Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 September 12

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 12

Edward G. Robinson + feeding pigs = in what film ?

Hello L.H. (Learned Humanitarians) ! In Chief of Hearts (The Simpsons, 2010) , I saw the great EGR as a cameo, associated with pigs feeding from some unidentified cruor in a shed : what film does it refer to ? Thanks beforehand for your answers. Arapaima (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a big Simpsons fan, though I don't recall any Robinson film with Pigs (that doesn't mean there wasn't any) could it just be a inside joke with the Simpsons, possibly just ridiculing the fact that Robinson is an immigrant from Eastern Europe and could have easily grown up as a poor pig farmer? Just guessing here. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The montage shows scenes which remind Homer of Clancy. Clancy resembles Robinson, and, unfortunately (due to the slang word "pig" meaning a police man) he also resembles a pig. See the last sentence in the 2nd to last paragraph here: [1]. I don't believe there is any real movie with both Robinson and pigs. StuRat (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks kindly to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.73.201 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Are you Arapaima ? If so, may we mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Could be The Red House (film), where he plays a farmer.John Z (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I thought there'd be some hint at a film, since The Simpson's cultural references are sometimes deliciously far-fetched...BTW, yes, it was me, riding one of my old iMacs (these dear old hags, with their OS 9 or X, don't know how to log in, but they are so sweet to use...). T.Y. , Arapaima (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

International waters on the Great Lakes?

It is 12 Nautical miles but also 3 nautical miles for civil law? Each North American Great Lake spans more than that. Or does the 3 and 12 only apply to saltwater? Marketdiamond (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. The Great Lakes are split right down the middle between the US and Canada, except in places with special provisions (for islands and such), so there are no international waters there. StuRat (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to know thanks for the quick reply! Marketdiamond (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. The actual border shows up on any good map. I'll mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? "Pretty much, yes." to what? Is that answering the first or the second question asked? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I had to think about that for a second, but the last question, and StuRats context explains it further. If I have it right no part of any Great Lake is not at least claimed by either the U.S. or Canada, the borders are "right down the middle" usually. Referencing maps also confirmed, RATS to my Casino boat out of Cleveland idea ala SunCruz Casinos no wonder Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis had to move to Florida from Toronto to do it, lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

At least in this case, the international waters rule does not apply. I suspect it's not so much that the water isn't salty, but that you would have to travel through the territory of one nation or the other to get there that makes this ineligible to be international waters. For example, the Great Salt Lake is 28 miles wide at parts, but I believe it's still entirely US territory. The whole idea of international waters is to allow safe conduct of vessels which might otherwise be molested by the navies of the nations which claim them. However, in the Great Lakes, nobody has any business being there without the permission of the US or Canada, since there is no place to go on them other than the US or Canada. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

For the curious, a little historical context is here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there's a small triangle of water between Alaska and BC which each side wants to pawn off on the other. Is that where poisonous jellyfish hang out, or what ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we just want to have our own Bir Tawil underwater. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice link Alansplodge! Marketdiamond (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a little more about the boundary commission, whom I imagine sitting in a rowing boat with a map and compass arguing about where the border line should go; however it's more likely that they used a pencil and ruler in a well heated office somewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Heard they sometimes just use darts and blindfolds after a long night of drinking, would explain the non-logic of some border areas. lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do most republics have ceremonial presidents?

I've wondered why there are several republics have presidents who have mostly ceremonial roles. I can understand a monarchy where the head of state has limited powers, as usually they are monarchies for tradition or tourism, but why republics? Wouldn't it be more logical for republics to have presidential systems where the president is both head of state and head of government, or even a semi-presidential system like in Russia or France where the prime minister is more or less an assistant to the president and is basically a more powerful vice president? Why is this the case in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One answer grounded in realism, but without a source: A ceremonial head of state can be tasked with doing all sorts of time-consuming ceremonial things that a head of government would rather not spend the time on. Some potential examples can be seen in Head_of_state#Symbolic_role. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Having a ceremonial figurehead helps by having someone go to state dinners, state funerals, etc., leaving the real leader free to spend his time doing more useful things. StuRat (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec2) Having a president with limited political power allows him/her to be more impartial in representing the nation. The president doesn't need to be involved in campaigning or mud-throwing. Similar to a monarch, such a president can be somewhat neutral figure that facilitates stable foreign relations. - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a historical context too. Countries that have changed from a monarchy to a republic can keep the same apparatus of government by giving the president a similar role to the displaced monarch. Greece is an example of this, who deposed King Constantine and established the Third Hellenic Republic in a referendum in 1973. In post WWI Germany and Austria, the new presidents had less power than the emperors that they replaced, but otherwise the system remained the same. In the Republic of Ireland, where there had previously been no self-governance, they were able to adopt system based on the Westminster model that they were familiar with, with the president replacing the role of the king. In the post-colonial period, many Commonwealth countries were actively encouraged by Britain to go down this line, if they didn't want to retain the Queen as head of State. See also Westminster system#Role of head of state. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made a mistake in the answer above - Ireland first became independent as the Irish Free State which had Dominion status. The head of state was still the king, who appointed a Governor-General on the advice of the Irish cabinet. This continued until 1937 when the office of President of Ireland was created to take over the powers of the Governor-General. India had a similar but shorter transitional phase as a dominion. Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Russian patronyms

How do you say the patronyms "son of Louis" or "daughter of Louis" in Russian?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Slavic naming customs has some background. It doesn't list any cognates of Louis/Lewis/Ludwig in Russian, but Louis (given name) has an interlanguage link to the Russian wikipedia, so you could combine that with the standard patronymic rules from Russian and work out a reasonable answer. --Jayron32 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Russian equivalent to Louis is Людовик (Lyudovik), which doesn't seem to be a particularly popular name in Russia. The patronymics are Людовикович (Lyudovikovich), e.g. Пётр Людовикович Драверт, and Людовиковна (Lyudovikovna), e.g. Лела Людовиковна Цурцумия. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to transliterate (those of us who are completely familiar with Cyrillic easily forget exactly how confusing those look to people who don't), those two very long names that Kpalion posted are Pyotr Lyudovikovich Dravert and Lela Lyudovikovna Tsurtsumiya. --Mr.98 (talk)

And in case anyone is interested, Dravert is a Russian scientist, poet and writer; and Lela Tsurtsumia is "the most popular" Georgian pop/folk singer. Astronaut (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia is a Greek Orthodox country. There is no reason for a French Catholic name to be popular there. In imperial Russia, the name Louis was usually changed to Ludwig. The surname "Lyudvigovich" is reasonably well known. See Otto Lyudvigovich Struve, for instance. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious police in Saudi Arabia, do they carry firearms?

Do they carry firearms? are they uniformed? Thank you. Timothy. Timothyhere (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on getting some more direct references to answer your question, but in the meantime, the article Legal system of Saudi Arabia has some background information you may find related to your inquiry. --Jayron32 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Found more. The so-called "religious police" are officially known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice or the Mutaween and according to the Wikipedia article, they are currently unarmed, but previously carried wooden canes as weapons. That article, and the related article Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia has some more background as well. --Jayron32 17:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Timothyhere (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the economy a "renewable resource"?

Hi. While arguing spastically one day my mind conjured up this unusual question. Basically, what I think my question means is: can an economy return its net revenue toward creating more resources that in turn generate more revenue? I'm not considering "pulling money out of thin air", though wind energy could work if more efficient; I'm hoping someone will make sense of my question. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 17:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are simply describing the concept of investment. But maybe I have misunderstood you. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Economies can re-invest the money generated in ways that return more investment. There are limits to growth, however (at an absolute physical end, there's the Second Law of Thermodynamics but practical human economies are going to hit that limit long before that). Even renewable resources have finite energy outputs — there is a limited amount of wind energy to be harnessed for example — we're nowhere near it, obviously, and it's a very large number, but it's completely finite. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "net revenue"? Economies are usually measured in terms of production (GDP). Pretty much everything that is produced is then consumed, so the net is essentially zero (there is some investment, which is basically defering consumption until later, and there is some international trade, which involves the production and consumption happening in different countries, but everything gets consumed somewhere in the end). You're basically talking about economic growth, though, so that article may be useful. --Tango (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

John Nash 's "Over the top" : what precise date ?

Hello L.H. . At what date in 1918 did the Artists Rifles's 1° Battallion scramble over the top to attack towards Marcoing, near Cambrai ? The picture can be seen here : File:NashOverTheTop.jpg. Thanks a lot beforehand. signé Arapaima (I'm using an iMac, & the old miss doesn't know how to log in...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.73.201 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The full title is "'Over The Top': First Artists' Rifles at Marcoing, 30 December 1917", do you have a reason to doubt that date is correct?—eric 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This particular battle is more often referred to as the "Action at Welsh Ridge"[2], in which the Germans attacked across snow covered ground wearing white camouflage suits, and penetrated a British salient in the line near Cambrai. The 1st Battalion, the Artists' Rifles was ordered to counter-attack. A fuller account can be read in The Regimental Roll of Honour and War Record of the Artists' Rifles (1/28th, 2/28th and 3/28th battalions, the London Regiment T. F.) page xxvi. The modern descendant of the Artists Rifles is 21 Special Air Service Regiment. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks awfully ! I added the right date to World War I in popular culture & John Nash (artist). Alan, thanks +++ for your excellent docs. Ghastly...My grand-parents owned a farm in that region, & my father (born in 1910) told me that, while playing as a 12 years old boy in the fields with his pals, they would find here and there some half-buried skeleton. And it was to come back 21 years later ! ..T.y. Arapaima (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What were the methods of collecting public housing rent in the 1960s/70s in the UK?

Public housing in the UK in the 50s and 60s was owned by the government or by non-profit organisations. My question is: how did the councils collect these rents? Today, tenants can pay it online, for example. But 60-odd years ago did you have to go to the council with a rent book? Specifically I'd like to know whether or not members of the local council did the rounds collecting the rents from tenants in government properties. I'm thinking about the UK, specifically Glasgow. Thank you! - Kiskispal

Kiskispal (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal knowledge, based on having worked on old housing files: Tenants could pay at a local rent office (of which there would have been many more than there are today) and there were also, certainly in the earlier part of the period, council workers who would call at properties and collect the rent. A rent card or rent book was used to keep a record of payments. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well in the Black Country we had a rentman come round every week, then every fortnight after about 1965. This happened to my knowledge right up until the 1990s in that case. I also had a friend in South Yorkshire who was the rent lady for large parts of Rotherham in the 1990s. (My parents kept every single rent book by the way. They paid rent for a total of 48 years.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Same here. We had a rent collector (and insurance collector, and the baker, and the coalman, and the laundryman, and the paperboy, and the milkman....) coming round to every house in my village in the 1950s, and of course all the housewives would usually be at home to deal with them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

From the Burnley Express in 2005: "Frank Edwards, one of the country's last council rent collectors, has hung up his cash bag after 17 years." Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

From enquiry. Paying rent could be a problem for a single working person. Time needed to be taken off work to go to the rent office to pay in cash there. Easier if you had a housewife. ~~.~

Wasn't the rent payable at the post office back in the late 60s early 70s? I remember going to the post office to pick up my grannies pension and it seems to me that sometimes my friends who lived in public housing being there to put in the rent money. Don't forget that the post office would have been open on Saturday and could be visited during the lunch hour instead of taking time off. Would the rent office have been open on a Saturday too? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this last night for some time. Many utilities (gas, electric, water) had offices/showrooms in towns for people to go to and pay over the counter, and they would be open until at least 1pm on Saturdays (how generous!). Try as I might, I cannot remember my parents ever going anywhere to pay their rent, and can only assume that, if they missed the visit of the rent collector, it would have been my mother going to our nearest council offices during her lunch break. Maybe CBW's right about the post office. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for more information and discovered that you can pay at the post office today. Curious, TammyMoet, but was Saturday half day closing common to all shops? I just can't recall anywhere that closed at 1 pm on Saturdays. Ours was on a Wednesday. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I paid gas, electricity and telephone bills in the way Tammy describes until the mid-1990s. The shops, selling appliances, were open all Saturday afternoon, but the counter at the back where bill payments could be made did indeed close at about 1pm. I also paid Community charge and then Council tax by this method at the counter of my local council's payments office (now closed), where I queued with people waiting to pay their council rent. This office too was open until Saturday lunchtime. (These days, efficiency savings mean direct rent payments are taken by the local sports centre seven days a week, taking advantage of their longer opening hours.) - Karenjc 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

CBW I'm a generation removed from all this, being a child of the 50s, but to my recollection Saturday was half-day closing as well as a day in the week (Wednesday or Thursday). Factories in the industrial West Midlands worked a 5 and a half day week AFAIK, and they would then disgorge the men into football grounds. The 2 day "weekend" only became common during the 70s, as did shops being open past 1 pm. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Shops in London were open all day on Saturdays in the 1960s, but my father had to work on Saturday mornings at his factory. Banks and offices had a 5-day week though. Not far outside London, shops in small towns and villages were still closing at 3pm on a Saturday in the 1990s. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, everyone. Some interesting facts and recollections, and now I know that the rent collectors did exist. Thanks again! Kiskispal (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Euro/US dollar comparison

Why is saving the euro such a daunting task? Imagine that Texas or California starts increasing their public debt to the highs of Greece or Portugal, would that have any effect on the dollar? I don't see why public debt matters so much. If EU countries had independent currencies, they could devalue their currency and improve their competitiveness. But, US states also have different economies, and are tied by one single currency, why is that not a problem? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

European national economies vary more than US state economies. For example, the age of retirement varies more. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of the answer may be that a US State cannot legally go bankrupt. Municipalities and certain public entities can go bankrupt under Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code, but a state cannot declare bankruptcy, and there is no legal path for a state to simply be absolved of its debts. And so while creditors of a state may certainly have doubt as to when they will be payed back, they can have confidence that they will be eventually. So I guess to answer your question, public debt matters because Eurozone members are sovereign states and get to decide what they do with their public debt, whereas US states are stuck obeying a common set of financial regulations. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason states can't go bankrupt is sovereign immunity. Accordingly their recourse is to simply not pay, if they choose. There is no guarantee that state creditors will be paid. The federal government can do the same. The better answer is AnonMoos below. Shadowjams (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see I have grossly misapplied the rule on exceptions to the rule. Municipalities have a bankruptcy procedure precisely because higher forms of government don't need one. But does their immunity truly exist, though? From a legal perspective. Under the Tucker Act, the US Federal government can be sued for monetary damages that stem from a contract with to which the government was a party. Is there no similar law(s) regarding state liabilities? Of course it's questionable whether any government can be compelled to pay a debt by its own courts, so there is still no lack of guarantee. I notice that in our sovereign default, it is suggested that no US state has defaulted on its debts in over 100 years. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Tucker Act is much like the Federal Tort Claims Act in that the government consents to being sued, usually with reservation. There are similar laws in most if not all States. The obvious reason being that nobody's going to contract with you if they can't ensure you will follow through with your end of the deal. And the tort equivalents are based around political considerations. Chapter 9 is rife with constitutional issues too related to this, that were only fixed by a consent process that's built into it. Shadowjams (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OsmanRF34 -- the Eurozone's situation falls awkwardly between a true economic union (where there would be a central treasury, uniform interest rates, centralized control over banks etc.) and separate nations with separate currencies (where in a crisis an individual nation can independently allow currency devaluation etc. to prepare itself for eventual recovery). The Eurozone doesn't really have the necessary tools to deal with an overall crisis, but the existence of a currency union precludes steps that individual nations could take to deal with crises within their own borders. With respect to Greece, the EU has undertaken a long series of temporary stop-gap measures which don't really solve the problem (but just postpone it for several months), combined with relentless demands for austerity which contracts the Greek economy without providing any near-term or medium-term prospect for recovery. The Greeks have had problems with collecting taxes, controlling budgets, etc., but it's not clear how temporary stop-gap bailouts plus contracting depressionary economy really fixes anything... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, excellent answer, AnonMoos. The US Federal government can't "do the same", as Shadowjams said though. It has constitutional obligations to perform the very easy action of "paying" its debts, as a lot of case law before & after the 14th amendment prohibition of questioning the validity of the public debt. There is no doubt that the courts would rule in favor of a defrauded creditor of the USA.

On the other hand, the Eurozone's problems are intrinsic to the Euro & basic features of the treaties creating it, which could only have been concocted during a dark age of (macro)economics, and which were predicted, but dismissed, from the outset. Essentially, rational, ordinary common sense actions by the states & the ECB are superstitiously prohibited, while suicidal absurdities are institutionalized. The real problem of the Euro states is that they have saddled themselves with enormous debts, from the inception of the Euro. They are equivalent to US states, but with the exception of Luxemburg, they are all far more indebted than any US state has ever been. And above all, since these debts are in a foreign currency that they cannot create, they can become unpayable, just as US states, households or firms can have unpayable debts, and the Eurozone superstition/structure acts to forestall necessary central action to help the beleaguered Euro states. If they had their own currencies, as the USA does & the US states do not, then they could pay any of their interest bearing debt with ease, by printing up the money or by allowing matured bonds to be used to pay taxes. In a normal country, OsmanRF34 is right, public debt matters hardly at all. If anything, the National Debt is too small in the US, UK etc.

This security of issuing debt with a stable nominal value, at a controllable interest rate, allows normal states to issue as much currency or bond debt (they're really the same thing) as they please, and to achieve full employment by fiscal policy. Whether or not this devalues the currency or makes the country's exports more competitive is secondary; could be good, could be bad. The European Central Bank is the only actor which can create Euros universally accepted in the Eurozone, so it has enormous quasi-fiscal, quasi-sovereign powers. Following innumerable similar stopgap measures, it has very recently exercised them, over some German objections, to support members' bonds & interest rates. This would be a good thing, but it only does so if the institutionalized superstitions are obeyed, if the periphery engages in purely destructive austerity, which raises unemployment and inefficiency, and thereby makes their debts higher and more unpayable, the opposite of the purported aim of austerity. Essentially, seeing that the Euro as designed cannot work, but seeing that it is a great engine of destruction of European welfare states and the prosperity and security of the lower 99%, the periphery nations are kept alive in the Euro system which is wrecking their economies and will continue to wreck more and more of them. It gives them a transfusion, so that they can be bled longer.

But, US states also have different economies, and are tied by one single currency, why is that not a problem? In the USA, the federal government provides an enormous equalizing role, in many ways, by e.g. military spending - which Congress has directed to every county in the USA, by pensions like Social Security, by conceiving of high unemployment as a national problem - federal spending on unemployment insurance, by any sort of federal spending. Banking is controlled federally by the Federal Reserve System & banks' deposit liabilities backed by the FDIC, not the individual states, so banking crises do not bankrupt & wreck whole state economies, as they have in Spain & Ireland. Different US states have different balance of payments with each other. Some have dollars flow out, some flow in. But because there is a stable currency issuing government over all, hardly anybody keeps track of or thinks about such things. These "fiscal transfers" serve to counterbalance flows of money the other way. In the old days, say, spending in the South would enable it to continue to buy goods from the industrialized North, to the benefit of both sections of the country - the South would get more real wealth, the North would accumulate more money, both get higher employment.John Z (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is 0 constitutional obligation for the U.S. federal government to "pay its debts" as you describe it. And if you disagree, please point me to the decision / Constitutional provision that says otherwise. Your first paragraph answer displays a remarkable ignorance of basic constitutional law, that a quick reading of Hans should hopefully fix.... I actually can't even name a federal sovereign immunity case offhand (long day), and I don't have the resources available right now to look it up, but the fact is so basic that our article doesn't even list an appellate case. Perhaps I'll revisit this later, but the point is painfully obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment's public debt clause (noted above) & even before the Civil War, the 5th amendment's taking's clause have been so interpreted (very naturally) to protect bondholders. The general principle that Congress has the power to create obligations that can bind future Congresses (unlike, say, the UK Parliament) because they are constitutionally protected, and include above all, US debt, has been stated in a long line of cases up to the 2004 (?) Cherokee Nation case (iirc the 1995 Winstar (?) Corp case has a brief historical review & comparison to the UK ). Perry v US enforced the principle by breaching it concerning redeemability for gold. E.g. "Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations." Yes, the government could forestall the courts, but politically there is nil probability that it would for such a suicidal purpose; it never has for such financial cases, afaik. Perry was the closest, and there are no gold clauses any more.John Z (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You're taking some text that popped up during the debt ceiling debacle over a year ago and running with it. While a few believe the public debt clause works like you describe it (they don't make the 5th amendment leap you do though), many others do not (http://www.volokh.com/2011/07/03/is-the-debt-limit-constitutional-part-deux there's a list). For one, who actually gets to sue under section 4? There's never been a case where the Court has ruled section 4 has abrogated sovereign immunity, standing, or political question doctrine. Moreover, default does not necessarily equal repudiation. Section 4 was as much about rejecting Confederate debts as it was validating Union ones. As far as I know section 4 has never even come up in a Supreme Court case. You're right, my 0 mention quip is wrong... however it's far from a settled issue. Your interpretation of the 5th amendment too is outright wrong. Flemming (363 U.S. 603) speaks to both of these issues quite clearly. Anyway, I don't have access to lexis or anymore time to waste on this tangent. Shadowjams (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The 5th Amendment & the 14th amendment sec 4 arguments are in Perry. I do not argue that it would supersede sovereign immunity, etc, although my first too-brief statement wrongly implied this. I would argue that politics & common sense even more, the interests of rich people, dictate that there will be no insane, purposeless, destructive & immoral default, and if there were, the courts would step in & save the day & the government would not use its power to keep them out of it. Although there may be more theater to come.John Z (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding of the problems in the Eurozone is that you have a disconnect between Monetary policy and Fiscal policy. In a country with its own currency, the two policies work together. For example, if a country has fiscal problems (i.e. it spends more than it takes in), it can correct for those issues partially with monetary policy (by controlling the flow of cash). The problem with Europe (and I can't believe that all those smart economists didn't see this shitstorm coming decades ago) is that monetary policy is handled at the continent-wide level, while fiscal policy is handled by the individual countries. Thus, when Greece gets itself into fiscal trouble, it has no monetary relief. Greece can't control its own money supply to ammeliorate its fiscal problems, so it is fooked. In the U.S., the federal government handles a LOT of the big expenses the states don't have to, things like the military, and it heavily subsidizes the responsibilities the states have, like education and infrastructure, which gives some cushion to the states. In Europe, there isn't an effective system of doing so. In the U.S. the individual states have limited internal sovereignty, but the greater sovereignty lies with the Federal government. The Eurozone flips that relationship; the individual nation states have full sovereignty, excepting for the parts they have ceded to the ECB and European Parliament, which isn't enough to get them out of the mess they are in. At least, that's my understanding. --Jayron32 02:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have it there - the federal government does try to give money to states unequally to favor those that fall behind, by virtue of programs targeted at the poor and so forth. But I think there's also an element that people move very freely in the U.S. - there are no language barriers and there's nothing unusual about crossing the country for work or education. Even so, there are definitely regions that get the shit end of the stick, such as East St. Louis or Camden, New Jersey - the twins of big cities reserved to a very poor population that can't support taxes. And the worst turn of the screw is reserved for the Pine Ridge Reservation and such, little zones under America's ever quaint system of Indian affairs which has provided the perfect preserve for corruption, censorship, murder, and Third World poverty. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When you get down to the granular level, the U.S. does have its failures, at least in meeting the needs of all of its people, and that is well documented. It is also well outside of the scope of the discussion, which is about why the U.S. economic system works well enough to prevent the sort of precarious problems Europe is experiencing right now. It's a macroeconomic issue, and it boils down to the fact that Federalism in the U.S. works for supporting a single currency, whereas it appears that Federalism in Europe is too skewed towards having too much sovereignty among the individual countries. That is, the Eurozone is playing a dangerous game: Greece has enough sovereignty to get itself into trouble, but has surrendered those parts of its sovereignty that could help itself. In the U.S., the balance is skewed in the other direction; certainly the states can get themselves into trouble (witness: California since about 2002), but on the balance the states don't have the sovereignty issues that Europe does. If you really want to over simplify it: Oregonians and New Jerseyites and North Carolinians are still Americans first, so the ways that money flows between U.S. states doesn't generate a lot of questions about the sovereignty of each state. Greeks and Germans and Belgians are not "Europeans first", in either a cultural or legal sense, so there are serious cultural, social, and legal hurdles towards the Eurozone efficiently shuffling money around to deal with problems as America does. --Jayron32 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Protestants majority nations

Which Caribbean nations are Protestants majority? I ask that because the map of Protestant world by country didn't make sense or confusing. Also, which Oceania nations are Protestants-majority nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.95 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic majority nations

Which Caribbean and Oceania nations are Roman Catholic majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.95 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For this and the Q above, I suggest you do some research at the CIA Factbook: [3]. To get you started, here's their info on Aruba: [4]. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you find a better source than the CIA Factbook if you want to do research on the topic - the CIA has neither the mandate nor the means to actually find such data themselves, and seems to be remarkably inconsistent in how it presents what they do have. Find scholarly sources instead. 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, do you have an example of this inconsistency ? (One possibility is that they rely on local surveys, which will tend to vary in quality. However, I doubt if any ref source actually is able to do the surveys themself in every nation.) StuRat (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples of CIA Factbook inconsistancy regarding religion in the Caribbean:

CUBA: "nominally Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jewish, Santeria. note: prior to CASTRO assuming power" - rather out of date, I'd suggest?

HAITI: "Roman Catholic 80%, Protestant 16% (Baptist 10%, Pentecostal 4%, Adventist 1%, other 1%), none 1%, other 3%. note: roughly half of the population practices voodoo" - so is voodoo a religion or not? If it is, one would assume that any useful data would include an indication of any correlation between the voodoo and other religions, and if it isn't, why mention it?

JAMAICA: "Protestant 62.5% (Seventh-Day Adventist 10.8%, Pentecostal 9.5%, Other Church of God 8.3%, Baptist 7.2%, New Testament Church of God 6.3%, Church of God in Jamaica 4.8%, Church of God of Prophecy 4.3%, Anglican 3.6%, other Christian 7.7%), Roman Catholic 2.6%, other or unspecified 14.2%, none 20.9%, (2001 census)" - No mention of Rastafarianism?

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS: "Anglican, other Protestant, Roman Catholic" - no percentages.

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES: "Protestant 75% (Anglican 47%, Methodist 28%), Roman Catholic 13%, other (includes Hindu, Seventh-Day Adventist, other Protestant) 12%" - does anyone have a clue what the difference is between 'Protestant' and 'other Protestant', and what makes them 'other'?

Having looked at the abysmal mess the CIA Factbook made trying to report on ethnicity in Latin America, I'd suggest that they are actually doing marginally better here - but they still fail to mention their sources more often than not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I love it when someone talks of a source's inconsistency, and spells it "- ency/ent" in one place and "-ancy/ant" in another place. Giggle. Sorry. Please continue. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! Mea culpa, peccavi, etc, etc - though in my defence, I'll point out that seeking consistency (or even consistancy) in spelling is a recent phenomenon, and probably a passing fad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fascinating how many other sources use the CIA data, though. It's cited on our article Religious demographics and another main source cited there, Association of Religion Data Archives, notes it used CIA data (see the entry for Haiti, which also doesn't mention voudou). The apparently most scholarly source in the references section of our article, this paper, used CIA data as one of its four sources (and I'm not even certain the other three sources it checked are independent of the CIA data). The UN doesn't seem to collect religious info. Where else can the OP look? Our article Religion in North America doesn't even include the Caribbean. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In the 'SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES' case, other Protestant includes anyone who isn't 'Anglican' or 'Methodist'. Note that 47+28=75. As to why they are seperated this way, I can't say but it may be what's done in that country. Given the apparently small size of any other protestant groups, it may be if you say protestant everyone assumes you're either Anglican or Methodist. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to trying to answer the question... Oceania has many definitions, so it's not clear what's included, but I'd suggest that to find the Catholic "nations" (another issue in itself) you couldn't do much better than picking those with French background, i.e. New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna, but I'll admit I'm guessing. A broader definition of Oceania might include the Philippines which is pretty strongly Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Antigua and Barbuda government census - see page 42 for religous data. 94% religious. 10% Roman Catholic. 26% Anglican. 56% other Christian protestant denominations. 184.147.128.34 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)