Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 1

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.

September 1

The Libyan dinar

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14734420

The U.K. just shipped £950m's worth of Libyan dinar to Libya (I don't expect to see Col. Gaddafi's mugshot on it).

Who printed Libya's banknotes before? Did Libya hire a U.K. printer to print their money during Col. Gaddafi's regime?

I won't be surprised if Col. Gaddafi had his money printed in a foreign country. Many countries' banknotes and bonds are printed in the U.K. It's a big business. I also won't be surprised if the U.S. and its allies already have the capability to "print" many other countries' money. -- Toytoy (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The story you cited says, itself in the first sentence, "The cash, printed in the UK, is the first tranche of £950m that will be handed to Libya's Central Bank." Presumably, the body or company responsible for printing the cash in the U.K. was not allowed to print and/or ship the currency to Libya because of the embargo. --Jayron32 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is "tranche" really a commonly used word, outside Wikipedia? It sounds like a hillbilly talking about an excavation: ("Ah dug a big tranche out back.") What are more common synonyms? Edison (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it was the BBC's word, not mine. It just means "a portion", usually in the context of a series or sequence of portions which are intended to be doled out on a schedule. See wikt:tranche. --Jayron32 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, at least in the professional world

ALR (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The banknotes were printed by De La Rue in Hampshire (ref). DLR is the world's leading non-government printer of banknotes (and I believe postage stamps). The technical wherewithall to securely manufacture banknotes (to a sufficient standard) and to do the necessary secure handling of materials is beyond the banking systems of many smaller or poorer countries (any idiot can print banknotes, but then again any idiot can print banknotes that any idiot can print). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 07:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The same UK firm printed Libya's banknotes under the old regime - as the article notes, this is actually a shipment that was held in February when the uprising began. (The article doesn't go into detail, but I remember a couple of news stories from the time - the shipment was due to be flown out a day or two before the embargo came into force, but some enterprising civil servants managed to find enough paperwork to delay it for long enough...)

As Finlay notes, a substantial amount of banknote printing is outsourced to overseas commercial firms, and not merely by "small" countries - De La Rue, the firm in the original article, was involved in a major dispute over the last year with the Reserve Bank of India over banknote production. In terms of how widespread commercial vs. nationally-controlled banknote production is, Euro banknotes#Printing works has an interesting table showing the various firms producing euro notes, of which six are private-sector, including one (DLR again) who aren't even in the Eurozone. Shimgray | talk | 10:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How would Libya or any of the other countries keep the printing company from producing a couple extra runs of notes on the side for themselves? Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All in all I think it's obvious if you run a successful security printing company, it's in your interest to ensure you are really what you claim (and the only reason why anyone would use you is because they believe you are). If we take countries without the problems of recognition Libya currently has, this could easily lead to a massive lawsuit or legal settlement for breach of contract and other similar reasons which could (depending on the contract) be originated in the country the firm is located (most of them being located in countries with generally respected law systems) and where the judgement can likely be enforced by the court. And of course if the law suit or settlement isn't enough to bankrupt them, the loss of all their custom would be. There's also likely a risk of criminal charges. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to this, there's also likely to be heavy audit mechanisms in place, both internally (the company making sure its employees aren't on the take) and externally (someone checking serial numbers, etc etc.) It's unlikely that the contracts are as simple as "we'd like fifty crates of notes by next January, here's the printing plates, see you then"; there'll be some form of provision for oversight of the manufacture and shipping process, though I suspect exactly what that is is confidential. Shimgray | talk | 16:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a business built entirely on reputation. The ability of the company to make money (if you excuse the pun) hinges on the fact that entire nations can trust them. If they skimmed surplus banknotes for themselves, or otherwise participated in fraud or other such shenanigans, the risks of getting caught would end their business pretty much overnight. It would instantly and completely ruin them. They need to be scrupulously honest because they run on a business whose sole value comes from its scruples. If they can't be trusted to the highest degree, then no one is going to buy their product. --Jayron32 21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since their product is money, most people would be only too happy to buy it, at least until Libya could make another arrangement. Their product is 100% liquid. Googlemeister (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying. As several people have said, if De La Rue (or whoever) is caught blatantly skimming (if it's a smaller problem which the company takes action against it will still have a negative effect but perhaps they'll survive) stuff they produce, their business will basically collapse overnight. Most people who rely on them for printing will cancel any contracts and look for someone else to do their printing ASAP. They most likely won't accept anything which is been or has been produced but which they haven't officially accepted yet. DLR could try to sell what they produced to some third parties but other then the fact this would likely be illegal or at least something a court in their home country could put a stop, only unscrupulous people (or collectors) are likely to buy it. No one is going to want to be publicly associated with that (and they will also likely be at legal risk themselves), and it will also defeat the purpose since it will make it far easier for whichever country (or whatever) to know where the counterfeit or invalid notes have gone so it will know where to look out for them. I thought this was obvious at the time and Shimgray has also mentioned this but in case it is not, the unsanctioned money would be detectable via serial numbers (if they reused the serial numbers this will still be detected although knowing which one is the valid legal tender will be more difficult). And in case that part also isn't clear, any of the unsanctioned money will clearly not be legal tender. Worst case scenario from the POV of the country, they may need to make new notes and replace/cancel the old ones (making sure they don't accept the invalid ones). Also in the unlikely event there is really no legal action against the DLR people involved in their home country, I wouldn't put it past a number of the countries involved to assassinate those involved if the problem is severe enough. In other words, the only real risk is from a small group of people who think they can get away with it by being undetected (at least before they escape and hide with their ill-gotten gains), it's not something that's going to be beneficial to the company itself. And as has been said, for that same reason the company itself will have plenty of mechanisms to try and stop that. (And note that in that event there's only limited difference between asking how the company can manage it and how a government organisation can, the only things the government has to its advantage is a possible sense of patriotism/national pride, a clearer legal situation and framework and perhaps a greater ability to protect whistleblowers.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What is a "lay theologian"?

Category:Lay theologians gives that title to a bunch of subjects of Wikipedia articles. I can think of two possible meanings:

• A theologian who is a "lay person" in the old sense of the word, i.e. not an ordained clergyman, or perhaps neither that nor a monk, nun, etc.; or
• A theologian who is a "lay person" in the more modern sense of the word, i.e. not having professional credentials in that field.

Is there some consensus on this? (For now we have no article titled lay theologian.) Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In religious contexts, "lay" usually means not ordained. Thus, "lay clergy" are people who preach or serve other roles traditionally held by ordained ministers, but are not themselves ordained. A person may be considered an expert on theological issues (say, having an advanced degree in the subject) but may not be an ordained minister. That would be my understanding of a "lay theologian". --Jayron32 03:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Must...resist...urge...to...make...priest sex abuse joke. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I already laughed at the joke you didn't make. It was funny. --Jayron32 03:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I took great offense at the blasphemy you didn't commit, and the implied insult to a religion you didn't specify. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad I was able to resist, then. Priests the world over can breathe a sigh of relief and return to tending to the needs of their rectories. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ably aided by Vergers and their virges, no doubt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.179 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Very simply, a lay theologian is a philosopher specializing in a specific religion. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Trademark leaders

Mobutu had a trademark which was his leopard skin hat. Is there any other leaders who had trademarks to be easily recognized for? regardless his voice, her hair or face or commitment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.133 (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean trademark in a general sense, not a legal one, Hitler's toothbrush moustache, although common at the time, has since become closely linked with him. Abraham Lincoln's stovepipe hat is also almost uniquely associated with him, now. StuRat (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lenin had his goatee. Franklin Roosevelt had his cigarette holder. Abraham Lincoln had two: the stovepipe hat and the chin curtain beard. Jawaharlal Nehru had his jacket. Bill Clinton had his cigar. well, maybe a bit of a joke on the last one --Jayron32 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Abe Lincoln wore a tall stovepipe hat and a beard(did other US Presidents?), sufficient clues to tell the audience what character a child in a school play portrays. How about Neville Chamberlain and his umbrella? It inspired Umbrella Man (JFK assassination) who flourished an umbrella (coincidentally) at the 1963 Kennedy assassination, as well as a cartoon villain in a 1967 Spiderman cartoon, the "Sinister Prime Minister." How about Churchill and his cigar? Douglas MacArthur, leader of a fair number of "warfighters", had a strange looking corncob pipe as his trademark. Montgomery wore an odd beret which was rarely if ever worn by other WW2 British generals. Patton seems to be the only general who wore a signature pair of pearl-handled pistols in WW2. Edison (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As for beards, with few exceptions, we started with an era where no US President had facial hair, then hit an era where all US Presidents had facial hair, then returned to the no facial hair rule. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Edisons parenthetical question: Other U.S. presidents wore beards, but Lincoln was the only one who wore the "beard and no mustache" combination known as the chin curtain. See Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison for some close-cropped beards and Rutherford B. Hayes for an impressively long flowy-type one. Other than Grant, however, Harrison and Hayes were too obscure to merit having a "trademark", and Grant's beard is probably not distinctive enough. --Jayron32 04:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

commons:Category:Yasser Arafat. I think you can spot it. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he supposedly arranged his head scarf to look like Palestine, although in this pic [1] it seems to have annexed the Sinai peninsula. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ooh. Another one: Fidel Castro and his olive drab fatigues, especially with the hat, like here and here. --Jayron32 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And while we're on that one, who would Che Guevara have been without the black beret. --Jayron32 04:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Che an admirer of Field Marshall Montgomery? Edison (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No hat ma, but Gandhi usually wore a dhoti. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir Robert Menzies was famous both in Australia and overseas for his eyebrows. He had a head of pure-white hair, under which were his notoriously jet-black bushy eyebrows. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See, I think eyebrows, and I think of Leonid Brezhnev. But Menzies had some pretty impressive ones as well. --Jayron32 04:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Mikhail Gorbachev's prominent forehead birthmark count? Thinking back, 'Russian, commie, bald, has red thing on his head' would be the way that a lot of folks would describe the man... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Nielsen revealed it as a trademark in The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oEA6zK_8u8 (at 2:10). The clip also shows some of the others mentioned here. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai is usually photographed with his cap thing and his green cape thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Ghadafy and his medals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Amongst British prime ministers; Neville Chamberlain's wing collar, Winston Churchill's bow tie and cigar and Harold Wilson's pipe and Aquascutum coat. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Chamberlain was more famous for his umbrella, and Wilson's raincoat was Gannex (made by his friend and future, ahem, prison reformer Joe Kagan). Anthony Eden's Homburg hat was so famous it was named after him. How could you forget Margaret Thatcher's handbag? Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also remember James Maxton's long hair, which inspired a memorable heckle when he was indicting the Government for the large numbers of unemployed on Clydeside: "Aye Jimmy, and every second one of them a barber". Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle's military attire, particularly the hat. That is to say he didn't always where them, but you could tell who it was easily if he did. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If a movie director wanted the audience to identify a character instantly as DeGaulle, he would put the hat on a tall actor with a long nose. Edison (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau always wore a red rose in his lapel. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mao Zedong's peasant jackets (he carefully promoted his image). Kaiser Wilhelm II, German Emperor had a distinctive mustache, as did Stalin. Ayatollah Khomeini's beard, although recently the large number of other long-bearded Islamists has diminished his brand value. John Major's distinctive upper lip and philtrum, used by every caricaturist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And Kaiser Wilhelm II is also known for his pointy helmet: [2]. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How about Franz Joseph of Austria with his bald head and crazy mustache? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That style was somewhat common at the time, and it wasn't even best associated with Franz Joseph. See Ambrose Burnside for whom sideburns were actually named for. While he was a rather prominent miltary and political figure (General and Senator), he was never the leader of his nation, however. --Jayron32 16:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gerry Adams' beard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which isn't all that distinctive to him. You hear of a "Nehru Jacket" and a "Hitler Mustache" and a "Lincoln hat" but I'm not sure if I said someone had an "Adams beard" they'd instantly know who I was talking about... --Jayron32 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Grizzly Adams did have a beard." Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on some of the items mentioned above: Mao suit, Nehru jacket; also keffiyeh (Arafat's head scarf), kepi (de Gaulle's cap), Pickelhaube (Kaiser Wilhelm II pointed helmet).

Other leaders with trademark items that come to mind are Kim Jong-il (bouffant hairstyle, sunglasses, and a grey zippered jacket), Wojciech Jaruzelski (large sunglasses), and Lech Wałęsa (mustache and a lapel pin with the image of Our Lady of Częstochowa). And going further back in history, what about Napoleon Bonaparte's bicorne or the Duke of Wellington and his boots? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Medieval women and personal liberty

In which country or kingdom did medieval women (from the 12th to late 15th centuries) enjoy the most personal liberty? I would imagine it to have been England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What kind of women? And what kind of "personal liberty"? I suppose if you are talking about noblewomen, then you would be looking for a country that did not have Salic law, and where women were not normally secluded. For lower class women, you may be looking for a place where they can own, buy, sell, and inherit property, including houses, slaves, etc. For peasant women, we would have to look for a a place where they had freedom of movement, i.e. they can leave the land and move somewhere else, for example if they wanted to marry someone from a different village, or wanted to move to a city. But in that case both men and women were, at least in feudal countries, normally considered property of the landowner, and they could be bought and sold with the rest of the land and couldn't leave. For slaves, well, slaves of course don't have any personal liberty, but some places were more protective of their slaves than others. And what about nuns and abbesses and other religious women? This shows my own bias but I would go with Jerusalem in the twelfth century (at least for Catholic women of the middle and upper classes). You may be right about England, especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries after the Plague. But we should also remember that their concept of "personal liberty" was probably very different from yours, so do you mean a modern western standard of liberty (or one of many possible modern western standards of it), or according to some medieval standard? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

England had the Wife of Bath (whom even the most radical feminist might hesitate to invent, if Chaucer hadn't already done so). However, I'm not sure that women in England were greatly favored over women on the continent with respect to the formal legalities until the latter 19th century, after the Code Napoléon had been imposed on wide areas of the Continent, and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 and various Married Women's Property Acts had been passed in England. Of course, during much of the 18th and 19th centuries, Englishwomen had an advantage over Frenchwomen, in that Englishwomen mixed in society before their marriages, and were able to try to attract potential husbands, and say no to any suitor that they disapproved of, while respectable Frenchwomen were somewhat secluded from adult social occasions before marriage, and were very often presented with an arranged marriage as a fait accompli which they would have a very difficult time saying no to. However, this had to do with social customs, and not laws. (Sorry I can't give specifics on the medieval period.) AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with AnonMoos, that there is not much that suggests that during the medieval period England had a particular advantage in this as compared to most other European countries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Social class is also important. In many societies, peasant women enjoyed freedoms not available to upper-class women: peasant women could often work (crafts at home or agricultural labor), dress more freely, socialise in a less rigid fashion, and be involved in the rituals of folk religion. Of course, the upper classes had other freedoms, such as freedom from work and from hunger. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, do you mean Europe or Christendom only? Don't forget that Islam gave women rights that European or Christian women didn't get until the C19 -- the right to own property, for example. Or what about the Iroquois in North America or the Minangkabau of Indonesia? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that women in Christian Europe had no right to own property? The article Women in the Middle Ages is pretty vague about this matter. Flamarande (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean anywhere in the world. And women did inherit and own property in medieval Europe. I have created many articles on medieval heiresses. Cecily Bonville, 7th Baroness Harington was the richest heiress in late 15th century England having received much property and two titles when her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather died within the space of two and half months during the Wars of the Roses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think that, before the modern era, you would need to look outside Europe for the place where women were most free. Minangkabau society appears to have offered women more power and autonomy than anywhere with an Abrahamic religion. The same may have been true in some pre-Columbian American societies and in other parts of Southeast Asia. Certainly women had considerable autonomy in the traditional societies of non-Islamic West Africa (i.e. the forested regions of West Africa). Within Europe, I would expect to find the greatest autonomy for women in the areas where patriarchal forms such as feudalism and tribalism were least established, namely regions such as Norway and Switzerland. As an aside, I would note that Wikipedia seems almost systematically to neglect gender relations in its coverage of cultures and national histories. No doubt this is related to the gender bias of most users. Marco polo (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather think that this is because gender relations have not been a major topic of standard and especially of popular history treatments. It now is an active field of study, but much of the results is still only found in specialized academic publications. I can't remember gender relations as significant topics in Runciman or Ostrogorsky or Gibbon or Norwich, to name a few of the more widely read historians. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Women's influence in history was pretty much written out by 19th century historians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How many ancient records do we know of women? Most women we know of are the mothers, sisters, wifes and lovers of great men. History is mostly about warriors, rulers and leaders and the female variety was a bit rare in ancient times. It's hardly the fault of 19th century historians (Women's influence in history was never written in in the first place).Flamarande (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In that time period, Sardinia had the greatest property rights for commoner women, thanks to Eleanor of Arborea. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia article reveals nothing about why women should have had "the greatest property rights" during her term. It would be appreciated if you could add some cited material covering this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Native Americans in the United States?Smallman12q (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I Scandinavia, women were quite equal to men before Christianity (see Ringkvinna), and this equality seem to have reamined in the law untill about 1300. --Aciram (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The last time I read a major history of women in European (ie: post 800s) society, it emphasised that rights varied continuously in space and time. What one women could get away with on one day could well be inverted in 20 years time. It also strongly emphasised the classed nature of female power, explicitly dividing the treatment of women up as treatment of women by class (Marxist relationship to production sense). Thankfully we have plenty of evidence of women in history, just as we do for the labouring classes in general: Legal rolls, monastery records, inquisitions. The other thing to watch here is the construction of "personal liberty" or "rights" which are very modern inventions, "liberty" being an insult related to riot and revolution relatively recently (Wilkes and Liberty!). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Planned economy

Everyone knows that planned economy is not going to work. At least planned economy was among one of the big failures that killed the Soviet Union.

However, in the world of "free economy", we have more and more supermarkets, fast food chains and discount stores and fewer and fewer ma and pa stores. Many countries have big business groups that may control more than 10% of their GDP (Korea is a good example). There are also big international companies.

Is it possible that if we let the government have all the big companies' business information, at least theoretically, we may create a socialist country from a capitalist one? Great economists like Friedrich Hayek hated communism for all their lives. But can a free economy become a controlled and planned one overnight just because almost all business activities are recorded and we have almost limitless computing power?

I mean there are big companies. They have computerized records for all buying and selling transactions. Many consumers use credit cards. Many people buy and sell over the Internet. Most of us use ATMs for cash. Maybe we have already made the invisible hand visible.

The governments may force all business to hand over their records. A big business, if there's no anti-trust law, may control a whole country by endless M&A. As a result, a person may know almost everything about a country's business. Does it make him/her capable of making doable and very detailed economy plans? -- Toytoy (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand, you are asking, "Given the computerization of financial records and smaller number of companies controlling large parts of the market, could the government operate a planned economy efficiently?" The answer depends on how you define efficiency. By the standards usually applied in the Western world (supply of commodities) the answer would be no, at least not as efficiently as the market. Without competition, we would probably see a decrease in the supply of goods. However there are other ways of measuring efficiency: happiness, equality and connection with our work and fellow citizens. By those measures a planned economy based on our well developed market economy might actually work very well. It wont be happening anytime soon, especially in the US, but who knows. The issue real comes down to what should be the goal of society, with a free market it is the production and consumption of commodity, with a command economy the goal can be whatever the commander wants it to be. I would recommend reading Karl Marx's thoughts on this as well as some current Marxist thinkers like Slavoj Žižek. --Daniel 15:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is more "why can a giant multinational company with a budget much bigger than most states operate as a planned economy, but a state cannot?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

People are gathering information around the world. Say browser cookies may locate individual consumers so big business now knows who they are and what they want. Buyers were faceless decades ago. Now there are countless ways to collect their detailed information. It seems to me that some basic assumptions of free economy are no longer true. At least for commodities, we may develop better ways to produce and distribute staple foods so there is much less waste. The worldwide markets for grains (wheat, rice, corn ...) has already been controlled by a few big companies. I guess it's not very far from controlled economy because they control many countries' growth of grains and many more countries' sales. -- Toytoy (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that giant multinational corporations have very different goals and spheres of influence than governments, and when, say, governments need to be concerned with matters of education, infrastructure, police, national defense, etc, functions which do not necessarily operate on the same principles as businesses do. Businesses do a pretty shitty job of being governments (Company towns generally all failed in the long run for being mainly tools to keep their workers and their families tied to the company indefinitely as a sort of modern-day serfdom, their inability to allow their workers any form of upward mobility or betterment led to their downfall) and likewise governments don't do all that good of a job running businesses (see Soviet Union). China's recent success is directly tied to the State getting the heck out of the markets and basically allowing the free market to flourish in China. The government has a role to play in business, in that it can act as an arbiter of fairness and prevent business interests from acting in harmful ways, but what it can't really do all that well is actually run the businesses themselves. --Jayron32 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm a big fan of the Soviet economy, but in 1917 Russia was a backwater country that had just lost a war. In 1940, after a long and grueling civil war, the Soviet union was able to effectively withstand the assault of one of the strongest military powers with some of the most modern tactics and equipment in the world. In 1957, they put Sputnik into orbit, and in 1961 Gagarin, and they continued to scare the heck out of the West for another 30 years. That seems to indicate that they were able to perform some very impressive things from a very lousy base. Yes, they lost the economic race in the end, but than the West had a very long head start. I wouldn't be to eager in patting ourselves on the back... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they put someone one the moon and built nuclear weapons at the cost of starving half of their population and destroying all non-ballistics related aspects of their economic future. I'd hardly call it a success. At best, they were able to force through some symbolic victories, like beating the Americans to space, but at the cost of pretty much wasting the rest of their economy. It was a house of cards from the beginning. The U.S. space program was built on economic surplusses. The Soviet space program was built on taking bread out of the mouths of the working class. Yeah for social equality! --Jayron32 21:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

They asked people to die for the greater good. It's not an alien concept: it's what all world militaries do all the time. Obviously I do not condone the killing of millions of people, it was far too large a number. The concept of trading deaths for the better lives of the remainder should not be dismissed as barbarian. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the "greater good" was the enrichment of the power and glory and wealth of the Soviet Union's ruling class. The irony and absolute hubris of a government claiming to be creating a "worker's paradise" by killing off millions of people so that the ruling elite, the Nomenklatura could drive big fancy cars and consolidate power and claim victories against the "evil U.S.A." is so completely freaking rediculous that it boggles the mind. The individual choosing to die for the greater good is a noble cause; killing your own people for your own personal "greater good" is disgusting. --Jayron32 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the major fault in the Soviet Union's centrally planned economy was that it was planned by that ruling elite of elderly communist men, who were opposed to fundamental changes. If they had a democracy, and particularly a direct democracy, thus avoiding the corrupt politicians, they might have been the ones to develop the Internet, etc. That is, if everyone could vote, they might support new technology, and with the weight of the government behind it, they might have had the resources devoted to it's development to bring it about more quickly. Central planning was able to bring about rapid industrialization and improvements in literacy, and presumably could have done the same for modern technologies, has the rulers only been willing to embrace them. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Every so often, someone tells me "but everyone's pro-life, so it's a meaningless distinction". And every so often, I have it confirmed that the pro-life perspective is totally alien to much of the world. I wish I could link to an article describing the actual pro-life position, but all we seem to have is stuff about opposition to abortion, which would be like our only articles on evolution being about its opposition to Biblical creationism. 86.164.62.111 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And they never did get a guy on the moon either. Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Another issue may be that corporations tend to promote staff according to merit more than governments, which frequently are replaced on the basis of ideology and issues which have nothing to do with economics. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous posters that the reason government-run businesses earn less money isn't that they lack information on how to do so, it's that they put a lower priority on that, versus things like providing jobs to the public, on the good side, or jobs for incompetent relatives, friends, and financial contributors, on the bad side. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Toytoy, Start with the assumption that ma and pa stores are superior in some unspecified way to supermarkets, fast food chains and discount stores. Next, challenge that assumption as groundless: Customers not having a personal relationship with the owners of a retail establishment has astonishingly little to do with whether an economy succeeds or fails. Then, it is time to tackle Socialism, which is far more than a collection of information (big companies’ data in the hands of government). What is the data going to be used for? Will there be restrictions imposed on consumer behavior, or that of companies? Will wages and / or prices be controlled? Unions? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Currency question

Suppose Norway were to adopt the Mauritian rupee as their currency (obviously, this is a hypothetical question), without any sort of liaison with the Mauritian government, meaning that money exchanged, taxed etc. within Norway would be in Mauritian rupees.

1. Would the Mauritian economy be affected, and if so, how?
2. If negatively, would the Mauritian government have any legal recourse against the Norwegian government?

--Leon (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Increased demand for a currency, all else being equal, will deflate it (prices in rupees would go down), but the Mauritians could counter this by printing more without inflation. The problem would be if the Mauritians got used to it and then Norway changed their mind and started to dump rupees, which would cause inflation and potentially difficult issues for the Mauritians. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It should greatly help the economy of the smaller nation with the less-stable currency, since it would then inherit the stability of the larger economy. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A danger here is that, if the Mauritian rupee became Norway's currency, since Norway is an oil exporter, the rupee could face increased demand (as a "commodity currency") and upward pressure on global currency markets. As the rupee rose, prices would tend to deflate in Mauritius, but Mauritian exports would suffer by losing price competitiveness. The Mauritian government and central bank could respond in three ways: 1) By lowering interest rates on the rupee, they would decrease its attractiveness. 2) As others have said, Mauritius could issue enough of the currency to meet and exceed demand, thereby forcing the exchange rate down, though calibrating such an operation to stop short of destabilizing inflation could be tricky. 3) They could impose capital controls limiting the circulation of rupees outside of Mauritius and/or the repatriation of rupees and require that all trade with Mauritius be conducted in another currency, such as the euro or US dollar. Incidentally, the imposition of capital controls would be one form of recourse against Norway, since the Mauritian central bank controls the issuance of rupees, and banning the export of rupees would soon cause a currency shortage in Norway, with damage to the Norwegian economy from lack of a means of exchange. Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Such things do happen. For instance, Montenegro adopted the Euro unilaterally from outside the Eurozone. In theory, the answer to the first question depends on how responsible the central banks are. In principle, there are huge potential benefits to Mauritius, which could have a life-changing increase to its revenue from the seigniorage gained by multiplying the total of its rupees in circulation. In practice, Norway would soon get fed up with the arrangement, so Mauritius would need to discipline itself and have enough reserves always on hand to buy in the flood of unwanted rupees as soon as it came. As an alternative (and this is a reason why the scenario would be very unlikely to develop), Mauritius could simply demonetize all of its existing bank notes and issue new ones: Russia did this once with the rouble, giving only a few days for its own citizens to exchange their notes within Russia, so that huge quantities of roubles were left unchanged and became worthless. This gave a big short-term boost to the Russian central bank but also caused a loss of confidence in the rouble everywhere.

The second question is about international law. If there is no universal agreement on such matters (and I've never heard of one) then it's a question of what international agreements Norway and Mauritius have entered into. Even then, enforcement of such agreements is practically impossible. Even the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization has no concept of awarding damages or restitution. Moonraker (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Panama presents an interesting case: They have a native currency (the Panamanian balboa) which is pretty obsolete because everyone uses American banknotes. They tried to print their own banknotes, but they flopped, so they just use American dollars and call them Balboas. --Jayron32 21:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems a rocky policy to me.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! So if, in the other direction, say, Bangladesh, adopted the Qatari riyal (I'm picking Bangladesh and Qatar as their national GDPs are similar, though their GDP per capita figures are vastly different), how would this affect either country? Presumably Bangladesh wouldn't mysteriously get richer (if it were that simple, I'd expect to see it tried!), but would the riyal lose value? Or, rather, would it gain even further value owing to increased Bangladeshi demand?

ALSO, Seigniorage is a concept I don't think I fully appreciate: is it the way that new cash enters the system, and furthermore the way in which the total value stored in cash can increase? I'm aware that cash represents only a small fraction of the total value accounted for in bank deposits, but it is (I believe) nonetheless an important part of the system.--Leon (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevant article dollarization... AnonMoos (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talon of Gold/Silver/Copper

What is a 'talon,' in the context of "Talon of Gold," and what is the value of such? It seems to be somewhat exact, since references to being paid a quarter or half talon are common. --75.128.244.178 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean talent of gold? Moonraker (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it. Thanks a lot. --75.128.244.178 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While some people have a talent for making gold, many others would like to get their claws on some. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shiva

If Shiva is the god of destruction, why do Hindus revere him as a good god? --76.211.88.37 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do they revere him as a specifically "good" god? My (limited) understanding is that he is revered as a powerful, important god, or, in some traditions, as avatars of the Supreme God (Atman), with Vishnu the Protector being another prominent avatar, along with Devi and Ganesha and etc. It might also be noted that destruction need not be "bad". (Is the Judeo-Christian deity a "bad" god because he decided to kill most people in a horrendous flood? Is not destruction a necessary part of existence?) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In Western or Abrahamic religions, good and evil are opposite and separate things. In Eastern religions, however, good and evil, and all opposites, tend to be seen as different aspects of the same thing. Going a bit farther East, the yin-yang symbol is a good illustration of this, where the black and white define one another, and are contained within each other. This actually seems like a better model, to me, since it's impossible for a God to be both all-powerful and also all-good. If that was the case, why do natural disasters occur ? StuRat (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I should just note that, "it's impossible for a God to be both all-powerful and also all-good" is Sturat's view, but it is not something that philosophy, logic, or theology have generally agreed with him on. I suggest starting with theodicy and Problem of evil. I note that, if you are Christian, the Irenaean theodicy strikes me as most compatible with the Gospels. Why else is it so hard for the rich man to enter into Heaven? 86.164.62.111 (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our article Shiva provides a pretty thorough explanation. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem of the question is that it assumes that destruction is evil. I suppose one way of looking at Shiva is that he selectively destroyes things to make new room for new things, just like how a forest fire can lead to new forest growth. Also, just refering to the god Shiva as the god of destruction is a bit narrow. He is also associated with yogic meditation, and many of the Saivite sect believe that he encompases creation, preservation, AND, destruction. Rabuve (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Shiva as Nataraja (the lord of dances) performing the tandava, the continuous cycles of destruction and creation in the Universe (and to an extent, the cycle of [re]birth, life, and death.

It's also important to note that in polytheisms, deities are actually personifications of natural forces, thus it's not surprising that you can think of them in physical terms. There is no true concept of good or evil, only the concept of balance (the laws of conservation of matter, mass, energy etc.). In the Trimurti, Shiva is the destroyer, Vishnu the preserver, and Brahma the creator.¹ All three are regarded as different aspects of the same supreme being, and all three represent the cycles or rhythms of the universe from the smallest (like perhaps matter and antimatter) to largest of things (like the cyclic model of the universe). Shiva, perhaps, is best regarded as the personification of entropy.

¹Note that in other sects in Hinduism, the number may be 5 or 6 deities. In other sects, all of the functions are attributed to Shiva alone.

Destroying, in conjunction with creating is a common theme in most religions. Most have cycles in which man and the world is created and then destroyed again in order to give way to a new cycle, especially in religions which have some form of return of the soul (like the Christian afterlife or the Hindu reincarnation). Examples are the Judeo-Christian-Islamic apocalypse,² the Mayan apocalypse, the Norse ragnarok, etc. And the goals of these religions is to survive the destruction in order to exist in the next cycle.

²Despite the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god being colloquially known as the 'creator', he actually does more than create. He is also depicted as destroying (the deluge, armageddon) and preserving.

Buddhism (which developed from Hinduism) is perhaps one of the few exceptions to this. As instead of striving to survive into the next cycle, the goal of Buddhism is instead to leave the cycle altogether, as it regards the cycles (i.e. reality) as illusions of a single thing (again mirroring modern theories in quantum physics). -- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)