Do royal scandals help the republican movement?

The sun sets in Montreal at 6pm, at which point it is already noon the next day in Auckland. When it falls below the horizon in Auckland, it has already been shining for 30 minutes in London. What unites New Zealand, Canada, the UK, and twelve other countries including Jamaica and Australia? Their shared head of state – Queen Elizabeth II. The sun still shines on the British empire.*

By Applysense - Adapted from BlankMap-World6.svg, information from current realms, Public Domain,
Blue – Current Commonwealth Realms (The Queen is Head of State)
Red – Former realms and Dominions that are now republics

Not that there aren’t issues. In a recent interview with Oprah, Meghan and Harry accused the royal family of ignoring Meghan’s mental health crisis and being uncomfortable with the possibility that their child, Archie, could be a colour other than white. There have been fights over money, flower arrangements, and Prince Charles. Meghan and Harry now also keep rescue chickens.

I sympathize with any family going through hard times. But, I’d like to make them a cup of tea, not head of state.

A Republic?

The days of Australia as an English outpost in the Pacific are numbered. In the 2016 census, only 39% of people listed their ancestry as English, Irish or Scottish – a number set to decline given current immigration patterns. 29.7% of Australians were born overseas. While England is still the top country of birth, it says more about the past than the future. The median age of this group is 57; it’s 34 for those born in China or India. For the first time in 2019, there were more Australians born in Sri Lanka than Scotland.

The royals are increasingly irrelevant to our culture, our politics, and our future. They live thousands of kilometres away and offer no special benefit beyond the costumes. They epitomize a hierarchical, deferential culture at odds with Australian identity. Most of them would struggle to find honest employment were it not for the family business. There’s also the alleged sex offender.

All this is secondary to the main point. Anyone whose authority rests on their surname, and who their warboss-cum-king ancestor once extorted, should have no role, ceremonial or otherwise, in a modern democratic state.

The Independent guide to the UK constitution: The monarchy | The  Independent | The Independent

But I digress.

To return to the question in the title, I have doubts about whether this drama will hasten the day Australia finally becomes a republic.

The problem is that these scandals replace the institution of royalty with a revolving cast of celebrities. We’re outraged at Charles or William not because they belong to 1000-year old hereditary clique that took power and land – the royals are the UK’s biggest land owners – at the point of a sword, but because they said something mean. Focusing on the individuals distracts from the institutions looming in the rear. The royals are increasingly just celebrities who live in the same house(s), a mix of Downton Abbey and Big Brother. And we know celebrity can be managed: an appropriate mea culpa; switch out the unpopular face (Charles) for the popular one (William); bundle the weird uncle into the closet; focus on the babies. All the while, what they actually are recedes into the background.

The irony of it all is that while defenders of the monarchy drone on about continuity, history, and culture, the royals are transforming themselves into celebrities who just happen to play dress up. All the worse for republicans everywhere.

*According to Wikipedia, similar honorifics were applied to the Persian and Roman empires. The Habsburgs, with their domains in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Latin America, were the first to phrase it in the now familiar way, but in Spanish – el imperio donde nunca se pone el sol.

As always, if you enjoyed this, consider sharing or subscribing

The media standoff in Australia

Image result for facebook logo

Facebook shut off news access for Australian users on Wednesday. It’s part of an ongoing brawl over proposed legislation that would create a statutory code for bargaining between news organisations and large technology platforms like Facebook or Google. You can read more about it here or here.

Some initial thoughts:

  • This seems like an misstep for Facebook, especially since Google signed an 11th-hour deal with major news publishers to avoid anything so drastic. It is taking a combative stance against a national government, in an environment where there is already concern about Facebook’s influence. “Large corporation threatening nation-state” is a bad look.

    Who has more to lose? For the Australian government, backing down means giving in to a foreign company – not even a foreign power. For Facebook, acquiescing sets a precedent that regulators in other countries could emulate. I suspect Facebook will try and cut a deal here they can use in other regions.
  • The lady doth protest too much, methinks. As much as Facebook repeats that it is just a mere platform, we now have an incontrovertible demonstration of its power; it put up barriers to news for millions of people with the click of a button.

    The words that come to mind when I think about Facebook are no longer “innovative,” “social network,” “founder-in-t-shirt,” “cringy posts,” or “newsfeed,” instead they’re “fake,” “malign,” “opaque,’ “behemoth.”
  • In the short-term, it might have the consequence of hurting smaller publishers who rely on Facebook to reach audiences. Larger news organisations can still expect traffic through their website.

Chinese media has a way with words…

The Global Times has hit back at calls from Senator Pauline Hanson for a boycott of Chinese products:

I disagree with the Chinese government on a variety of issues, but can’t find fault with this characterization of Pauline Hanson…

(For international readers, Pauline Hanson is the budget Australian version of Marie Le Pen or Nigel Farage)

A Budget Response

I watched the Treasurer’s speech last night for the first time since I was an undergraduate (at our first [and only] “budget party”). Like that party, this post might be a little economics-y.

Wait, we’re actually watching the Budget?

I won’t bother talking through the detail, others far more qualified can do that far better.

I respect the Coalition for putting their qualms about debt aside, I only wish they had spent some of the money differently. Still, putting the specifics aside, I want to share a few broad impressions:

  • Manufacturing is BACK – This is something of an overgeneralisation, but if you went back even a decade, the idea that we would organise industries by anything other than ruthless efficiency was ludicrous. The result was outsourcing and global supply chains.

    From the 1980s on, the advice to the developing world was, if your competitive advantage was services like tourism, then double down on hotels and jet skis. Unfortunately, it turns out that services might not provide as many positive externalities or be as productivity boosting as manufacturing. You’ll notice South Korea or China chose steel and shipbuilding over seaside holiday packages. Other developing economies are now jumping on the bandwagon.

    The revival story of manufacturing is a little different in the Global North. Job losses in certain internationally vulnerable industries created concentrated pockets of anger, then Trump and Brexit. It has not helped that the replacement service sector jobs have often been lower pay (Technically service sector jobs could also be high pay. One reason they are not is because unions today are weak, but service sector workplaces are also probably harder to unionise – one factory with a thousand workers versus 100 supermarkets with 10 workers each.). Before Corona this was creating pressure to “bring back manufacturing.” Even as that was happening, Chinese competition and the need to replace sunset industries was leading the US and the EU to champion manufacturing and industrial policy in a way not seen in decades.

    Covid-19 accelerated this trend by reminding countries there might also be national security reasons for having domestic manufacturing capability.

    The Australian Government’s new $1.5 billion industrial fund cautiously follows this trend. I expect it to continue as governments reinvent (rediscover) industrial policy while studiously avoiding calling it that
Why do they never take off the tie?
  • Are we at the bottom of the supply-side barrel? – A lot of the policy to date has focused on supply. Everything to do with training, apprenticeships, education, or helping people find work hopes that more educated workers and more flexible labour markets will eventually create demand.

    There have been some efforts to target demand. Wage replacement policies like JobKeeper maintain existing sources of consumer demand. New payments for pensioners, the (predictable and grotesque) tax cuts, and new expensing rules are all potential sources of demand, but rely on the private sector choosing to spend/invest the new money. They might choose to sit on it. I know I will. The policies ultimately depend on confidence and uncertainty improving enough for the incentives to kick in. We will have to wait and see what the animal spirits do.

    An alternative could be government more actively directing investment, or even building things itself (like social housing, which has barely increased in 20 years). This direct approach, and government spending more generally, is still viewed with caution despite renewed interest in Keynesian economics. This has roots in several reasons I won’t go into here, except to say some are very questionable (e.g. government spending is self-defeating because infinitely long-sighted people will factor in future tax hikes to pay for it [which never happen] and offset the spending accordingly).

    The Government is increasing its spending on infrastructure, along with the new manufacturing fund. This will definitely help, but the logic of investing in infrastructure is that the private sector would not do it otherwise. However, presumably, the goal now is to get the private sector to do things it would normally do, but is not.

    In my opinion, with QE, we are reaching the limits of supply side economics. If the recovery stutters (and the Treasury’s projections are incredibly optimistic), then governments may actually have to get their hands dirty. I sincerely hope we have a V shaped recovery, because if not, the government will have handed out billions we need.
  • The Left is (still) Fucked – The Coronavirus virus has forced Conservative governments everywhere to close the final distance that separated them from the centre-left. Even as they drone on about how this spending was only possible thanks to years of balanced budgets, they are rolling out positively promiscuous fiscal policies.

    This is only an acceleration of a longer-term trend. Across the west, Conservative parties have realised that if they talk a little louder about workers and health, paper over tax cuts for the wealthy with a few concessions to low-income groups, they can dominate the centre-left’s terrain. The Labor party is being forced into a position where its platform will read: “What they do, but 1.4% more on Health and Education.”

    The environment could be a distinguishing point, but it has yet to have big electoral success and Conservative parties are learning how to talk a good game (we love rivers, recycling, and Koalas), while doing very little (GAS LED RECOVERY). Soon, Conservatives will finish their pivot to the “its too late to do anything now anyway” position, at which point they will be able to go back to openly refusing to do anything. On the environment, China may well save us all.

    The best case scenario now seems to be Biden-esque candidate, which, unless they pull a surprise LBJ, I find rather disappointing.