

coup when?

[Uzor]

the idea the royal family generates more revenue through tourism than they cost is mostly propaganda from royalist shills and has never been corroborated by an academic study

the absence of hard evidence does not disprove the notion of course, there is simply a lot of legerdemain that occurs when royalists trot out the talking point. exempli gratia, they count every visitor, every ticket sold, every bit of merchandise that comes out of Buckingham Palace as revenue generated by the royal family. but were the royals to get guillotined tomorrow does anyone really think Buckingham Palace would cease to be a tourist destination? Versailles gets more visitors as a monument to a long-dead monarchy.

the economic question is only would the delta between revenue generated by a living British monarchy versus an extinct one outweigh the costs of supporting a living monarchy. and the issue is so politically charged in Britain it is not easy to get unbiased analysis.

It's not only about the revenue the royal family generates through tourism though, it's about so much more than that. I give 0 fucks about the British royal family, but I assume they (like the Swedish royal family) don't just sit in their palace, play with corgis, and eat food all day.

In Sweden for example I would definitely argue that the Swedish royal family is a net-positive for Sweden. Few people travel to Sweden for the royal palace specifically. Instead, their main purpose is mainly to represent Sweden and our image abroad, such as at the Nobel prize, as well as travel Sweden (and abroad) to get a "feel" for the people as well as work with various philanthropic ventures. If anything, the money the Royal Family receives can be seen as marketing costs for brand awareness of the "product" that is Sweden.

As an example of a "return on investment" that has nothing to do with tourism, one of the funds that Crown Princess Victoria run focuses on helping children with disabilities. Last year, that fund helped fund projects for roughly 1.5 mil USD. She runs a lot of other funds too, as do the other members of the Royal Family.

The royal family only costs us 13,6 mil USD a year (half of which goes to maintaining the castles and royal grounds) and the rest goes for salaries etc. 7 mil USD a year for walking billboards is really nothing in the grand scheme of things. In comparison, the Swedish government get 211 billion USD in taxes every year, 7 mil USD is barely even a drop in the bucket.

[Byrthnoth]

Yes, but why should ambassadorships be hereditary positions?

The alternative to having a royal family isn't zero rich people doing charity for fun or zero ambassadors. It's nonhereditary versions of those roles.

[Uzor]

It's not though. Sweden has ambassadors too, those are separate positions.

The closest likeness to a "nonheridatory" position to King would be something like the president of Finland, which is a completely separate position from the Prime Minister position. Far fewer people have heard of the President of Finland than the Prime Minister of Finland (although more has probably heard of him since the beginning of the Ukrainian war than before). Far more people know of the King of Sweden. Most people probably don't even know Finland has a prime minister as well as a president, and even fewer likely know the difference between the two positions.

Assuming the Royal Family was removed from Great Britain and they added a democratically elected position that serves the same position as the Queen of England, I'm willing to bet far fewer people would know of said person, and it would hold far less clout than the title "Queen of England".

While it is merely a ceremonial position without any actual power; traditions and ceremonies do matter. As does the fame that comes with said position, and it's not something that can be easily replaced. The Royal Family has importance beyond just "generating income in the form of tourism."

[Spicyryan]

Totally unremarkable that liberals are also monarchists. It's really inexcusable.

[Andalusian girls]

It's not only about the revenue the royal family generates through tourism though, it's about so much more than that. I give 0 fucks about the British royal family, but I assume they (like the Swedish royal family) don't just sit in their palace, play with corgis, and eat food all day.

no they also rape little girls and hate black people