Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 22

= August 22 =

Go Like Who-Dray-Gah
This is a family expression, meaning to go very quickly. It comes down from the Bohemian side of the family, and I have tried to find out who or what this refers to. The spelling is phonetic, the best I can do.


 * This question really belongs on the Language desk and would stand a better chance there! Xn4 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Interest Rates and Trade
Could someone describe how the trade imbalances with China and the subsequent huge current account deficits the US has accumulated helps to keep interest rates low in the US?

THank you AlmostCrimes 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it doesn't. The current account deficit is a sign of over-heated demand, which tends to push up interest rates. I suppose the only reason American interest rates aren't very high is that other countries (including China) are willing to buy American debt. Of course, that won't last forever...  Plasticup  T / C  03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it the trade imbalance does mean that we buy enormous amounts of things from China without China buying anything from us except little pieces of paper; those pieces of paper indicate that China owns bits of us. The fact that China and a couple of other places want to own bits of us means that it's easy for people to borrow money from them, and that keeps interest rates lower than they would be otherwise. So the current account deficit with China is a necessary ingredient to keeping rates low at the moment; but it isn't sufficient. Hornplease 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Plasticup is right that the trade imbalances and U.S. current-account deficits do not by themselves keep interest rates low. Indeed, in other countries with large current account deficits, such as Australia and New Zealand (and to a lesser extent Britain), interest rates have been raised in order to attract the credit needed to fund the current account deficit and to keep their currency from plummeting (which would send interest rates soaring and make it difficult to service external debt).  The United States is different from these other countries in that enjoys monetary hegemony. Its currency, the U.S. dollar, is the international reserve currency and the currency needed for purchasing the world's most vital commodity, oil.  So, dollars tend to accumulate in the central bank reserves of nations that have trade surpluses with the United States, the most important of which is China.  China could dispose of these dollars in several ways.  For example, it could sell the dollars and buy gold or some other currency such as the euro for its reserves.  This would have the effect of driving the value of its own currency up relative to the dollar, which would lose purchasing power in terms of the Chinese yuan.  It would also force interest rates in the United States up to attract credit to fund its current account deficit.  The resulting devaluing of the dollar and increase in interest rates would tend to correct the trade imbalance by forcing Americans to import less.  However, at least until recently, the Chinese have not wanted to reduce demand for their exports in the U.S., because a drop in exports from China would probably lead to a drop in employment within China, which could in turn lead to social unrest within China.  Therefore, to maintain employment in the export sector, the Chinese have used their dollar reserves mainly to buy U.S. debt (that is, to provide credit to the U.S.).  Massive Chinese purchases of U.S. debt have driven down interest rates in the U.S.  (though to be fair, there have been massive purchases from oil-producing countries and from other Asian countries, such as Japan, as well).


 * In effect, the trading partners of the United States (other than those in Europe) have been letting the United States buy on credit. That credit however, is in terms of United States dollars, of which the United States can issue an infinite quantity.  The United States will therefore have the option (and ultimately perhaps the necessity) of inflating its way out of this debt, in the end leaving holders of U.S. debt with little more than pieces of paper.  Perhaps for this reason, there has been a recent shift, over the past year or so, in Chinese reserve strategies, from the purchase of U.S. government debt to the purchase of more tangible assets through a sovereign wealth fund.  Of course, when China spends its dollars on tangible assets such as mining companies, the shareholders who receive those dollars must find some use for them.  A lot of the dollars still find their way to the U.S. debt market and therefore depress interest rates.  This process is likely to continue until the United States is perceived to be inflating its way out of its debt, a perception that threatens to emerge if the Federal Reserve System increases the money supply to buy up structured debt, such as mortgage-backed securities, that lenders cannot unload to other investors in the current credit crunch.  Marco polo 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Against International aid
Hello, can you tell me some reasons if possible, why some Media personalities are against overseas aid? –203.217.17.48 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're Australian, given that you use the phrase 'overseas aid' rather than the UK or North American variants. I certainly can't answer precisely what you ask without knowing which media personalities you're talking about. However, I think it is fair to say that Australia by and large isn't pulling its weight. It's ranked 19th out of the 22 OECD countries in terms of aid per capita; is the only country that is dragging its feet on agreeing to the UN's Millenium Development Goals; and may, indeed be among the worst offenders in an old, old game called tied aid, where the benefits of aid are shared between the recipient nations and specific companies in the donor nation. (The wikipedia article indicates that Australia has reduced it aid-tying below the level mandated by the OECD, but does not mention that tied aid is now almost completely phased out except by Aus, France and the US.)
 * Another word: Australian media is probably not as anti-overseas aid as it is repeating party lines on the subject in anticipation of the upcoming election. John Howard recently announced that he would double overseas aid; but it appears that he halved it a little while ago, so charities are naturally saying that it's all a little dodgy. The content as well as quantity of aid is in dispute, as Howard's government intends to change the recipients of aid in line with the Bush administration's policy on aid (only give it to countries where we like the leaders/think they're honest); this was Paul Wolfowitz's job at the World Bank. Hornplease 06:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other arguments against overseas aid; firstly, there is the philosophical view that we are under no obligation to help poor people in other countries - or that we have no obligation to help other people, full stop. I'm not supporting this viewpoint, by the way, merely noting that it exists.  Furthermore, there are critiques by various economists that argue that overseas aid doesn't work particularly well in helping, for a variety of reasons - for instance, that corrupt government officials siphon the aid money off for themselves.  Have a look at the Wikipedia's article on aid for some starting points. --136.186.1.191


 * Many people, as well as 'media personalities' believe a governmemnts duty is to it's own people, those who elect it and pay taxes, rather than to struggling 'overseas' countries whose own governments can't provide for them. As mentioned, aid is not always effective, does it really help those who need it or those in power? Will it do any good anyway? Will those who get extra food go on to die of AIDS or TB or malaria? Will those saved from disease simply increase the number fighting over food? Plenty of money has gone to Africa especially already, if people see little effect they may become cynical. However I am surprised that media people speak out. It seems there are many very rich celebrities who could do a lot of good with their own money, much more willing to beg for the ordinary man's money whilst making themselves look and feel good as they 'save the world', rather like the famous people taking private jets to climate change concerts. It would be easy for these media people to say the PC thing without any effort, so I suspect they have genuine belief in what they say. Cyta 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., opinion polls have consistently shown that ordinary citizens think that a hugely larger proportion of the national govenment budget is spent on foreign aid than is actually the case -- and the conspicuous failure of many prestige projects (of the Tanzanian steel-mill type) in past decades has caused some to become rather cynical about the subject. The U.S. doesn't really "pull its weight" as far as direct aid goes (much of which is connected with security/military alliances or tied to U.S. companies and agricultural products), but the U.S. does have fewer trade barriers to LDC's than many other developed countries... AnonMoos 09:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, Americans still seem to believe that the Marshall Plan was typical or recent. What they don't realize is that the Marshall Plan was one of the things that inspired the John Birch Society to scream about helping the Nazis and Japanese, etc.  Foreign aid has been unpopular at all times and places, and what aid there is is buried in appropriations bills so as to not become a campaign issue.  Even liberal districts will vote against anyone who seems to be too pro-aid (this is because the left fragments over aid and will say, "Why give it to Fredonia, when Freedonia needs it more?").  Foreign aid is denounced by media figures of the Limbaugh stripe in the US, but it is also generally politically damaging.  Even if Americans think the Congress should allocate aid, any individual aid bill can be presented to the public as a political negative.  Hence, because no one can fight for a particular aid package (unless it's disaster relief), the power to designate and send aid is left to the executive, and the US hasn't had very many internationalist presidents in the last couple of decades.  Geogre 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP address of the questioner is in Australia.martianlostinspace email me 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

William of Ockham and Existence
I need a little help here. William of Ockham was a nominalist, but was he a scholastic, sorry, that should be scholasticist? I am working on the Philosophy article, Existence, you see. Nominalism seems to be a branch of Philosophy of Language. Perhaps there is a closely related article that might help fill in some gaps. TIA Newbyguesses - Talk 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on scholasticism mentions him several times as being a famous scholastic; the List of scholastic philosophers includes him; and the article on William of Ockham itself calls him a scholastic philosopher. So it looks like the answer is: yes, William of Ockham was a scholastic philosopher. What are the gaps you are referring to? See also Problem of universals. --Lambiam 06:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this raises some doubt in my mind about the following paragraph, (or at least the first bit of it), from that article, which I guess I do not fully understand.
 * The nominalist approach to the question (not to be confused with the scholastic usage of "nominalist") is to argue that certain noun phrases can be "eliminated" by rewriting a sentence in a form that has the same meaning, but which does not contain the noun phrase. Thus Ockham argued that "Socrates has wisdom", which apparently asserts the existence of a reference for "wisdom", can be rewritten as "Socrates is wise", which contains only the referring phrase "Socrates".  This method became widely accepted in the twentieth century by the analytic school of philosophy.
 * There is more, (not a lot on Ockham, the article is called Existence). Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, the "not to be confused" is quite confusing. "Current" nominalism is not that essentially different from "scholastic" nominalism; there is, rather, a continuity in the thoughts and arguments. --Lambiam 08:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I have got that now, and the "confusing" bit has been removed from the article. In another section there is -


 * The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas, perhaps following the Persian philosopher Avicenna, argued that God is pure being, and that in God essence and existence are the same. At about the same time, the nominalist philosopher William of Ockham, argued, in Book I of his Summa Totius Logicae (Treatise on all Logic, written some time before 1327) that Categories are not a form of Being in their own right, but derivative on the existence of individuals.


 * which seems fine too. Thanks for helping. Newbyguesses - Talk 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm way off the mark, here, but I should have supposed that nominalism is not a philosophy of language, or at least that it certainly was not (since 1915, I haven't kept up) but rather an extension of the idealism of Aristotle. Yes, I know, people don't always like calling Aristotle an idealist, but his Universals take the role of Plato's ideals.  In other words, although it seems to be linguistic because of the Logos, what they were going on about was always ontology.  Maybe I am not helping, but I've never been able to see them in any way but as idealists.  Geogre 12:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To use the designation "philosophy of language" for (aspects of) Greek or Medieval philosophy may appear somewhat anachronistic, but is not necessarily improper, and especially not for Ockham. As the opening sentence of our article on the Problem of universals puts it:
 * The problem of universals is a phrase used to refer to a nest of intertwined problems about universals within the philosophy of language, cognitive psychology, epistemology, and ontology.
 * Nominalism is one possible position with regard to these problems. --Lambiam 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Technology and the end of the Cold War
In an editorial today in the New York Times by Philip Bobbitt, the author says:
 * The end of the cold war was brought about in part because of technologies that empowered the individual and whetted people’s appetites for more control over their lives. 

I admit to being a little perplexed. What technologies is he referring to? I am assuming he is gesturing towards information technologies, but I have never seen those cited as one of the "causes" of the end of the Cold War (which are usually about the economic woes of the USSR and the political unrest in the wake of Gorbachev's reforms). Any idea what specifically he is referring to and whether this account of the end of the Cold War has any merit? It strikes me as a little inaccurate, a wacky re-reading of the past in light of a present concern, but that's just me. --24.147.86.187 14:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is most likely information technology. Without it, information comes from corporate and government sources - allowing governments to make the public believe that a threat exists when it doesn't exist, or allowing a governments to make the public believe that all is well when it isn't.  That is why countries, such as North Korea, actively pursue any attempt at gaining information technology (as well as countries such as Taliban-run Afghanistan refusing to allow people to get an education, becoming literate, so they can read information). -- Kainaw (what?) 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So what did that have to do with the end of the Cold War? Very little, yes? That's the part I'm having trouble with; I have no trouble thinking that information technologies could hypothetically lead to increased openness, civil society, etc., but their role in the end of the Cold War seems very small to me, since the Soviet bloc was very backwards in respect to information technologies. --140.247.240.228 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an editorial - I could have written "the cold war ended because west better XBOX360=ownage=better (internet=we won)" etc, etc. Why expect more?87.102.42.81 20:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a guest editorial? I would suppose it has to be, to be signed.  I would suppose the argument is a variant on the luxury goods argument.  If The People have televisions and short wave radios, they will have knowledge and desire better, and, if they desire better, they will demand better, and if they demand better, the government will fall.  The founding assumptions don't stand up to scrutiny.  (The Lockean idea that the people always have the power and will inevitably depose a tyrant simply doesn't bear up across history.  It requires acute misery to provoke revolt, not ennui or misery.  Furthermore, an armed populace is ridiculously poorly equipped to overthrow an immoral state apparatus (see half a dozen wars in Africa, half a dozen in the Middle East).)  At any rate, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was roughly 1990, and the sorts of IT that are supposed to be revolutionary just weren't there.  On the other hand, the East Germans had more access to information from the west than the average middle-Russia citizen, and yet it was slower to change.  From what you're presenting, the statement doesn't make a lot of sense.  Perhaps the argument is something other?  Geogre 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I alluded to, the editorial appears to claim that access to info in the U.S. allowed people to realize Russia was not a threat and cease supporting the cold war on our side. Access to info in Russia allowed the people to see that their economy and military was struggling and cease supporting the cold war on their side.  I used North Korea as an example of a country without access to info.  I believe that the people of North Korea believe that the whole world lives in poverty and starvation as they do - so why revolt? -- Kainaw (what?) 21:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that they didn't have access to info in Russia in any great degree that I know of (and any access they did have had less to do with the technology than it did the politics), and access to info in the US really didn't have anything to do with its role in the end of the Cold War (which is usually interpreted as being "sit around and wait" or "buy lots of nukes and make them try to match it), so neither of those arguments really hold up as historical arguments, I don't think. --24.147.86.187 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991) gives nice insight (though - I read it last week, when I was writing article related to Soviet collapse, so I also read other stuff that gave nice insight) -- Xil/talk 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read people claim that the fax machine and copier brought down Communism. That may or may not be true. It's certainly true that the failure of the Communists to match the West in terms of consumer comforts dampened support for Communism. Slavenka Drakulic explains in her books that the Communists were good at building tanks but in 40 years never made a single passable women's sanitary product. People used to keep stores of newspapers in their home because they never knew when there'd be a shortage of toilet paper, or what passed for toilet paper in those days. Meanwhile, the proximity of countries like Hungary (the first Bloc state to end the Communist power monopoly) and East Germany (where mass protests forced change) to the West meant people in Bloc countries knew they could have it better. This knowledge in and of itself didn't lead to the fall of Communism. But it meant that Communism had no mass support, and once Gorbachev started to weaken the pillars, it was only a matter of time before the house of cards collapsed. -- Mwalcoff 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how many fax machines and copiers in the USSR? I have heard anecdotally (from historian friends) that there were almost no photocopiers at the time of the collapse (and still aren't a whole lot), in part because the government saw little reason to give people the ability to quickly reproduce documents, but I don't know that for a fact to be true; it would be interesting. In any case, even in this form of argument the line from the editorial seems a bit overstated to me (and frankly I don't think it is needed for the argument the editorial is trying to make—it is an old saw that information technology has ups and downs, no need to try and make the end of the Cold War one of the ups!). --24.147.86.187 23:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The radio is technology.The BBC World Service is often credted with giving out unbiased news particularly useful to those in repressive regimes and simple radio recievers of the "cat's whisker"! variety can be constructed and hidden very easily.hotclaws 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Map of wealth distribution
I'm interested in learning more about how well income is distributed among different countries. Image:World Map Gini coefficient.png is useful in showing how well it's distributed overall in a country, but I was wondering if I could find something more specific; specifically for places like the US, India, and China. For instance, my hypothesis is that I would see high income along China's East coast, and a much poorer interior, while the United states would be more uniform (since it takes quite a bit of capital to maintain a farm). Does anyone know of any maps that would be interesting for me? --YbborTalk 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC
 * China Map
 * United States Map


 * Oddly, the China map shows the flag of the PRC, but includes Taiwan. What's interesting is that Taiwan as a whole has a much higher income than rural US (note the Taiwan figures are for individuals and the US ones are for households and I'm assuming on average three in a household). I suppose that will never change. Farmers have industrialised and have come up in the world, but they still haven't equaled citydwellers in terms of income. Of course one has to take into account that prices will be lower there too. Especially land-prices. This a major explanation for how people in third world countries can live off incomes of just 20 euro or so per month. DirkvdM 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Five Year Plan and Great Leap Forward?
Why did Stalin's 5 Year Plan succeed in raising Soviet industrial levels to that of Britain and Germany while Mao's Great Leap Forward actually lead to a temporary decline in output? What were the fundamental design and calculation's differences in planning and focus? --Gary123 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume you have read the pages on the First Five Year Plan and the Great Leap Forward? I think, perhaps, that you overestimate the success of the Five Year Plan. which did not raise output to quite the levels that you are suggesting.  There are also some similarities between what happened in Russia and China, in that both processes were accompanied by mass famine.  But there is little direct comparison beyond that.  Soviet industrial planning, for all its deficiencies, was carefully co-ordinated and, well, planned.  It focused on the development of heavy industry in manufacturing centres, and applied resources and expertise in achieving a given set of realistic and identifiable ends.  Mao's, 'plan', in contrast, was based on crackpot notions and half-baked thinking, all too characteristic of his whole approach to political and economic issues.  You see, Gary, it comes down to one thing: a belief in voluntarism; a belief that historical progress was merely a matter of collective will: if people wanted something badly enough it would happen, and the mountain would move.  If China the 'will' was Mao's, and he decided that industry was based on iron; the people must make iron, and so achieve the great collective leap.  Agriculture was negelected, as were many other areas of economic activity.  There was no proper co-ordination, and any form of expertise was suspect.  Millions of people were turned to making pig iron in back-yard furnaces, turning out, for the most part, a very poor quality product.  Stalin understood that high quality iron needs large-scale enterprise; Mao thought it was merely a question of will and incentive.  The result, as we know, was disastrous.  It was the economics of the treadmill: lots of energy expended for almost no pratical result.


 * Mao's 'enthusiasms' also impacted at this time on other areas of the economy. I would refer you to the Great sparrow campaign.  Here the 'Great Helmsman' decided that sparrows were a grain-eating pest.  Thousands were killed, with the result that the real pests on which the sparrows fed multiplied, reducing grain yields still further at a time of famine.  In arguably one of the craziest episodes in all of economic history the Chinese were afterwards obliged to appeal to Russia for surplus sparrows.  Clio the Muse 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure Haitians are just of African descent, no mixing with indians or anything? while DR is mixed but the haitians are just of pure non mixing north & western african descent?
I'm not talking about the mullato side, i'm talking about the Negro side, What kind of other blood do they have in them, instead of just black??!!! or are they just black nothing else??!!!--arab 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerrorSonghai (talk • contribs) --arab 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I answered your question above that Haitians have minimal North African ancestry. Most Haitians are mainly descended from West Africans. Many also have significant European ancestry (from both French and Spanish colonists).  I don't really understand this question.  You say you are not talking about the "mulatto" side.  Mulattos by definition have both European and sub-Saharan African ancestry.  You are talking about the "Negro" side.  I guess I am not sure what you mean by "Negro".  Racial terminology varies from one culture to another.  Note that "races" are cultural categories.  There is more genetic variation within sub-Saharan Africa than there is between sub-Saharan Africa and other world regions, so in genetic terms, there is really no such thing as a "black" or "Negro" population set apart from other populations.  This is a cultural category, and different cultures draw the lines around races in different ways.  For example, in the United States, most mulattos are seen as "black" and possibly most "blacks" are in fact mulattos, in that they have some European ancestry.  In fact, most people of all colors in the Americas, and particularly in the West Indies, have a mixed ancestry.  (In fact, if you go back enough generations, hardly anyone in the world is genetically "pure.")  Few if any Haitians are likely to have "pure" West African ancestry.  Most will have some European ancestry.  Most will have Central or Southern African ancestry, as significant numbers of slaves were taken from the Congo Basin, Angola and Mozambique, particularly during the later years of the slave trade.  Perhaps there is some Native American ancestry in Haiti, but I doubt that it is significant, since the Spanish virtually exterminated the indigenous population of Hispaniola, and then, during the 1600s, ordered the remaining inhabitants of western Hispaniola to move east, closer to Santo Domingo.  (See Hispaniola and Haiti.) Western Hispaniola was nearly uninhabited when the French established their colony of Saint-Domingue, which they populated with slaves taken from Africa and much smaller numbers of French colonists.  Saint-Domingue became Haiti when it declared its independence from France.  During and since the colonial period, some people of every background have migrated to and from Haiti/Saint-Domingue and the Dominican Republic/Santo Domingo, so the populations of the two countries have much shared ancestry. Because the French relied more heavily on slave plantations than did the Spanish, Haiti's population has a larger sub-Saharan African component.  However, the population of the Dominican Republic has a considerable sub-Saharan African component as well, and both countries have European ancestry.  Marco polo 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A minor elaboration-- while the indigenous Taíno of Hispaniola were almost completely wiped out, Native Americans from elsewhere were shipped to the island to work as slaves. It was not uncommon for "mainland" Indians to be enslaved and shipped to the Caribbean. I'm more familiar with the English trade in Indian slaves, which mainly involved export from Charleston, South Carolina to Barbados and other English colonies. Hispaniola received Indian slaves from French sources (like Louisiana) for sure, and probably from English and Spanish sources as well. One example I was just reading about is the French enslavement of most of the Natchez people, around 1730 in French Louisiana. They were shipped to Saint-Domingue. The number of Indian slaves sent to Hispaniola pales in comparison to the number of African slaves, and must be a very small part of general Haitian ancestry today. I just wanted to point out that Native American ancestry among Haitians need not be Taíno. It could just as easily be Natchez or any number of other "mainland" native peoples. Pfly 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

=== So what countries of africa did the haitians came from as slaves???!!! from the both spanish and french--arab 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Name the North(minority), West, Central, south and southeast african countries they all came from!!--arab 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first African slaves brought by the Spaniards were born in Spain; it is hard to tell where their ancestors came from, but in any case they were a few hundred on in the end many hundreds of thousands of imported slaves; possibly three quarters of a million. Once the Spaniards started importing African-born slaves directly from Africa, they took them predominantly from the Atlantic coast of West Africa, just as where the French and later the British (who obtained a monopoly on the trade) hauled them from. Although the trade lines later extended to sub-Saharan regions, that was always a small fraction. In West Africa the main supply was from the densely populated so-called Slave Coast. --Lambiam 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Never forget that we are all 'Jock Thamson's Bairns' - (randy sod) :) Perry-mankster 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to look that one up. Its at Jock Tamson's Bairns, of course. Rmhermen 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Telecommunication Industry
Hello. How is a nation's telecommunication industry so vital to their sovereignty? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One might fairly ask if a telecommunication industry even is vital to sovereignty. Our article notes that the telecommunications infrastructure (which I submit is a distinct subsection of the overall industry) is important to the economy.  However, claiming that that which is vital to the economy is therefore vital to sovereignty is where I see a problem with your original question. &mdash; Lomn 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it could be argued that cheap and efficient telecommunications infrastructure is a threat to sovereignty.--Shantavira|feed me 07:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard Finland's innovation in telephony credited to a deliberate policy of decentralizing the biz so that a hypothetical Russian invasion could never get control of the telephone system by seizing one building. This illustrates two aspects of sovereignty which can conflict: control over the populace and lack of control by foreigners. &mdash;Tamfang 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Batista and cuba
Please, Clio, can anything be said in favour of batista in cuba. was regime all bad.TheLostPrince 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, Lost Prince, that you may have in mind the usual sterotype: that Fulgencio Batista was nothing more than a corrupt dictator, a friend of the mafia and an oppressor of the Cuban people, a monster justly cast out by Fidel Castro? I would say here that the time for a reassessment is long overdue, and I am happy to report that some progress has been made along this road by Frank Argote-Freyre, whose first volume of a new biography, Fulgencio Batista: The Making of a Dictator, was published last year.  Batista, in short, was a far more complex character than the traditional depictions have allowed.  He himself came to power as part of a revolution, and made sincere attempts to improve the Cuban economy.  The problem was that the price of  sugar, the country's main product, had fallen sharply during the Great Depression, and was subject to periodic fluctuations thereafter.  In response, Batista looked to tourism to fuel a recovery, drawing in the mafia, in the person of Meyer Lansky to help him sort out Cuba's notoriously corrupt casinos.  It was so successful that when the American ambassador was asked why the Cubans tolerated the presence of so many gangsters, he replied "It's strange, but it seems to be the only way to get honest casinos."  By the 1950s, largely thanks to Batista's efforts, the Cuban economy was booming.  The problem was there was still a considerable gap between the wealth being drawn in to places like Havana and the relative poverty of the countryside; and it was on rural discontent that Castro built his revolution.  Clio the Muse 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actors' Pay
Why do studios pay actors millions of dollars instead of an average salary. It isn't like the actors could effectively go on strike, because there are too many actors as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.76.61 (talk)
 * Actually, actors can go on strike, and the vast majority of actors make what you might consider "average" (perhaps even "substandard") salaries -- which is a prime reason to go on strike. The top few actors, however, are paid exorbitantly for the same reason that anyone else is paid exorbitantly -- their particular industry has determined that their work is worth that pay.
 * For a parallel example, consider the 1994 Major League Baseball strike: very highly paid professionals successfully went on strike, shutting down the season, despite the abundance of eligible (minor league) players who could be paid far less. &mdash; Lomn 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Show business is just that -- a business. And studios / studio executives are keenly aware of the business forces at work in their industry.  So, here is just a representative example.  Why would NBC pay Jennifer Aniston 1 million dollars to appear in a 22-minute week's episode of the TV show, Friends?  Surely, NBC can find another actor (Actor "X") willing to do the job for far less -- even, say, $5,000 or $10,000 -- right?  The answer is: NBC knows that Jennifer Aniston's work will bring in to NBC more than a million dollars of revenue that week.  If her work did not produce such results, surely NBC would not operate at a loss just to pay her that salary.  So, hypothetically, Aniston's work brings in to NBC, say, 5 million dollars of revenue ... they pay her 1 million dollars and keep the "profit" of 4 million dollars for the network.  If NBC had hired Actor "X" instead (a no-name "nobody"), Actor X's work would not generate the 5 million dollars for NBC that Aniston generates.  So, it is all business and economics.  Aniston commands a 1 million dollar fee because she can.  And NBC is comfortable with the profit margin that they earn (the extra 4 million) by hiring her for 1 million.  In economics, it is an "equilibrium point" ... which simply means that, in order to make 4 million dollars of profit, NBC is willing to spend 1 million dollars in expenses (her salary).  That is a simplified version of the economics of show business.    (Joseph A. Spadaro 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Once upon a time, actors did get salaries. In the days of the studio system, actors were "contract players."  What spelled the end of the studio system is a favorite subject of speculation, but, ultimately, the corporations killed the corporate control over actor pay by being willing to do whatever it took to get the guaranteed box office of a star.  Once certain actors became "stars," disparity between them and the rest got underway.  If it were not for the Screen Actor's Guild, the bottom end would be way down to nearly zero, as the studios would be happy enough to pay Tom Hanks and stock the rest of the film with minimum wage actors, but collective bargaining has at least ensured that SAC members away from the star ranks can live on their pay.  (And that leads the studios to shoot in exotic places, like "right to work" states and foreign countries.)  Geogre 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This does not answer the question of "How does the studio figure out how much an actor is worth?". Do they just pick a number out of the thin air? Or do they bid on ebay? 202.168.50.40 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How does the studio figure out how much the actor is worth? The answer is no different than any other economic / labor situation.  How does a hospital determine what to pay its nurses?  How does a school determine what to pay its teachers?  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  There is absolutely no difference between those situations (nurse, teacher) and the actor situation.  The answer is economic equilibrium ... and, simply put, it is the "meeting point" of supply and demand.  In plain English, that means ... NBC will pay Aniston the very least $ (salary) that it thinks it can get away with (and not pay a penny more) ... and Aniston will accept the very highest $ (salary) that she thinks she can demand (and not a penny less).  So, where NBC's "very highest salary figure that they are willing to pay" meets Aniston's "very lowest salary that she is willing to work for" is the equilibrium point at which both sides are happy.  NBC is happy at the equilibrium point of (say) $1 million and Aniston is happy at the equilibrium point of $1 million ... so both sides agree to that figure.  Think of the equilibrium point as both sides negotiating back and forth, trying to wear the other side down.  Aniston trying to get as much $ out of NBC as she possibly can.  And NBC trying to get away with paying Aniston as little $ as they possibly can get away with.  Where these negotiations meet ($1 million dollars per episode) is the equilibrium point and, therefore, the agreed upon salary.  And, this is the exact same way that it works with nurses, teachers, janitors, brain surgeons, etc.  Actors are no different.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Studios don't determine the worth of an actor. Several things have intervened to take this from a classic labor situation, the most important of which is the agent/agency.  Since you seem to want to know about stars and upper echelon actors (I answered about the low end: SAG determines that), talent agencies have stepped in in the form of "management."  The actors do not generally negotiate their pay: the agency does.  In Hollywood (since we're on stars) and New York, the agencies like ICM (a horrible article...really horrible) will make a demand based on 1)what the talent got the last time, 2) what a similar star has gotten, 3)what polling, Q-rating, and other things indicate the actor will add to the take of the entertainment, 4)the actor's own preferences.  Each of those can become artificially elevated or depressed in the negotiations.  What the studio will pay depends upon each of those things, too, and its perception of the uniqueness of the actor's services (is there another teen hunk who can star, and this one is on the way up and therefore working for less?).  The talent agencies work like a cartel, in economic terms, or a union for the highest income section.  Geogre 12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Geogre - I don't understand (or agree with) why you are saying that the actor situation is different than the classic labor situation. There are two sides ... for ease of discussion, let's just say the employer and the employee.  Those two sides will meet at the equilibrium wage.  It does not matter "who" (specifically) the two sides are.  The employer can be the studio, the network, the production company, whatever.  The employee can be Aniston, her agent, her lawyer, her mom, ICM, whoever.  Still, there are both sides: (a) one side seeking the employment services of an actor ... this is the employer (or, more likely, his representative); and (b) one side seeking employment as an actor ... this is the actor himself (or, more likely, his representative).  So, as the two sides (represented by whoever appropriate) meet at the equilibrium wage point, that illustrates the classic labor theory of supply / demand of labor services.  In theory, the final salary agreed upon by both sides is (theoretically) the only point at which both sides are happy / satisfied / and at equilibrium.  NBC would not pay a penny more and Aniston would not accept a penny less.  Who specifically is doing the negotiating for both sides is, essentially, irrelevent. (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))


 * We're running long, but I said that it's not classic free market, not the supply and demand don't function. Any time there is a cartel or when there is a successful collective bargaining body, the normal labor capital changes its function.  A cartel usually applies to commodities, and collective bargaining to people, but agencies act like a cartel of people.  In the usual wage-labor-capital arrangement, the individual worker sells his labor to the capitalist and receives a wage, and the buyer of labor wishes to buy cheap and sell dear, while the seller of labor wishes to do the same.  However, because the capitalist has a monopoly on the means of production, he is in a position of power over the labor-seller.  A Hollywood star can't be a star without the studios and their control of capital and equipment, let's say.  As long as the single worker is selling to the capital, that worker is at a huge disadvantage in power.  When all the workers together make a single decision, they make labor the same as capital: a single voice with equal power to the capital suppliers.  What is curious about the Hollywood star (not the rank and file actor) is that the agents lock up all the stars and then negotiate in their own interests and will "blackball" studios, directors, etc.  They are putting themselves in a medial position of capital themselves against the studios.  So long as they deliver very high pay to their clients, the clients will come, but they also endeavor to ensure that no client can get the big pay without them.  Supply and demand still function, but not wage/labor/capital dynamics.  Geogre 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To the Original Poster - you can think of actor's salary (or anyone's salary) much in this way. If you walked into a pizza parlor, how much are you willing to pay for a pizza?  If the pizza parlor was charging $1000 for a pizza, that number is unacceptable to you (it is too high) ... so you will simply go to another pizza parlor to do your business.  You want to "get away with" paying as little as you possibly can.  On the other side, you have the pizza parlor owner who needs to set the price he will charge for the pizza.  If he charges $1000 for the pizza, he knows that that number is unacceptable to customers ... no one will patronize his shop ... and he will go out of business.  At the same time, if he charges, say, 3 cents for a pizza ... every one in the world will go there to eat ... he will not make any profit and will drown in debt ... and he will go out of business.  So, there is some number (in between the 3 cents and the $1000) at which BOTH the parlor owner is happy / satisfied and the customer is happy / satisfied with the transaction (of buying & selling the pizza).  Both market forces (the supplier of the pizza and the demander of the pizza) are at equilibrium.  This pizza example is the same exact thing as what happens when a supplier of acting services (the actor) negotiates with the demander of acting services (the studio).  And with any other job, as well -- surgeon, professor, janitor, secretary, etc.  Equilibrium point is "how high is the employer willing to pay" and "how low is the employee willing to accept".  (Joseph A. Spadaro 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC))


 * A notable exception to this theory is Premium pricing (that needs a RD project article created!); a cynical aspect of this is that simply by charging more for a product, it can be seen as "better" than equally good rival products. I heard a talk by a pre-Internet data entrepeneur, who couldn't shift his product no matter how much he slashed the price. In a last ditch effort before bankruptcy, he tried offering the product to new prospects at vastly more than the opposition. It was an instant success... and he's now a very wealthy man. Caveat emptor. --Dweller 10:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An oldie, which I've seen attributed to George Bernard Shaw:
 * "If I paid you $1,000,000, would you have sex with me?"
 * "Wow, nobody ever asked me that before. Well, yeah, I guess I would."
 * "Okay, how about a quickie for $10?"
 * "No! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
 * "Oh, we have already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

--Anonymous, August 23, 2007, 22:25 (UTC).