Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 1

= September 1 =

Death rate
I vaguely remember reading on the Internet that 50% of girls died before a certain age in the 17th century. Can anyone find the source or other webpage that provides similar data? The original source was about the human population. --99.237.101.48 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try Infant mortality, the death-rate for girls (and boys) under the age of 5 was much much higher in the past than it is now - infact this is often counted as one of the main-causes of the low life-expectency average (the large number of low-age deaths affecting the average - when in real terms if you survived to adulthood you'd likely also survive to 'old age'). Can't get to other sites but a search for 'historic infant mortality rates' or something similar in Google would probably get you statistical information. Obviosuly the country you're interested in in particularly will be useful to include in any searches if you want country specific information. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The American concept of rags to riches. Does it still apply?
Let’s say we have two hypothetical case studies as follows. Assuming no special luck or talent (e.g. winning the lottery, turning out to be a bestselling author, etc.), is it realistically possible for either of these Americans to reach a point where that person is earning < over $100,000/year before retirement? What is the fastest, most secure path to reach this point?

Case No. 1: A high school freshman going to a poor public high school with a family that lives bellow the poverty line and gets by on food stamps and payday loans.

Case No. 2: A 30 year old immigrant bus driver with no high school diploma and a limited English vocabulary.

Sources would be appreciated if available. This is not a school assignment. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a good way to get at the question of whether the "rags to riches" concept applies today (if it ever really did). "Rags to riches" is a trope that when applied politically is usually a justification for giving no special assistance to the poor, since they have "opportunity." But everyone with half a brain knows that the rich have far more "opportunity", and always have. To know whether the question "still applied" you'd want to know whether the number of people whose incomes as children that were below the poverty line who then made it to "riches" (however defined) was significant (or had changed over time). Individual case studies (or anecdotes) shed no more light on this issue than, say, the case of Michael Jordan does for the likelihood that a child might become a star basketball player. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but let’s disregard the political baggage included in that term okay. :) I’m interested in the concept, whatever it’s called. And indeed statistics such as that would be very helpful. I’m also interested in how it could best be accomplished though, so not anecdotes precisely, but rather what the most effective course for escaping poverty is today. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But the "effective course" would depend on a million other variables you have not defined either. We don't know if these people are smart, dumb, motivated, diseased, whatever. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume the national average in all such cases. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are over-complicating it, 98.217. Assume all the factors not mentioned are identical between the two. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (I assume you mean >$100,000.) I don't have statistics to back this up, but I would say the high school freshman has a greater chance of achieving success in America.
 * the freshman (most likely) speaks English, America's language, and the international language of business
 * the freshman is more likely to receive a high school diploma than the bus driver
 * the freshman has more time to work toward success
 * In what areas, if any, does the bus driver have an advantage? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it was posited as a race. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two questions: "Is it realistically possible…", to which the obvious answer is Yes. The second asks "What is the fastest, most secure path to reach this point?", which is what I replied to. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't from what I see but the fact still remains that there is a ~15 year difference in their ages. Dismas |(talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the bus driver's position might be slightly compensated by the fact that he has a steady job. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be steady, but rarely will a bus driver earn over $100,000 per year. Is it the tour bus driver for an international best-selling rock band? For a drug cartel? For a human trafficking ring? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. It’s a dead end job. How could such a person progress to a position where they could make upper middle class wages though? Is it possible today? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if we assume that they are otherwise equal in health, motivation, intelligence, etc that their chances are pretty much equal. If we go more towards generalities or averages of the two groups, then we come to differences in such elements.  For instance, I suspect 30-year old immigrants tend to be a bit more motivated than average American teenagers.  On the other hand, it seems likely that the bus driver will be much busier than the teenager, who may have more free time to develop his entrepreneurial plan.  Newfangled inventions don't count as exceptions, do they?  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  06:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unless the inventions are particularly brilliant. :) It strikes me that “inventor” isn’t exactly the safest road to financial security however. After walking around Nordstrom a couple days a ago it strikes me that “fashion designer” might be a rather lucrative career path. lol. That wouldn’t be a very safe career either though. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Both strike me as being about as exceptional means to riches as discovering your innate ability to write well. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 09:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In essence you appear to be look for statistics on Social mobility. Trying to find answers to 2 very specific cases is worthless - across the entire nation there will be real-life examples that meet your criteria for case 1 - case 2 is probably too specific to make that generalisation though. Social-mobility is a well studied area so i'm sure you'll find plenty of reports by using that in search terms. Don't have chance to scout around for firm stats but i'm sure a bit of googling should get you somewhere. May repost later if get time to look myself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Now I have a better word than “rags to riches.” I’ll try to find some statistics here. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is poorly formed. "Riches" in the US is based on capital, not wages. A person making >$100,000/yr. is often not rich: this person can easily have a negative net worth. It is still the case that most new millionares (those who start with nothing and now have a net worth of > $1,000,000) are immigrants who start a small labor-intensive business such as a resturant. this is "rags to riches" with a vengance. Most Americans do not think of these people as "Rich" during the early years, but many of them move into expensive homes, and many of them raise highly-motivated children who do very well in High School and at University. I know a bunch of these kids and I have met their hard-working parents, The children will end up "rich" in the sense you use, and some of them started with nothing (Vietnamese boat children) as little kids, but their actual start is based on the parent's hard work and enterprise. -Arch dude (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. I’m not sure we can really call that “rags to riches” though in a classical sense since it would essentially be a two generation process. On the other hand I’m sure there are many cases where a poor immigrant family starts a business which then becomes more popular than expected and they end up as CEOs. That seems to include quite a bit of luck though. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The ways I've seen it often portrayed fall into two areas for me: 1) Lottery - person wins a lottery and suddenly has $50 million to play with. Properly invested and managed, this would leave you with a good income for life. However, the usual end result of lottery winners is mismanaged funds, so it's not as realistic as it sounds. 2) Hard work and a lot of luck. This is where the person has the hot idea that is successfully marketed and becomes more than a lasting fad. The good idea is the start, followed by protecting the idea, marketing it and having the luck that it takes hold in the public consciousness. This has happened before (no examples come to mind, unfortunately - perhaps Microsoft and Apple?), but it is rare. Most of the people who have the good ideas can't get them started from their initial situation of poverty and/or uneducation. More luck is needed to stop them getting conned by big business, and more again for the product to be publicly successful, and further more luck for the success to be continued for more than a short duration. Steewi (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are lots of ordinary professions where you can earn about $100,00/year or more: economist, investment banker, surgeon, anaesthesiologist, etc. My first thought was that the best/only real way to get out of the above cases would be some combination of education, thriftiness, and very hard work (lots of scholarship applications and such). Is this not possible? I get the sense that most rich people do not become rich through any “get rich fast” plan. It usually seems to involve years of work and carful positioning. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Shepard tone in chopin's etude?
The article on shepard tone states that: "Chopin's Etude no. 3, op. 10 contains Shepard tone-like sequences in the middle section." Which measures or section does this statement refer to?Leif edling (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This question was cross-posted on the entertainment desk, and some suggestions have appeared there. Please do not cross-post on the reference desks. --NorwegianBluetalk 18:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Venetian spies
What can people tell me about Venetian spies - especially in the 16th century? What form did the secret intelligence system take? Were there ranks among the spies? Who controlled them? Are there any famous spies? Any information at all would be appreciated, thanks.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the article on the Council of Ten, which was one of the main governing bodies of Venice from 1310 to 1797, a network of spies was created in about 1539 to help the State Inquisitors, to find traitors and heretics and the like. That's about all I see on Wikipedia. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 14:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Giacomo Casanova is fairly famous, and he did a bit of spying for the Council of Ten, as described here. Earlier, of course, he himself had been locked away as a result of information supplied by another spy. From reading his Histoire de ma vie, one gets the impression that, in the eighteenth century at least, spies were everywhere in the city. Deor (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The traditions of Venetian espionage lived on in the 20th century's Vittorio Vidali. He was actually from Trieste, but he was a follower of Casanova in more ways than one. Strawless (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all - those links have led me in useful directions Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia and the European Union
If Georgia isn't part of the European Union, why does the president displays the EU flag next to the national flag? Isn't it an illegal misuse of the EU flag? Eklipse (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The EU flag is also the flag of the non-related Council of Europe, of which Georgia is a member. However, members of such organisations usually don't use their flags next to their own one on a regular basis. Do you mean that the president of Georgia always uses the EU flag, or are you referring to a particular picture? In that case, it is likely that the photo was taken at a meeting with the EU or the Council of Europe. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No I've seen it every time he makes a statement or addresses the nation. Eklipse (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen this too. I take it as a sign that he wants his country to join the European Union. Whether this happens or not is a different question, but I guess nobody can really stop him from using the European flag. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 21:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if the EU asked him to stop, he would. It doesn't do any harm, the EU is being quite supportive of Georgia at the moment. If the EU weren't supporting Georgia, then it would be rather misleading for him to make political statements while standing in front of an EU flag, but that's not the case. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw a photo in this morning's paper of a large demonstration in the streets of Tblisi, the protesters were carrying large Georgian and EU flags. It seems to be a common thing, perhaps they are trying to emphasize their Europeanness? Corvus cornix talk  18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me (citation needed...) that Georgia is feeling attacked by two of the three superpowers (literally in the case of one of them) and, seeing some sympathy from the EU, wishes to show some level of Europeanness as much as they can. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two international societies
The Red Cross Society of Eritrea and the Tuvalu Red Cross Society are both pending recognition and admission to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Both have been invited as observers to the International Federation's General Assembly. What does it take for the two Societies to be officially recognized and admitted?72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It requires the support of 60% of existing national societies at a meeting of the general assembly, which occurs every odd-numbered year. See the consitution and rules of procedure for more. Algebraist 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Monopolies
Here's a quote from Ayn Rand I found quite interesting: In free competition, no one could corner the market on a needed product.

I did a google search on that quote and found a 1962 essay by Nathaniel Branden, which defends this thesis: "In the whole history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into a given field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government: by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges (not obtainable on a free market) to a man or a group of men, and forbade all others to enter that particular field."

Has there been any more intellectual discussion about this? Ayn Rand is a pretty serious philosopher, so I bet people have researched this argument. It's also 50 years out of date now--is there any further comment on this argument? 24.207.131.200 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First... Thanks for asking a valid question. Most people would just ask "Tell me about monopolies?"
 * The argument you bring up is not commonplace. It is the basis of arguments against software patents.  Patents create monopolies by making it possible for one and only one company to provide a product.  It is understandable when the item being patented requires many years of work and/or a lot of money to develop, but makes no sense in software.  All it does is create monopolies on simple programming designs. --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Software patents are no more or less similar to monopolies than all patents, which are explicitly a special form of limited monopoly. It doesn't really get at the question of whether a totally free market would give rise to monopolies or not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the argument is commonplace among libertarian-oriented economists. It tends to bear out as well. After interviewing many such economists, I've become convinced that there is merit to the argument that monopolies-as-creation-of-the-state are far more numerous than monopolies-as-resultants-of-the-market. Wikiant (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the software argument curious. When that happens, I tend to substitute another word (in this case "shoes") for the one that seems odd ("software"). And, lo and behold, in fact a monopoly on a specific software product would quickly be replaced by another software product, if the price was unreasonable. Just as no one could monopolize shoes, so too, with software. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be different in countries across the world, I can't think of any state-sanctioned monopoly that wouldn't be a monopoly without the state regulating the market, i.e. natural monopoly, in my country, the Netherlands. State regulation or ownership of such monopolies may be beneficial, see the "Regulation" section of the natural monopoly article. User:Krator (t c) 07:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The natural monopoly argument does not hold in the long run. (For the non-economists: The natural monopoly argument says that some products, because of the large fixed costs associated with their production, can be produced at a low cost per unit only when so many units are produced that entire market supply must come from a single firm.) For example, in the US, railroads were considered natural monopolies because of the huge cost of laying miles of track (ignoring for the moment the US government's contribution to railroad monopolies via regulation). But, that monopoly existed only until invention of the automobile and then the airplane. That is, on the rare occassion when cross-firm competition is not possible, cross-industry competition achieves the same effect. In the end, the monopoly cannot survive as a monopoly. Wikiant (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the long run we are all dead. Algebraist 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikiant, I am familiar with that criticism of the natural monopoly argument and I agree with it too. Yet, it does apply here, I believe. To use your example, would a monopoly in the rail travel market fit Branden's statement above? (Namely, that "Every single coercive monopoly that exists or ever has existed—in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world—was created and made possible only by an act of government") Sure, the monopoly wouldn't last forever as you correctly point out, but it wouldn't be there only by act of government, debunking most of Branden's statement and the validity of the libertarian side of the debate. Because, regulating a market that's bound to be in the hands of a monopoly anyway is a good thing, as the regulation section in the natural monopoly article points out. Regulation may of course do bad things too, but that's a matter of writing the right laws, not of an inherent flaw. User:Krator (t c) 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)