39.46.13.56 (talk) |
SinisterLefty (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
I couldn't find anything about that in the articles on Wikipedia. Does anyone know, whether Roosevelts political opponents ever mentioned his disability in a campaign or know where I could read up on that? --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967|2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967|talk]]) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
I couldn't find anything about that in the articles on Wikipedia. Does anyone know, whether Roosevelts political opponents ever mentioned his disability in a campaign or know where I could read up on that? --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967|2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967|talk]]) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
:I suggest that you begin by reading [[Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and then move on to reading the relevant references in the article. I was born seven years after Roosevelt died, and as a child, older people told me that his disability was well known but not discussed much, because he was an effective leader and won four consecutive presidential elections, and that social mores were very different then. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 06:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
:I suggest that you begin by reading [[Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and then move on to reading the relevant references in the article. I was born seven years after Roosevelt died, and as a child, older people told me that his disability was well known but not discussed much, because he was an effective leader and won four consecutive presidential elections, and that social mores were very different then. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 06:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
:It's hard to imagine in the era of Trump, but back then there was the concept of decency in politics. And it wasn't just because everybody was a nice guy, but because anyone trying to bring up the "private lives" of candidates would be slapped down hard by the voters, who considered such behaviour totally unacceptable. [[User:SinisterLefty|SinisterLefty]] ([[User talk:SinisterLefty|talk]]) 11:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for reading suggestions == |
== Request for reading suggestions == |
Revision as of 11:38, 22 August 2019
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
August 15
Andrew Yang
What are the chances to see the project of Andrew Yang (1k dollars for everybody) implemented? And what are the chances that it would work?2402:800:61B1:2190:3136:4067:17FE:A6CF (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably about the same chance as him getting elected president. As to whether it would "work", define what you mean by "work". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Re the second question, see Basic income pilots. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, and re the first question, here's a poll taken within the last month showing voters equally split between supporting the concept and not supporting it. Any politician could take up the idea, but we can't crystal ball here and predict the likelihood of anyone doing so. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Did the part of England that founded an American colony ever become nativist against another part?
"These newcomers from that part of England take our jobs!" "They aren't assimilating!" "They're bringing crime!" "They're bringing drugs!" "They rape too much!" "And some are good people"
Or did this kind of thing start with other countries? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer. But while I doubt that any of those specific criticisms were voiced in the seventeenth and eightennth century, I would be amazed if there wasn't distrust and resentment between colonies from England and those from Scotland or Ireland. Or come to think of it, between colonies settled predominantly from particular parts of England. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- On the contrary, until the the US War of Independence, history tells us that most Americans viewed themselves as British or British Subjects. It was only when a large force of troops came to the US to bolster the import/export laws to weaken Napoleonic France that the "Americans" started to feel different as the British Soldiers treated them as second class citizens and as coming from a backwater. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- See No Irish Need Apply, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ireland is not part of England in any sense, and never has been. It was a separate country from Great Britain (although in personal union with it) until well after the end of the US War of Independence. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- That suggests it later did become part of Great Britain. It never did. This is explicitly acknowledged in the names of the UK: It was originally the United Kingdom of Great Britain, at a time when Ireland wasn't part of the equation at all. When Ireland joined the party it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and then when the bulk of Ireland left it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ireland is not part of England in any sense, and never has been. It was a separate country from Great Britain (although in personal union with it) until well after the end of the US War of Independence. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- See No Irish Need Apply, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- "There was little nativism in the colonial era" according to Nativism_(politics)#Early Republic. The article Baseball Bugs linked above suggests that anti-Irish sentiment in North America belongs to a later era. Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Before the Independence, people would not land at some randomly chosen colony. They would either be deported as criminals (I guess they were not highly regarded, but the part of England they originated was not the reason), or arrive at some point where they expected to be welcome because they had some connection with someone who told them they would (someone from the same sect, the same land, the same lord or whatever). Gem fr (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the first decades of colonization, settlers going to New England tended to come from East Anglia, while those going to Virginia tended to be from Devon, Somerset and Sussex. That didn’t last long, however. There were tensions in New Amsterdam (later New York) between the Dutch and the English... but they were more due to religious differences than ethnic in origin. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- According to the semi-sourced Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, the idea of tying imported drugs to rape and gun crime in the American South only gained traction around the turn of the 20th century, and that was more about seeming superior to blacks and Chinese than English. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
August 16
What is the lowest population country that swaps embassies with every not unusually bad relations country that has more people than it?
Not necessarily only those countries, just at least those.
I assume the biggest country that doesn't do this is far away from the one(s) it doesn't have bilateral embassies with and they don't think their trade/tourist swap levels etc. justify the cost. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "every not unusually bad relations country". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vatican City has diplomatic relations with most of the other nations of the world. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would guess one of the countries with very low GDP per person would be the biggest that doesn't swap embassies with every country larger than it, very bad bilateral relations excepted. Above this population level the graph of embassy swapping is completely connected, very bad bilateral relations excepted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- By "embassy swapping", do you mean that each country has an embassy in the other? If so, then your statement about the graph being completely connected is totally incorrect. Maybe what you mean is diplomatic relations? Many pairs of countries have diplomatic relations with each other but have not exchanged embassies. Take Sweden as an example; our article list of diplomatic missions of Sweden says that Sweden has only 80 embassies around the world, which leaves more than 100 countries in which Sweden does not have an embassy. Or look at list of diplomatic missions of Australia; again, there's something like 100 countries in which Australia has neither an embassy nor a high commission. For example, Australia has no embassy in Switzerland, Hungary, Costa Rica, or Sudan, although those countries have embassies in Australia. Mathew5000 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- What's interesting is that they had an embassy in Hungary until comparatively recently. This screen capture from 2009 provides an address and everything for the Australian embassy in Hungary, but now http://www.hungary.embassy.gov.au redirects to https://austria.embassy.gov.au, the top of which says "Australian Embassy and Permanent Mission to the United Nations Austria Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Kosovo, Slovakia and Slovenia".
- By "embassy swapping", do you mean that each country has an embassy in the other? If so, then your statement about the graph being completely connected is totally incorrect. Maybe what you mean is diplomatic relations? Many pairs of countries have diplomatic relations with each other but have not exchanged embassies. Take Sweden as an example; our article list of diplomatic missions of Sweden says that Sweden has only 80 embassies around the world, which leaves more than 100 countries in which Sweden does not have an embassy. Or look at list of diplomatic missions of Australia; again, there's something like 100 countries in which Australia has neither an embassy nor a high commission. For example, Australia has no embassy in Switzerland, Hungary, Costa Rica, or Sudan, although those countries have embassies in Australia. Mathew5000 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would guess one of the countries with very low GDP per person would be the biggest that doesn't swap embassies with every country larger than it, very bad bilateral relations excepted. Above this population level the graph of embassy swapping is completely connected, very bad bilateral relations excepted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Let's rephrase/simplify the question as follows: (a) What is the least populous sovereign state that maintains an embassy (or high commission) in every sovereign state more populous than itself? Well, I think the answer depends on which population figures you use. If you go by this ranking I believe the answer is Japan (#11). Per List of diplomatic missions of Japan, it has embassies in all ten countries above it on the list, but Ethiopia (#12) does not have an embassy in Pakistan (#5) or in Bangladesh (#8), just honorary consulates [1][2]. But List of countries and dependencies by population gives a significantly lower population figure for Ethiopia (98.7 million as opposed to 112.1 million). As a result, I believe the answer to question (a), based on the population figures in this list, is Egypt. Maybe we should change the question to ask the converse: (b) What is the most populous sovereign state that does not maintain an embassy (or high commission) in every state more populous than itself? Then I think the answer is Ethiopia regardless of which list is used for population figures. I'm pretty sure that's correct but I haven't done a thorough check so perhaps I've overlooked something. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's a lot bigger than I would've guessed, I thought Iran might have to be excluded for bad relations with the US but Ethiopia has more people than that. Before this answer I looked at Afghanistan thinking their internal security is more pressing still and holy crap they have so few! Apparently Nigeria doesn't have an embassy or Commonwealth equivalent in Bangladesh and they have at least 163 million people but Bangladesh has one in Nigeria and Nigeria has 201 million. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
August 17
Coronation of the British monarch
The coronation of the monarch involves anointing with holy oil on the breast, palm and forehead. Is this applied directly to the breast because this seems very invasive in such a public ceremony? —Andrew 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Without checking, I believe I've read that the anointing happens behind a screen. —Tamfang (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is indeed what it says (with reference) in Coronation_of_the_British_monarch#Anointing. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- At the coronations of William IV and Victoria, anointing was only on the head and hands, probably because of contemporary ideas of decency. For the 1901 coronation, it was proposed to only anoint King Edward's head, but the enthusiasm for restoring the original rituals caused a reversion to the three points which had been adopted for James I in 1601 (late medieval English kings had been anointed on 8 parts of their bodies as well as their head, but James thought this "Popish"). Source The monarch is not required to strip to the waist and I imagine the neckline of the robe is as far as it goes, but we may never know. In 1953, the television cameras were turned away so that nothing could be seen, [3] but I'm certain this is due to the sacred nature of the ritual rather than any fear of indecent exposure. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Is the Pope annointed at least 8 places? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- No mention of anointing in our Papal coronation article, except that if the pope is not a bishop, he is consecrated first, which involves anointing.
- On the point of James's coronation, this was the first after the outcome of the Reformation had been settled and there was some debate about what should be done. Many Catholic rituals had been abandoned as they were thought to be without Biblical precedent; however there was a strong desire to retain a continuity with the ancient past while rejecting what were believed to be errors introduced from Rome. Since anointing a king appears in the Bible (see Zadok the Priest) it was decided to return to the simpler anointing laid down in the Liber Regalis, the 14th century coronation textbook (Ref: Strong 2005, pp. 243-244).
- The more elaborate form of anointing is described here: "Then the Archbishop anointed the King with the oil of catechumens on his hands, breast, between the shoulder blades, on the shoulders, on the elbows, and on the head; then at last with chrism, again on his head". Whether the King was required to undress for that is unclear. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- When was net conversion to Protestantism mostly finished in England or Scotland/Wales? I've read that there were still enough supporters of the line of that Glorious Revolution guy (Charles II?) to rebel in the 18th century (not all would be Catholic of course). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the second half of the 16th century, Catholic authorities outside England made a number of moves which unfortunately had the result of identifying the Catholic cause inside England politically with treason, assassination, and foreign invasion (see Regnans in Excelsis, An Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland, etc). For the post-1689 period, see Jacobite rising of 1715 and Jacobite rising of 1745... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to kill Parliament with gunpowder sounds pretty assassinationey... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the second half of the 16th century, Catholic authorities outside England made a number of moves which unfortunately had the result of identifying the Catholic cause inside England politically with treason, assassination, and foreign invasion (see Regnans in Excelsis, An Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland, etc). For the post-1689 period, see Jacobite rising of 1715 and Jacobite rising of 1745... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- When was net conversion to Protestantism mostly finished in England or Scotland/Wales? I've read that there were still enough supporters of the line of that Glorious Revolution guy (Charles II?) to rebel in the 18th century (not all would be Catholic of course). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Is the Pope annointed at least 8 places? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- At the coronations of William IV and Victoria, anointing was only on the head and hands, probably because of contemporary ideas of decency. For the 1901 coronation, it was proposed to only anoint King Edward's head, but the enthusiasm for restoring the original rituals caused a reversion to the three points which had been adopted for James I in 1601 (late medieval English kings had been anointed on 8 parts of their bodies as well as their head, but James thought this "Popish"). Source The monarch is not required to strip to the waist and I imagine the neckline of the robe is as far as it goes, but we may never know. In 1953, the television cameras were turned away so that nothing could be seen, [3] but I'm certain this is due to the sacred nature of the ritual rather than any fear of indecent exposure. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is indeed what it says (with reference) in Coronation_of_the_British_monarch#Anointing. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Politically, Catholicism became essentially legal during the later 18th and early 19th century, see Catholic emancipation and Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. --Jayron32 12:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- An earlier piece of legislation, the Papists Act 1778, gave some freedom of worship to Catholics, provided they took an oath of allegiance and disavowal of some of the more extreme Catholic doctrines. However, even this was so unpopular that it provoked the Gordon Riots. Anti-Catholic feeling was kept alive by the popularity of Foxe's Book of Martyrs which described in lurid detail the Marian Persecutions, and by folk memories of the Bloody Assizes (a bit of an own goal by James II) and the arrival of Huguenot refugees following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France. And of course, Bonfire Night has only lost it's anti-Catholic emphasis in the last century, although at the Lewes Bonfire, an effigy of Pope Paul V is still burned (along with Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and anybody else they take a dislike to), despite everybody else asking them to desist. Alansplodge (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
If the reason behind electoral college is that each state is supposed to be equal, why don't each state have just one electoral college vote and so each state is equal?
I am not from usa, so I dont really undertand the logic and reason behind electoral college thing, but I always heard, that the reason is because each state is supossed to be equal.
If that's the case why don't each state have just one electoral college vote instead of each state having different amount of votes?201.79.63.254 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is not the reason for using the electoral college to choose the President of the United States. Rather, the reason the electoral college was invented is that the founders of the United States did not want to leave such an important decision in the hands of the general population. Source: Joe Miller (2008-02-11). "The Reason for the Electoral College". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2019-08-17. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- That explains why the electoral college exists, but 201's question was about the number of electors. The simple answer is that it was a compromise as to whether each state would be treated equally or whether the number of electors would be based on population. Since every state has two Senators but is represented by population in the House of Representatives, making the number of electors equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives provided a compromise. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and many forget that the Constitution does not explicitly set the size of the House, but only sets a maximum tied to population. The size of the House has been essentially fixed by statute since 1913. Some have called for enlarging the House, which would give the more populous states more power in the House as well as in the Electoral College. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- That explains why the electoral college exists, but 201's question was about the number of electors. The simple answer is that it was a compromise as to whether each state would be treated equally or whether the number of electors would be based on population. Since every state has two Senators but is represented by population in the House of Representatives, making the number of electors equal to the number of Senators plus Representatives provided a compromise. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- 201.79.63.254 -- that's how voting was done in the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, but the whole purpose of the 1787 Constitution was to go beyond a confederation of 13 quasi-sovereign states into a more tightly-knit entity with a real central government. As for the electoral college, doing a mass popular vote to elect the president was a non-starter in the 18th century for several reasons. First, each state had different voting qualifications, and the central (federal) government didn't have the personnel or budget or will to try to reconcile voting qualifications between the states at that time. Also, the writers of the constitution weren't sure that voters in one state would know enough about politicians from other states to have an informed opinion on them. AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, as they stated, "each state is supposed to be equal" is a distortion. And one that's still commonly heard here in the U.S., so don't feel dumb. Since no one linked it yet: Electoral College (United States). Here's a relevant opinion article. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Contingent election: Also, note that each state does get one vote for President if no candidate wins a majority of electors, in which case Congress elects the President and Vice President. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Having offices elected by a statewide vote wasn't common in 1787. The people voted for legislators, who could be elected based on local reputation, and then those chosen individuals, more informed than their peers, could vote for governor, other state offices, etc. The US constitution is something of an adaptation of what was common at the time. The electors are chosen as the legislature directs, thus it could reserve the choice of electors to itself or have a popular vote. South Carolina first had a popular vote for president in 1868.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
August 18
Airport construction in bird areas
Are there any national or international restrictions on airport construction in places with known bird presence to avoid bird strikes? I know that the existing airports in such areas use bird control, but wonder if this could be avoided from the start. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Trump wants to buy Greenland.
Trump wants to buy Greenland; Greenland says that they are not for sale. I believe that Greenland is "owned" by Denmark. So, let's make some changes to the scenario. Let's assume that an independent country (say, Italy) was indeed for sale and that Trump purchases it for (hypothetically) $10 million dollars. Who exactly would that $10 million dollars go to? It would go to the government of Italy? Which would now be "owned" by the USA? So, the $10 million dollars would go right back to the USA? This all seems quite odd. What would happen in a case like that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just in case you missed this latest nonsense, see Trump floated US buying Greenland, but country says it’s not for sale. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Countries have been known to sell pieces of themselves, e.g. Louisiana and Alaska. As far as an entire country selling itself, it would be interesting to discover if it has ever happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". Your scenario is infinitely improbable. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking to the OP. My question is whether it has ever actually happened. If not, then the OP's question fails the test. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". Your scenario is infinitely improbable. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at annexation and related categories, I actually can't find any examples of a sovereign nation being purchased, in its entirety, by another. There was the proposed Annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) by the United States, which would have left the Dominican national government as a less powerful territorial government. In exchange, and in addition to other benefits of being a US protectorate, the US would pay off some of the nation's debt, as well as make annual payments to the territorial government in exchange for leasing a naval base. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The scenario you give is the merger of two sovereign states. In modern times there will generally be one or more treaties effecting such an act, as well as laws passed in both of the states to implement the merger. The biggest example in recent history is probably German reunification. Going back further, other prominent examples are the Acts of Union 1707 and Acts of Union 1800. You are of course right in that no one "writes a check" to the government of a country that will no longer exist. The treaties and laws will spell out the form of the new government, and what happens to the assets and liabilities of both states. Apropos U.S. history example: all Confederate currency and debt was declared void after the war by the 14th Amendment. Of course, the legal position held by the winning side was that the Confederacy was never a legitimate government, but obviously the Confederacy was de facto a separate state during the war. Although not a merger of states, for the issue of integrating monetary systems you will likely be interested in the process of establishing a monetary union, with the biggest example of course being the eurozone. (See history of the euro.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Grønland er ikke til salg. Grønland er ikke dansk. Grønland er grønlandsk Count Iblis (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You could theoretically have one nation buy another by writing a check. The nation receiving the check would then be given some time to distribute the money (to creditors, citizens, etc.) before the government was dissolved. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Theoretically, sure, but it's generally more practical to just spread money around within the successor state. This means no worrying about disbursing all the funds before the merger happens, potential issues if the currency changes, etc. The German reunification is an example; the newly reunited Germany committed to various subsidies and programs for the former East Germany. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I figured out why Trump wants to buy Greenland. So he can say "Global warming is myth, the number of glaciers in the US has increased under my presidency !". SinisterLefty (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think you are on to something SinisterLefty though the way glaciers are disappearing he better hurry. While it didn't try to sell itself the Duchy of Grand Fenwick did try to lose a war to improve their lot in life. They failed hilariously. MarnetteD|Talk 23:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
August 19
Is this real
[5] It says The 2020 presidential election is projected to have record voter turnout, and the once-safe Republican state of Texas is shaping up to be a competitive battleground. But I am not sure how true as Texas had a few counties with over 90 percent for Trump in 2016 71.254.10.112 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- It basically depends on whether Hispanics will vote at a higher rate in 2020 than they have done in the past. AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- They could, indirectly, have a great influence. That is, if a state senate is elected in a manner similar to the national senate, with the same number of senators elected from each county, this could result in rural counties having power disproportionately more than their populations. This would then allow them to gerrymander the voting districts to the advantage of the Republican Party (although if the State House also has a role, that more democratically elected body would provide a check). SinisterLefty (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This indeed used to be the case in many states, but the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed disproportionate representation in state legislatures in Reynolds v Sims. Note also that some states (though not Texas) have nonpartisan/independent redistricting. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- They could, indirectly, have a great influence. That is, if a state senate is elected in a manner similar to the national senate, with the same number of senators elected from each county, this could result in rural counties having power disproportionately more than their populations. This would then allow them to gerrymander the voting districts to the advantage of the Republican Party (although if the State House also has a role, that more democratically elected body would provide a check). SinisterLefty (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- How ironic that they found this unconstitutional at the state level, while the same disproportionate representation favoring rural states is enshrined in the Constitution at the federal level for the Senate and electoral college/Presidential elections. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- The US Constitution is an agreement among the states, and part of that agreement is that the US Senate has equal representation for each state. Mess with that, and the Union falls apart. States are sovereign entities. Counties within the states are not sovereign entities, they are merely arbitrary portions of acreage in the states. That was Warren's point in the ruling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- How ironic that they found this unconstitutional at the state level, while the same disproportionate representation favoring rural states is enshrined in the Constitution at the federal level for the Senate and electoral college/Presidential elections. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Some counties of Texas have populations in the three digits. Texas has the most counties of any U.S. state. Similarly, both California and New York have counties that went 65+% Trump in 2016, which didn't stop the states from going for Clinton by 62% and 59%, because those counties have small populations. For more on recent elections in Texas see 2016 United States presidential election in Texas and 2018 United States elections. Texas going Democratic for President in 2020 is probably still not going to happen, but it's been moving slowly in that direction for a while, and has been a topic of much discussion in U.S. political media. And of course (though some seem to forget) there are offices other than President; Democrats picking up House seats and possibly even a Senate seat, as well as state offices, might happen sooner. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that Texas has not always been monolithically red. In living memory for most people, it had a feminist Democratic governor. --Jayron32 12:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- And going back further, Texas was part of the "Solid South". So, the current state of politics is in no way an indication that it must be permanently so. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the red and blue scheme only became established with the 2000 election. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. are a few years older than that. --Jayron32 12:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously, my point was the term "red state" was not in use before the 2000s to denote a state dominated by the Republican Party. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. are a few years older than that. --Jayron32 12:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the red and blue scheme only became established with the 2000 election. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, during the Cold War the main meaning of "red" was communist. Ironically, Trump seems to be pushing the Republican Party into Putin's arms, so "red" may be closer to the old meaning than we would like. Or we could pick the third color from the US flag and call the Republican Party the "white party", which would also go along with Trump seeking support from white nationalists. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Accessing historic newspapers
Hi - I normally write about historic buildings, using sources I find myself online or books that I own, but I'm venturing into a new subject area (a historical biography), and access to historic newspaper archives would be extremely useful. Does anyone know of any online resources I would be able to access that might allow me to view the following newspapers?
- Aberdeen Weekly Journal from 1877
- Belfast Newsletter from 1859
- Dundee Courier 1859
- Aberdeen Journal 1860
- The Leeds Mercury 1863
I am working from a 2014 source, which references all these (and more) - I guess I could cite everything to the modern source, but going back to the originals would be helpful as they may contain more detail about the events in the subject's life. Any advice that anyone could offer would be most helpful. (Please ping me in any response, my watchlist has grown so large as to be almost useless for keeping track of conversations). Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Digitized archive of 1079 UK newspapers from the 1700s forward. I'll note I did not check everything you listed, but "Aberdeen Weekly Journal" did not go by that name in 1877, so you may get the false impression they don't have it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: The Wikipedia Library grants active editors access to newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com which both have digitized UK newspapers from back then. Not sure if those newspapers specifically are included but you might want to check it out nevertheless. Regards SoWhy 06:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks both, that's very helpful - I'll investigate the Wikipedia Library and see about getting access to them. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have access through Wikimedia and can email you any you need in the mean time if you shoot me an email first. Praxidicae (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
question re Farm Bill
Can any one who reads this direct me to a source for a breakdown of the recently-passed Farm Bill, total dollar amount $956 billion, showing the total amount going to each State/ Thank you. Martin Harris Jonesborough, TN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:845:C100:18D8:8D8F:A7DA:6C9A:63DF (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The total amount going to each state likely wouldn't be stated directly, as it depends on how many farmers apply for which loans, grants, etc., and that will in turn depend on the prices of various crops, the weather, etc. So, at best you could get expert estimates. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the money is earmarked for food stamps. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Same issue then, it would depend on how many people in each state apply, unless there's a fixed amount each state is given to distribute (and even then, what happens to unspent funds ?). Also, matching state funds are often required to access all the money, and whether those are provided depends on actions of the state. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. You can find government reports on the number of farms enrolled in Farm Bill programs by county, and the number of people receiving food stamps by county. But darned if I can't actually find outlays by county, which could fail to match since enrollees in these programs do not receive a fixed amount of money. I'm sure this data exists somewhere, since you can find summaries by state for all spending. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Government by chance
Is there a word for a government that makes decisions based on chance. A democracy is a country that governs based on the people, a monarchy governs based on the King/Queen, etc. So, what would be the equivalent name for a country that governed by a coin toss? As a side question, would such a government actually leave us better off? The coin would be right, in that it made the decision that benefits society the most, 50% of the time, which might actually be better odds than Congress. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC) + minor edit
- stochocracy is the word. It was /would be / actually still is (to select jurors) used by a democracy: electing people is literally aristocratic (government by the best, as assessed by the people), NOT democratic.
- Gem fr (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- It might be the best word that actually exists, but it isn't perfect. I'm thinking of a system where decisions are made by chance, rather than by people picked by chance. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- How about "Trumpian". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I guess that’s what I get for trying to have a serious discussion on the internet. *sigh* --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you think that's not serious, you're not following Trump closely enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I guess that’s what I get for trying to have a serious discussion on the internet. *sigh* --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- How about "Trumpian". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- It bears saying here: Just because you can think something doesn't mean a word already exists for it. There may very well be no single word to express the idea you have here.--Jayron32 01:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That’s entirely possible. I was just curious to see if such a word does happen to exist. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tricky parts: 1, selecting the set among which option will be randomly chosen is already a decision. How would you make it? 2: the governed body could very well choose randomly to NOT follow the orders. 3: most people would simply not consider it a "government" at all. Gem fr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not that I think this should actually be implemented, but if it was, I imagine a system that considers bills in a similar manner that Congress does. The bills will be sponsored by a Congressperson and then must be approved by the various relevant committees until it is voted on. Only, instead of voting, a coin will be tossed to determine if the bill is sent to the President. Worst case scenario, if the bill is tyrannical, it will die in committee. Even if it doesn't, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court, and lastly, you can always make another law to override it. Try passing the new law enough times, and eventually the coin will land on heads. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tricky parts: 1, selecting the set among which option will be randomly chosen is already a decision. How would you make it? 2: the governed body could very well choose randomly to NOT follow the orders. 3: most people would simply not consider it a "government" at all. Gem fr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That’s entirely possible. I was just curious to see if such a word does happen to exist. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- It might be the best word that actually exists, but it isn't perfect. I'm thinking of a system where decisions are made by chance, rather than by people picked by chance. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going to make point 1 myself. For example, authoritarian nations often only give the people a choice of candidates for office who are "party members in good standing". In other words, no reformers allowed. So, the real power would be in deciding which bills get considered, as any that go up for the coin flip enough times will eventually pass. Also, how would you decide on a range, like the income tax rates ? A whole bunch of coin flips, each representing +1% or -1% ? SinisterLefty (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all; aristocracy is certainly not about electing "the best as assessed by the people". Government by people elected by the public is representative democracy. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- not "the best as assessed by the people". "the best" (as assessed by the people; People will have different ways to decide who are the best). aristos is literately the word for them, in Greek. Election by votes is THE aristocratic principle, as opposed to birth-right or any other mean to design people (exams, for instance: cooptation). Constitution writers did not used the word democracy for reasons: democracy was considered an awful, degenerate, regime back in the day (recent political events are no short of reasons why they would think so), and they tried their best to make a Republic, not a democracy. The correct designation is actually elective oligarchy (So said my teachers, and you can check it by yourself just by reading the definitions: oligarchy obviously apply, democracy do not unless you engage in lengthy twisting of meaning) Gem fr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gem, see etymological fallacy. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- nothing etymological here. Just history and definitions. Now you can claim than uni teachers are teaching crap based on false history and etymological fallacy, despite it being perfectly in line with known facts and definitions... Gem fr (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Etymology, not definitions. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- nothing etymological here. Just history and definitions. Now you can claim than uni teachers are teaching crap based on false history and etymological fallacy, despite it being perfectly in line with known facts and definitions... Gem fr (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gem, see etymological fallacy. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- not "the best as assessed by the people". "the best" (as assessed by the people; People will have different ways to decide who are the best). aristos is literately the word for them, in Greek. Election by votes is THE aristocratic principle, as opposed to birth-right or any other mean to design people (exams, for instance: cooptation). Constitution writers did not used the word democracy for reasons: democracy was considered an awful, degenerate, regime back in the day (recent political events are no short of reasons why they would think so), and they tried their best to make a Republic, not a democracy. The correct designation is actually elective oligarchy (So said my teachers, and you can check it by yourself just by reading the definitions: oligarchy obviously apply, democracy do not unless you engage in lengthy twisting of meaning) Gem fr (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all; aristocracy is certainly not about electing "the best as assessed by the people". Government by people elected by the public is representative democracy. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Getting back to the original question. I doubt there is a word other than the already mentioned stochocracy, as this is more a theoretical construct than something that happens in the real world. But do read the short story "The Lottery in Babylon" by Jorge Luis Borges for something akin to this. --Xuxl (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was actually inspired by The Machine That Won the War which is an excellent short story. Although, the very nature of this discussion has probably spoiled the ending if you haven't already read it. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 12:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Side point: Why do none of these articles have sources? --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The 1971 novel The Dice Man (plus sequels) by Luke Rhinehart describes a man who applies a similar approach to his own life. As suggested above by Gem, Puzzledvegetable and SinisterLefty, problems (to put it mildly) arise from the choice of decisions to which the random process is applied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Carl Barks' 1952 story "Flip Decision" suggests the term flipocracy, based on the ideology of flipism. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- While governing based on heads or tails is a flippin' bad idea, choosing representatives that way may be better than elections. This would eliminate all the deceptive ads, lies, slander, secret campaign contributions, gerrymandering, recounts, etc., associated with elections. The lack of experience of those who win this "lottery" could be compensated for by assigning them staffs of experts, who would know how to write laws that can withstand legal challenges, etc. And unlike the mostly rich, white, male lawyers that get elected, the law of averages should make those randomly chosen actually representative of the population at large. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- this point, and others, are made in the stochocracy article. Gem fr (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
August 20
Treaty of Potsdam
Can anyone find the full text of the treaty, signed in 1805? See User:Dumelow/Treaty of Potsdam (1805). this source says "We here omit the well known Treaty of Alliance which has many times been published", yet I cannot seem to find it. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find it online, but several searches suggest the Consolidated Treaty Series may be a worthwhile reference to check into. It appears those with OED subscriptions may have access to it here. If you can't find anyone to look into it for you, perhaps WP:REX may have some leads.--Jayron32 01:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, that's an encyclopedia with an entry for the treaty series. They do sell it though... for $14,000 [6]. I also figured out it's in volume 58 of the series, which I see Mendaliv added while I was checking. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe the full/formal name (at least in English) is "Treaty of Friendship between Russia and Prussia concluded on 3 November 1805 by Tsar Alexander I and King Friedrich Wilhelm III, in the presence of Queen Luisa, by the tomb of Friedrich II in Garnisonkirche in Potsdam". It may be reprinted in G.F. de Martens, Recueil des traités et conventions conclus par la Russie. I think it might be available in French and Russian here: [7] Pages 476 to 491. The small text from 476 to 480 may be editor's notes or a preamble or something, I can't exactly tell without translating it more deeply. It says "22 octobre (3 novembre). Acte d'accession de l'Autriche au traité, conclu le même jour à Potsdam entre la Prusse et la Russie". If it's not that specific treaty it may be in the same book. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Another source refers to the Nov. 3, 1805 treaty as "Secret treaty of military concert against France, with related documents" (and in French, "Traité secret de concert militaire contre la France, avec documents connexes"), concluded between Prussia and Russia with the accession of Austria. This source says the printed text can be found in volume 58 of Clive Parry, Consolidated Treaty Series, 1648–1919, page 267 (I believe with French text beginning page 269). See OCLC 83656 to find this series at a library near you. Based on what I'm seeing, it's held by many academic law libraries. If you can't get it easily and are hoping for some quick scans, I'd suggest asking the UC Davis law-lib listserv. They're pretty nice on there. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yes, Oxford has it: [8], just not the precise site Jayron suggested. Apparently my library has some sort of peasant's subscription, so I can't actually see it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pages 476 - 480 are "the act of accession of Austria to the treaty concluded the same day [le même jour, see note below] at Potsdam between Prussia and Russia." The text of the treaty begins with the Déclaration (preamble, pp 480 - 482). The text of the Articles is on pp 482 - 489. The subscriptions are on pp 489 - 491. The Russian ruler signs on 22 October 1805, the Prussian ruler on 3 November. As mentioned, although the dates are different the day (Sunday in this case) is the same (Russia held on to the old calendar until after the 1917 revolution).
- There follows (p 491) a "Convention between His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias and His Majesty the King of Prussia on the march to follow a common accord in their actual relation with France." An "additional declaration" follows on pp 493 - 4. This is followed (pp 494 - 496) by "separate and secret articles". The subscriptions (pp 496 - 498) are dated as before. 2A00:23C5:3186:E600:3D9B:C5C7:2662:1431 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks all! I have requested the link Someguy1221 provided at WP:REX, and will request a scan through UC Davis as Mendaliv suggested if that fails. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
City rivalry in other European countries
It's fairly well known here in Finland that there is a friendly, jocular rivalry between three of the biggest cities: Helsinki, Tampere and Turku, and to a lesser extent within the capital area between Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa.
How is it in other European countries? What is the relationship, for example, in Germany between Berlin and Munich, or in France between Paris and Marseille, or in the UK between London and Birmingham? Unlike Finland, in those countries the corresponding cities are quite far apart, which should account for more of a cultural difference. How do people in these cities view those in the other cities? JIP | Talk 21:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there are rivalries between cities in the other European nations. And in the Americas. Dividing the world into “Us vs Them” is human nature. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- JIP -- I think that London and Paris are fairly unchallengeable within their own countries as far as any direct city-to-city rivalry goes. In England, there's more likely to be a Birmingham vs. Manchester rivalry (see: [9], [10]). I know that in Scotland there's Glasgow vs. Edinburgh rivalry, with those in Edinburgh seeing those in Glasgow as surly working-class louts, and those in Glasgow seeing those in Edinburgh as affected pretentious types. In Japan, there's a kind of rivalry between Kyoto (the traditional imperial capital), grouped together with nearby Osaka, against Tokyo (the Tokugawa shogunate and modern capital) -- referred to as Kansai vs. kanto). AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The geography of Canada encourages this trope. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- See also List of sports rivalries which spills over into this (but isn't that the point of team sport?)--Shantavira|feed me 06:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- For France, a quick search of the keywords unearthed articles about rivalries between Marseille and Paris, Strasbourg and Metz (in football) and Besançon and Dijon. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- https://www.itstuscany.com/en/the-rivalry-between-pisa-and-livorno/ --87.18.64.165 (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Germany has a lot of local rivalries. Berlin and Munich have a bit of a rivalry that goes back to the conflict between the king of Bavaria and the king (and later emperor) in Berlin, see for example Austrian-Prussian war. Also Nuremberg and Munich have some rivalry, since the Franconians try to distinguish themselves from Bavarians. But the most famous city-rivalry here is certainly between Cologne and Düsseldorf (in German). Two neighboring cities on the Rhine with distinct differences in local tradition, different local beers and different carnival festivities. And a long history of trying to surpass one another in the "importance" for the region. --2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
August 21
Negative yield bonds
So Germany is now selling bonds with negative yields.[13] That means you pay them some money to buy the bond, and at maturity they pay you back less than you paid in the first place. The incentive to buy (according to the article) is that yields of future issues might go even more negative, which will supposedly mean you can sell your only-slightly-negative-yield bond for a premium. This still sounds like an underpants gnome business plan to me: why would anyone buy your bond later for more than you paid for it, just because newly issued bonds were even worse? Why not just leave the money in the bank? And does it all mean that the .de economy is in deflation? This all seems paradoxical and I have to think there is some tax maneuver missing from the article, or something like that. Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- This may be the first time for Germany to sell 30 year bonds with negative yields, but they are hardly the first negative yield bonds [14]. As for the reasons why someone would want such a bond, well see these sources [15] [16] [17] [18]. Note as those sources say, some have no choice but to buy bonds. Not really mentioned there directly that I saw, perhaps since it's complicated and understood by hopefully anyone actually investing in bonds but note that government bonds may be considered safer than bank deposits. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I assume European nations have an equivalent to the US FDIC, which insures bank deposits, but they may also limit the amount insured, in the same manner. Thus, bonds may be safer for those with too much money to invest. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder if the negative yields amount to an asset tax then. If that's what they want, does something stop them from implementing a real one? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- How to avoid de facto asset tax? Start renewable energy company with it? Buy Vomit Comet tickets? Large female-only orgies? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, see deposit insurance. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I assume European nations have an equivalent to the US FDIC, which insures bank deposits, but they may also limit the amount insured, in the same manner. Thus, bonds may be safer for those with too much money to invest. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're an insurance company with, let's say, 10 million euros cash in reserve. You need this to be liquid to pay claims when needed. What do you do with it? You could deposit it in banks, but most of it won't be covered by deposit insurance, so it's subject to the credit risk of the banks. (In fractional-reserve banking, a deposit is essentially a loan to the bank.) Banks may also put restrictions on large withdrawals. Or, you can lend the money to the government. The sovereign credit risk of wealthy, stable countries like Germany is perceived to be extremely low; if Germany looked to be in danger of defaulting on its debts, you'd probably have other concerns, like the euro losing value. And their debt is extremely liquid, so it's easy to sell the bonds on the market if you need the money to pay out claims. Sure, you'd like to earn interest, but, oh well; the negative interest rate is just a cost of business. There's always a trade-off; you could be putting the money in riskier debt and earning more interest, but with higher liquidity risk and credit risk. Note that in real terms the interest rate on sovereign debt of many developed countries like Germany and the U.S. has been negative for a while. Attaching meaning to the quoted yield versus the real yield—which is all that matters—is an example of the money illusion. Germany is not currently experiencing deflation, though inflation has been low, below the European Central Bank target, which means some have called for more expansionary monetary policy. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- but you could still just hoard bills in some safe.
- Hoarding money in any form (bill in a safe, deposit in a bank...) incurs some risk (and cost to get protection against), so it is not so absurd a move to pay a trusted player to do that. The safest safe in the safest bank is probably more expensive. So it makes some sense to pay to have your money later. That is not the difficult question.
- The difficult question is: why don't they have better option?
- "I could make money if things get even worse" is speculative af (while bonds are supposed to be more of a hedging tool), and require you to pay upfront to play. Hard to find a worse option...
- Only reasonable answer are
- they immediately resell these bonds (with profit) to someone. Could be China, buying them for some purpose of monetary policy, reserve requirement or Renminbi management. Or some manager of hedging or complex financial tool.
- some laws require them to buy this bad stuff. for instance: Capital requirement
- some laws (accounting+taxing rules for instance) at least mitigate the loss enough
August 22
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Illness a topic in campaings?
Hey there,
Yesterday I saw a documentary about the Great Depression and the presidential campaign of 1932 and I wondered whether his political opponents ever "used" it in public campaigns. I find it hard to imagine, that Hoover or Ottinger in New York did not know about that and tried to take advantage of it.
I couldn't find anything about that in the articles on Wikipedia. Does anyone know, whether Roosevelts political opponents ever mentioned his disability in a campaign or know where I could read up on that? --2A02:8109:93C0:6B:9BA:A00C:FD9:3967 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that you begin by reading Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt and then move on to reading the relevant references in the article. I was born seven years after Roosevelt died, and as a child, older people told me that his disability was well known but not discussed much, because he was an effective leader and won four consecutive presidential elections, and that social mores were very different then. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to imagine in the era of Trump, but back then there was the concept of decency in politics. And it wasn't just because everybody was a nice guy, but because anyone trying to bring up the "private lives" of candidates would be slapped down hard by the voters, who considered such behaviour totally unacceptable. SinisterLefty (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Request for reading suggestions
Hello,
I am a Criminology student and I am stuck with the following question: How do psychological approaches of Crime differ from sociological approaches to crime.
In this regard, any reading suggestions/recommendations would be welcome. Particularly journal articles, or book-length manuscripts would be very helpful. Thank you.