Lots more at the Monarchist for those of you who (like me) missed it. (link fixed)
81 Replies to “Diamond Anniversary”
ural – do you have a point? Your remark is meaningless.
LizJ (3:52 PM) is right. You can’t eat your cake and then claim you never had any. The problems that Britain is enduring, as a polity, come from the same source of the successes that modern Britain has had as a polity. The more titular the monarchy is, the less of a causal factor it is with respect to policy.
With respect to Canada, the only blame that the Queen can reasonably be expected to shoulder is the lack of use of the Royal power of disallowance. That’s the only non-titular formal power she has – and even it is little more than titular due to its disuse.
ural- No, you are saying that inequalities are a matter of choice, ie, you ‘choose’ to work in a low income job. I disagree. An economy requires some highly skilled jobs and some low skilled jobs; some people are of high intellect and others of low intellect..and so on.
selmer – that’s why I said an AVERAGE not skewed Bell Curve.
I also disagree that the Bell Curve in Canada is skewed; we don’t have a high proportion of wealthy. Or poor. You are right about breadth; we don’t have a wide breadth value; most people in Canada are middle-middle class; we have low percentages of wealthy and poor.
Are you aware, WLMR, that your view of ‘what’s best’ for the new collective right is only your view? I hope you don’t intend to impose it on others; after all, a basic axiom of ‘the right’ is individual freedom to think for oneself.
Liz, you misread. I’m not blaming Queen Elizabeth, nor the monarchy, on the state of Britain. We all know where the blames lies.
I said having a monarchy did not protect Britain – and how could it with no power?
Her father wasn’t enamoured of the Labour Party, and one can only imagine what the Queen thinks of the PMs she has met, and their policies.
She has no influence, but is a very nice figurehead.
I cannot imagine England without a monarch and don’t think it will ever be a republic.
If you want a kicker in the inequality-of-wealth debate: in terms of inequality period, it may be misleading. What if being wealthy is generally held to be disreputable? In other words, what if the social status of the wealthy is similar to that of a wealthy callgirl or drug dealer as of here and now? In such a society, only a small minority would be really wealthy…and they would be generally though of as mere deviants. Many of them would be laughingstocks.
I realize that I’m thinking outside of the box here, but this scenaro may be fun to play around with. Provided that it gibes with your sense of humour 🙂
gellen,
I don’t believe the “cheap shot” that “W. MacKay” was referring to, with respect to Joanne, was in reference to her comment regarding the lack of physical attractiveness of the royal family.
Rather, I believe it is in response to her comment (Joanne at November 25, 2007 2:03 PM) that sets up the straw man that anti-monarchists must be ignorant, non-traditionalists of non-British descent.
Or I could be completely wrong. Or were you joking earlier? Mea culpa, if that’s the case.
Posted by: Liz J at November 25, 2007 11:57 AM: “Don’t want to be around when Canada ceases to be a Monarchy. All the Lefties who are gung-ho to become a Republic had better do a bit of homework on what that will mean. If their main worry now is being taken over by the Republic to the South their worst nightmare would come true in short order.”
I really don’t see this as a Left vs. Right issue.
Also, if our Canadian identity is so fragile such that the abolishment of our last remaining tenuous ceremonial ties to the British Monarchy serves as the tipping point for American hegemony, than quite honestly, we deserve no better.
blue bloods is it.
needs both the parental units to bes blue bloods to qualifer.
now ya keeps goin back each gineration aaaand . . . soon enough the entire globe’s full of them. ’tis a mathematical necessity but not all that difficult.
see, dont matter which side of the fence yer on in this one, we’s all descendants of either an african money or adam and eve from eden, a tad north east of the dark continent.
neither one of which was royalty as far as Ive been told, although the monkey connection does crop up at times with royals.
so then the whole farce scam house of cards collapses on itself as all pyramid schemes do.
furthermore, given that monarchies exist via whatever path, howcum an anti-monarch is labelled a ‘socialist’ when the pioneers of anti-monarchism, the blokes who penned the declaration of independence back in 1776, were never marketed as such?
USA?? a socialist model ???
mmmmmm . . . NAH.
Dan Ryan:
“There’s an easy way to euchre that out at the outset, should a Republic of Canada come to pass. Just plead to the Sovereign to add a section to any agreement for Canada to become a republic which states that what used to be “Crown land,” not held by fee-simple tenancy or treaty, is now unowned. This measure would make it a lot more difficult to socialize anything.”
Canada is as good as a communist state in it;s present form…a pretender federal government that is actually a crown corporation vy vice regal letters patent….to hold “crown land” and disense with it as a corporation…this land is not “commonwealth trust” but crown land held in in corporation sole of the federal vice regal privy council/GG.
I really fail to see the difference between a soviet system which claims paramount dispensation on all land and centralizes power and collective national wealth or a vice regal crown corporation (Federal parliament)which does the same same thing through vice regal climes of paramontcy?….we really have to get past this age of kings crap so the royal prerogative properly rests with the electorate through their representaives….
Parliament being a commissioned crown corporation also isolates it from the rule of law and from direct accountability to the electorate (remember the willie littletree case?)…in a constitutional commonlaw republic government reps can be impeached for malfeasance and recalled for not representing the electorate….but not in the present vice regal corporate system…MPs ow loyalty only to the crown….the people are #2 in this system
Sounds like a lot of tories have to learn the vast difference between “populism” and socialism.
ET: I also disagree that the Bell Curve in Canada is skewed; we don’t have a high proportion of wealthy. Or poor.
The fact that Canada does not have a high proportion of either extreme poverty or wealth doesn’t mean that, ergo, the income curve is normal. If you plot actual income in dollars (x-axis) by percentage of population (y-axis), you’ll notice a definite skew to the left. It isn’t so pronounced that the peak is skewed all the way to the “low-income” end, and it is certainly not bimodal (i.e., high proportions of poor and wealthy, with a small middle class), but there is a definite lean. Canada’s income distribution is in no way a normal, bell-shaped curve. This skew is caused by the long “tail” in the high income end, which reflects the small percentage of extremely wealthy Canadians (about 1%) who earn exponentially more than anyone else.
And while it is true that the proportion of wealthy individuals in Canada is not high (nor is it anywhere else in the industrialized West). But the proportion of wealth that this elite minority controls is high. According to StatCan’s “Income in Canada 2005” data, the poorest 20% of families earned only 5% of the total national income, a percentage that has been stable since 1996 (i.e., their portion of the economic pie has stayed the same despite an economic boom). Meanwhile, the richest 20% earned 44% of the total national income, an increase of 2% since 1996. You are right about breadth; we don’t have a wide breadth value; most people in Canada are middle-middle class; we have low percentages of wealthy and poor.
Again, not so. Breadth is not measured by the relative proportion of the lower-, middle-, and upper-classes within a society. It’s measured by the difference in the average dollar-value income of, say, the lowest decile versus the highest decile of the income-earning population.
From StatCan’s “Income Inequality and Redistribution in Canada: 1976 to 2004” report, we learn that in 1989, this ratio was 6.58, that is, the top 10% of the population earned about 6.58 times more than the lowest 10%. In 2004, this ratio has risen to 8.85. According to this indicator, then, the breadth of income inequality is rising.
The Gini coefficient (GC) is another commonly used measure of breadth of inequality. A GC of 0 reflects zero breadth (i.e., absolute equality, where everyone has exactly the same income). A GC of 1 reflects infinite breadth (i.e., absolute inequality, where one person controls all the income, while everyone else has zero income). In 1989, Canada’s GC was 0.277. In 2004, this had risen to 0.315. So according to this indicator also, the breadth of income inequality is rising.
Thanks for your comments, selmer.
The bell curve that I am talking about is population (y-axis) and income (x-axis). The percentages of low income and high income in Canada are both low. I see your point that the numbers of wealthy are lower than the number of poor. So, you are right; that does skew the curve.
If the breadth of income inequality is rising, that can mean that Canada is finally developing a stronger wealthy class. And we need one; that class is the investor class.
With regard to the actual wealth that is controlled by these few high income individuals – wouldn’t a different graph visualize it better?(I think a bar would do it). The usual Pareto scale is ‘20% of the population control 80$ of the wealth”.
Canada doesn’t even have a 20% wealthy class. Ours is about 1-2% – and we define ‘wealth’ as anyone making over $200,000 a year!
Again, thanks for your comments.
Congratulations to the royal couple.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Sachsen Coburg Gotha.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
felis corpulentis says, “I am envious of lookout (9:03 am post) at having had the opportunity to sing the wonderful Handelian coronation anthem. A great tradition linked to an even older tradition; a unifying theme of our civilization going back 3000 years.”
Yes, it was a truly fine experience (more than once): to make such sublime–and lively, colourful–music, with a group of fellow musicians was a thrill: not a cheap, shallow one, which defines far too much of our present day “cultural discourse”, but one with deep, spiritual roots.
I’m really glad, fc, that this experience resonates with you. You understand the substance, power, and grace of tradition. As the monarchy has a far longer memory than our mainly fly-by-night politicians, I know where I’d rather put my money.
ET: If the breadth of income inequality is rising, that can mean that Canada is finally developing a stronger wealthy class. And we need one; that class is the investor class.
Indeed, but this may be coming at the expense of the middle class. The proportion of the population that makes between 75% and 150% of the median income–that is, the middle income earners–has shrunk between 1989 and 2004. What we’re seeing now is a gradual ‘hollowing out’ of the middle class (which, however, is still the majority), with the numbers moving to both the low- and high-income groups. However, when we couple this trend with the trend that the share of total income has stagnated for the lower classes and increased for the upper classes, there is reason to be concerned. The usual Pareto scale is ‘20% of the population control 80$ of the wealth”.
The Pareto Principle tells us what is, but not what can be or should be. In countries with lower Gini coefficients, i.e., more equitable income distributions, the 80:20 ratio does not hold. Greater equity than what the Pareto Principle implies is therefore achievable.
Thank you for the kind words.
“I take it a few people here have little sense of history and tradition; perhaps because they do not identify with British lineage or heritage and would feel better about themselves if Canada was a melting pot of mediocrity.” by me
Actually, I was directing this comment at those who knock the monarchy, and because they may not be of British descent or actually identify with British tradition, they would prefer to think of Canada as a melting pot of all races and their accompanying traditions; therefore, producing a nation of ‘no one in particular’ instead of accepting the fact that the British put their blood and sweat into founding this great nation. I might add that the British kicked the derrieres of the French in the process, and the kicking of the monarchy to the curb might give some people a greater sense of belonging in today’s Canada, but in the process strip a nation of its great history and heritage.
For whatever reason, I do not fault a person for their birthright or calling in life, as those who detest the monarchy outright. The Queen has devoted her entire adult life to serving Britain, and even though she has been somewhat stripped of any powers a monarch once possessed, she has never faultered or waned in her devotion and duty to those she serves. I can only wonder about those who hold such resentment for those of privilege.
W. MacKay – Any relatives in the French Revolution?
Really Joanne, with that kind of baseless innuendo towards W.MacKay, you only demean yourself and other monarchists with such childish pettiness.
[deleted.Take the profanity elsewhere. -Ed]
Selmer @ 3:49 p.m.: “No, I am thinking here of countries like Norway and Sweden, which have managed to accommodate within their societies (a) a representative democratic form of governance, (b) capitalist free market economic opportunities, and (c) social democratic/universalist public welfare supports.”
I appreciate the details, but, regarding this particular thread, these countries are also constitutional monarchies.
Might this have something to do with the success of Norway’s and Sweden’s economies? If not, the fact that both countries have royal families certainly doesn’t seem to be a drawback.
lookout: I appreciate the details, but, regarding this particular thread, these countries are also constitutional monarchies.
My comments are in specific response to ET’s, and do not relate to the monarchy issue of this post. Might this have something to do with the success of Norway’s and Sweden’s economies?
My point was that Norway and Sweden’s economic success have not proven incompatible with their “leftist” social democratic welfare policies. They demonstrate that social and economic innovation and prosperity needn’t come at the cost of high levels of inequality.
I sure hope the royal family resists all attempts to make england into a islamic nation hey RUE BRITANIA, BRITANIA RULES THE WAVES
@WL Mackenzie Redux:
Thnaks for the informative response. Your description of the present set-up explains why so many monarchists find it easy to knock Canadian republicans as ‘socialists’. If the set-up we have now is akin to socialism, then a straight evolution from monarchy to republic (through Parliament simply assuming whatever powers the Queen still has except for the Royal power of disallowance, which may simply go out the window) will result in an effectively socialist set-up. Your last comment explains why.
In order for a Canadian republic to resemble what you hope for, there’s going to have to be a surprise curve in that process. Such curves tend to arise only when there’s a tussle of some sort between government and the governed.
Remember my hintie about the Riot Act? “In the Name of the Queen…” brings ’em to heel.
Regarding the ‘inequality’ issue, one of the times I woke up from rote note-taking in 2nd-year-undergrad economics class was the point when the lifetime income curve was introduced. Grasping the point behind it is one of the milestones for becoming an economist for me.
Some level of economic inequality is inevitable because the inequality graph provide a snapshot of different people of different ages. Provided that each person of a particular age is treated exactly equally, if their ages (and experience level) are different then there will inevitably be inequality of income at that point in time.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario: everyone gets paid the same for whatever work they do, with their specific wage determined by the amount of experience they have. To wit:
– Newbie (0-5 years experience): $10/hour
– 5 – 10 years’ experience: $15/hour
– 10 – 15 years’ experience: $20/hour
– 15 – 20 years’ experience: $25/hour
– 20 – 25 years’ experience: $30/hour
– 25 – 30 years’ experience: $35/hour
– More than 30 (unless forced out by retrirement laws): $40/hour
In such a place, everyone get treated equally and the wage gradations are based upon utterly common-sensical reasons: the older, more experienced person rates a higher wage. A seniority scale, to be brief.
Assuming a 2000-hour work year, the same for everyone [as I continue to play with assumptions], the wage differential would totally explain any income differential.
Guess what? In the above sketch, there’s an obvious resultant inequality of income whose source is purely demographic – none other. The skew in such a set-up is also determined by demography, as is the average income level too. An earlier “birth dearth” will raise the average income level once the shortage makes its way to that labor market. The reverse goes for a “baby boom.”
Daniel M. Ryan: A seniority scale, to be brief. Assuming a 2000-hour work year, the same for everyone [as I continue to play with assumptions], the wage differential would totally explain any income differential. Guess what? In the above sketch, there’s an obvious resultant inequality of income whose source is purely demographic – none other.
I acknowledge that demographics play a central role in shaping economic and social trends. Unfortunately, your theoretical analysis doesn’t match with reality.
Norway and Canada share similarly shaped age pyramids. Both show a slight bulge among youth and teen age groups, a thinner band of entry-level workers, a major bulge among middle- and senior-level working age groups, and a tapering off around 60+.
The main difference is that Norway’s population is behind Canada’s by 5-10 years. In other words, even though both countries have a relative shortage of entry-level workers, Norway has a younger working population population overall, which means relatively more people in entry-level positions. By your theory, this should result in more inequality than in Canada, since more Norwegians would be just starting off and thus earning less, while comparatively more Canadians would all be entering their peak earning years.
But this is not the case. Income inequality is still lower in Norway than in Canada. While your demographic proposal is interesting and possible true in theory, it is unfortunately not true in practice.
“Really Joanne, with that kind of baseless innuendo towards W.MacKay, you only demean yourself and other monarchists with such childish pettiness.”
Posted by: RobCom
I take it you are not a ‘monarchist’ by your comment, but I would suggest getting a sense of humour; warped though mine may be, at least I still have one.
W. MacKay is obviously not a ‘monarchist’ by his rant towards me that really had nothing to do with anything I had said or meant and his reducing people of privilege to the position of repubnance because of their birthright seems rather irrational to me.
The British monarchy and birthright has a far greater importance in history than nearly all are aware, but I do not believe those that are ignorant of the same would cause me to turn on them like wild dogs but would rather cause me to want to give to those who are open and receptive, the knowledge.
If I was a 3rd generation Chinese immigrant, I may not find Canada’s association with the British monarchy of any interest to me, nor their traditions or history, but that wouldn’t mean I wouldn’t want Canada to retain its history or believe Canada shouldn’t because it wasn’t my history. For whatever reason, anti-monarchists want and believe the British monarchy should be given its walking papers because of “…yet still find the inequality and sense of entitlement associated with Royal Rule (even its ceremonial remnants) fundamentally repugnant (W. MacKay).”
One word comes to mind: Envy!!!
has little if any influence on Canada’s governing to speak of, so to just kick the British monarchy to the curb
“…has little if any influence on Canada’s governing to speak of, so to just kick the British monarchy to the curb…”
Please omit this….editing error.
Joanne, thank you for your suggestion but I am quite satisfied with my humorous sensibilities. Might I, in the same vein, suggest you obtain a sense of decorum and civility.
I cannot speak for W.MacKay, however, the suggestion of “envy” as the basis of motivation for my anti-monarchist feelings is patently ridiculous.
In all but name, we are a representative democracy. The authority of government lies with the mandate and will of the citizenry, not by the Divine Right of Kings. We have long put aside the authority and legitimacy of a Monarch to rule us in any practical sense. And yet, we keep, not only the appearance of such, but the law of such.
This I find absurd and intellectually dishonest.
This is what motivates me.
To understand further, might I suggest you read Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. And while we do not have to fear the tyranny of monarchy, we do ourselves a disservice and an indignity that we have not followed our democratic ideals to their natural conclusion. It is the sign of an immature nation-state, afraid to strike out on its own.
Again, this is what motivates me.
These are the growing pains of a nation – the British North America of 1867, the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, the Great Flag Debate of 1964-5, the Canada Act of 1982, and eventually (I have no doubt) the move towards a Republic of Canada.
Incidentally, linked below are the results of an Angus Reid poll (taken September 20-22, 2007) indicating a majority of Canadians support severing formal ties with the British Monarchy. I highly recommend downloading the linked complete opinion poll in its entirety. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28442/half_of_canadians_would_cut_ties_to_monarchy
My, we Canadians are an increasingly “envious” bunch, aren’t we?
Things are certainly looking up for the Republican movement in the Commonwealth.
With incoming Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, another plebiscite on severing formal ties with the British Monarchy will likely occur with the next general election (likely 2010). And contrary to what monarchists may have you believe, the 1999 referendum defeat was hardly a repudiation of Republicanism but rather reflected the distaste of having Parliament rather than the electorate select the President.
In addition, it looks likely that former leader of the Australian Republic movement during the last referendum, Malcom Turnbull, will assume the position of Opposition leader.
Envy was in reference to someone who would dislike the monarchy because they “find the inequality and sense of entitlement associated with Royal Rule (even its ceremonial remnants) fundamentally repugnant (W. MacKay).”
“Really Joanne, with that kind of baseless innuendo towards W.MacKay, you only demean yourself and other monarchists with such childish pettiness.” by Robcom
“Might I, in the same vein, suggest you obtain a sense of decorum and civility.” by RobCom
You have got to be kidding. You are either gay, British, or both….or maybe you are a girl. Sorry, but that is about as civil as it gets.
Joanne, your ad hominen attacks do more to discredit you than anything I can write.
Are you so unable to defend your position that you must rely on unfounded personal attacks?
You certainly are covering all your bases of bigotry (eg. a person’s French heritage, my supposed lack of sense of humour, and now apparently my perceived sexuality, nationality, and gender).
Where will you go next with your vitriol? My religion? My skin colour? And all under the guise of humour no doubt.
Perhaps, I’ve been the one who has been mistaken about you. I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.
ural – do you have a point? Your remark is meaningless.
LizJ (3:52 PM) is right. You can’t eat your cake and then claim you never had any. The problems that Britain is enduring, as a polity, come from the same source of the successes that modern Britain has had as a polity. The more titular the monarchy is, the less of a causal factor it is with respect to policy.
With respect to Canada, the only blame that the Queen can reasonably be expected to shoulder is the lack of use of the Royal power of disallowance. That’s the only non-titular formal power she has – and even it is little more than titular due to its disuse.
ural- No, you are saying that inequalities are a matter of choice, ie, you ‘choose’ to work in a low income job. I disagree. An economy requires some highly skilled jobs and some low skilled jobs; some people are of high intellect and others of low intellect..and so on.
selmer – that’s why I said an AVERAGE not skewed Bell Curve.
I also disagree that the Bell Curve in Canada is skewed; we don’t have a high proportion of wealthy. Or poor. You are right about breadth; we don’t have a wide breadth value; most people in Canada are middle-middle class; we have low percentages of wealthy and poor.
Are you aware, WLMR, that your view of ‘what’s best’ for the new collective right is only your view? I hope you don’t intend to impose it on others; after all, a basic axiom of ‘the right’ is individual freedom to think for oneself.
Liz, you misread. I’m not blaming Queen Elizabeth, nor the monarchy, on the state of Britain. We all know where the blames lies.
I said having a monarchy did not protect Britain – and how could it with no power?
Her father wasn’t enamoured of the Labour Party, and one can only imagine what the Queen thinks of the PMs she has met, and their policies.
She has no influence, but is a very nice figurehead.
I cannot imagine England without a monarch and don’t think it will ever be a republic.
If you want a kicker in the inequality-of-wealth debate: in terms of inequality period, it may be misleading. What if being wealthy is generally held to be disreputable? In other words, what if the social status of the wealthy is similar to that of a wealthy callgirl or drug dealer as of here and now? In such a society, only a small minority would be really wealthy…and they would be generally though of as mere deviants. Many of them would be laughingstocks.
I realize that I’m thinking outside of the box here, but this scenaro may be fun to play around with. Provided that it gibes with your sense of humour 🙂
gellen,
I don’t believe the “cheap shot” that “W. MacKay” was referring to, with respect to Joanne, was in reference to her comment regarding the lack of physical attractiveness of the royal family.
Rather, I believe it is in response to her comment (Joanne at November 25, 2007 2:03 PM) that sets up the straw man that anti-monarchists must be ignorant, non-traditionalists of non-British descent.
Or I could be completely wrong. Or were you joking earlier? Mea culpa, if that’s the case.
Posted by: Liz J at November 25, 2007 11:57 AM:
“Don’t want to be around when Canada ceases to be a Monarchy. All the Lefties who are gung-ho to become a Republic had better do a bit of homework on what that will mean. If their main worry now is being taken over by the Republic to the South their worst nightmare would come true in short order.”
I really don’t see this as a Left vs. Right issue.
Also, if our Canadian identity is so fragile such that the abolishment of our last remaining tenuous ceremonial ties to the British Monarchy serves as the tipping point for American hegemony, than quite honestly, we deserve no better.
blue bloods is it.
needs both the parental units to bes blue bloods to qualifer.
now ya keeps goin back each gineration aaaand . . . soon enough the entire globe’s full of them. ’tis a mathematical necessity but not all that difficult.
see, dont matter which side of the fence yer on in this one, we’s all descendants of either an african money or adam and eve from eden, a tad north east of the dark continent.
neither one of which was royalty as far as Ive been told, although the monkey connection does crop up at times with royals.
so then the whole farce scam house of cards collapses on itself as all pyramid schemes do.
furthermore, given that monarchies exist via whatever path, howcum an anti-monarch is labelled a ‘socialist’ when the pioneers of anti-monarchism, the blokes who penned the declaration of independence back in 1776, were never marketed as such?
USA?? a socialist model ???
mmmmmm . . . NAH.
Dan Ryan:
“There’s an easy way to euchre that out at the outset, should a Republic of Canada come to pass. Just plead to the Sovereign to add a section to any agreement for Canada to become a republic which states that what used to be “Crown land,” not held by fee-simple tenancy or treaty, is now unowned. This measure would make it a lot more difficult to socialize anything.”
Canada is as good as a communist state in it;s present form…a pretender federal government that is actually a crown corporation vy vice regal letters patent….to hold “crown land” and disense with it as a corporation…this land is not “commonwealth trust” but crown land held in in corporation sole of the federal vice regal privy council/GG.
I really fail to see the difference between a soviet system which claims paramount dispensation on all land and centralizes power and collective national wealth or a vice regal crown corporation (Federal parliament)which does the same same thing through vice regal climes of paramontcy?….we really have to get past this age of kings crap so the royal prerogative properly rests with the electorate through their representaives….
Parliament being a commissioned crown corporation also isolates it from the rule of law and from direct accountability to the electorate (remember the willie littletree case?)…in a constitutional commonlaw republic government reps can be impeached for malfeasance and recalled for not representing the electorate….but not in the present vice regal corporate system…MPs ow loyalty only to the crown….the people are #2 in this system
Sounds like a lot of tories have to learn the vast difference between “populism” and socialism.
ET: I also disagree that the Bell Curve in Canada is skewed; we don’t have a high proportion of wealthy. Or poor.
The fact that Canada does not have a high proportion of either extreme poverty or wealth doesn’t mean that, ergo, the income curve is normal. If you plot actual income in dollars (x-axis) by percentage of population (y-axis), you’ll notice a definite skew to the left. It isn’t so pronounced that the peak is skewed all the way to the “low-income” end, and it is certainly not bimodal (i.e., high proportions of poor and wealthy, with a small middle class), but there is a definite lean. Canada’s income distribution is in no way a normal, bell-shaped curve. This skew is caused by the long “tail” in the high income end, which reflects the small percentage of extremely wealthy Canadians (about 1%) who earn exponentially more than anyone else.
And while it is true that the proportion of wealthy individuals in Canada is not high (nor is it anywhere else in the industrialized West). But the proportion of wealth that this elite minority controls is high. According to StatCan’s “Income in Canada 2005” data, the poorest 20% of families earned only 5% of the total national income, a percentage that has been stable since 1996 (i.e., their portion of the economic pie has stayed the same despite an economic boom). Meanwhile, the richest 20% earned 44% of the total national income, an increase of 2% since 1996.
You are right about breadth; we don’t have a wide breadth value; most people in Canada are middle-middle class; we have low percentages of wealthy and poor.
Again, not so. Breadth is not measured by the relative proportion of the lower-, middle-, and upper-classes within a society. It’s measured by the difference in the average dollar-value income of, say, the lowest decile versus the highest decile of the income-earning population.
From StatCan’s “Income Inequality and Redistribution in Canada: 1976 to 2004” report, we learn that in 1989, this ratio was 6.58, that is, the top 10% of the population earned about 6.58 times more than the lowest 10%. In 2004, this ratio has risen to 8.85. According to this indicator, then, the breadth of income inequality is rising.
The Gini coefficient (GC) is another commonly used measure of breadth of inequality. A GC of 0 reflects zero breadth (i.e., absolute equality, where everyone has exactly the same income). A GC of 1 reflects infinite breadth (i.e., absolute inequality, where one person controls all the income, while everyone else has zero income). In 1989, Canada’s GC was 0.277. In 2004, this had risen to 0.315. So according to this indicator also, the breadth of income inequality is rising.
Thanks for your comments, selmer.
The bell curve that I am talking about is population (y-axis) and income (x-axis). The percentages of low income and high income in Canada are both low. I see your point that the numbers of wealthy are lower than the number of poor. So, you are right; that does skew the curve.
If the breadth of income inequality is rising, that can mean that Canada is finally developing a stronger wealthy class. And we need one; that class is the investor class.
With regard to the actual wealth that is controlled by these few high income individuals – wouldn’t a different graph visualize it better?(I think a bar would do it). The usual Pareto scale is ‘20% of the population control 80$ of the wealth”.
Canada doesn’t even have a 20% wealthy class. Ours is about 1-2% – and we define ‘wealth’ as anyone making over $200,000 a year!
Again, thanks for your comments.
Congratulations to the royal couple.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Sachsen Coburg Gotha.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
felis corpulentis says, “I am envious of lookout (9:03 am post) at having had the opportunity to sing the wonderful Handelian coronation anthem. A great tradition linked to an even older tradition; a unifying theme of our civilization going back 3000 years.”
Yes, it was a truly fine experience (more than once): to make such sublime–and lively, colourful–music, with a group of fellow musicians was a thrill: not a cheap, shallow one, which defines far too much of our present day “cultural discourse”, but one with deep, spiritual roots.
I’m really glad, fc, that this experience resonates with you. You understand the substance, power, and grace of tradition. As the monarchy has a far longer memory than our mainly fly-by-night politicians, I know where I’d rather put my money.
ET: If the breadth of income inequality is rising, that can mean that Canada is finally developing a stronger wealthy class. And we need one; that class is the investor class.
Indeed, but this may be coming at the expense of the middle class. The proportion of the population that makes between 75% and 150% of the median income–that is, the middle income earners–has shrunk between 1989 and 2004. What we’re seeing now is a gradual ‘hollowing out’ of the middle class (which, however, is still the majority), with the numbers moving to both the low- and high-income groups. However, when we couple this trend with the trend that the share of total income has stagnated for the lower classes and increased for the upper classes, there is reason to be concerned.
The usual Pareto scale is ‘20% of the population control 80$ of the wealth”.
The Pareto Principle tells us what is, but not what can be or should be. In countries with lower Gini coefficients, i.e., more equitable income distributions, the 80:20 ratio does not hold. Greater equity than what the Pareto Principle implies is therefore achievable.
Thank you for the kind words.
“I take it a few people here have little sense of history and tradition; perhaps because they do not identify with British lineage or heritage and would feel better about themselves if Canada was a melting pot of mediocrity.” by me
Actually, I was directing this comment at those who knock the monarchy, and because they may not be of British descent or actually identify with British tradition, they would prefer to think of Canada as a melting pot of all races and their accompanying traditions; therefore, producing a nation of ‘no one in particular’ instead of accepting the fact that the British put their blood and sweat into founding this great nation. I might add that the British kicked the derrieres of the French in the process, and the kicking of the monarchy to the curb might give some people a greater sense of belonging in today’s Canada, but in the process strip a nation of its great history and heritage.
For whatever reason, I do not fault a person for their birthright or calling in life, as those who detest the monarchy outright. The Queen has devoted her entire adult life to serving Britain, and even though she has been somewhat stripped of any powers a monarch once possessed, she has never faultered or waned in her devotion and duty to those she serves. I can only wonder about those who hold such resentment for those of privilege.
W. MacKay – Any relatives in the French Revolution?
Really Joanne, with that kind of baseless innuendo towards W.MacKay, you only demean yourself and other monarchists with such childish pettiness.
[deleted.Take the profanity elsewhere. -Ed]
Selmer @ 3:49 p.m.: “No, I am thinking here of countries like Norway and Sweden, which have managed to accommodate within their societies (a) a representative democratic form of governance, (b) capitalist free market economic opportunities, and (c) social democratic/universalist public welfare supports.”
I appreciate the details, but, regarding this particular thread, these countries are also constitutional monarchies.
Might this have something to do with the success of Norway’s and Sweden’s economies? If not, the fact that both countries have royal families certainly doesn’t seem to be a drawback.
lookout: I appreciate the details, but, regarding this particular thread, these countries are also constitutional monarchies.
My comments are in specific response to ET’s, and do not relate to the monarchy issue of this post.
Might this have something to do with the success of Norway’s and Sweden’s economies?
My point was that Norway and Sweden’s economic success have not proven incompatible with their “leftist” social democratic welfare policies. They demonstrate that social and economic innovation and prosperity needn’t come at the cost of high levels of inequality.
I sure hope the royal family resists all attempts to make england into a islamic nation hey RUE BRITANIA, BRITANIA RULES THE WAVES
@WL Mackenzie Redux:
Thnaks for the informative response. Your description of the present set-up explains why so many monarchists find it easy to knock Canadian republicans as ‘socialists’. If the set-up we have now is akin to socialism, then a straight evolution from monarchy to republic (through Parliament simply assuming whatever powers the Queen still has except for the Royal power of disallowance, which may simply go out the window) will result in an effectively socialist set-up. Your last comment explains why.
In order for a Canadian republic to resemble what you hope for, there’s going to have to be a surprise curve in that process. Such curves tend to arise only when there’s a tussle of some sort between government and the governed.
Remember my hintie about the Riot Act? “In the Name of the Queen…” brings ’em to heel.
Regarding the ‘inequality’ issue, one of the times I woke up from rote note-taking in 2nd-year-undergrad economics class was the point when the lifetime income curve was introduced. Grasping the point behind it is one of the milestones for becoming an economist for me.
Some level of economic inequality is inevitable because the inequality graph provide a snapshot of different people of different ages. Provided that each person of a particular age is treated exactly equally, if their ages (and experience level) are different then there will inevitably be inequality of income at that point in time.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario: everyone gets paid the same for whatever work they do, with their specific wage determined by the amount of experience they have. To wit:
– Newbie (0-5 years experience): $10/hour
– 5 – 10 years’ experience: $15/hour
– 10 – 15 years’ experience: $20/hour
– 15 – 20 years’ experience: $25/hour
– 20 – 25 years’ experience: $30/hour
– 25 – 30 years’ experience: $35/hour
– More than 30 (unless forced out by retrirement laws): $40/hour
In such a place, everyone get treated equally and the wage gradations are based upon utterly common-sensical reasons: the older, more experienced person rates a higher wage. A seniority scale, to be brief.
Assuming a 2000-hour work year, the same for everyone [as I continue to play with assumptions], the wage differential would totally explain any income differential.
Guess what? In the above sketch, there’s an obvious resultant inequality of income whose source is purely demographic – none other. The skew in such a set-up is also determined by demography, as is the average income level too. An earlier “birth dearth” will raise the average income level once the shortage makes its way to that labor market. The reverse goes for a “baby boom.”
Daniel M. Ryan: A seniority scale, to be brief. Assuming a 2000-hour work year, the same for everyone [as I continue to play with assumptions], the wage differential would totally explain any income differential. Guess what? In the above sketch, there’s an obvious resultant inequality of income whose source is purely demographic – none other.
I acknowledge that demographics play a central role in shaping economic and social trends. Unfortunately, your theoretical analysis doesn’t match with reality.
Norway and Canada share similarly shaped age pyramids. Both show a slight bulge among youth and teen age groups, a thinner band of entry-level workers, a major bulge among middle- and senior-level working age groups, and a tapering off around 60+.
The main difference is that Norway’s population is behind Canada’s by 5-10 years. In other words, even though both countries have a relative shortage of entry-level workers, Norway has a younger working population population overall, which means relatively more people in entry-level positions. By your theory, this should result in more inequality than in Canada, since more Norwegians would be just starting off and thus earning less, while comparatively more Canadians would all be entering their peak earning years.
But this is not the case. Income inequality is still lower in Norway than in Canada. While your demographic proposal is interesting and possible true in theory, it is unfortunately not true in practice.
“Really Joanne, with that kind of baseless innuendo towards W.MacKay, you only demean yourself and other monarchists with such childish pettiness.”
Posted by: RobCom
I take it you are not a ‘monarchist’ by your comment, but I would suggest getting a sense of humour; warped though mine may be, at least I still have one.
W. MacKay is obviously not a ‘monarchist’ by his rant towards me that really had nothing to do with anything I had said or meant and his reducing people of privilege to the position of repubnance because of their birthright seems rather irrational to me.
The British monarchy and birthright has a far greater importance in history than nearly all are aware, but I do not believe those that are ignorant of the same would cause me to turn on them like wild dogs but would rather cause me to want to give to those who are open and receptive, the knowledge.
If I was a 3rd generation Chinese immigrant, I may not find Canada’s association with the British monarchy of any interest to me, nor their traditions or history, but that wouldn’t mean I wouldn’t want Canada to retain its history or believe Canada shouldn’t because it wasn’t my history. For whatever reason, anti-monarchists want and believe the British monarchy should be given its walking papers because of “…yet still find the inequality and sense of entitlement associated with Royal Rule (even its ceremonial remnants) fundamentally repugnant (W. MacKay).”
One word comes to mind: Envy!!!
has little if any influence on Canada’s governing to speak of, so to just kick the British monarchy to the curb
“…has little if any influence on Canada’s governing to speak of, so to just kick the British monarchy to the curb…”
Please omit this….editing error.
Joanne, thank you for your suggestion but I am quite satisfied with my humorous sensibilities. Might I, in the same vein, suggest you obtain a sense of decorum and civility.
I cannot speak for W.MacKay, however, the suggestion of “envy” as the basis of motivation for my anti-monarchist feelings is patently ridiculous.
In all but name, we are a representative democracy. The authority of government lies with the mandate and will of the citizenry, not by the Divine Right of Kings. We have long put aside the authority and legitimacy of a Monarch to rule us in any practical sense. And yet, we keep, not only the appearance of such, but the law of such.
This I find absurd and intellectually dishonest.
This is what motivates me.
To understand further, might I suggest you read Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. And while we do not have to fear the tyranny of monarchy, we do ourselves a disservice and an indignity that we have not followed our democratic ideals to their natural conclusion. It is the sign of an immature nation-state, afraid to strike out on its own.
Again, this is what motivates me.
These are the growing pains of a nation – the British North America of 1867, the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, the Great Flag Debate of 1964-5, the Canada Act of 1982, and eventually (I have no doubt) the move towards a Republic of Canada.
Incidentally, linked below are the results of an Angus Reid poll (taken September 20-22, 2007) indicating a majority of Canadians support severing formal ties with the British Monarchy. I highly recommend downloading the linked complete opinion poll in its entirety.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28442/half_of_canadians_would_cut_ties_to_monarchy
My, we Canadians are an increasingly “envious” bunch, aren’t we?
Things are certainly looking up for the Republican movement in the Commonwealth.
With incoming Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, another plebiscite on severing formal ties with the British Monarchy will likely occur with the next general election (likely 2010). And contrary to what monarchists may have you believe, the 1999 referendum defeat was hardly a repudiation of Republicanism but rather reflected the distaste of having Parliament rather than the electorate select the President.
In addition, it looks likely that former leader of the Australian Republic movement during the last referendum, Malcom Turnbull, will assume the position of Opposition leader.
Envy was in reference to someone who would dislike the monarchy because they “find the inequality and sense of entitlement associated with Royal Rule (even its ceremonial remnants) fundamentally repugnant (W. MacKay).”
“Really Joanne, with that kind of baseless innuendo towards W.MacKay, you only demean yourself and other monarchists with such childish pettiness.” by Robcom
“Might I, in the same vein, suggest you obtain a sense of decorum and civility.” by RobCom
You have got to be kidding. You are either gay, British, or both….or maybe you are a girl. Sorry, but that is about as civil as it gets.
Joanne, your ad hominen attacks do more to discredit you than anything I can write.
Are you so unable to defend your position that you must rely on unfounded personal attacks?
You certainly are covering all your bases of bigotry (eg. a person’s French heritage, my supposed lack of sense of humour, and now apparently my perceived sexuality, nationality, and gender).
Where will you go next with your vitriol? My religion? My skin colour? And all under the guise of humour no doubt.
Perhaps, I’ve been the one who has been mistaken about you. I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.