Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 14

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.

June 14

George Washington and cost being a factor

The Newt mentioned something in this hilarious debate about GW saying cost was a factor in war. I can't find it on Wikiquote. Could someone find it if it exists, or confirm that it doesn't exist before a Gengrich-supporter makes one up? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought that it would be difficult to find a reliable source for a statement that George Washington didn't say something on the subject. One good reason why verifiability is important. Let the Newtophiles (Newtologists?) show that he did... (BTW, for the benefit of those who don't follow the Newt, what 'hilarious debate' are you referring to?)

He must have gotten the quote from somewhere in the Mediawiki project is my reasoning. Ah yes, because that worked out so well with the Palinites. =p Why, Lulzstock 2011, AKA the Republican Debate of course. It was pretty funny but my dad and I were wondering if there was a quote from somewhere about it. Let's be honest, where else do most of these politicos get their info from? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all people who are of Jewish descent descended from Israelites?

Are all people who are of Jewish descent descended from Israelites? And how did people change skin color from dark skin people in the middle east to modern day Jewish White Americans? Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

For the most part we are. Though it's not so much the Israelites (except those that fled from the destruction of Israel) as the Judahites we are descended from. There is some article about our genetics somewhere, but I am too lazy to retrieve it. Most of those Jewish White Americans came from Europe. Not really sure on that skin colour one as there was not much mixing between Jews and goyim really - both as a result of the Jewish marriage laws and the fact that many Christians wouldn't marry a Jew. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

People in the Middle East aren't really all that dark-skinned as a whole. No more so than Greeks or Italians. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that too. You know we are apparently most closely related (when talking abou Europeans) to Tuscans and Greeks. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One factor on the skin color is simply tanning. That is, people in the Middle East get more Sun exposure and thus have darker tans, all things being equal. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say tanning is the major factor for the darker appearance of most near-easterners in practice. Check images at Saddam Hussein, Massoud Barzani, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Ali Khamenei, Ruhollah Khomeini, Bashar al-Assad, Michel Suleiman. Those skin colours would not look out of place in most European cities. However, skin pigmentation is also one of the properties that reacts quickly to evolutionary pressures. The migration out of Africa, when we presumably were all rather dark, is only ~70000 years ago. Pigmentation is controlled by a number of different genes, hence selection in current diverse populations can operate on existing alleles - we don't need to re-evolve darker or lighter skin from scratch with new mutations. This paper argues that skin coloration in humans is highly adaptive, that some populations probably have gone through alternating periods of depigmentation and pigmentation, and that populations that have stayed in place 10000-20000 years are already optimally adapted to their local UV regime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the tanning thing...

• On a relationship-by-relationship basis, intermarriage may be infrequent, but for much of history, rules against mingling would have been hard to enforce, when neither the state nor religious authorities had much knowledge of, or control over, the actions of random villagers. (The atrocities of the 20th century were enabled by extensive government powers, and big piles of data, which previous governments would have been unable to mobilise). Even the local priest, probably himself a local man, maybe only separated from illiteracy by one generation, might have been a bit... syncretic, shall we say. So, over a hundred generations, there's bound to have been some cumulative effect of mingling. Pure blood would be very difficult to maintain in the long term unless the population is isolated on a remote island.
• There could even be outright deceit to obtain the benefits of being in a different religious/ethnic community (different taxes, access to shared resources, or a restricted profession, exemption from conscription &c). For instance, in the Ottoman empire, different taxation of different raya led to some people lying about their religion; one highly privileged group ended up having to use certificates to prove their ancestry, but then a problem of forged certificates emerged... any one ancestor would have been unlikely to lie this way, but the cumulative effect over a long history could be quite significant. bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the first question posed at the top of the thread is no. Anyone can convert to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. See Ruth... and thereby King David... and thereby Moshiach. All direct descendants of the brilliantly-named Eglon, King of Moab. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say there is a high probability that everyone (of whatever ethnic background) is descended from the Israelites (or to put it more accurately... everyone has at least one Israelite in their ancestry). Its a simple matter of genetics... people interbreeding over generations and generations. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree. If you define "descended from" as "has at least one ancestor among", then it is not impossible. The Middle East always was a crossroads, and with Alexander and the Crusaders invading from the Northwest, the Egyptians from the South, Romans from the West, Persians from the Northeast, Arabs from the East, and Mongols from the Far East, not to mention the Phoenicians colonizing throughout the Mediterranean, the region has certainly spread its genes widely across the globe. How many pure-blooded Australian Aborigines or Amazon Indians have converted to Judaism? And secondly, of course, it's not that easy to convert to Judaism. See our article Who is a Jew? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually most Jews have not been converts except for those Khazars who did not last and were presumably converted to Islam and a few people who converted. Most Jews are from a similar heritage. Here is the article. There was a bit of interbreeding, but not much. Most of the Jews you see today are those left from the ones that didn't convert and get absorbed into their host populations. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that article is interesting indeed: In July 2010 Bray's et al. using SNP microarray techniques and linkage analysis[49] "confirms that there is a closer relationship between the Ashkenazim and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the Ashkenazim and Middle Eastern populations" and that European "admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates by studies that used the Y chromosome" adding that their study "support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the Ashkenazim population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans" and that their data imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than modern Middle Easterners. The level of admixture with European population was estimated between 35 to 55%. - I guess that it was more than a bit of interbreeding and conversion. Flamarande (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical foundation of democracy

What is the ethical foundation of democracy? Is democracy based on deontology or consequentialist ethics? Since democracy believes the political system will work in a way which the majority wants or the government policy should reflect the wish to the majority (most of the people), is democracy a utilitarian concept? --999Zot (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. In veyr general terms, deontological ethics would implies that there were rules that society should follow; either you follow them or you don't. So there would be justification for laying down laws that gave weight to your ethical rules, even if your rules were not popular. That is, philosophers from the deontological school are less likely to have a problem with autocracy that consequentialists.

Even with this in mind, that utilitarians would bend always bend to the will of the majority is quite another thing entirely. They would be feel as bound as anybody to point out if the general public were being shortsighted, for example. But they would be more likely to support democracy on the whole, I feel. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that democracy as a really existing political system is the product of centuries of social evolution and a testament to the ability of people to achieve great things without agreeing on what it is they are doing. It has no coherent philosophical foundation. People with greatly divergent ideas about justice and the good have made contributions to its development, and the project is by no means finished.--Rallette (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The "ethical foundation of democracy" is the individual human. That is to say that a democracy is rule by the people, meaning each individual person. Each person has rights to be respected by the whole, and a constitution is an agreement between the whole and the individual. Even elections (fair ones that is) require the support of 50%+1 in order to approve a candidate or measure. Do you see that "+1?" That's a human. Democracy did not come about as a form of government until after humanism came about after the Renaissance. Framing the question as either consequentialist or deontological is just one limited way to look at it. If the point of your question is that it has to be one or the other, then it's got to be deontological. The founding fathers appealed to principles, not data.Greg Bard (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

International News Photographic Service

What was the International News Photographic Service? It played an important role in the article de:Michael Siegel. (See http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/our_collections/siegel/index.asp for an English report.) — Sebastian 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"International+News+Photographic+Service"&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 Google News returns various articles with pictures it supplied from 1933 to 1935, but no other dates. Although I can't prove it, I strongly suspect that they are the same people as International News Photos, which was a division of the International News Service. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very possible, but I don't want to write that in an article without a source ,and it seems hard to find any source for that. — Sebastian 06:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

why are people wrong

why do people have ideas that are obviously wrong. if they aren't smart enough to see how obviously wrong the idea is, wouldn't they at least differ to more learned men and women? 188.28.126.160 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably for reasons similar to the reasons you spell and use grammar incorrectly. (It's defer, not differ. And sentences should start with capital letters.) I'm not trying to be smart here, but just highlighting different perspectives. To me, correct spelling and grammar are quite important. To you, not so important. Or perhaps we have had different levels of education. Also not a criticism, just an observation. I teach high school kids and hear dumb ideas every day. I generally don't tell the kids their ideas are dumb, but try to point them in what I believe is the right direction. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They shouldn't really start with conjunctions, either... Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could you present one example of an idea that people, in your experience, have... that is "obviously wrong"? Please make it a really good example, that is both definitely "wrong" and obviously so. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a List of common misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When people believe something, it is not obvious to them that what they believe is wrong. They have their own reasons for believing that their ideas are right. What may be obvious to you is not obvious to them. As to why people don't defer to those who are more learned, most people trust their own judgment more than the judgment of others. They may feel that the learning of those who are "learned" is not really valuable, or that it has blinded the learned to a more mystical awareness of things or to "God's truth". Alternatively, they may feel that the learning of the "learned" has caused them to lose touch with reality, and that people such as themselves who don't waste time with silly books have a better grasp on reality. Marco polo (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually had a class on this in the context of archaeology. Reasons are all over the board. Some people are stupid, some things just seem to make sense, etc. I don't feel like going into detail about it, but there are lots of reasons. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

From a psychological point of view, the questioner may find List of cognitive biases helpful, particularly the section on theoretised causes of cognitive bias. There are lots of ways to get stuff wrong! It's sometimes argued that having a brain that gets stuff wrong may actually have evolved because it has certain benefits (for example there's a trade-off between getting a judgment call correct, and the time taken to make that judgment call - and in the wild, slow but perfect decision-making can be fatal, whereas decisions that are fast but not 100% reliable may save your life more often than endangering it).

Especially relevant to the original question: the overconfidence effect "is a well-established bias in which someone's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than their objective accuracy, especially when confidence is relatively high. For example, in some quizzes, people rate their answers as "99% certain" but are wrong 40% of the time. It has been propose that a metacognitive trait mediates the accuracy of confidence judgments, but this trait's relationship to variations in cognitive ability and personality remains uncertain. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities."

Even more extreme: the Dunning–Kruger effect "is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, 'the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.'"

So, if you're overconfident that you're correct, you're unlikely to defer to "higher authority". A fascinating interview with Dunning in the NYT includes the famous instance of an incompetent bank robber:

Wheeler had walked into two Pittsburgh banks and attempted to rob them in broad daylight. What made the case peculiar is that he made no visible attempt at disguise. The surveillance tapes were key to his arrest. There he is with a gun, standing in front of a teller demanding money. Yet, when arrested, Wheeler was completely disbelieving. “But I wore the juice,” he said. Apparently, he was under the deeply misguided impression that rubbing one’s face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to video cameras. ... As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity.

I think "but I wore the juice" is a perfect illustration of how "people have ideas that are obviously wrong" - but " if they aren't smart enough to see how obviously wrong the idea is, wouldn't they at least differ to more learned men and women?" is a more open question. It's Question Time (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Smart people are definitely no less subject to contradiction and delusion than the less intelligent. If anything, more so. The problem is how people deal with contradictions in their reasoning. When he comes upon a contradiction in his thought, the wise person looks for the wrong premise or the mistake in his reasoning and corrects it. The not so wise average person drops the subject and develops an antipathy to discussing touchy subjects. The brilliant fool takes his contradictions as unquestionable givens, and rewrites reality to conform to delusions too painful for him to resolve. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Singapore

This question is related to Coat of arms of Singapore. From that page you can see that the image of the coat of arms is different from the one shown on the coin below. In fact newer coins issued after 199x (can't remember which year), changed the crest on the coin, so it is identical to the actual coat of arms. Is it due to a change in the image of the coat of arms itself? or something else? I can't find it in the article itself and I'm very curious to find out. Thanks.--Ben.MQ (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is in the ribbon.--Ben.MQ (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In heraldry, it's important to distinguish between the elements of a 'coat of arms' that are fixed (by the wording or 'blazon' of the 'letters patent' or equivalent issued by the body granting the arms) and mere stylistic variations, which can be considerable - much more so than in a typical commercially registered trade mark, for example.

In the instance of the Arms of Singapore, they must include the five 5-pointed stars arranged in a circle (with a single star at the top) above a horizontal upward curving crescent moon, all in the centre of a red shield [these elements themselves constitute the "coat of arms"]. If the whole 'heraldic achievement' (or "arms") is depicted, it also must include the unadorned golden lion and (naturally coloured or 'proper'?) tiger supporters on their respective sides, probably the golden plant (palm?) fronds on which they are standing, and certainly the motto ribbon beneath, whose gold letters and blue background are probably also specified. (Note that this 'achievement' does not include a 'crest', which is a decoration worn on top of (usually) a jousting 'helm' (and can be displayed on its own), or several others elements that can be included in an heraldic achievement but are not in this one).

However, provided that those verbally defined elements are followed, the detailed shape and proportions of the shield, the exact 'tinctures' (i.e. colours, though in heraldry that word defines a special subset of tinctures), the artistic style and non-specified details of the supporters, the shape of the ribbon, etc, are entirely up to the artist who creates a particular realisation of the arms. Although the letters patent will include a depiction, it is intended to be for general illustrative purposes only, not as an exact template whose every stylistic detail must be faithfully followed.

Beyond an individual artist's style, general styles in heraldic art go in and out of fashion along with fashions in society. For example, the 'mantling' which always hangs down the back of a helm (as a sunshade) was originally quite small and straight edged. Through the middle ages it became (in the UK) increasingly larger and more ragged edged, in line with the dagging of contemporary fashions and due to actual or notional wear and tear on the battle/jousting field. In the 19th century (when the physical armour and arms being depicted had mostly ceased to exist) it typicallly came to resemble a pile of seaweed. In the mid-20th century Don Pottinger and other heraldic artists returned to a much more simple, "realistic" style. Today it is usually shown somewhat elaborate, but less so that a century and more ago. All other elements of the achievement, as well as drawing styles in general, went through similar changes in fashion.

That said, although heraldic authorities allow considerable latitude in how arms are depicted (within their blazons' limits), the particular owner of a particular grant of arms might enforce considerably more restriction on depictions of them, especially in official governmental contexts. My own County Council in the UK has issued a long and detailed style manual, including exact colour definitions and physical and electronic samples of its arms, for official use, and it's likely that the Government of Singapore has done something similar. These owner proscriptions, however, are independent of looser heraldic authority rules, and might be changed from time to time at that owner's whim. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.158 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative reply--Ben.MQ (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth and reality

What is the difference between truth and reality? --999Zot (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read our articles truth and reality? The definitions of these 2 words give you a good idea. Truth is "the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality". --Lgriot (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I read it, but has difficulty understanding the concept. In the statement "The earth revolves around the sun". Is it reality or truth? --999Zot (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement is true, because it is in accordance with reality. So that statement is in a state of "truth". Gabbe (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is known as the correspondence theory of truth. One of the problems with this theory is that it sees "truth" as a contingent property, which depends on the attributes of a changeable and possibly ineffable reality. It is not clear, for example, how the correspondence theory can be used to determine the truth of analytic propositions such as 1+1=2 or "if P and (if P then Q) then Q". One alternative approach is the coherence theory of truth. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gabe. The earth revolves around the sun, that is the reality of our world. Someone saying "The earth revolves around the sun" speaks the truth. In English you can't say that they "speak the reality", but you could say they describe reality, which is a way to say something true. --Lgriot (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another point. When I say "The sky is blue" it is certainly not the reality, because the sky is not blue. So what will be the nature of this proposition? --999Zot (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All you can say is "The sky appears blue to me". This is one of the problems with the correspondence theory - you can never be absolutely certain that your perception of reality corresponds with reality itself. Thus you can say "x is true because x corresponds with my perception of reality" - which is a disappointingly subjective theory of truth - but you can't say with 100% confidence "x is true because x is real" because you never completely know what reality is. Even "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is not entirely true, because it is more accurate to say "the Earth and the Sun revolve around the centre of mass of the Solar System". Gandalf61 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The sky is blue" is far too ambiguous to be assigned as simple "true" or "false" value, by any sense of the word "truth". What to do you mean by "the sky"? Which sky, and at what time? And which shade of "blue" are we talking about? It's a bit like saying "John is tall". Which "John"? And "tall" compared to whom? When we sloppily use words in a way that doesn't unambiguously refer to specific real-world phenomena, or to precise mathematical statements, we often run into fuzziness problems like these. Gabbe (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The King on the Radio

A while ago I remember reading about the first address that (I think it was King George VI) the king made on the radio to the population, and apparently it started with something like "Hello boys and girls, this is your king speaking". Is this right? Can anyone let me know the exact text? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The earliest address I can find that he gave was the 1937 Christmas speech. There is audio online in various places e.g. [1], but I can't find a transcript. He apparently gave a notoriously bad speech in 1925, of which there is no recording[2], there is a recording of him in Glasgow in 1938[3], and he spoke more regularly from 1939 following the start of World War Two: the text and a recording of his first address on the war is here[4], and he also spoke to the nation at Christmas that year[5]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It would not surprise me to hear that George VI started a radio address with those words (one directed specifically at children)... but apparently he did not open his first radio address as King with those words. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be some confusion with a children's radio broadcast by Princess Elizabeth. I'm still looking though. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found anything yet, but the intro to the Princess's speech above mentions an earlier visit by the King and Queen to the BBC during the recording of Children's Hour. I wonder if the King made a speech then? Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the above newsreel film of an exhibition in Glasgow at the 9:52.32 mark there are visible parked on the track two rows of about a dozen cars, one row light and one row dark. I suspect that the dark cars are limousines for the well-to-do and the light cars are taxis waiting for the rest. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More likely they are all private cars belonging to the various politicians and dignitaries in attendance. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; this is a 1930s taxi - a bit smaller than the cars in the clip I think. Alansplodge (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Empress of the ottoman empire?

In her article, Roxelana is called "Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of the Ottoman Emire". Is this truly correct? Did the wives of the ottoman sultans have the ecquivalent title of an empress? This title is not referenced in the article, and if she did not have the title of empress, nor an equivalent title, would it be correct to remove the unreferenced title from the article? I am posting this question here to make sure. I have found no information that there was any sort of "empress" title or empress position at the ottoman court except for the position of valide sultan, which was given to the sultans mother, not to any of his wives. The sultan had several wives or concubines, and none of them seem to have had an official title or position to that of an empress. --Aciram (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally, the Ottoman Sultans did not have "wives" in the western sense. There was an official part of the royal court known as the Imperial Harem, which was headed by the Sultan's biological mother known as the "Valide Sultan". The Harem was composed of all of the females of the royal court, including the Sultan's concubines. There appears to have been a heirarchy within the Harem, and the highest ranked concubines were given the distinction of being "Kadın", a term usually translated as "wife". However, Roxalena presents an interesting case, she was given the title of "Haseki Sultan", a title which was not part of the normal Harem system, and which appears to be a sui generis creation just for her; given that this was a unique creation, it perhaps could be translated as "Empress", she would be the only one, which is why it would be hard to find other examples. As an aside, it appears that we have two articles which need merging. There is an article about her under both of her names, Hürrem and Roxelana and we need to remedy that ASAP. --Jayron32 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I fixed the problem, which was an attempted copy-paste move a few days ago. --Jayron32 15:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More: The Roxelana article clearly states "in an astonishing break with tradition, eventually was freed and became his legal wife, making Suleyman the first Ottoman Emperor to have a wed wife since Orhan Gazi." In other words, she was an Empress because she was the legal wife of an Emperor, a rare occurance among Ottoman Sultans in that the Sultan did not normally marry in the traditionally understood sense. --Jayron32 19:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaic Globalization

How is it best to introduce archaic globalization? If too much information is added it becomes repetitive and the reader will not want to continue on further. Is short but sweet the way to approach this? Also, is it wise to reference archaic globalization as a reason modern day globalization has emerged this way? I look forward to your response and thank you for your time.

Bfowler513 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

I assume you're asking for help in improving the "Archaic globalization" article here on Wikipedia? Gabbe (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The nature of keys in fire department lockboxes

In recent days, there has been a buzz of news surrounding proposed changes to the fire code in Cedar Falls, IA. Specifically, people are questioning the legality of the fire department lockboxes on the outside of commercial and multi-unit apartment buildings, which contain keys for entry for use by the fire department. (A news story covering this controversy is here. [6]. )

Now, the city I live in has had these boxes as long as I have known, and I haven't thought much about them. But some of the coverage I have been reading about the Cedar Falls case implies that these boxes include keys to the individual units, as well as a key to the building. I had always thought that the boxes in my town only contained exterior door keys.

I cannot find, in any of the news coverage or anywhere else, a clear and unambiguous statement of what keys are kept in these boxes, either in Cedar Falls or in the other places that this system is used. My question should by now be obvious, but I will state it directly. Does the Cedar Falls rule require door keys for individual apartment units to be in the box, or just a key to the exterior door? Does this differ from the system as implemented in other parts of the US? gnfnrf (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just as a side point, this may be a real-world example of WP:BEANS or more to the point, Security through obscurity, i.e. it isn't in the interest of the civic authorities to publish the full details of the "fire department lock box key system." By publishing or publicizing the information you are asking about, the city is, in essence, telling potential crooks the exact way to break into the system. The information you seek may literally not be publicly available since making it so available presents a significant security risk for those communities that use these sorts of lock-boxes. --Jayron32 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The locks on multiunit apartments are usually fitted for master keys, so that the superintendent can let plumbers and the like in if need be. Since the firefighters have access to the lock box so that they can, well, fight fires, it would make sense for the lock box to contain a master key. Of course, the firefighters have axes, too. PhGustaf (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This varies a lot by where you are. I dunno about Cedar Falls in particular. I can say that in one apartment I lived in, only the front door key was contained in the fire lockbox. When I moved to a smaller community not 20 minutes away, the lockbox had keys for every apartment. In the US, the USPS has "arrow keys" that are similar in purpose - they access a lockbox with a front door key so the mailman can deliver mail to interior mailboxes. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:13, 14 Sivan 5771 / 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A few updates. First, I have established (by asking my landlord) that the lockboxes in my city of residence (St. Paul, MN) contain only the exterior keys, and miscellaneous keys like those to the boiler room and storage rooms. They do not contain residence keys. Second, my further research into the Cedar Falls situation has determined that the Cedar Falls fire code is modeled after the 2009 International Fire Code. So, it seems my question could be answered by reading the 2009 International Fire Code... which cost $75 online and is not in my local library. As for Jayron32's point, I cannot agree. In certain cases, such information may be obscured. In this case, however, every building owner in the jurisdiction must know the rules, so they must be public (if not publicized). gnfnrf (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My local library, however, does have a copy. :-) Chapter 5, section 504.1: Required access. Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be maintained by readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. International Code Council (2009), 2009 International Fire Code, p. 50 So, as far as I can tell, it only requires keys for external doors. (Section 506 covers the lock boxes, but doesn't specify what keys they have to contain.) ^Avic 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding restructuring of Greek debt

Am I missing something, or have Jean-Claude Trichet, speaking for the European Central Bank, and many European officials (as cited in this article) adopted a position that is at best irrational but in any case contrary to the interests of European taxpayers? These officials oppose any restructuring (i.e., write-off) of Greek debt, even though most economists (who have addressed the issue) agree that a Greek default is inevitable. (See for example, these sources: [7] [8] [9].) Instead of restructuring Greek debt and setting up a sustainable repayment plan now, these officials insist on lending Greece more money, increasing Greece's debt, and increasing the amount of taxpayer money that will have been spent merely to delay the inevitable default. I cannot find an argument in the media for why such a delay is in the interest of anyone but these officials themselves, who may thereby avoid having to deal with the inevitable default while they're in office. Can anyone find an argument justifying this delay in terms of the public interest? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Resturcturing isn't that simple. Most sovereign debt isn't in the form of loans from banks, it is in the form of Government bonds. Restructuring a national debt isn't like renegotiating the terms of your mortgage so the bank doesn't have to foreclose. In the case of the mortgage, there's one lender, the bank, who gets repaid by you in the form of an annuity, i.e. a series of smaller payments. When you refinance/restructure/renegotiate your debt, you and the bank reach an agreement to renegotiate the terms of your repayment, i.e. by lengthening the term or lowering the accruing interest, something like that. With sovereign debt like Greece, instead of one lender you have millions of lenders, and they bonds aren't payed back on an annuity plan, they are paid in full with interest on the date of maturity. There isn't a way to restructure this debt plan, Greece has an obligation to pay the bond's principle + interest on the date of maturity, and if they don't pay this off they default. Restructuring Greece's debt would mean that the bondholders would be forced, against their will, to accept that they are not going to be paid according to the terms of their bond, they will either get payed less money than promised, or get paid later than the date of maturity. When creditors are forced to accept less-than-face-value for their loans that they made to a debtor, that is the textbook definition of bankruptcy. Calling it "debt restructuring" doesn't make it a different thing. So, either Greece repays its bonds on time, or it doesn't. It isn't in the interest of the rest of the Eurozone to see Greece default, for several complicated reasons. First, there's the moral hazard that allowing Greece to do so would encourage governments to demand similar treatment (Ireland, Portugal, etc.). Second, most countries can pay off their bonds by simply printing more cash (Debasement); this pisses of creditors because it causes inflation to lower the value of their bonds, but there's not much that can be done. Greece can't do this because it has no currency of its own. So, it can't default, and it can't print more cash. Greece is basically stuffed, so the only option left is for the Eurozone to keep Greece afloat with more loans, at least until such time as Greece can get its own house in order. --Jayron32 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry, but I have my honest doubts about your analysis (I might be honestly mistaken - I'm only human after all). A bank isn't forced to refinance/restructure/renegotiate your debt if it doesn't want to.

It can go to a proper court, which will take over the case. If the debtor is simply unable to pay its debt, the court makes a ruling, and in the bitter end the debtor is declared bankrupt. The debtor's real property is sold, and the lenders (the bank) are repaid as best as possible. This also applies to the debts of private companies. All its assets are sold and the lenders are repaid as best as possible. Banks usually avoid taking these steps because it takes a considerable amount of time (the wheels of justice turn slowly) and because they don't truly want your house but rather your/their money (their business is lending money and collect interest).

However we are not dealing with the debt of a private individual or private companies but with sovereign debt of a national government. I'm simply unsure if the same rules apply. I mean which court has the jurisdiction and the power to order and truly force the government of Greece to sell of some of its assets (like its 111.7 tons of gold, public property, god knows what else)?

"When creditors are forced to accept less-than-face-value for their loans that they made to a debtor, that is the textbook definition of bankruptcy" is IMHO simply wrong. Debt restructuring simply is not Bankruptcy. It's more like an agreement between the lenders and the government in question. The lender doesn't want a bankrupt government (which would be unable to pay at all) and the government is unable to pay on time. Therefore the two usually reach a compromise: the first waits for a couple of years longer and second pays a little more. The government can even pay less. This seems to have happened before: Argentine debt restructuring. Flamarande (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Governments are simply a bit above normal rules. They are usually considered too big to fail.

You kinda make my point for me. Greece isn't in debt to banks, it is in debt to bond holders, so the situation isn't the same situation. It doesn't owe money on collateralized debt (like mortgages) and it doesn't own money on credit cards, and it doesn't owe money to banks on business loans or on payroll loans, or to a guy named Vinnie who will break your kneecaps if you don't pay. Greece has bond obligations which it has to either pay or skip out on. If it skips out on them, its credit rating tanks, and then it can no longer issue bonds at a reasonable interest rate, meaning it cannot do business. There is no bank, or set of banks, for Greece to negotiate its bond obligations down to. It can ask for relief in the form of loans from other central banks to pay off its bonds (essentially, this is exactly the sort of debt restructuring private individuals do when they, say, roll their credit card debt into a home equity loan, or something like that) which is exactly what it is doing now. Basically, the Eurozone is loaning Greece money (in the form of bank loans) to pay off its bond obligations. It is refinancing its debt... Regarding the Argentine situation, it is very similar to what is going on now: Basically the IMF acted as a "white knight" creditor and issued loans to Argentina to allow them to pay off their debt obligations (albeit, at reduced terms). What Greece (and the Eurozone) is currently trying to avoid right now is the "at reduced terms" situation. --Jayron32 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your mention of "some guy named vinnie" (which is a lovely colorful euphemism by the way) is particularly apt. That's always the bull elephant in the room when it comes to international policy of all kinds, Bank of America doesn't have ballistic missiles but nation-lenders do. No one is honestly suggesting Greece's creditors use military force to get satisfaction of their debts, but some right-wing pundits have called the US national debt a moral imperative because it is a potential national security issue. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is I understand this whole situation: the EU is lending a great deal of money to the Greek government so that it can pay its government bonds. Then it sends financial specialists to advise/warn the Greek government how to seriously spend/waste less money, collect more taxes and to kick-start its economy by slashing certain policies (like subsidies, early retirement age, etc) which are popular in certain circles of the population but de facto hurting the Greek economy as a whole. After a couple of years the Greek government will hopefully repay most of its debt to the EU at a relativly low interrest (way lower than it would get from the market).

The EU is obviously NOT helping because of compassion but mainly because of sheer self-interrest. IF Greece becomes unable to pay its governments bonds it will unavoidably hurt the other EU countries. First, the market would increase the pressure on other stumbling countries (read: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc). Second, several important American and European banks (French, German, British, etc) have bought a huge amount of Greek government bonds. IF the Greek goverment suddenly becomes unable to pay them the banks would lose an enormous amount of money. Then the increasing pressure would be upon the banks. However IF more than a couple of banks lose the confidence of their investors and of the general public they could collapse (bank runs, etc). THAT could and probably would devastate the economies of the other countries to the brink of major economic turmoil, including those which seem to be recovering (Germany, France, etc).

The REAL PROBLEM is that the Greek economy as a whole is rather dependent upon a spending/wasting government (by the way that's also a serious problem in Portugal, Spain, Italy, USA, god knows how many more). Too many Greek companies are/were focused upon their main client: the Greek government.

The sudden U-turn of the Greek government ("we are unable to spend/waste the huge amount of money as we always did because if we do it the UE will not lend us its money") will obviously reduce the demand of certain goods and services. Too many Greek companies whose main client was the Greek state are forced to cut down on their own costs (read: fire employees). That in turn will obviously lead to an increase of unemployment subsidies. It will get even worse: the frightened Greek people spend increasingly less. That in turn will reduce the amount collected by certain taxes like VAT.

The real goal is that the private Greek companies turn to private clients and foreign markets to sell their products and goods. IF that goes well they can hopefully (re)hire ppl reducing unemployment. The whole process would/will turn the whole Greek economy less dependent upon the Greek government crazy spending.

It's going to hurt a lot more before it gets better, but so be it: the previous situation led to the whole mess and we simply can't go back to governments spending like crazy and wasting too much money as previously. It simply doesn't work: the government simply spends too much money suppossedly "to help the national economy" only to raise its taxes to pay for its spending (it's basicly a big vicious circle). The PIIGS governments have been been running huge deficits for several decades already and were raising taxes even before the whole crisis started. And AFAIK the Greek government paid several millions to certain banks in order to hide their true numbers to better decieve the UE supervision! It was bound to collapse sooner or latter. Flamarande (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm not 100% certain if all of the above is correct. I might be certainly mistaken, but this how I understand the whole mess.

While it's difficult to imagine Vinnie coming around and breaking a country's kneecaps (figuratively) nowadays, it was quite common until the early 20th century for Western countries to intervene militarily in third-world countries that were unable to meet their debt obligations. This is how Egypt became a British protectorate in the 19th century, for example. Nowadays, it would probably take the form of imposing a strict comptrollership on a country's spending to ensure it meets its obligations to creditors. The IMF already does it in a way, imposing strict conditions in return for issuing emergency loans, but it could go even further, with foreigners actually taking over a country's finance/budget ministry to ensure they are repaid...--Xuxl (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreigners actually taking over a country's finance/budget ministry to ensure they are repaid. You would only need an army to pull that of. Flamarande (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All of this ignores the point made by most economists who have commented on this that it is virtually impossible for Greece to repay its debt. The degree of austerity that would be required to bring its budget into surplus is such that it would cause the economy to contract quite severely and would force the inhabitants of Greece to adopt a developing-country living standard inconsistent with the survival of any Greek government. Meanwhile, even with a surplus on a (greatly reduced budget), Greece would have difficulty even making interest payments on its debt, now much larger as a percentage of its GDP. Expecting this debt to be repaid is not rational, according to most economists. Either creditors will agree to a restructuring at some point in the future, or a future Greek government will sell austerity measures to their voters by 1) declaring a moratorium on interest payments to limit the level of austerity, and/or 2) withdrawing from the euro in order to devalue. Of course, this would make it impossible for the Greeks to borrow for a few years, but they wouldn't be able to anyway, and at least they would not have to pay interest any more. Certainly, Greeks exercised poor judgment in the past. However, frankly, so did the German, French, and other banks and other financial entities that lent to Greece without doing their homework. Ethically, a case can be made that the lender is as much to blame for making a foolish loan as the borrower is for taking it. But this is all beside the point. Greece is not going to be able to repay its debt. Why, then, do European officials insist on increasing the amount that will have to be written off at taxpayer expense? Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The ratings of Greece began were reasonable when the banks bought the government bonds before the whole crisis started. The banks homework was largely based upon forged data provided by the Greek government (who even paid certain American banks to better hide the true figures - that wasn't poor judgement. That was trickery, deceit and fraud on a massive scale by the Greek government). IMHO there just a big problem with a any withdrawal of the Euro. IMHO this would happen: A country (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, whatever) plans to withdraw from the Euro in order to devalue its (future) currency. Everybody runs to their bank asap to withdraw all their savings before that happens (exchanging their savings into a solid currency in order to avoid the devalue of their savings). The banks are unable to return the money of all their clients and collapse (a kind of a bank run). The local economy is screwed and the new currency is worthless. That's why no country will leave the Euro in the foreseeable future. Let's be honest: the EU is expecting that the Greek government will be unable to pay. That's why they realizing meetings of the finance ministers: to plan a reasonable debt restructuring. They are only gaining time in order to sell this to the masses. Flamarande (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Free living wage distribution

Is it possible to introduce a free, country-leveled living wage distribution (except for those who receive pension) via automated currency-producing process (to reduce salary-related expenditures). Each person except pensioners and infants (say, between ages 10 and 59) is supposed to receive a fixed monthly living wage in cash and the distribution is supposed to be conducted through a well-evaluated number of pay offices. One of the expected benefits, aside from prosperity, could be high purchase power--178.180.3.214 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest paying for it? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The currency-producing process is supposed to be free of charge and mostly or entirely automated. --178.182.39.40 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the currency-producing process devalues the currency by the exact amount of the produced currency. Look at it simply: Lets say that the entirety of the U.S. Economy was represented by ten $1 bills. If you own one of these bills, you own a value equal to one tenth of the U.S. economy. Now, lets say that the U.S. government prints and distributes ten more $1 bills to random people. Suddenly, you're $1 is worth half as much as it used to be, overnight, without you doing anything. It is now only worth 1/20 of the economy. The economy doesn't have any more value in it; all that has changed is the share of the economy that your dollar represents. The same principle applies regardless of how many bills there are in circulation, or indeed that we even use currency at all, or deal in purely "virtual" money in computer ledgers: increasing the money supply without increasing the value of the goods and services that back that money supply doesn't improve the situation for the economy in any measurable way. --Jayron32 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that roughly speaking some people should have less money than others in order to keep currency valuable, but this is it: would the inflation rate in my suggestion be that horrible or not? --178.182.22.5 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the inflation would indeed be "that horrible" (actually, it would be worse). Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My very rough calculations imply that "topping up" all workers' wages to at least a "living wage" of $15 an hour would cost something like $750 billion a year. That sounds like a lot, but we already spend about $500 billion a year on "safety net" programs. The U.S. could, theoretically, replace all of its anti-poverty programs (refundable EITC, TANF, food stamps, home heating assistance, etc.) with a guaranteed minimum income and still spend less as a percentage of GDP fighting poverty than other developed countries. I don't know if that would be a good idea, just pointing out its plausibility. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Your suggestion of producing a social wage by expansion of money supply is unusual. By regulating prices, capital reinvestment (growth) and profit you could do this without a consumer price inflationary element. This will crash the national rate of profit, and your country's credit rating, and have significant civil society impacts. In many ways a social wage is the implicit outcome of a fully developed welfare state: the wage structure is flattened by empowered bargaining for the weakest, progressive taxation, and benefits for those unable to work due to injury or a lack of jobs. In many ways these initiatives had significant civil society impacts. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@the OP: What you are doing here is confusing money with value. Ask the people who held on to one hundred trillion Zimbabwean Dollar notes if they felt particularly financially stable. Money, in a healthy financial system is tied to value: I can expect my dollar to buy me a bag of potato chips today, but the dollar is only worth what my confidence is in its ability to buy that bag of potato chips. If today it buys a bag of potato chips, and tomorrow it buys a stick of gum, and on Friday I wipe my ass with it, because that is all it is good for. In order to have value, money need stability. If the government is printing buckets of money for no good reason, then where is the stability? Even in stable economies, printing money causes inflation. So, lets say that poor people in your economy can only afford, with their current cash, to buy enough food for lunch, but not dinner. So you give them all enough cash to buy dinner, for free. What happens? Well, what you find is tomorrow lunch now costs twice as much as it did yesterday. What did that extra cash do for those poor people? They have more toilet paper now, I suppose... --Jayron32 23:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mwalcoff: What part of your calculation did you take into account the number of people who quit working entirely just to live off the government dole? Most people don't work because they love it. They work because they need the money to pay to live. If my options are a) $10.00 bagging groceries or b) $15.00 an hour doing nothing, which job am I going to take? People making $10.00 per hour provide much of the goods and services that provide value for the economy. If people aren't working, they aren't producing value. The net size of the economy shrinks, and with it the value of the dollar those people are getting from you. What also shrinks is your tax income, since the economy is smaller, you take in less tax revenues. There are intelligent ways to use social welfare to raise the ability of people to contribute to the economy in positive ways, but giving them a check every week to do nothing isn't it. Social welfare is a vital, important, and mandatory part of a healthy democracy, and very much needed. But it needn't be in the form of no-strings-attached checks which pay everyone enough so they don't have to bother working... --Jayron32 00:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You could look at the political economic bargaining in the Australian economy between 1941 and 1983 over the appropriate wage level as a proportion of social production. While wages amongst different skill levels of workers flattened (see arguments from university degreed workers over "relativities flattening") the chief mechanism used to discipline an expanded working class share of national product wasn't unemployment during this period, but inflation in a consumer economy rather removed from our current understanding of what a consumer economy is. (In the 1980s, unemployment became the chief "externality" to discipline the entire Australian working class, though with a brief period of the use of interest rates). This is to say, that during the 1970s when a social wage effectively existed in Australia, voluntary labour market exit to solely social wage subsistence was miniscule, and not a significant economic impact. Refusal to reinvest profits, or arrange for easily accessible credit, on the part of capitalists was a more significant hinderance to growth in this period. (Broadly Jayron32, you're analysing society as if only the working class and the state are political economic agents, you need to incorporate capital as an agent; in the 1970s, as demonstrated in Chile and New Zealand, or the 1960s, as demonstrated by Australian peak level wage bargaining, capital was very much a self-conscious system wide agent). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, quite certainly capital is an economic force, consider the situation in the U.S. right now. The experts keep telling us the recession is over, because most of the standard indicators of the economy indicate it is humming right along. Most, except one, that being unemployment. Basically, the U.S. economy has figured out how to make money without employees. So the working class in the U.S. right now is having a very shitty time, and yet other economic players (especially corporations) are doing just fine. Coupled with a dead housing market, we have the strange disconnect that nearly every indicator of our general economy says that the basic economic system, as measured in terms of things like GDP and gross macroeconomic measures, the national economy is humming right along. Except that people are out of work, and can't buy or sell their house. So, who is the economy supposed to be "working" for. While it is true that, as you implyu Fifelfoo, you can massage the numbers to show that an economic situation is fine, by ignoring the "working class...as an economic agent". That's pretty much bullshit, however, since said working class is the bulk of the people. Saying that an economic system can safely ignore them is meaningless. Its like saying "In the middle ages, everyone was rich...excepting the peasents and serfs". The real experience of real people is what it is all about, and it seems rather pointless to claim that the personal financial experience of the bulk of your population is somehow not the central issue in any economic policy. --Jayron32 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely up to "So, who is the economy supposed to be "working" for." Since the 1830s in the United States and the 1910s in the United Kingdom, the bulk of the electorate have been workers—yet in both countries government and market activity has been broadly counterposed to the interests of workers, usually in a very immediate sense. (A ready example is the use of anti-trust law in the United States in the early part of the 20th Century, in conditions where the union's primary threat was production enhancing wage-skill mixes favourable to Taylorism and improved OH&S). The strange lacunae of class warfare of 1940–1980 in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia; a period of social welfare for whites, high employment, and steadily increasing volumes and qualities of products consumed by workers is the problem period. Not the current situation of a market and state being run in interests opposed to the vast majority of the population. Additionally, capital as an agent may be pushed into non-optimum total distributions of income (ie: vast income inequality within the working class, changing the consumption mix away from an optimum balance for cycling the economy faster) where capital requires internal hierarchical differentiation to maintain control over factory situations (paying the foreman and staff more). Reading highly summative political economic debates over the appropriate level of remuneration, in an arbitration situation where the court demanded expert witnesses, the interests of private profit as an absolute were often put and often triumphed over conceptions of the economy as a whole. Profits and inflation have regularly trumped wages, even when the conservative pro-private enterprise state agent has supported expanding wage incomes, even when the market is crying out for more effective consumer demand. I don't defend it, when I am not an editor I oppose it; but wasn't Reagan's argument that in the 1980s everybody was rich except for…? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayron: I'm assuming this is a "top up" for workers making less than $15 an hour, not a welfare entitlement payment for people who may not be working at all. I'm not endorsing the plan, only doing a thought exercise as to its fiscal plausibility. Of course, on top of the $750b you'd have to have unemployment benefits for people out of a job, plus Social Security for people of working age who can't work, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Even "topping up" presents problems: what impetus does it provide for people to get better jobs? More people working in more productive jobs produces more for the economy, paying people to remain in their current station doesn't raise their standard of living in any meaningful way. Instead of writing checks to people just to keep their current low-end job, why not write the same check to a local trade school/community college so they can train up these people for more skilled work? Why not write the check to people who provide child care, so women can afford to hold down better jobs with longer hours and provide more for their children in terms of saving for college? Why not write the check to health care providers so that local companies don't have to spend as much providing health care for their workers and can hire more local workers instead of farming out the work to other nations where worker costs are cheaper? There are a dozen ways to spend the same money where the money acts to raise the standard of living of the worker more than just directly giving the worker the money, and which also have the benefit of providing additional stimulus to the local economy? --Jayron32 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly we've focused on your creation of expenditure out of increasing the money supply, rather than the policy component. You could do well to rephrase as a pure policy supplied out of recurrent funds. Additionally, given the central role of the United States in world capitalism, you may wish to rephrase your suggestion for a smaller, more constrained capitalist economy. New Zealand has often been used as an experimental economy (with consequent highly disruptive social impacts on the lives of New Zealanders). With an expense from constrained consolidated revenue what would be the impacts of raising the wages of workers to $X using directly government supplied income supplements. You could also consider this via employer administered wage supplements funded likewise, or through taxation relief or negative taxation for such workers also funded likewise. Unlike printing money, expense from constrained consolidated revenue would decrease government spending in other areas (I'm guessing not defence or welfare for capitalists, so from another kind of welfare for workers): this would either wage flatten workers, or result in the unemployed being even worse off. Doing so from an unconstrained general revenue (ie: tax increases), would result in wage flattening via tax (taxes affect profits and corporate reinvestment much less than they do wages). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Greece's rating

How can Greece have such a low rating? Even lower than countries at the brink of a civil war/Islamic revolution/expropriation/whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.12.164 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Civil wars and revolutions don't necessarily result in defaulting on debt. Usually, whoever ends up in charge afterwards carries on paying the debts of the old regime (if they don't, the rest of the world tends to be very unhappy about it). Also, the debt of the kind of countries you mention is often what we call "third world debt" which is usually lent by other governments (or the IMF), rather than companies and individuals, and isn't really expected to be paid back. And, of course, oil-rich countries tend not to have any national debt at all (and have sovereign wealth funds instead), so if any of the countries you had in mind fall into that category, there is no need to worry about them defaulting. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another factor is that no one is lending large amounts of money to those nations. Foreign money funneled into them either tends to be no-strings-attached foreign military aid, other aid, ect. Honestly Greece is in worse shape because no one expected it to fall apart, they thought it was a safe enough investment it was worth loaning them money. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with Greece is that its society seems to be in denial about the extent of its debt, and its politicians are refusing to do anything about it. Nobody will help those who won't help themselves. (As I understand it, anyway. I'm not an economist.)--TammyMoet (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the people or the politicians are in denial, its more that segments of the population are in denial about the level of problems their own personal interest creates. Its a universal political problem. I am reminded of the "What have the Roman's ever done for us!" bit from the "Life of Brian" film, but in reverse. Lets say your country overspends its income by 20%. So the logical, equitable way to fix the problem is to cut the budget by 20% equally in all areas; every department gets 20% less, every program and system gets 20% less cash. Spread the pain around equally. But then someone says "What about the military? We can't cut 20% from the military budget or else we'll just get invaded from our enemies who will rape our women and children" So the Military can't be cut. Then someone else says "What about education? If we cut education, our kids grow up stupid and we'll lag more behind the rest of the world." So education is sacrosacnt. Then some one says "What about the pensioners? Do you want to throw Grandma out on the street and watch her starve?" "What about infrastructure? If we can't move goods around the country on quality roads our economy can't survive" "What about..." It goes on forever. Everyone is fine with slashing the budgets of those interests that aren't theres. People without kids don't care much about the schools, the young aren't interested in paying the pensions of the old, etc. etc. As long as their narrow little pet interest isn't touched, they fully support cutting the budget of everything else. And thus, everyone has a reason to be pissed when "austerity" measures are passed; not because they disagree with austerity in the big picture, just because they want it to apply to everyone else but them. --Jayron32 12:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You could/should replace 'country' with 'government/state'. It was mostly the government/state which was spending too much money (Olympic Game, anyone?). Notice that private individuals and companies which spend too much will face a court which will solve the issue. The current mess is Sovereign debt of governments/states. Flamarande (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that there are two ways to solve budget problems: cutting spending and raising taxes. For some reason today (it couldn't possibly be that the media and the politicians are owned by rich people), raising taxes on the rich people whose post-tax incomes have risen dramatically over the last 20 years is not an option seriously considered by most Western politicians. However, tax evasion is apparently rampant in Greece, particularly among the affluent. The obvious way to resolve their budget issue would be to increase taxes on the affluent and then enforce those taxes. Conservatives will say that this will limit economic growth, but in fact, redistributing income downward in the economic pyramid greatly increases the chances that that income will be spent rather than saved, which leads to a virtuous circle of economic growth and higher tax receipts. Increased taxation of the affluent has a much smaller negative impact on economic growth than cutting benefits to those who spend what they get. And to have any hope of repaying much of its debt, Greece needs economic growth, or at least an end to economic contraction. Marco polo (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Me: in the choir... You: Preaching to it... --Jayron32 15:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to somewhat disagree with that one (if the problem was truly that easy to solve... I would raise them immediately). AFAIK simply raising taxes over the rich simply doesn't work: the rich will simply flee to fiscal paradises (where do you think Athina Onassis lives? AFAIK she doesn't live in Greece at all. I think she lives in Switzerland - or Brazil - were the personal taxes are lower). It's perfectly legal and I honestly would do the same. I mean, why should I pay more taxes, so that the government wastes even more? That's doesn't solve the basic problem at all: the state/government was increasingly spending more and more money, even more that it was collecting in taxes (and printing). What governments could do (besides spending/wasting less money) is close all legal and fiscal loopholes regarding taxes. Don't create more and more laws (which well-paid lawyers will avoid), improve and truly enforce the ones you already have.

AFAIK most proposals of the specialists sent by the UE and/or FMI are simply the right ones and should be implemented asap. However they will hurt a tiny minority of the ppl who then gets all fired up in order to protect their own selfish interest. And they will paint this as a fight over ppl's rights. Let me just pick a blatant example of this sheer insanity: Greek truck driving licenses [10]. A professional truck driver needs a trucking license, right? In Greece the numbers of said licenses was limited to 33'000 since 1970! Someone who wanted to become a trucker had to either inherit it from a family member (usually his father) or buy a license in the black market from a retiring trucker. An average person couldn't get a new one by any other means. Meanwhile the Greek economy evolved and expanded since 1970: there was an increasing demand for transported goods which was limited to a constant number of truckers. The trucker companies (as a whole) obviously increased their prices. That in turn increased the prices of the transported goods. Furthermore the whole Greek trucking industry was uninterested in improving their service in comparison of other countries (it became uncompetitive). I mean, if I had a guaranteed market for my services why would I improve at all? What I would do is raise my prices instead. The Greek government simply refused to deal with the growing problem (since 1970!). In the bitter end it was the UE and the FMI which had to force the Greek government to solve this problem. The furious truckers went to the streets in protest and shouted: "Liberty or Death!". I can only read about the whole issue (admittedly from the safety of my home and with the security of having a job) and ask myself: Are all these guys completely insane? Were the succeeding Greek governments solely composed by cowards? Flamarande (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC) I know that this particular problem didn't screw the Greek economy on its own. However this just an example how things happened on the ground. AFAIK the same problem (a fixed amount of truck licenses in the hand of a tiny minority) exists in other countries (one of them Portugal, which is also in dire straits - Is this truly a coincidence?)

Well that may be as far as you know, but you don't know much. The proposals are not about truck driver licenses, but about decreasing salaries, pensions, benefits and health care, firing people, selling public property and in general making the general public pay for transgressions that they never even knew about. That's why the country is protesting, and that's why the protesters are anything but "a tiny minority". You have been fed too much right-wing propaganda, and believe it too easily.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

+1. I'm so sick and tired of people all around me parotting back the neofeudalist propaganda chorus that "raising taxes on the rich will hurt us all". E.g. in most countries, dividend taxes are ludicrously low. --213.196.218.59 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion in all matters. However I'm also sick and tired of people all around me parroting back the left-wing propaganda chorus that: "Let's raise the taxes of the rich. That will pay for everything.". Simply and only raising the taxes upon the rich is not going to work because the rich will simply flee. We're living a mobile world where the rich live abroad in fiscal paradises (like Switzerland, Monaco, etc) and pay incredible good lawyers to find any loopholes in new laws. Too high taxes will only strengthen their efforts and flight. Raising dividend taxes might work (to be honest I don't know that much about that subject - I know that were I live banks have incredible profits and that they pay low taxes and yes, I would raise them to a reasonable degree). IMHO a government shouldn't spend more money that it collects in taxes and prints in the mint. A government who asks for loans (without good reasons like major disaster, war, basic infrastructure) is making a debt and it's the taxpayer who always pays in the end. And the average taxpayer is unable to flee. Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Companies need the nations that tax them, and are hence forced to abide by their laws; and their mobility is dependent on (the absence of) national and international legislation. Just giving up, raising one's hands and admitting that everything will have to be the way the rich want it means abandoning the entire process of democratization that has been going on since the beginning of modernity (what the IP referred to as neo-feudalization, I think).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dividends have already been taxed. Companies pay dividends based on their profits and corporate taxes reduce the profits, thus reduce the dividend paid out. To tax the dividend again would be analogus to having the government withhold taxes from your paycheck, and then make you pay taxes again when you cash your paycheck. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What are disinformation-interested rightwingers doing on a project devoted to reality-based knowledge? As you probably know, reality has a well-known [left-wing] bias. Everything else is just propaganda by neofeudalist claqueurs. Go try to convince someone gullible someplace else. --213.196.218.59 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a true neofeudal society would be extremely left wing. It would do away with money and capital all together... everyone would owe service in return for service (a barter economy). Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's only if you define "left-wing" as "money-less" instead of "egalitarian" and "right-wing" as "money-based" instead of "anti-egalitarian / pro-hierarchic". The latter line of distinction is certainly older, and be aware that it is the one that we left-wingers generally have in mind. In particular, the left-wing view is that by serving the interests of the rich, increasing their power and affluence at the expense of the public and making everybody more dependent on and subservient to them, contrary to the principles of democracy, right-wingers are in effect making them our masters similar to the feudals of old.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of this has already been said (I think) but perhaps worth remembering there are signs Greece is going the way of some of the Arab countries. (It's probably not but it's not like everyone is content in their homes and going about peaceful and orderly lives with no protests.) Also while some of the protesters in the Arab countries have suggested ignoring debt since a chunk of it went to corrupt officials and politicians, this was generally minor. This comes to the situation in Greece where ignoring the debt appears to be a significant part of the protests. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

mythology questions

1. Did Hades have a scepter/Bident and keys in mythology? If so, what are they for? 2. What is the story and symbolism behind Ares/Mars shield and spear? 3. What is the story behind Hermes' lyre? Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I bet you could find the answers to all those questions in the very articles you linked to. I did. Have you tried reading them? Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)