Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 25

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.

January 25

Scotland

Is this tweet fully true?

https://twitter.com/PaulaHoneyRose/status/823871225453756416

Sorry, don't know how to copy + paste it. Thanks, ZygonLieutenant (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I very strongly doubt that Washington DC can be considered more "autonomous" than Scotland. AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That appears to originate from here [1] which has more detail, but there's no real justification for a lot of them, including Washington DC (just says "enjoys most of the powers enjoyed by states").

One complicating factor is that it can be difficult to compare the "power of parliament". To give a loosely related example, someone in the comments mentioned Hong Kong. Yet as anyone talking about these sort of things should know, Hong Kong is also the place where the Chief Executive is elected by Election Committee many of who's members are selected from small sections of society (and not required to care what the general populace wants). Technically this doesn't necessarily relate to the powers of parliament, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong has similar issues to a lesser degree which also doesn't directly relate to its powers. But does the Hong Kong system actually give more power to the people of Hong Kong? (Which ultimately is what anyone talking about the power of parliament is likely to care most about.)

And to bring this completely ontopic, does a place using a parliamentary system have a more powerful parliament than one using a presidential system? What about a countries with a weak constitution and parliamentary sovereignty?

Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The underlying page, which Nil Einne linked, is more of a rant than a factual description. It's an attack on the claim that Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. The writer's implicit view is that the Scottish parliament should be more powerful.

If we look at this as if it were intended to be a factual description, then no, it is not strictly accurate. "Devolved" means that power has been delegated from above. State legislatures in the United States do not have devolved power; the states predated the federal government, to which they ceded some of their power, not the other way around. (Admittedly, most states were not among the original 13, but they were created on the same model.) Congress has devolved some power to the Council of the District of Columbia, so on a day-to-day basis the DC Council may or may not have a broader range of legislative power than the Scottish parliament (I don't know enough about the Scottish parliament to say), but as our article notes, Congress maintains supreme authority over the federal district and therefore all acts of the Council are subject to congressional review and may be overturned. DC is essentially at the complete mercy of Congress, and Congress takes that oversight seriously and actively maintains it. Whether or not the DC Council legislates on a broader range of subjects than the Scottish parliament, therefore, I certainly would not say that the DC Council has more devolved power. John M Baker (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Scotland has (in theory) the power to legislate anything except for the reserved matters: some examples are the British constitution (so it couldn't make itself a republic, for instance), foreign policy (so no special trade deals or alliances for Scotland), defense (no Scottish army, no closing HMNB Clyde), the British civil service (it can create its own Education Department, but it can't modify the British Department for Education), currency (no Scottish pound, no joining the euro), citizenship law (you can't become a Scottish citizen, and you can't get British citizenship by appealing to the Scottish gov), a few criminal matters (it can't legalise gambling or change gun or drug laws), and there are a handful of weird matters like nuclear weapons, map-making, measurements, outer space, and so on. Most of those are outside the remit of a US state too. Scotland seems to have slightly fewer options when it comes to criminal law than the US states do, but on the other hand, there's no such thing as a federal crime - Scots law is the law of Scotland, and there's no British law that supersedes it (although Commons can modify Scottish law). On the other hand, Scotland is freer than a US state on matters like the environment and agriculture - if Scotland wanted to, it could legislate to invalidate the Clean Air Act 1956, while US states cannot ignore the Clean Air Act (if they do, the EPA intervenes) although Scotland is (for now) also in the European Union, which also has the power to legislate in these areas, and this makes matters even more complicated. Finally, the Sewel convention says that "the UK Parliament would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters" - this is in practice vague and allows the UK government to modify Scottish law in some circumstances (for instance, to change laws that currently implement EU rights) - whether or not this gives the Scottish government more or less power than DC, which can be vetoed by Congress, is debateable. Smurrayinchester 09:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I find any suggestion that Washington DC might not be less autonomous than Scotland to be rather strange. DC only has the powers suitable to an ordinary city, to start with, and has been set up with a basic losing economic situation (lacking an adequate tax base, and forbidden by Congress from enacting a commuter tax or other measures which might overcome this) and so is dependent on federal subsidies. DC residents don't have the right to vote in Congressional elections (which is the exact opposite of the "West Lothian" situation in the UK). And Congress doesn't hesitate to intervene intrusively in DC's government, by appointing administrators with powers to override elected officials, and in other ways. DC held a referendum on marijuana legalization, and Congress forbid DC from even counting the votes -- is this something that would even be remotely contemplated with respect to Scotland? Scotland is ultimately subject to Parliamentary supremacy, while DC is proximately subject to Congressional supremacy, but otherwise I don't see much similarity between the statuses of the two... AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

AnonMoos, in a sense DC has both the powers suitable to an ordinary city and the powers suitable to a U.S. state, since D.C. for many purposes is treated as a state or a state-like territory. That does not really alter the other excellent points you make. John M Baker (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

On the highway across the Nullarbor Plain that follows the south coast of Australia motorists wishing to enter Western Australia have to pass through a checkpoint which wasn't there forty years ago. It's manned by West Australian border guards and it's a customs post as well. All very odd, considering that for the past 45 years they have tolerated within their territory the Principality of Hutt River, which has its own ruler, currency and passport. But then, Western Australia itself voted to secede from the Commonwealth (of Australia) 80 years ago, although nothing came of it. 86.150.12.180 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Executive orders

In his first few days in office as President of the United States, Donald Trump passed over 10 executive orders, one of them including an executive order aimed at dismantling the Affordable Care Act. How many of these executive orders are actually meaningful and how much is just bluster/pandering?--WaltCip (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't give an absolute answer. But to quote our article Executive order, Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). I haven't read the Affordable Care act, so I'm not sure how much discretionary power it delegates to the President. He can't abolish an act of Congress by an Executive order, he can just do what the act specifically authorises him or the executive to decide in relation to it. Maybe others can give better specifics on this particular law, and others. Eliyohub (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, had a look [2] answers a lot of your questions. As to the Affordable care act, Trump has "allowed all agency heads to waive requirements of the Affordable Care Act to the 'maximum extent permitted by law.'". How much the act permits waiving its requirements, I do not know. And the executive order allows agency heads to waive requirements of the act where the act grants them that discretion - it does not oblige them to do so, as I understand it. Eliyohub (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the things the executive can do is delay action required by law until such time as a friendly congress changes the law. For example from the prior administration, President Obama instructed the U.S. federal law enforcement apparatus not to pursue charges against marijuana-possession violation in states where marijuana use is legal; this was done by executive order. Marijuana remained illegal under federal law, but the executive branch is given wide leeway in how to expend its resources in enforcement of laws, and the Obama administration chose to expend its resources in other areas. See here for a 2013 article on it. The Trump administration can use similar techniques, for example refusing to allocate resources to maintain the apparatus of the ACA. --Jayron32 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the executive orders included an executive order? Was it recursive? —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm redundantly restating the same point, with redundancy.--WaltCip (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Waterboarding and diminishing returns

This question is about a controversial topic - Waterboarding. But I am specifically not asking about the ethics and morals of the practice - simply the results.

In our article on the subject, we have a section "Effectiveness - For obtaining actionable intelligence". That would be the purpose for which the Americans would be using it. Confessions are not what they are after, they want information. I did read the section.

My question is this: It's not clear how many times Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded. But IF the claim of "183 times" was validated, doesn't this show "diminishing returns"? You keep going and going and going... and you're still not, in the interrogator's opinion, getting the info you are seeking. At some point, don't you say "I think we've got everything we can get via this particular technique, we need to move on to other approaches? Not necessarily more humane approaches, just other angles to try to get info?" There's the old saying that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Did none of the interrogators raise this issue? Say "this particular approach may have gotten us some info, but it has run its course, we need to move on"? Eliyohub (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nearly every controlled study of torture returns the same results: It is not an effective, reliable means of extracting usable intelligence. At random (i.e. not reliable times) specific cases have extracted usable intelligence, but a) it isn't clear other methods would have worked and b) such occurances are so rare, and in contravention of the bulk of evidence, that it does not justify its continued use. Wikipedia has a brief article on Effectiveness of torture for interrogation, Here is a pop-sci overview of the problems of torture as an investigative technique, here is a scholarly article on the subject. As noted in the first article, the U.S. military's own policy states clearly that the techniques do not work to reliably extract useful information. --Jayron32 14:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's great for showing who's boss, though. —Tamfang (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the article cited by Jayron above: The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate by Mark A. Costanzo, Claremont McKenna College. Alansplodge (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Polygamy

If I understand correctly, to violate the polygamy law you have to have at least dual citizenship or more (since you can't marry twice with a single passport, which would contain the notice of the first marriage). Now, if you married under two or more passports, is it because of extraterritorial jurisdiction that you can be prosecuted for polygamy? Just a theoretical inquiry, not a legal advice, thanks. --93.174.25.12 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Which country's polygamy laws? --Jayron32 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As Jayron32 says, the article you linked to says the legal status of polygamy varies from country to country - 58 countries allow it. I don't know of any country where polygamy is an offence which attracts extraterritorial jurisdiction as such - I cant imagine they'd seek to extradite you for taking a second wife overseas. But if you return home and are still married to two wives, you are still committing ongoing polygamy, are you not? I don't know about other countries, but in my country (Australia), polygamy is illegal, but family law contains explicit provisions for those who have more than one wife which they married abroad, in a jurisdiction where it's legal. At least if they did it before obtaining Australian citizenship, not sure if they did it, once they were already a citizen.

Also note that here in Australia, in an attempt to give rights to same-sex couples without introducing same-sex marriage, the government introduced the concept of "domestic partner" into family law. And one can be deemed to have a "domestic partner" (same or opposite sex) even if they are married to another person. And domestic partners can seek division of property and maintenance, just like a spouse. So in a weird sense, polygamy has sort of been legalized if not formalized (both your partners may have similar rights, even though only one of them is actually your spouse), as long as you don't call it "marriage", or have a "wedding", as long as the family court rules that a "domestic partnership" has in fact developed. All to avoid introducing same-sex marriage. Odd, eh? Eliyohub (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Which countries require a passport to marry, and then list the marriage on the passport?DOR (HK) (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No idea, I doubt many countries require a passport to marry - merely acceptable identification, unless you're a foreigner, perhaps. Passports are usually associated with international travel, and many people living in their home country who don't leave the country won't have one. An ID card (in countries which have them), driver's licence, or Birth certificate may be deemed sufficient. As to listing your marital status and spouse's identity on the passport, fair question, it's possible some countries do that, I wouldn't know which, if any. But in those countries which ban Polygamy, I know many (I'm guessing most) require ID, and proof of your "single status" i.e. that you're not already legally married. I know that when you apply to register a marriage here in Australia, if you list your status as "divorced", you need to provide a copy of the divorce decree. There is also in some countries what is known as a "certificate of single status". That is, an official document that certifies that in that country's records (usually it would be your home country, and you're planning to marry abroad, so the overseas authorities will want assurance that you are in fact single), you are not currently married. Of course, that country is not expected to know if you've married in another Country. It's just saying "we did not have this person register a marriage in our country, or if he did, he has since officially divorced". Controversy arose at one point when the Australian Government, under religious conservatives, refused to issue such certificates to those who planned to use them to enter into a same-sex marriage or civil union abroad. (POV, whatever you think of same-sex marriage, a person is entitled to official records of themselves, you can't decide to issue or not issue them based on their intended use). So the UK waived the requirement for a certificate, accepting a Statutory declaration as to one's single status as sufficient. Eliyohub (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You could marry several times, without any passport, as long as local law does not require all valid marriages first to be entered and checked in a central registry, couldn't you? Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You'd be committing Bigamy in a country where the practice was illegal, but yes, in less developed nations without centralised computer databases, this could be easily done, albeit that it would be illegal. I'm not even completely sure the United States has a National database of Marriages, as Marriage is a State jurisdiction, not a Federal one. (That's why, before the recent Supreme Court ruling, same-sex marriage was fought in STATE courts and STATE legislatures and STATE Ballot initiatives, on a State-by-State basis, and different States had different laws on the matter). In countries like India, and certainly third world countries, the records are likely paper files, and may be held at the state or province level (rather than a national system) in some countries, making any search of every marriage impractical. So they may stick to the Statutory Declaration type route, where you sign some form whereby you declare yourself single. Eliyohub (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

American murderers fleeing to Canada to avoid the death penalty

My understanding is that in most countries where the death penalty has been abolished, if a country that still has the death penalty makes an extradition request of them, they will demand a guarantee that the death penalty will not be imposed on this particular individual as a condition of granting the extradition request. And the courts in such countries will usually uphold such demands, that the accused not be extradited until it can be assured that he will not be executed.

1) Does Canada take the same approach?

2) How does the rule apply to deportation as opposed to extradition? If you entered Canada illegally, or your visa has expired, and sending you back to America will risk you being executed, will you still be allowed to stay pending America giving a "no death penalty guarantee"? Or will you simply be kicked out anyways, potentially eventually ending up being executed, having no legal right to be in Canada?

3) Have any American murderers ever resorted to this tactic? If yes, how common is it? And has it worked in sparing their lives? And what stops American murderers from regularly doing this? (It won't let them walk free by any means, but it'll spare their lives, albeit not their liberty).

4) Under American law, who has the Authority to give such a guarantee? Do the feds have any power to do this, if the wanted individual has merely committed a "state-level" jurisdiction murder (one which would not fall to the feds to prosecute)? Or would the state the murder was committed in have to give the guarantee to forego seeking the death penalty?

Disclaimer: I don't plan to commit a murder, and do not know any murderers on the run, or anyone who plans to kill and go on the run. So I daresay this question can be answered without it being "legal advice"? Please do not hat it if you disagree unless there is consensus, just post your disagreement. It seems like there is no clear consensus about the exact boundaries of the "legal advice" prohibition regarding questions whose answers are unlikely to change anyone's real-life behaviour, either in or out of a courtroom. Eliyohub (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been tried in the past - a recent example happened in 2012. He tried to claim refugee status, but he was extradited back to the US, with the guarantee that he would wouldn't be executed. So now he's serving a life sentence instead. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean wouldn't be executed? Eliyohub (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I had two competing thoughts in my head there :) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Is there some reason the questions isn't answered by [3]. Reference Re Ng Extradition and, United States v Burns? Note that while the last involved Canadian citizens, there's nothing to suggest the principles of the decision (as opposed to the arguments made) would only apply to Canadian citizens although it's not completely clear it would apply to deportation (however the case mentioned in the first source and available here [4] did deal with deportation meaning Canada would need to go against the UNHCR). The first two references were the top two search hits for me, and I expect likely to be in the top 10 for most people, and the last one linked from the other article and also mentioned in the first ref. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

See also Capital punishment in Canada#Policy regarding foreign capital punishment (which makes reference to United States v Burns, among other sources). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

One would think that the US would be only too happy to have a murderer take residence in Canada rather than the US, thereby becoming Canada's problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, that is absolutely not the American mindset regarding any crime over which America can somehow claim jurisdiction, even if the criminal was abroad at the time. The extradition request against the owner of Freedom Hosting ran the same question - "why import a foreign criminal? Let him rot in an Irish jail, his crimes, however horrific, were not committed on American soil, nor is he an American citizen". Other cases too, have raised issues of America seeking to import the world's criminals, particularly ones which would anyways face charges in their home country, albeit substantially minus the crushing American sentences. Very illogical, but you possibly forget the influence of the Prison–industrial complex here? There is a LOT of money to be made by private corporations off imprisoning people. But I would not blame the U.S. for seeking the extradition of someone who committed a murder on American soil. I think in this particular situation, many countries would do likewise. Though they may happily return him home post-sentence under a prisoner-repatriation agreement to serve his sentence in a prison in his home country. America would be unlikely to do this. As I said, Prison-industrial complex. Eliyohub (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of the occasional false conviction, American prisoners are behind bars ultimately by their own choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Uh, what about non-American prisoners, whom America has fought to have extradited for crimes not committed on American soil? There are no shortage of such cases. Gary McKinnon merely being a high profile case. Does America have any moral claim to them, merely to subject them to America's unique version of "Justice", imposing far harsher sentences than they would face back where they actually committed the crime, and profit the Prison-Industrial complex? And are sentences dictated in part by campaigning for ever-tougher sentencing laws by or on behalf of those who stand to directly profit, financially, from such laws, as opposed to those genuinely concerned about Justice or public safety, however they see it? A prison operator openly admitted in their annual report to shareholders that they stood to lose revenue if the crime rate or incarceration rate fell. So logically, they spend lots of money campaigning to make sure this doesn't happen. If not enough people are committing crimes, get those who are committing the crimes locked up for longer. Do you not see an issue here of perverse incentives? Eliyohub (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What capital crimes has he been accused of? And who forced him to break the law? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW in reference to question 4, I was under the impression that there have been cases where someone has been sentenced to death in the US after being extradited with assurances it will not be sought. However neither [5] (admittedly from 1998) or I think [6] seem to mention this or any other source I came across. Which makes me think I'm remembering wrong as it would seem to be a key issue. And not just with the Pietro Venezi, generally. If there's evidence the assurances can't be relied, it's likely to be something courts and governments need to consider.

However per at least one of those sources and [7], it does seem other than just denying outright (and from what I can tell, Italy is either the only or one of the very few), some countries are seeking assurance not just that the death penalty won't be sought but also that it won't be carried out. The distinction I assume is that while courts could chose to ignore such assurances (which they weren't involved in and may feel have no basis under their own laws), the executive often has the option of simply not carrying it out (or even commuting the sentence). And it may be less likely they'd ignore their assurances, especially given the problems it may cause with future requests.

Of course, as per United States v. Alvarez-Machain, someone in the US could just pay for you to be abducted to the US.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The judiciary may be independent, but the assurance-giver would be presumably representing the prosecution, who are the impetus for the extradition request, so the only way this could happen is if the prosecution broke their promise, or if the court took the view that it could impose the death penalty even in the absence of it being sought by the prosecutor. Do any American jurisdictions ever sentence someone to death where the prosecution has not sought the death penalty? The prosecution would likely oppose such a course in such a case, saying that the court doing so may hinder the future ability to obtain extraditions of criminals who have fled abroad, doing damage to the general ability to obtain justice, and thus be seriously contrary to the public interest. Or so I would be arguing if I was the prosecutor. Just like one case where a serial killer was spared the death penalty in return for revealing the locations of his victims' bodies. It rankles, but that was the reality. Even if I don't like letting the murderer live, I need to look at the bigger picture. So, to repeat, has an American court ever imposed a death penalty against the request of the prosecution? (Note that the Bush administration, hardly sympathetic to opponents of the death penalty, still "went in to bat" in an attempt to spare Jose Medellin on somewhat similar grounds, that international obligations must be followed, or it might come back to bite American efforts in the future). Eliyohub (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. This is obvious and mentioned in all the sources I provided and also more or less said by me. I also thought it was fairly clear I was referring to the courts imposing the death penalty despite it not being sought, as in most jurisdictions it is indeed the courts (whether judges or juries) who ultimately decide the sentence based on the law [8]. They may considering prosecutor recommendations, but aren't generally bound by them and can impose harsher sentences if they have sufficient reason. E.g. in the case of plea bargains, they're generally allowed to reject the proposed sentence (although this may allow the defendant to withdraw the plea).

You may be correct this doesn't apply to the death penalty in the US given the stringent requirements e.g. for a jury recommendation and therefore for special consideration during jury selection. And also most sources seem to talk about it like the prosecutions decision whether to seek the death penalty is the end all (e.g. [9] [10] [11] [12]). That said I haven't found a source which says that it's not possible in any US jurisdiction (either because of constitutional issues or the way the laws work) for the judge to decide something is a capital case prior to trial beginning and to proceed with the penalty phase later. However it's possible or perhaps even probable that any jury recommendation will be rejected by a higher court if they didn't actually hear any evidence in favour of the death penalty during the penalty phase which seems likely if the prosecutor is really set on not seeking it. (And the prosecution could also refuse to challenge people for cause even if they're fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.)

P.S. Of course prosecutors change so it's always possible by the time something goes to trial the prosecutor never made any assurances and doesn't care about assurances made by their predecessor no matter the future implications. That said, this is also possible of the executive charged with carrying out the sentence, so the extra assurances only adds another layer of protection against this. The only thing is that state governors may be perhaps a bit more likely to consider wider implications of their actions than prosecutors who may represent a smaller jurisdiction and where their record in court is the only record that theoretically matters come election time [13]. (There's also the fact that if the death penalty is not received after trial, that's the end of it. But the death penalty not being carried out is generally not an end all. While this means it's far better for the defendant if the first assurance is followed and prevents the death penalty, it also again dilutes any negativity arising from the decision come election time. That said, going back to my earlier point, executive assurances don't have to be time limited. Clemency could be granted, and in a system like the US ones this could be during the lame-duck period if it's feared the next governor is going to ignore any assurances.)

Nil Einne (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

While it doesn't directly answer your question, you might be interested in the case of Angelo Buono. The L.A. County DA's office, having originally (I think) requested the death penalty against Buono, decided that their evidence was not good enough to prosecute the case and moved to dismiss.

The judge, Ronald M. George, refused to allow this, giving a detailed analysis of why the evidence was too good enough, and turned the case over to the State of California to prosecute. I thought at the time that, while he might well have been correct on the substantive and legal points, he had so compromised his appearance of impartiality that he would at least recuse himself from continuing to hear the case.

Nope. He served as trial judge all the way through the guilt and penalty phases, and when the jury came back with a sentence of life without parole, he practically scolded them for it.

This in my opinion somewhat unseemly episode did not appear to hurt his career at all; he wound up as chief justice of the California Supreme Court. --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

International income inequality

Why does an American worker doing a specific job in the United States earn more money than a Mexican worker doing the same job in Mexico, or a Chinese worker doing the same job in China, or a Bangladeshi doing the same job in Bangladesh, if all wages are expressed in United States dollars?
—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What do those dollar amounts buy in those countries? That's the difference. A dollar will stretch further in Bangladesh than in the US. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Concepts such as purchasing power help explain some of the difference. There are other, less formal was to correlate living standards across different countries, such as the Big Mac index as well. The notion is that one's standard of living is also based on the cost of living as well as income. If (for example) one dollar can buy a loaf of bread in Dallas, Texas, but it only costs $0.50 to buy the same loaf of bread in Mexico City, then I can pay a Mexico City worker $0.50 with no measurable difference in the worker's standard of living. In reality it is a LOT more complex than that, but playing around with differences in standard of living is a sort of arbitrage that companies use to both minimize their labor costs while still being able to pay enough of a wage to attract appropriately skilled workers. --Jayron32 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the above, productivity is generally higher in the US than in those other countries. So arbitrage would tend to make wages x% higher where productivity is x% higher, adjusting of course for other factors. Loraof (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Car makers in Canada and the US and Mexico

How feasible are these scenarios?

• Every car manufacturer in Canada employs only Canadian workers, and uses only parts made in Canada by Canadian workers, and sells cars only to Canadian consumers.
• Every car manufacturer in the United States employs only American workers, and uses only parts made in the United States by American workers, and sells cars only to American consumers.
• Every car manufacturer in Mexico employs only Mexican workers, and uses only parts made in Mexico by Mexican workers, and sells cars only to Mexican consumers.
  

—Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically possible or economically realistic? Two very different things. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the metal used in the cars also only made in those countries? Mined in those countries? Using equipment built in those countries, from ore mined in those countries? Do the employees only eat local food? Wear local clothes? I think at some point, there's going to be some foreign materiel involved. So what is the point of this exercise? --Golbez (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Any country that is large enough and completely isolated with all its borders closed to any kind of trade, could in theory have an automobile industry, provided the raw resources can be mined on its territory. But it would be very inefficient, so in that country everything would cost more (including cars), except for a few resources which are easily produced in surplus locally. --Lgriot (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the knowhow - many techniques and inventions used in the manufacture and design of cars was done in other countries, and there's no way to avoid importing that. --Golbez (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dare I point out that the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 aka the Jones act, and its relative, the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 seem to require exactly this of the American domestic shipping industry? Ship must be built in America (the toughest bit, IMHO, as some types of ships the U.S. shipyards do not build), and must use only American crew (actually, at least three-quarters American crew)? The end result, I think, is that the only U.S. flagged cruise ship is Pride of America. To me, these acts are extreme and crazy, particularly when you're trying to obtain something a U.S. shipyard cannot provide (in this case, a cruise liner) without doing a whole fitout just for one ship (or a few ships), and the extreme cost involved. But this seems remarkably similar to the situation the OP is describing, only involving ships, not cars. Eliyohub (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Must be taken into account the view the outside world has of the supposed average American citizen's opportunism. Excluding the period when the image of the American genius confounded itself with the Marshall Plan, continued with the Apollo era.. American international ventures, without the Act, probably would have taken those shares of Liberia and Panama at sea respectively, as well as the related images, and all other possible consequences. Just look at which directions the discussions about Canada have been taking above. --Askedonty (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Askedonty: as someone fascinated by the acts in question, I find your words intriguing, but cryptic. I know that Liberia and Panama are the two biggest Flag of Convenience states, but how does that relate to any effects of easing the rules of the acts? What do you mean by "related images", and "all other possible consequences"? And what does it have in common with the discussion of Canada and Death Penalty extraditions? I'm curious, but puzzled.

I'm not mentioning easing the rules, but without them (1920) maritime commerce would certainly have followed a different path. I did not mean that the U.S. would have become a convenience flag. They would however have taken the related share of traffic, although this would not have been worth it and would have given rise to a given amount of international critic and resentment which the regulated situation very wisely avoided. The other remark points at the image and the opinions neighbors as well as foreigner may maintain about Americans. This can be extrapolated by reading jokes, but I will however not comment about the complete depth of them. This one from canadajokes, "What do you call a sophisticated American? A: Canadian", it is quite typical. -- Askedonty (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC) and I just do not know where anywhere on earth I would hear it heartily contradicted.

Panama has faced allegations of allowing labour exploitation aboard its flag ships. I cannot state whther this is true or not. But if I confirm that it is, I will ask all seamen around the world to rally for the workers of the Panama Canal Authority to take up the cause of their fellow seamen, and take industrial action to force the Panama Government to expeditiously fix the problems or face industrial action - such as not letting any Panama-flagged ship whose owner is subject to legal complaints to the Panama Government over labour exploitation from transiting the canal until the issue is solved, and labour exploitation on Panama's ships ended. (Industrial action could get much harsher, such as shutting down the canal to all traffic for a day, but this would be extreme, and hopefully the Government would address the issue). Ensuring efficient and prompt legal redress in Panamanian courts for those exploited or mistreated aboard a Panama-flagged ship. By Labour exploitation, the issue is not so much poor wages (this goes with the territory with workers from poor countries), but rather horrid treatment from bosses, inhumane conditions for crew aboard ships, safety violations, and not so uncommonly, plain and simple non-payment of agreed wages. It's Panama's job to ENFORCE LAW aboard any ship which flies its flag. A threat to hinder traffic through the canal would certainly jolt the Government of Panama. And no, it cannot easily replace the very specialized and highly trained workforce which oversees canal operations, so firing those who take industrial action would likely not be an option. And besides, any such action would cause such disruption it would be world news, meaning the eyes of the media will be examining the issues, and the Panamanian Government's response. Eliyohub (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is completely feasible and totally stupid. It is what the motor industry was like in the past. It looks like what is going to happen to the computer industry in the future because of security fears. We will have computers made in China, India, and Russia for the Chinese, Indians, and Russians. American made ones will be sold into smaller and smaller sections of the world and the American government will mandate that only American ones be bought in America. Perhaps people will be happier making second rate versions of everything themselves and fearing everyone else and wasting resources. The real problem is wealth not being shared around and this is not the right solution. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that there is another side to this: after all, how many folks want to ride around in a self-driving car made in North Korea? I'm suspicious enough that all such "augmented" vehicles will get hacked by the North Koreans and crash themselves into the nearest emergency vehicle or crowd of pedestrians all at once, but if you bought them made from the ground up there, there would presumably be many more potential back doors built in. Trading products does imply some degree of shared values (like, is the produce coated in pesticides?). And when the people of the countries involved recognize those shared values are wrong -- like the patents and other market exclusivity on life-saving drugs -- making trade agreements is hopefully going to be difficult.

In the case of NAFTA, there were some very bad values written into the treaty, many of which harmed the people of Mexico as Subcommandante Marcos explained for the EZLN. The U.S. reserved the right to dump state-subsidized corn and beans (another idiocy, I mean, the government supported bulk carbohydrates instead of innovative new foods - the Pennsylvania Dutch used to dominate global saffron production but they put not one cent into trying to recover that with technological innovation), driving Mexican subsistence farmers off their lands; they also had to abandon their constitutional provisions for land reform, and these people went to the Mexican cities, displaced those laborers, then they became illegals or very cheap competition for American labor. And of course the U.S. took a hit also because companies could relocate production to take advantage of unfairly treated Mexican labor and environment.

Tariffs don't have to be absolute barriers, but they may have a place in exerting a sort of "national defense" against foreign bottom-feeders and giveaways. I think there are fair arguments to be made for and against free trade depending on who and how, but we know there are combinations of places, times, and products that a country would actually want to defend itself against. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A country making cars that crashed all at once would lead to the state doing it being destroyed economically and very possibly physically as well. There is a valid worry about espionage but anything else will be non-attributable and low level using a countries own machines.

NAFTA has been very bad for small farmers in Mexico but overall it has been a win. I do wish America wouldn't push big business interests that way, it always seems to do real harm.

I can't see it being worthwhile to Mexico to pay the $18 billion even if it saved the 20% tariff. Mexico will just try fighting it as long as possible and try developing other markets. Trump obviously wants to destroy trade with Mexico as a way of making companies then go back to America and if they paid the $18 billion he will try putting in other measures to destroy the trade anyway, so it would be a waste of money for them. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't about the wall... I can't really think of an excuse for spending $18 billion to prop up the market position of the Zetas and Sinaloas, wherever it comes from. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The lack of trade is what will really help the cartels. It is a big pity after the successes the Mexican government has had against them. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fiction without conflict

It is taken as a universal rule that fiction requires some form of conflict (narrative). Yet there is one case I can think of, "The Swiss Family Robinson", in which there really is essentially no conflict at the scale the novel is written on, at least the way I see it. I actually much enjoyed reading this as a kid, even tended to empathize with one character in particular, at a young age when I had essentially no appreciation for fiction in general. The story might be claimed to have a "man vs. nature" type conflict, yet there is no long-term natural adversary in the picture - there are at most moments of strife, and more often opportunities presenting themselves, to which the (no doubt excessively) concordant family react in some interesting way. It is true that to older eyes this does seem a bit like an incessant series of disconnected events, and the style is certainly peculiar, yet the overall success of a novel that defies an unbreakable rule of literature makes me take notice. Are there other cases like this, where fiction literally has no conflict? Wnt (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you are too swift to dismiss the "man vs. nature" conflict. That doesn't literally mean "a human character must physically fight a tiger" or something like that. Man vs. nature conflict is set up as a clear theme in that man finding was to overcome the difficulty of living in the natural world is a perfectly valid form, and as "friendly" a story as Swiss Family Robinson is, that conflict is still plain. Conflict is about tension and resolution: the tension in the story is "will the family survive the wild or will it kill them" The resolution is "they survive". There are stories, however, that feature no conflict. I can think of My Dinner With Andre as one example: It's just two people eating dinner and chatting. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast Away didn't have a lot of conflict, other than trying to survive, but it made for a good fictional story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

All Robinson Crusoe clones are "Man vs. Nature" conflicts. Robinson Crusoe established the archetype and all clones of have it as the central theme. --Jayron32 17:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, in Cast Away the guy has a problem. And that problem goes on and is the focus of the plot. In Swiss Family Robinson it's like ooooh, we found this, and this, and this, and this! And the plot is just like, we built this, and that, and that, and that... Wnt (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Even My Dinner With Andre sets up a basic tension and conflict between Wallace's pragmatism and Andre's idealistic pessimism - you can take sides, and you can imagine one conceding to the other (although in the end, neither does). I'm struggling to think of stories longer than one sentence with no conflict - even the most abstract ones have something. Flatland (a story about shapes) has the 2D shapes argue with each other about the existence of higher dimensions. Mrs Dalloway takes place mostly in the mind of a comfortable upper-middle class woman, but even there, there is conflict between her feelings for her husband, for her ex, and for the woman she once kisses. Aesop's fables always involve at least two entities who are at odds with each other - The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse, the Tortoise and the Hare - or an obstacle that must be overcome - The Fox and the Grapes, The Crow and the Pitcher. Even the story of Genesis adds the villainous snake. I guess there's no conflict in For sale: baby shoes, never worn - that's just 100% pathos. Smurrayinchester 10:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Only half-joking: does porn have conflict? My wife assures me that it's pure fiction, though I'm not sure it meets your criteria. Matt Deres (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Porn is staged but that doesn't strictly make it fiction. The sine qua non of fiction is some form of narrative. Certain genres of porn, such as porn parody or the "plumber visits a bored housewife" trope have narratives to them. But a lot of it is just two people fucking, without any framing context. --Jayron32 19:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This actually is a pretty good idea, but let's not limit it to "porn" per se, but consider romance novels in general. That's a genre I really don't know much about. I'd expect a conflict-laden plot is usual - some silly rule or expectation is keeping the lovers apart, which they have to overcome somehow, swim the Hellespont or something. But I would think it is possible to have such a novel where the characters simply get to know each other better and better and the only obstacle is their own process of learning how best to please one another. Wnt (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

J. Michael Straczynski used to say that the essence of narrative is cause and effect. The example he liked to give was: "The king died and then the queen died" is not a story; but "The king died and then the queen died of grief" is one.[14] (Added:) He seems to have been quoting E. M. Forster who gives that same example.[15] 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a bit irrelevant, but there's a sort of theological subtext to this, theory as follows: God is an author; Heaven is a creative work, probably the best creative work; Heaven has no conflict; therefore God can write great creative works without conflict; humans create in God's image; therefore, the best human creative works should also be without conflict. But they may be the most difficult works to create - there's nothing in the argument about that part. Make of this what you will. :) Wnt (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No civilian aviation over the USA

Following the September 11 attacks US airspace was closed to civilian air traffic, before then the last time there was no civilian aviation over the USA was in 1960 (the Operation Skyshield article states that "In these exercises, all US civil air traffic was grounded (sometimes up to 12 hours)." the earliest of these occurred in 1960). When was the last time before then that there were no civilian aircraft in flight over the USA? Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting question. Apparently Operation Skyshield didn't affect Hawaii, so I'm not clear whether there were times that literally all civilian aircraft were grounded during these exercises. Night flying wasn't a common practice until the mid-1930s, which gives a bound for a possible date. But I can't find anything definite. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Where should we put a record of Trump's actions in office?

A friend sent me this list and I think it should go somewhere. Where? --removed as possible copyvio--

Suzobr (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Save it on a file on your computer? --Jayron32 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• We have Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe everything Donald Trump said (or even did) should be included in Wikipedia. Some words and actions are just unremarkable. Llaanngg (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just carefully censor this list, not all are DT related actions. The North Dakota State Congress would seem to have nothing to do with DT. Others on the list, too, would be subject to some scrutiny and debate as to their relationship with DT, but when you put it on the timeline page, hopefully we can get some consensus on this issue. Also, there are some serious WP:NPOV issues with the terminology used in many of the items on this list. They would need re-wording. And probably, the items on the list would need to be sourced as well. And as Llaanngg says, there are notability issues with some events as well - I tried looking for the relevant Wikipedia page which would cover the specific notability issues raised with this sort of timeline, but can't. WP:NOTABILITY and its associated articles only seem to cover what to have an article about, not what things are notable enough to be included. Can anyone point the OP to the relevant page? Perhaps the timeline talk page would be the best place to post this, so others can debate what does and doesn't belong in the timeline article itself, and how to include things NPOV? Eliyohub (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the list. Any copyright would belong with whoever created the list which it seems is not you. And there is potentially sufficient creativity to warrant it in such a long list. Unless the creator has agreed to released it under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license or something compatible, it therefore doesn't belong. Even if the creator has agreed to release it under suitable licensing, you'd need to make sure you comply with any licence terms, e.g. attribution as well as our terms (which amongst other things generally require attribution even if the licence doesn't require it to avoid confusion over licencing). In any case, as others have said this list doesn't seem to be useful for wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Licensing would need to be sorted, but I didn't totally deny any potential usefulness of some things on that list for the "timeline" article, just saying that it would need work, from the perspectives of 1) Which things are actually related to the Presidency, 2) NPOV, 3) Notability of each item on the list, to remove those which don't make the cut, and 4) Sourcing, as per WP:RS for the useful and relevant items on the list. This would take work, but is not beyond possibility. Eliyohub (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say all others but only others But anyway, what you've basically said is the list is useless. Even without licencing issues, there's zero point starting with an extremely flawed list which doesn't even have any sources when it would be far better for someone to create any useful info from scratch if there is merit for any such info to be in a timeline article. Nil Einne (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)