Humanities desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 26

Meyer Lansky never went to trial because...?

Meyer Lansky is all OVER Wikipedia's articles on the mob in America, yet his own article makes no mention of any trials, nor explains how someone who is implicated practically everywhere escaped prosecution? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He actually did go to trial later in life, but they had insufficient evidence. The article suggests he was pretty good at covering his tracks. Also, I'm not so sure so much was known about him in his peak years. A lot of stuff about the Mafia was discovered after the fact. Read the article on Joe Valachi and how he exposed a lot of secret Mafia facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indicted for illegal gambling in New York, 1953. Served three months.—eric 03:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general comment, but it has always been hard to prosecute high-level mafia. The reason is quite simple: they were careful, they let underlings do much of the dirty work, and they intimidated or killed witnesses. This is one of the reasons that the standard technique has been for "tax evasion"—if you can show that the official income is very low, but the actual income is very high, you can convict them of simply not reporting their income correctly. (And they can't report it correctly, because the income is mostly illegal.) It's a pretty tame offense as far as mobsters go, but it is prosecutable. (This is eventually what they tried to get Lansky on as well, but it turned out even then that good evidence was hard to get.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a professional not be humane also?

I have a friend who is very good at her work, very efficient and known as a performer. She marks those people in the company who can affect her ratings, who matter to her. She pleases them and always remains in their good books. No doubt she is very honest to her work and very good at it. The moment she realises that a ceratin person is of no use to her...she no longer remains in touch with that person.. or does not care about that person at all. Is this professional approach? Will it not affect her adversely in the long run though i can see her only reaping benefits today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugmiyer (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might, or it might not. The article on Narcissism might help explain some things about her behavior. Victims of that behavior sometimes hope for Divine retribution, but I wouldn't count on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quick answers are obvious "sure, someone can be both professional and humane, within limits" and "we don't know what will happen to your friend in the long run, we don't have a crystal ball." Perhaps someone can dig up some studies as to which kinds of interpersonal strategies pay off in the long run, though, which might be a more concrete way towards a useful answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her approach is short-sighted. The risk with that strategy is that someone who is useless to her now may at some future point rise to a position where he or she becomes significant. She then changes her behavior towards him or her, but the damage has already been done. There's quite a number of proverbs along the lines of "treat well those at the bottom, they may someday be in a position to help or hurt you". Even people she treats well may notice that she does not do so for others, and it will reflect badly on her. --207.236.147.118 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that ill will come of it. Plenty of jerks succeed in this world. I agree that personally I would prefer if karma was a little more reliable, but whether it actually is or not is an empirical question. I'm not sure it's been studied, but just because we'd like something to be true doesn't make it so. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 207. There's no reason to believe someone can't be professional and humane (or any variation - unprofessional and inhumane etc.) it's not like the two are linked. Your friend sounds like an idiot - the sort of person that maybe can get places under certain leadership but i've no doubt that everybody at that person's level is fully aware of their tactic and likely has limited respect for them as a result. The term would be 'arse-licker' in my culture. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the similar "brown-noser" in the US. If she was nice to everyone, it wouldn't be obvious she was doing so to advance; while only being nice to those who can help her out makes it quite obvious. Most people don't care for brown-nosers, even when they are the recipient of the brown-nosing. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the company where I work, it is very common—practically the norm—for managers not to communicate, or to communicate minimally, with people below their level in the hierarchy, including people who supposedly report to them. They maintain cordial communications with their peers but devote most of their attention to their superiors. This seems to be a proven way to get ahead, though the exceptions prove that it isn't necessary to ignore people at lower levels. Marco polo (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another related Q is whether companies which reward this type of behavior are more or less successful than others. I'd have to think that dissing the line employees will have consequences, from low productivity and high absenteeism up to intentional sabotage. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is called being a manipulator or a just plain jerk. There are plenty of famous big shots in politics, show biz, etc. who go out of their way to maintain contact with old friends from before they became famous. When Richard Feynman won the Nobel prize, he thought all the hoopla from the press and the academic physics community was a big yawner, but he was really touched that a number of his old buddies from his school and his childhood still remembered him and got in touch with him. He saw that as a much greater reward than adulation from a bunch of strangers. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Machiavellianism, although in this case the lady is using a diferent kind of stilleto. Bosses love being sucked up to, they were like that themselves earlier in their careers. They want to be confirmed in their dominance and have loyal supporters who they can depend on for ~~lipstick~~ lip-service when they are putting on a front to their bosses. 84.13.201.209 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on our "instrumentalism" page, but I think that I've seen the word instrumentalism used to describe treating people as people as merely as tools to be used to achieve one specific purpose only. There's also Stepping Stone (song)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dont we see answers to this Q in our day to day lives? People who live for the day and ignore or dump people in mosst cases repent their decisions. We see several practical examples and it is beyond the scope of this site for me to list one by one. Even within our families and our organisations where we work, in politics and sport we see several people win from a near loss situation. Your friend isnt wrong in her approach but is foolish because not everyone who is high up the ladder today need be a good ffriend and not everyone who is down in the dumps need be useless for a person's future. The best way to deal would be to analysse every person individually and reserve our rights to deal with them - you might play tennis with an actor or go scuba diving with the president that wouldnt make you more successful or happy does it?

Dying so that someone else may live

What are some notable peacetime examples of someone dying voluntarily so that someone else may live?Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) [I am changing "people" to "someone" for clarity. The word "people" was correct, in agreement with "examples", but I wish to clarify that "someone dying" can be either one or more persons in each instance, and likewise "someone else may live" can refer to either one or more persons in each instance. Of course, the indefinite pronoun "someone" is grammatically singular in any case. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Maximilian Kolbe comes to mind, Wavelength. It wasn't peacetime, but it was still a rather unusual circumstance. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable wall full of ceramic panels, the "Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice", can be seen in the City of London, in a tiny green space called Postman's Park. It details ordinary people who gave their lives in the attempt to save others, mostly in the second half of the 19th Century. I doubt whether many had self-sacrifice in mind when they acted, but all must have known that they were putting themselves into danger. Full details on this site[1]. A new plaque was added in 2009, the first for more than 70 years.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Slotin is the most dramatic example I can think of. Although even that is a matter of interpretation and conjecture. Vranak (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas under Sacrifice. The Victorians gathered morality tales with grisly glee. There's a lighthouse keeper's daughter I am thinking of... BrainyBabe (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC) PS Grace Darling. She didn't die, but she could have.[reply]

Surely bomb disposal squads put themselves in harm's way at least once a day to clear unexploded ordnance, and those who die have died so others can live? See [3] --TammyMoet (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurt Locker paints a somewhat less flattering picture. Vranak (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And medical volunteers, including doctors who experiment on themselves. From History of yellow fever:

Carlos Finlay, a Cuban doctor and scientist, first proposed proofs in 1881 that yellow fever is transmitted by mosquitoes rather than direct human contact.^[1] Walter Reed, M.D., (1851–1902) was an American Army surgeon who led a team that confirmed Finlay's theory. This risky but fruitful research work was done with human volunteers, including some of the medical personnel, such as Clara Maass and Walter Reed Medal winner surgeon Jesse William Lazear, who allowed themselves to be deliberately infected and died of the virus.^[2]

BrainyBabe (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See self-immolation for examples of people who killed themselves in a horrific way to bring attention to causes, perhaps saving lives down the road. Although from reading the article, it seems this action has become common enough that it may no longer attract attention like it did in the 1960s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of suicide bombers: they kill themselves (and a few others along with them) in a horrific way to bring attention to causes, perhaps (or so may be their intention) saving lives down the road. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example would be any crew or passenger on the Titanic (or any sinking ship) who voluntarily gave up a seat on a lifeboat so that another could have the seat. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I found this external page: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/theme/Self-sacrifice/. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that nobody has mentioned the Christ yet. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus and Crucifixion of Jesus may be more informative articles in this context. —Akrabbim^talk 01:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange? Wasn't Jesus in the business of saving souls, rather than lives? Vranak (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the lives of souls, not bodies, but still. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some people, the two are interchangeable. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a story of some Saudi prince with a heart condition, who flies around on a personal jumbo jet equipped with an on-board surgical hospital and staff, in case the prince suddenly needs a heart transplant, and there is a living donor on board to supply the transplant organ. It's in the chapter "The Service Heart" in Richard Conniff's book "The Natural History of the Rich". The chapter also talks about people voluntarily giving up lifeboat seats on the Titanic. Apparently most of the Titanic's first-class (rich) passengers survived since their cabins were closest to the lifeboats, and quite a few third-class (poor) passengers survived despite being futher away, but the second-class (middle) passengers were almost wiped out, basically through self-sacrifice. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the Titanic, consider that a large majority of the crew remained on board rather than taking places in the lifeboats. Of course, that was what they were supposed to do, but they still died for it. There have been a number of other maritime disasters where the crew, or many of them, simply decided to save themselves -- for example, the Morro Castle fire.

Also in vehicular crashes, sometimes in the crash of a war plane the pilot has a chance to parachute out, or in the crash of a train a crew member has a change to jump clear, and they choose to stay with the vehicle because they think they have a chance to mitigate the disaster (by steering the plane, blowing the train whistle, etc.). I can't bring any good examples to mind that are likely to be in Wikipedia, but it happens. --Anonymous, 10:11 UTC, March 27, 2010.

Casey Jones springs to mind. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in these lyrics surely? [4] --TammyMoet (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said no good example. --Anonymous, 20:25 UTC, March 27, 2010.

There is no historical evidence that Jesus' execution had the effect of preventing anyone else's death; in fact, even non-historical sources mention at most one person (the mythical Barabbas, i.e., "son-of-father") whose death was prevented as the result of Jesus' death, though not at Jesus' instigation. As for the OP's question, I believe the philosopher Walter Benjamin allowed himself to be captured and killed by the Nazis in order to allow others to escape. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection (of Jesus Christ and afterward of imperfect humans) is discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

(See http://mlbible.com/1_corinthians/15-1.htm.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Corinthians was written by Paul, who contributed absolutely nothing to the store of information we have about Jesus as a historical person (he never met him and was at odds with those who had, such as the "Pillars" in Jerusalem). The Gospels and Acts are the quasi-historical sources, and nothing in their narratives suggests that Jesus' execution prevented anyone else from dying except Barabbas. (Meanwhile, Mark, if not the other three, indicates that Jesus' death was not "voluntary.") As for historical sources, we know only that Jesus was convicted of treason to Rome and died under Pilate and Tiberius, as did many thousands of other Jewish rebels, none of whom were spared as a result of Jesus' execution. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from Mark do not indicate a "voluntary" death; at best, they indicate an awareness that death would occur, as for example the annointing occurred AFTER Jesus had committed a capital offense in rioting at the Temple during Passover week. Moreover, the best scholars agree that the Last Supper "communion" speech was an interpolation, and that Jesus himself never said it (e.g., why isn't it in the Gospel of Thomas?; why isn't it in the Didache, which has only this to say: "And concerning the Eucharist, hold Eucharist thus: First concerning the Cup, 'We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child, which, thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child; to thee be glory for ever.' And concerning the broken Bread: 'We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy Child. To thee be glory for ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was brought together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy Kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.'"). Meanwhile, Mark stands in absolute opposition to the (much later composed) John, where Jesus is a superman ready to suffer and die as a triumph; while Mark has him praying three times to be released from his fate, and saying "Why have you forsaken me?" on the cross. 63.17.64.4 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a comment above, I don't think suicide bombers meet these criteria, because they seem more to be motivated to kill for the sake of killing than for any sort of altruistic motive of bringing attention to a deserving cause. One person who certainly did "die so others may live" was Vince Coleman (train dispatcher), who decided to remain at his post and face almost certain death to warn an oncoming train to avoid the area, saving up to 300 people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the brave citizens of the USSR who died as a result of responding to the Chernobyl crisis. 63.17.79.42 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank all who provided examples, especially Alansplodge for mentioning the "Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice" and providing links.
-- Wavelength (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottsboro Boys

Yesterday was the anniversary of the 1931 arrest of the Scottsboro Boys. This made me curious about the case, and I did read the Wikipedia article about this matter. I am curious about the following. What does conventional contemporary thinking tell us about this incident? Did any rapes occur at all? Or were the women simply lying? If they were indeed lying, what was their motivation? Was the motivation to "hide" their consensual sexual activity to protect their reputation? If they were known prostitutes, would they really care about their reputation? If there was consensual sex, was it with the Scottsboro Boys or with some other males? Would not DNA tests clear all this up or can we presume that the evidence from 1931 is no longer available? I am just curious what conclusions have been drawn by contemporary thinkers, in reviewing this incident in hindsight. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know enough to supply a summary, but this Google Books link is a list of plenty of books about the case. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for DNA, I doubt if any viable samples remain. And, even if they did, that would only prove who had sex with them, not whether they gave consent. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, StuRat ... but the DNA could exclude the Scottsboro Boys. If their claim is "we never had sex with the victim", the Scottsboro Boys could use DNA to refute the allegations. As you say, if their claim is "we had sex, but it was consensual (as opposed to rape)", then the DNA findings are useless. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Dear 64.252.65.146, there's one thing about the American South in the 1930s that you may not understand -- that once a white woman publicly accused a black man of raping her, then to a lot of people it didn't matter too much whether the man was factually guilty or not, since either way he had to die in order to wipe away the shame of the accusation. (A somewhat similar attitude is now current among many in Pakistan when a Christian is accused of blasphemy against Muhammad or the Qur'an...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just the South. During the nadir of American race relations, many blacks moved north resulting in friction, such as that leading to the Red Summer of 1919, specifically the Chicago Race Riot of 1919. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To AnonMoos ... yes, I am aware of -- and agree with -- what you say. In my original question, I was wondering what was the motive that prompted the accusations by the women? If they were known prostitutes, I would hardly think that they would "worry" about their reputation. I am confused by what motivated the female "victims" to bring about their allegations in the first place. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It appears to me that they used the blacks as a scapegoats, to deflect blame from themselves. That is, they could be arrested for vagrancy, trespassing, prostitution, etc., but, once they portrayed themselves as victims of rape by blacks, such charges would be dropped as "small potatoes" in comparison. It could also be an example of Münchausen syndrome, where one made the false claim and the other just went along with it. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes sense, thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks to all for the above input. Much apreciated! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Response to inflationary pressure of full employment

Traditionally, central banks are charged with balancing low inflation with "full employment," a euphemism which has over the past decades in the U.S. come to mean about 5% unemployment. This is because when unemployment falls too low, competition in the labor market causes salaries to rise, spurring inflation. The root cause of any inflation is the increase in the money supply; in this case brought about by increasing salaries.

Could high top-bracket income tax rates (very steeply progressive income taxes) used to pay down the U.S. national debt serve to reduce the money supply enough to keep inflation under 2%, if the unemployment rate were also held under 2%? If so, approximately what would the top bracket rate need to be, assuming the top bracket rate only applied to income over $250,000 per year? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might have the exact opposite effect, as those with high salaries would just demand more money to cover the additional taxes, spurring inflation. Many people in upper income brackets, like CEOs, movie stars, and professional athletes, can just about demand any salary they want. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spell hyperbole? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e'. how do you spell sarcasm? --Ludwigs2 23:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say that's true, and all the CEOs, movie stars, and professional athletes obtain additional salaries to keep their net income constant. Doesn't the additional money they still pay in taxes used to lower the national debt still reduce the money supply, relieving the inflationary pressure? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to your question above about the optimal rate but I have a few comments. If you accept the theory behind the Laffer curve, high-earners will either 1)avoid the higher income taxes or 2)avoid employment (or work less) while living off their accumulated wealth so tax revenues might not increase by very much. Another factor is that US tax revenues as a percent of GDP have historically not responded signifantly to changes in the income tax rate. Also, even if treasury were able to collect more tax revenues, it may decide to spend on infrastructure instead of reducing national debt. Lastly, it is increases in the money supply that cause inflation - if you keep those increases in line with real GDP growth, inflation probably won't spiral out of control. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with interpreting the historical Laffer Curve is that it is independent of the Gini coefficient -- if you plot tax rates and the Gini score as the independent variables, their effect on growth is much clearer. This suggests a way to find the optimum values. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the most important determinant would be what would-be US government debt-holders would do with their funds as the aggregate national debt decreases. As the national debt decreased, it's rate of return would decrease (as only the most risk averse held on to US bonds), and those would-be US debt-holders who demanded higher rates of return would be forced to take their funds elsewhere. This - still relatively low-risk - capital would likely flow to international sovereign debt or domestic AAA corporate debt (much capital of this nature is restricted by the governing committees or founding documents of pension funds, endowments, or other long-term investment agents). The capital that flowed towards international sovereign debt may act to reduce reduce the exchange rate, devalue the US dollar, and spur inflation. The rest, may act to crowd capital out towards higher risk investments, and perhaps result in an increase in consumption as - at any given level of risk - the investment landscape becomes less palatable. Increased consumption, like increased wages, can increase the velocity of money (not the money supply) and have an inflationary effect. Exactly how all of this plays out depends on a great many things. These things change rapidly are very difficult to predict (marginal propensity to save, risk aversion, and the elasticities of all of these curves).

Also, Zain's comment about what the government might choose to do with the money is one that touches on the idea of an optimal debt level. Much public finance theory would suggest that, if the rate of return on a public investment (roads, schools, etc.) is greater than the cost of debt to that public entity, it ought to borrow to carry out the project. This suggests that the optimal debt level is one at which no projects exist that would yield a rate of return greater than the cost of debt. This ignores any crowding out or other complicating effects.

I think your argument might be an attempt to bypass the western central bank model by using fiscal policy rather than monetary policy to control inflation. As my opening question about what would-be government borrowers would do with their money suggests - and the comments above about what government would actually do with the funds, and how high income people would react - this can be a less precise tool of intervention than plain old open market operations. NByz (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably those who wanted to hold government debt would be required to turn to other countries or bonds, no? Open market operations incur the interest premium when the government needs to borrow to perform them. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most would-be government debt holders would likely choose foreign sovereign debt or other domestic AAA rated fixed income securities. But, as I mentioned, the international outflow of capital wouldn't reduce the domestic money supply. It would just reduce the demand for the domestic currency and would likely reduce the rate of exchange. This could actually be inflationary (imports become relatively more expensive), especially in a country with a large trade deficit. I mainly wanted to point out that the monetary effects (inflationary effects) of this sort of fiscal policy rely on the estimation of a whole lot of variables. It is also likely to have a lot of other unintended effects as well (changes in the trade deficit/surplus, high income people moving overseas, less domestic private investment being crowded out by government debt etc.).

Open market operations aren't the same as the government issuing more debt (or paying interest on bank reserves, discussed above). Regardless of the federal government fiscal situation (how much debt it issues, what rates it gets etc.), the central bank influences short-term interest rates, inflation and, more directly, the money supply by buying and selling government bonds or other assets on its own account. If the federal government decides how many bonds are in existence, the Federal Reserve strongly determines how many are in public circulation. The Federal Reserve can create more money, either physically printing it (technically the Treasury's Mint prints it, the Fed just puts it into circulation, I believe), or putting it into the reserve accounts held by member banks, in exchange for government debt (or other assets), increasing the money supply. Or it can sell those acquired government bonds (or other assets), decreasing the money supply (taking money out of circulation). These monetary actions are, preferably, independent from the federal government's fiscal actions. NByz (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading your question, I should also mention that reducing the total government debt (holding all other things constant), doesn't reduce the domestic money supply. Government debt securities are assets, not money. They yield a return, in money. But that money flows from taxation in the real economy. Issuing $100 in government debt, for example, simply transfers $100 to the government, then creates a promise to pay whatever the coupon rate is over the time specified. The $100 debt is simply a notional amount that represents the present value of the amount that would have to be paid to cancel the coupon (and eventual principal) payment. It's not the same as increasing the money supply by $100, which would increase the price level (making all goods more nominally expensive). NByz (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. What if the taxes were placed in Treasury accounts, such as the "social security lockbox" or the other entitlement funds? It can't be impossible to reduce the money supply by increasing the top bracket income tax rate. 99.27.201.226 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A government could choose to increase taxes and destroy (or otherwise take out of circulation) the money raised. This would have the same monetary (eventually (dis)inflationary) effect as the Federal Reserve taking money out of circulation by selling bonds. The main difference would be that in the former case, money is taken either from people generally (or in the case of your plan, predominantly high income earners), whereas, in the latter case, it's taken from people who are interested in buying bonds. This distinction might have efficiency and social justice-related side effects. Also, the money may have to be destroyed. If the money is simply placed in a vault, it may not be credibly believed that the government won't spend it eventually. If it is invested (as most typical "social security lockbox" ideas would recommend), it isn't really taken out of the money supply, as it would be transfered to the seller of the investment(s).

To harp on my theme somewhat: monetary policy definitely can be performed by fiscal authorities (governments), but this generally tends to lead to significant non-monetary side effects. The western model of central bank and government interaction with the economy usually attempts to concentrate actions on producing the desired effect with as few side-effects as possible. For example(s), if you want to increase the progressivity of the income distribution, do it by angling marginal tax curve upwards (but keeping total revenue the same). If you want to increase overall taxation (for macroeconomic reasons), slide the whole curve upwards but leave the marginal curve at the same relative angle. If you want to alter the money supply (for purposes of stabilizing growth and/or achieving maximum long-term growth), do it by interacting with a free market. NByz (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, as the OP (and Prof. Friedman) say, “The root cause of any inflation is the increase in the money supply,” then the roaring growth in the money supply over the past two years would have resulted in double-digit inflation, rather than the actual deflation the US experienced. This shows, that at least sometimes, demand is the key to price movements.

Up until 2003, the US had almost 37 straight years of core inflation over 2%, and real economic growth of 3.2% p.a.. Since then, there were a couple of brief periods when core inflation was below 2% (Feb ’03-Aug ’04 and Dec ’08 to Feb ’10 and counting), during which time growth averaged 1.0%. So, the question is whether low inflation is a desirable goal.

Oh, and the problem with the Gini Coefficient is that it pays absolutely no attention whatsoever to assets, just income. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing someone dearly loved to die for someone else

What are some examples of someone (entity 1) dearly loving someone else (entity 2) but voluntarily allowing that someone (entity 2) to die so that someone else (entity 3) may live? In each example, each "someone" (entity 1, entity 2, entity 3) can be either one person or more than one person. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for references in fiction as well as in history? If fiction, then I think that Sophie's Choice would fit the bill in that she has to decide which of her children or else they will both die. Dismas|^(talk) 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for examples in history. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I think My Sister's Keeper might be close... The parents have a daughter who suffers from leukemia, so they have another child via in vitro who can function as her sick sister's bone marrow and kidney donor. Having your own kid undergo a dangerous surgery to save your other kid's life should fit your example. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pardon me for saying so, but two questions in one day about 'noble death' makes me want to ask if everything is ok with you. is everything ok with you? --Ludwigs2 04:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, your statement and your question startled me. On another day, I might ask two questions about another topic. Also, there are certainly topics more indicative of personal problems than these ones. However, because you asked and only because you asked, I will reveal to you my reason for asking these two questions, which reason some readers of this page might already have guessed. At this time of the year 2010, we are approaching the Passover (Christian holiday), and I am interested in finding this information to analyze in relation to the central theme of that event. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're talking about Christianity, don't forget the whole Crucifixion story, per John 3:16. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to check. excessive interest in death is one of the signs of people with suicidal ideation.

That being said, I'm finding the connection to passover a bit odd. the Jewish passover had almost no self-sacrificing ideation. In fact, all of the death in the Jewish passover story was punitive - God killing off egyptians because the Pharaoh refused to let the israelites go. The Christian Easter story is a bit more on point, except that story actually focusses on the resurrection of Jesus, not his death (despite Mel Gibson's best efforts). There's the metaphor, of course, of him sacrificing his earthly body to show people the entrance to heaven, but I don't see that as quite the same thing as what you're asking about. --Ludwigs2 15:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, most of your points are addressed in the article Passover (Christian holiday). See also Nontrinitarianism.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said examples in history (are you doing research or something? I'm just curious :p), but do real life examples that aren't exactly "historical" count? (Sorry if I'm more annoying than helpful, but I'm googling the best I can!) 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, real-life examples from very recent "history" count. I answered Dismas and used some of that editor's wording, although I should have chosen a clearer wording. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there needs to be a name for this type of thing that does not evoke the Sophie's Choice story. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we count the families of kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That's entity 1 suiciding and also killing lots of entities 2 he never met and who never did him any harm, all for the sake of some ideology. That doesn't fit the patten of the question, which is about letting entity 2 die so that entity 3 may live. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some/many? suicide bombers may believe their actions are going to help save some entity 3 in the long run. The key difference is most don't particularly dearly love entity 2 which was part of the question. Edit: Actually rereading the answer, I believe 66 was suggesting the family (who may occasionally know of their loved one's plans) is entity/ies 1, allowing entity 2 (their loved one who is going to undertake the suicide bombing) to carry out their suicide bombing (which they obviously know will cause them to die) I presume under the belief this will save some entity/ies 3. In that case 66 is right this arguably qualifies although the murders of entities 4 by entity 2 means few people are going to put it in the same league. Many may also dispute whether entity 3 is saved (although some may argue it's irrelevant if entity 1 genuinely believed it would). Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your re-reading is what I had in mind. Kamikaze pilots and the mission planners of the kamikaze program presumably thought they were defending their homeland. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean of course. For example if your family is stuck in a burning building you may be force to make a decision about which members to save first, cognisant of the fact you may not get a chance to save all of them or even fully aware you're only going to get to save one. (Hopefully you do love all of them.) This may not always be completely your choice. If both your partner and your child are stuck, there's a fair chance your partner will tell you to take the child and leave them so I don't know how this effects your view of these examples. I'm sure there are plenty of real world things like this, although I don't know of any specific cases. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a grisly country music song called, I think, "The Deal", which was basically a man going into a chapel while his wife was struggling to give birth, and asking God to take his life instead of his wife's so the child could live. As he dies the doctor comes in to tell him that both mother and child are doing well. Now excuse me while I examine the contents of my stomach. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly on topic, but this recent story is about a father who died needlessly while trying to save his three children from their burning house, unaware they'd already been pulled to safety. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me almost an essential contradiction to purportedly love someone and yet be willing to see them perish. That can't be a very robust love, suffice to say. Vranak (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people are placed in circumstances where they have to choose between more than one loved one. Better to save at least one than let all of them die. Typically there's no time to come and ask questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk about it; they just have to decide immediately, with no book of rules to help them. A father is out swimming with his three young children; they get caught in a rip and he can save one or perhaps two of them, but not all of them. Who misses out? (Don't answer that.)-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection (of Jesus Christ and afterward of imperfect humans) is discussed in 1 Corinthians 15.

(See http://mlbible.com/1_corinthians/15-1.htm.) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's martyrdom, which is not exactly what the OP was asking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible says that Jesus did many things. (http://mlbible.com/matthew/20-28.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any examples involving stem cell donation or organ donation? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inspite of the seriousness of the topic i cudnt supress a chuckle :))) reading Ludwigs comeent @ inspite of mel gibsons best efforts - taking a dig at passion of the christ... The way you worded your response is pretty good to read... that said I found "the passion" ( and "apocalypto") I found to be one of mel gibsons best directorial ventures... but this is beside the point being discussed here...213.130.123.12 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Chaves-Carballo E (2005). "Carlos Finlay and yellow fever: triumph over adversity". Mil Med. 170 (10): 881–5. PMID 16435764.
^ "General info on Major Walter Reed". Major Walter Reed, Medical Corps, U.S. Army. Retrieved 2006-05-02.

[Chaves-Carballo_2005-1] Chaves-Carballo E (2005). "Carlos Finlay and yellow fever: triumph over adversity". Mil Med. 170 (10): 881–5. PMID 16435764.

[Reed_Army_Bio-2] "General info on Major Walter Reed". Major Walter Reed, Medical Corps, U.S. Army. Retrieved 2006-05-02.

[1]

[2]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 26

Contents