Amazing.

the first photo is really scary?

rejoice, Cthulhu dreams.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to nicfit again.

fucking shit. If only I could find the words to describe just how poignantly hilarious that is.

so much better than that silly hat!

Well, I just found that image on the big old intenet, I can't take the credit for it, so, yeah, virtual rep to the guy/girl who came up with that...but I get what you mean! ;)

btw, that dress/outfit is great (with or without the super hat).
not the queen's, the younger lady's one.

I must confess, this wedding doesn't seem to be as negative as some of the anarchists have made it seem. Sure, it cost $45,000,000 dollars and is in all reality just a grand pageant and theater. However, theater is as important to life as anything else. People need things to believe in even if it is rather silly, its what keeps us relatively unified as opposed to constantly killing each other in the streets. Here in the US, Barack Obama optimistically intends to spend over $1,000,000,000 for his election campaign, the American equivilant to this Monarchy spectacle of public theater. There will not be 2 billion people watching simultaneously, there will not be quite as much sincere and friendly fanfare. There will not be so much international commradery. There will not be any kind of emphatic patriotism and community spirit.

No in America we are going to spend perhaps $4-5 BILLION on an election that will probably be nothing but scathing, centrifugal and vitriolic. It will only cut more lines in the sand. It will probably mend more fences than build new bridges. For that, the Brits should be commended..

This Wedding was an expensive theater, true, but cheaper than most Hollywood box-office smashes and with a far more positive wake and impact. (and I say this as Rastafari, devout anti-colonial, devout anti-British crown and also before that a pissed of anarcho-punk ;) )

I think the anarchist line of criticism in economic terms is misled. Yes, it's pricey, in terms of outlay. But a cursory awareness of economics would suggest that it's generating a massive income in discrete means. It was syndicated worldwide for TV. That's millions of pounds for the British economy. They say the average London tourist puts £100 into the economy in a day - so several thousand tourists for the wedding alone would account for several million pounds of return. It's a similar thing to the pro-immigrant argument - for every immigrant, there are jobs created (they need clothes, food, shelter and recreation, all monies returned to the state somewhere along the lines).

So my worry is that the left, and the hard-left, are playing into pro-market dialogues, dialogues from which they're classically left out and shouted down. Where's the ideological upset? It's definitely there, but as a subterfuge to the criticism rather than as its central focus. I'm pretty partisan in the whole thing, and like suchfriends I quite enjoy the pageantry in an indistinctly committed way, but it's worrying how the objection has come in liberal economic terms rather than something with more teeth.

Sorry, bit of a serious post there. It's finished now, you can return to whatever you were doing.

agreed. that is very endemic problem with politics, they are socially driven and thus far more fickle than pragmatic. Here in the US, the rightists are also hypocritically claiming fiscal conservativism as the defensive for their blind-siding attack on social services, but in reality it is purely ideological (and also inherently racist considering from its very beginning up to this moment class/economics in the US is entirely driven and dictated by ethnic circumstances).

They have so voiciferously altered the public debate, that even leftists can accept cutting $500,000,000 from the federal aid program titled Women, Infants, and Children with a fucking straight face. For shame!! The social dynamics of politics always muzzle the real debate and distract us from the real issues with erratic sensationalism.

No American, be it at the bus stop or the water cooler, be it at the White House or the Capitol building, even remotely suggests ending the war(s) across the globe which cost a staggering $250,000,000,000 a year (and that is just on the books let alone the side-bets!!) It honestly doesn't even enter into anyone's common vocabulary. Pacifism is literally dead in the water here in the contemporary US, in fact many folks view you menacingly if you are still anti-war. We have war protests across the country all the time, they are worthless. They get no media coverage, no social attention, no respect, no heeding. I don't even bother, not because I am apathetic, but because it is actually a dangerously vulnerable situation, I'd rather maintain a guerrilla information campaign everywhere I'm at.

God Save the Queen, but it is true that a revered figure has no honor in their own country and amongst their own people ;)

Well, I didn't even read properly that but:

Most economists agree that although it does generate some profit, the losses are greater (e.g.: losses for the economy because of days off, lack of investment in other areas etc.). The profits balance out the costs a little bit, but it still costs quite a lot.

Any election costs money too.

But this isn't even the point really, and in this sense Glice is right. But still a cunt.

I'm hoping your
kid doesn't read this forum for your own benefit.

Se probably has no head to put one on at all, becuz, like, she married a cunt.

The problem with arguing with economics is always these discrete revenue streams. That's why I mention the immigrant thing - it's easy to see an unemployed immigrant as an unnecessary drain on the economy, and easy to argue for it; it's equally easy to argue against it, because s/he still needs food, housing, beer as well as contributing to the building of Orthodox churches, synagogues, mosques etc.

And just to make good on your 'Glice is a cunt' bit, the problem with statistics is that you and I could both pull stats from somewhere supporting our position without more than a few minutes' googling.

You could.
But we would know some results are more reliable, realistic and less bias than others.

As for the immigrants, it's not that easy. It's a fact that immigrants = profit and growth but that can be easily ruined with a shit/neglectful immigration policy.

The argument monarchy brings tourism is one of the weakest I can think of.

There's a lot to discuss in terms of economics, but that's not the main issue at all. And that's why I said you are right, people should voice their opinions, forget this silly idea that everything today has to do with profit or losses. It's almost like everyone's afraid to have any ideology that's not about money.

When somebody says 'I don't want my taxes to pay for the royal wedding' they're not really bothered about HOW MUCH they are paying, they're just upset they are forced to contribute to something they despise and I can completely understand that.

Yeah - one wedding is a drop in the ocean compared to how much we subsidise them anyway, year-on-year.

But I wasn't saying 'tourism brings money' - I was saying that there are hundreds and thousands of discrete and indirect revenue streams that can buttress the economic criticism of the wedding. Whether they're true or not has little to do with how persuasive, and pervasive, they are.

I'm not that person but in my previous job they had an entire department of people trained to see bullshit through statistics and reports. I'm sure they would be able to come up with an answer.

The media here seems to have achieved a consensus: it has been profitable, but there are huge losses and expenditure so you're still losing money.

Now the fact is the argument that they cost money is a fact. On the other hand, the idea that the country would lose money, tourism, security, prestige without them is mere speculation.

I still think one of those Disney On Ice shows would have been more entertaining, and their princess tends to look less bland.

This is easily solved by a policy that 'legalizes' immigrants, which also tackles exploitation. This also ensures a more equal competition between locals and immigrants in the job market.

Most modern countries have those, which they tend to call periodic 'amnesty', as well as the possibility to be a legal taxpayer without having to change your nationality and the chance to apply for a permanent visa even from abroad.

The only reason why you wouldn't have any kind of smart policy in place is the desire to continue exploiting immigrant work, while keeping them disengaged politically and unable to have equal rights.

And you can tell that the policy in the US has been 'infected' by those ideals, which is an ongoing debate.

In many European countries, there's nothing that even resembles an immigration policy.