Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 16

= September 16 =

lens-less glasses worn for fashion
Here in China young ladies (& very occasionally young men) are now wearing "frames" as a fashion accessory. Is this currently happening in any other countries? Can anyone help establish the origin of this fad? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT TO ADD - in case it wasn't clear in my initial post, we're talking about glasses that lack any lens at all. Neither real nor fake - they are literally empty frames! Is this being seen anywhere else in the world? Or can I deem it a uniquely Chinese "achievement"? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the mid-1980s there was a brief and equally clueless California fad of "attitude glasses" with non-prescription plastic lenses in them. Stictly suburban. The empty format, freed of any intellectual or cultural residue, is a familiar characteristic of post-modern Eastern wannabe gimmicks: glassless frames capture the essence of this reverse-Chinoiserie.--Wetman (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Senator Barry Goldwater wore enormous thick-framed glasses for most of his career. Then his vision got worse to the point where he had to switch to contact lenses, which he did.  But he kept wearing empty frames with plain glass in them over the contacts, since people were used to seeing him with those frames. 67.122.211.205 (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As the previous replies have suggested, it's glasses with plain lenses which have previously been a minor fashion trend in the U.S. Empty frames without any lenses were pretty much novelty-store gag gifts and comedian's accessories, as far as I'm aware (Jerry Lewis sometimes wore them, and some comedians slipped them on as part of their act, and then said "Would you hit a man wearing glasses?" etc.).  Groucho glasses have no lenses... AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I haven't noticed any trend towards this in the UK, the comic actor Eric Sykes used to wears thick black glasses which acted as hearing aids and had no lenses. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually saw this for the very first time just the other day! On my way home from work on a tram in Melbourne, Australia. It was a young asian guy, apart from the glasses he was dressed quite hip. There's lot's of Asian students in Melbourne, so I suppose there's half a chance it will take off here. Vespine (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a cat eye glasses fad in the late 50's in the United States. It was not very wide spread and didn't last long - transitioning into similarly shaped sunglasses, which then transitioned to the grossly oversized sunglasses of the 60's.  However, when modern people dress in what they believe to be 50's style, it is very common for the women to wear cat eye glasses.

Finance
Hello, I have some questions regarding Template:Infobox company.


 * 1) What is Production output and how it is measured?
 * 2) Revenue means the total amount of money a company earned through selling its products. Fine. Operating income means earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), fine. As per the article Earnings before interest and taxes, Operating Income = Operating Revenue – Operating Expenses. Is operating revenue and revenue same?
 * 3) If EBIT = Operating revenue – Operating expenses, then I have to assume operating expense excludes taxes. But according to the article Operating expense, Operating expenses include license fees, property taxes etc. Then how operating expense excludes tax?
 * 4) Does Net income = Revenue - (EBIT + Tax)? Is this formula right?
 * 5) Some countries have high corporation tax rates, while some countries have very low corporation tax rate. For example in Republic of Macedonia, corporation tax and income tax is very low, 10%. If so, then why large multinational companies do not move their global headquarters to such tax heavens?
 * 6) I have a bit confusion over corporate tax and income tax. Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft. Thus the total income of Microsoft before paying taxes is the total income of Bill Gates, since he himself is the owner of the business. Now if corporation tax is taken from Microsoft, this means tax on the income of Gates, am I right? Ok, if Microsoft is a publicly traded company, then corporation tax means tax on the income of its shareholders, right? And if so, then what is the difference between corporation tax and income tax here? AquaticMonkey (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the last point - according to our article, Bill Gates only owns 8% of Microsoft. In any case a company is generally considered as a separate legal entity, so its income is not considered part of its owners' income, even if it's owned by a single person. The owner would receive income from the company as some combination of salary and dividends. AndrewWTaylor (talk)


 * 1. Not sure - probably refers to amount of goods sold during the period. Have you tried google? Revenue would be a much better measure of output anyway.
 * 2. Operating revenue would be revenue from operations. This would be less than Revenue if the company classifies income from peripheral activities as "Revenue" and it would depend on reporting standards.
 * 3. Property tax is is not the same as a company tax, which a company pays based on its profits for the period. See property tax for details.
 * 4. No. Net Income = EBIT - Interest - Taxes
 * 5. Have a look at Tax haven. See this for another take on the matter. Moving a part of a company to another country results in various administrative inefficiencies due to, for example, a lack of skills and other resources in that country. Basically, if an entity wants to sell its goods in the US and earn its profits in the US, it would have to pay US tax rates.
 * 6. Even if Bill Gates was the only owner of Microsoft (he isn't), the company and the man are separate taxable entities. The company declares an income and is subject to pay taxes on that income at the corporate tax rate. Being a shareholder, Gates would receive income in the form of dividends and he would have to pay taxes on that income at his income tax rate. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A question on postmodern depiction in literature....
Can salman rushdie's short story, At the auction of the ruby slippers, be considered a post modern depiction of western culture? why?

And if u are unable to answer that question because you haven't read At the auction of the ruby slippers, could u please explain what would be/consist a postmodern depiction in literature?

thank you. kindly help me ans this qn asap as it is urgent. Paul 220.255.220.197 (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you had better drop that class. Шизомби (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried reading our articles on postmodernism and postmodern literature? While postmodernism is hard to define, the thread running through it is the sort of "self-awareness" or metanarrative the story seems to display.  Consider something like the film Scream.  It is clearly postmodern because, besides being a horror film, it is itself a self-referential critique of the horror genre.  Very postmodern sort of thing.  Also see the film Unforgiven, same deal but with westerns.  It is at once a western, but also obviously it plays around with the conventions of Westerns in such a way that you know that the filmmakers are saying "We know this is how a Western formula should work, but we are intentionally screwing with the formula in a way that makes it obvious we are doing so".  All postmodernist works contain a similar sort of internal irony in that way.  Robot Chicken is MEGA postmodern, like postmodern-with-a-sledgehammer sort of postmodern.  Much of postmodernism is a big "in-joke" and you need to know the background to get the joke.  If the first western you ever saw was Unforgiven, you would completely miss the postmodern aspects of it.  If you want to "get" postmodernism, you need to be familiar enough with the material the story is commenting on.  So, if Rushdie's story is a post-modern depiction on western culture, you need to ask, what is Rushdie saying about western culture in his story.  Not overtly in the text, but in the sorts of ways that it exagerates or uses aspects of western culture in ironic ways.  Exageration and irony are very postmodern tools... -- Jayron  32  05:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a language arts class which is a compulsory subject in my school lol... yeah, at the auction of the ruby slippers satirizes capitalism extensively such as where even like the taj mahal, the sphinx and so on are sold at the grand auction. Through doing so it depicts western culture of being overtly capitalistic and shows rushdies negative attitude towards it. He depicts the setting of the story to be a choatic anarchy-filled world were people live in fear in "bunkers". The society depicted to be highly relativistic and emotionless in some parts. But at the same time it also shows a lack of identity and a search for identity in the text as everyone is there to try and get the ruby slippers of Dorothy from the wizard of oz for themselves to return to a "state of normalcy" or home, which i believe is postmodern idea as well as a postcolonial mentality right? So should we say that it is a postmodern depiction of western culture to show salman rushdie's attitude towards western culture? or should we present the idea in another way like saying that it shows the writer's postcolonial sentiments towards the western culture by his critical depiction of it in the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.220.197 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Paul 220.255.220.197 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in that specific case, the postmodernism aspect is the use of the Wizard of Oz as a means of providing the criticism. Remember the importance of the "in-joke" to postmodernism... If one had never seen the Wizard of Oz, then the ruby slippers reference would mean nothing.  It is specifically the use of the commonly recognized motif in such a way that it assumes the audience automatically understands it that is the postmodern angle here, not JUST the use of satire... -- Jayron  32  12:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

leftovers worth today
When Barbara Hutton died in 1979, she had about $3,500 on deposit in her bank accounts. Who inherited the money since she had no other living heirs after her son, Lance Reventlow, was killed in a private airplane crash in 1972? What would $3,500 in 1979 be in today's money?69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you follow the first link in the Barbara Hutton, it says her last will made bequests to friends (so those friends were her heirs). But it doesn't say who they were or what specifically happened to the money. According to the "inflation calculator" page on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics web site, $3,500 US in 1979 equals about $10,380 today.  --Anonymous, 08:24 UTC, which equals about 08:24 UTC today, September 16, 2009.


 * Of course, if left in a simple savings account, you would also have to factor in, on top of inflation, compound interest, which could make $3,500 worth considerably more than even THAT. -- Jayron  32  12:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, not really. $10,380 today has the buying power of $3,500 then, but in lieu of Jayron's comment about interest, $3,500 (in actual money) then is still just $3,500 today. The money itself does not magically multiply along with inflation. Even with compounding interest, the buying power has likely decreased -- banks are not in the habit of risklessly outpacing inflation in their savings accounts. &mdash; Lomn 14:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He's right. In a savings account, paying 2% interest (a generous amount, based on my very unscientific random poll of published rates), and compounded monthly $3,500 would grow to $6,374.23 in 30 years. Since you would need $10,380 in current cash to equal the purchasing power of $3,500 in 1979 cash, that would mean that you actually lost roughly $4,000/10,380 or 39% of its value. To break even with the 30 year inflation rate, you would need a savings account that paid roughly 3.63% interest. These calculations can be checked using this compound interest calculator. The highest published rate I can find for a "normal" savings account is 2.27%; however that rate requires a minimum balance of $100,000. Most savings accounts with a minimum balance requirement below $3,500 seem to be paying out in the 2% range. So there ya go. If you leave your money in a straight savings account, long term, you are losing purchasing power. -- Jayron  32  03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But what if $3,500 were in checking accounts in 1979? What would that be worth today?69.203.157.50 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean, like a standard no-interest-at-all checking account? It would be worth $3,500 exactly.  In that case, its worth exactly what it would be worth in bills.  If you took $3,500 in hundred dollar bills and stuffed it into coffee cans, in 30 years it is worth the same amount.  The numbers on the front of the bills don't change.  What changes is the amount of stuff you can buy with those bills which is what inflation means.  The value of cash goes down over time; so that $3,500 isn't WORTH $10,380, but that it TAKES $10,380 to buy the same amount of stuff that $3,500 bought 30 years ago.  If you want to look at how much $3,500 in TODAYS money would have been worth in 1979, you would need to take the inverse of the relationship.  Since inflation is roughly 10,380/3,500 = 296%, then today $3,500 buys only about 1/3rd as much stuff today as it did in 1979.  So, in a real sense, $3,500 left in a no-interest checking account for 30 years would be worth only about 33% of its original value.  -- Jayron  32  12:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that interest rates today are much lower then they would have been in the 1970s and 1980s, back when a mortgage of 15% was the norm as opposed to 5-6%. I would presume that savings account interest would also be higher, though I do not know how much higher.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

At the end of Poor Little Rich Girl: The Barbara Hutton Story, when the announcer said she had almost $3,500 on deposit in her bank accounts at the time of her death, he didn't say whether they were checking or savings accounts. Let's say if $3,500 were on deposit in both checking and savings accounts in 1979, would value have increased or decreased in today's money?69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We've noted each case above: both would have decreased in buying power (I dislike the vagueness of "value" in this case), with the checking account decreasing more. &mdash; Lomn 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this. In 1999, a single strand of 41 natural and graduated pearls once belonging to Barbara Hutton was auctioned and sold by Christie's Geneva for $1,476,000. In 2006 a single Imperial Qing Dynasty porcelain bowl, also once owned by Barbara Hutton, was auctioned and sold by Christie's Hong Kong for a record-breaking price of $22,240,000. Where did the money from those sales go to? What would $1,476,000 in 1999 be in today's money? What would $22,240,000 in 2006 be in today's money?69.203.157.50 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The money presumably went to her estate (or to whomever presently owned the items, your use of "once belonging to" doesn't make it clear that stuff was still belonging to Hutton at the time of auction). As for the rest, you can use the inflation calculator linked above to note the change in buying power. The actual money collected from the sales does not rise with inflation, naturally. &mdash; Lomn 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I used the calculator. $3,500 in 1979 would be $10,405.22 in today's money. $1,476,000 in 1999 would be $1,912,190.78 in today's money. As for $22,240,000 in 2006, I tried to calculate that, but they said an error occured. The original sum has to be $10,000,000 or less. So what would the last sum be in today's money? As I remember, I read Barbara Hutton had made bequests to friends in her last will and her remaining jewelry, furniture and other valuable items were privately sold or auctioned.69.203.157.50 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher H. Clark
Dear Sirs:

I am a descendant of Christopher H. Clark.

He was a Congressman from Virginia from 1804 to 1806 and died November 21, 1828.

The Wikipedia article states he was "interred in a private cemetery at Old Lawyers Station near Lynchburg, Virginia".

The family believes this referrence to be the Clark family cemetery.

Can you supply the supporting citation for the referrence in the Wikipedia article for the burial location ?

Thank you for any assistance.

Robert C. Light,Jr. [email deleted to deter spambots] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.5 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The source, according to the article Christopher H. Clark, is the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. The specific entry is found | here. // BL \\ (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Star ratings for novels, like those for movies
Is there any website that gives star ratings for novels and other narratives, in the same way that movies are rated? Whoa! - I do already know that Amazon does them, but that website(s) is not really suited to browsing by genre etc. Thanks. 89.243.195.226 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's Goodreads.com (example ratings) which is browsable by genre. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Goodreads, like Wikipedia, relies on its content from the readers of the site. The ratings don't come from critics, but from the general site user.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other user-rated websites that have star-ratings. LibraryThing [] is my favourite, but there's also Shelfari, which is equally popular. Both have tags (e.g. sci-fi, romance, American, cooking, steampunk, etc.) on individual books that can help you find other books with similar themes. Steewi (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

3 worst dictators in Africa
Is Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo a dictator and 3 worstin Africa. Somebody worte Paul Biya is example of worst dictator in Africa. how is Paul Biya a dictator? He is not bad at all? Who came up with the slogan 3 worst dictators in Africa?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From the linked article Paul Biya:
 * The historian David Wallechinsky, in his book Tyrants, the World's 20 Worst Living Dictators, ranked Biya with three others in sub-Saharan Africa: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea and King Mswati of Swaziland.
 * Check the last paragraph of the article for more information. // BL \\ (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does "Idi 'V.D.' Amin" rank on that list? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he doesn't qualify for the "living" part, I'll take a wild guess and say he didn't make the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad the section heading didn't specify that. Regardless, becoming dead was probably Amin's most statesmanlike act. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're talking the worst dictators in Africa in history, I would have thought King Leopold of the Belgians would come pretty close to the top. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is steep competition to be on that list if you include the non-living. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As with dictators around the world, the more of them on the non-living list, the better. Unfortunately, history shows that when a dictator dies, there's at least one evil child born in this world to carry on, to carry on. In short, such a list changes constantly and it never gets any better. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned this before, but David Wallechinsky is not an historian, he's just a guy who makes lists. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have amended the article accordingly, Adam, as there was nothing in Wallechinsky's article to support the "historian" description. I wonder, as I re-read the final paragraph of Paul Biya, if the great weight given to Wallechinsky's opinion is appropriate. I don't know enough about the local history and/or politics to take the matter further. // BL \\ (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hereby pretend to be grossly offended by the word "just", Adam. Not really; but maybe, given that WP is full of lists, we can accord list makers a degree of respect that "just a listmaker" seems to deny them.  Historians would be lost without lists; and listmakers would be lost without the work that historians do, so each serves a good purpose.  Live and let live, I say. :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, after reading The Book of Lists and its sequels, which, admittedly, are not entirely David W.'s doing, I think we can safely say they are the kind of unreferenced cruft, full of urban legends and lazy research that would be easily deleted on Wikipedia. We are a superior class of listmakers than the Wallace/Wallechinsky family! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Shape of writing tablets
Hello,

Could you help me find out what the notches on the top corners of the tablet on Image:Statue liberty22.jpg are for ? What sort of tablet is the sculptor trying to depict ? Is it a wax tablet ? A stone tablet ? Do you know where I could find information on tablet shapes ? (see also File:EIS_PHAOS.JPG with a somewhat similar shape) Teofilo talk  20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From Statue of Liberty: "The Keystone in her hand represents knowledge and shows the date of the United States Declaration of Independence, in roman numerals, July IV, MDCCLXXVI." ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, the shape represents a keystone. --Anonymous, 02:57 UTC, September 17, 2009.


 * The inscription JULY IV is kind of a mixed metaphor. To go fully Latin, presumably they should have said JULIUS instead of JULY. But then someone might think Lady Liberty's name was Julius. The analogy to EIS PHAOS is an interesting coincidence, as it's Greek for "toward light", and the poem connected with Lady Liberty says, "I lift my lamp beside the golden door." She welcomes new arrivals to New York City, and turns her back on the neighboring state. No respect for Joizy. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did the Romans use V for the letter U? In that case it would be JVLIVS.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They not only didn't have U, they didn't have J. The real classical spelling of Julius (both the person and the month he named after himself) is IVLIVS.  Of course, in the classical era they didn't have the idea of numbering the days of the month forward from 1 anyway.  July 4 would indeed have had a 4 in it, but only by chance -- it would have been called A.D. IIII NON. IVL., the 4th day before (and including) the Nones of July.  The "A.D." there means "days before", not "year of the lord", and the form "IV" did not generally replace "IIII" until later times.  See Roman calendar and Roman numerals.  --Anonymous, 04:34 UTC, A.D. XIIII KAL. OCT., A.V.C. MMDCCLXII.
 * Of Course! How could I have forgotten my Indiana Jones?  Googlemeister (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the shape for File:EIS PHAOS.JPG a keystone too ? I would have thought this would be the standard shape for some kind of tablets (wax or stone)... Teofilo talk  08:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At long last, I have found the answer : see the German language Wikipedia : de:Tabula ansata. Thanks everybody for your help. Teofilo talk  09:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the Statue of Liberty's tablet is a keystone, whereas the other image is a tabula ansata. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

match.com
why are their servers always down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.18.82 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they aren't working right. -- Jayron  32  21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DownForEveryoneorJustMe.com/match.com--droptone (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The physics of money
By analogy with energy, is it truely possible to waste (ie destroy) money? Energy cannot be destroyed, but only converted into different forms (including matter). For example you could try wasting/destroying money by using it to gamble at a casino, but in actuality it would simply flow to the shareholders, employees, suppliers etc. and their employees, suppliers, families etc. Burning paper notes would eventually result in more money being printed than otherwise.

While it is easy to get money flowing out in a top-down direction - consider the casino example - is it very difficult to reverse the direction of flow and get money flowing in in a bottom-up manner. Is this because of similar reasons that it is difficult to reverse physical processors due to entropy? And are there things equivalent to Stirling engines in the money world? 89.241.44.74 (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Friedrich Hayek said that money is a mechanism for the flow of information about the efficient use of resources (or who deserves what); and if the money is, say, stolen, this information will be destroyed, and with it some wealth. (Money of course is not the same thing as wealth.) Yes, this does resemble entropy, which is also the destruction of information.
 * Not sure where you're going with the Stirling engine thing. A Stirling engine works on an unusually small amount of heat compared to other engines, and therefore ... er? 213.122.44.196 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about something like a refridgerator mechanism - which concentrates heat/money? 78.149.136.139 (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Adam Smith showed, more than 200 year ago, that wealth could be created (by labour) and destroyed (by, um, destruction); wealth isn't conserved. Now you're talking about money (or are you talking about wealth and calling it money?). Money isn't wealth; it generally (but sometimes only vaguely) represents wealth, and it's even less prone to conservation than wealth. Money can be made and destroyed, even if the amount of wealth stays the same. It's really difficult to imagine a worthwhile physical analog (be it electricity, heat, fluids, or whatever) that models either of these concepts (never mind their interaction). Still, MONIAC Computer is a fun read. If that makes sense to you, reward yourself some red-coloured fluid. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen the money-as-entropy analogy before, and while it does lead to some nice aphorisms (there are a million ways to spend your money, but little you can do to earn it), it isn't physically rigorous. As for ways to concentrate money, that's what tax breaks for the super wealthy are about—Maxwell's daemon, embodied. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Spending money does not destroy it, but money can be destroyed in other ways. For example, suppose that a bank holds $100 million in customer deposits.  The bank takes, say, $92 million of that and loans it out.  Now, where there had been $100 million, there now exists $192 million, because the depositors still own the money they put on deposit, but the borrowers also have funds they can use and spend.  Then a recession occurs and borrowers owing $5 million go broke.  The bank gets nervous and recalls another $7 million in loans.  So the bank now has only $80 million in loans outstanding, and the money supply has been reduced by $12 million.  This is a simplified example, but it shows one way that money can be destroyed.  John M Baker (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the case. If you did an audit on each person involved in those transactions, you would still find they added up to the same amount. The borrowers "have" $92m, but they also owe $92m; their total assets haven't changed. The same with the banks and the depositors. If you like you can say that the depositors "own but don't have" the money, and the borrowers "have but don't own" it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the basic "shell game" that banks play, because it involves treating money like a number rather than a physical object. If everything were cash-based, this approach wouldn't work. Which is why everything isn't cash-based. The expansion and contraction of the money supply coincides with prosperity and recession. If everything were cash-based, basically there would be no expansion of the economy. Basic Econ 101. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Spending energy does not destroy it either; it gets converted into different, less-usable forms. That's what the analogy was supposed to say—it isn't supposed to say that money is different than heat, but that it was similar. You can convert wealth into lots of other things quite easily (like tasty food), things that cannot be converted back into usable wealth (the food gets eaten, or spoils). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an obvious way in which money is not constant. Every year central banks destroy a certain amount of money (i.e. actual coins and notes) and print or mint more. If the amount printed exceeds the amount destroyed then there is more money. It may not be worth as much in the long run, but there is certainly more of it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But there's always far more "money" held in bank accounts etc than there are physical notes and coins to cover them.  Far, far more.  Every time I'm given some interest on my massive savings, they don't suddenly produce new coins to the value of $1.27 to cover it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

DJClayworth - No, money really is created by a bank loan, even though there is an accompanying obligation to repay the loan. That is, when a loan is made, the borrower initially takes the borrowed money and puts it in its bank account, so the total money on deposit in my example goes from $100 million to $192 million (pre-recession) or $180 million (during the recession). (The bank can then take the redeposited money and lend it out too, but we'll ignore that for purposes of the example.) The funds deposited by the borrower are not any less real than the funds initially deposited. Actually, they're probably realer, in that the original deposits may have been time deposits, considered part of the broader M2 money supply, while the borrower's funds are probably in a demand deposit account and thus included in the narrower M1 measure. Also note that when borrowers went broke and were unable to repay $5 million, that money really was gone. (In actuality, the bank might have been able to make a partial recovery, but for purposes of the example I'm assuming that they were flat broke.) John M Baker (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Debate on healthcare reform
Hi Guys,

As someone who comes from the UK, the land of the death panel, i'm really interested in the debate on US healthcare reform - I was watching some protest on the news and basically, a lot of the protesters seemed to be working class. I guess i'm asking what these people think they're going to lose if the healthcare system was reformed - i mean, surely in terms of coverage, the system couldn't actually be much worse? Obviously i'm just a pinko European liberal, so i'd be interested in hearing what actually the opposing arguments are, from their point of view. Surely they're less concerned about tax rates than say, the people on fox news... Cheers, 82.132.139.110 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The US healthcare reform article, and its section US healthcare reform, might begin to answer your question. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a death panel? Vimescarrot (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See Political positions of Sarah Palin -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just like to point out to our American chums that the OP is being ironic concerning "death panels" - they do not exist in the UK, although the NHS is reluctant to pay for very expensive drugs which are believed to be ineffective. I've also never heard of anyone, as asserted below, having problems getting a doctor, or waiting in pain - this would be a national scandal if it ever happened. Re Sarah Palin's writings - care for people with disabilities such as Downs Syndrome is very good - we do take a pride in caring for the less fortunate. You get cradle to grave care in the UK - even if you became completely impoversihed, you'd still get free healthcare, which I think takes a lot of worry out of people's lives. May I point out that the life expectancy in the UK is greater than that in the US. People can have American-style private health insurance if they wish, but not many choose to have it. 78.149.116.143 (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An episode of The West Wing (I forget which one; I think it's the one about the veil of ignorance) gave a plausible answer for what seems to be your underlying question : why do poor Americans vote for parties that seek to continue the economic system that's likely to keep those same poor Americans poor (isn't this turkeys voting for Christmas), rather than a genuinely socialist, redistributivist party? Their answer was that even the poorest, most disadvantaged Americans genuinely believed in the American Dream, that they personally (through dint of hard work and divine grace) could themselves make it big. And they wouldn't want that bugbear "big government" taking away all that newfound wealth.-- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course they might believe in the benefit of a thriving economy as a whole to even the poorest (more cheap products available); and they might even be selflessly principled, believing that lower tax and/or less governmental coercion is good for humanity; but I guess that's unlikely. 213.122.44.196 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember -- 85% of Americans have health insurance. And those Americans who have good insurance get arguably better healthcare than people in the UK or Canada. They don't have to struggle to find a family doctor or wait years for surgery. Many Americans have heard horror stories of people in other countries suffering in pain while they wait for their turn to get taken care of. The trick for supporters of healthcare reform is how do you convince the vast majority of people who already have health insurance that they stand to benefit from changes to the status quo. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, MOST of those 85% have the potential for serious problems. Most Americans are on some form of HMO or Managed care which greatly restricts their access to health care, often with layers of bureaucracy that makes it almost impossible to get speedy care.  These organizations are widely reported to cut off coverage arbitrarily, either by refusing to pay for necessary but expensive treatments, or by dropping coverage altogether once the patient receives some sort of arbitrary coverage limit.  Most Americans are also saddled with high co-pays and high deductibles that still leaves the very sick with high out-of-pocket expenses.  Healthy Americans, who never access their health plans, tend to be happy with them.  The sick are somewhat more disappointed... -- Jayron  32  02:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The section title says it all: Debate on healthcare reform. Unless the OP has another specific question, I believe we are treading far from information and well into debate. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. Please do not debate the topic here.  The only thing I can imagine that provides more of an answer to the OP is that just about any large group of Americans that you will see on television will be working class because most Americans are working class.  Seeing a thousand working class Americans on TV in support or opposition of something does not in any way represent the working class as a whole.  In my opinion, most Americans are too busy working to go out and march around in support or opposition of anything.  I personally work two full time jobs while completing my PhD and raising two babies.  No matter how much I support or oppose anything, I'm not wasting my time trying to get on TV with some dumb slogan on a cardboard sign. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You forgot your third job, that of Reference Desk question answerer. Tempshill (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may look like debating, but it is at least informing the OP what some opponents of the reform think they're going to lose - access to healthcare without long waits, and access to treatments which would be judged cost-ineffective by an American NICE. The latter is closely related to the "death panel" fear. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "working class" doesn't mean "all people who work" (which would include Steve Jobs, say), but "poor people who work" or something like "blue collar". It's poorly named, offensive to non-poor workers, and an obvious grab at defining language, but there you have it.  --Sean 17:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase is just out of date. Before the rise of the middle class, there were people who worked for their money and people who inherited their money (or inherited assets which earn money). Then "working class" made perfect sense. --Tango (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A major reason is that in the last couple of decades, most of the working class and most of the rural population has been drawn to the social values (not economic values) claimed by the Republican Party: Homosexuality is bad and should be discouraged where possible; abortion should be illegal; there should be more religion in public places and public life; and the US enjoys American exceptionalism and does no wrong internationally; criticizing the country's actions is unpatriotic.  This identification with these social values trumps the fact that the Republican Party stabs the working class in the back whenever possible, so since the Republican party condemns nationalized health care, and even the timid step of a "public option", which means "the government will start an insurance company", these social conservatives rally to the Republican point of view, despite the benefit they would end up with.  Tempshill (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I retract and strike "whenever possible", which was nonsense. Tempshill (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironic, ain't it? That last point, I mean. To me, "conservative" means cautious and thrifty. The neo-cons are neither. They love government spending as much as liberals do. The only point of disagreement is what to spend it on: guns or butter, as the saying goes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys -so just to clear a few things up if you don't mind. Firstly, i'm not sure the phrase 'working class' is particularly out-of-date or offensive, but yes, in British English, its generally means those (who were raised) on a low income. i'll now go and read the wikipedia article like a good boy (but not before i answer almostreadytofly's point: if british people are unhappy with the NHS (and the policies of NICE) they can just choose private health insurance, and get american-style cover. it seems to me that americans just don't have that choice)) 82.132.139.178 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What point? I'm offended you say I'm making a point! :P (I actually have BUPA coverage through work) AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the news over there explain that many Americans have extremely low cost (even no cost) insurance through many programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Federally-funded free clinics? I'm purposely leaving out the free health care for the military and prisoners. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look for details, yes. At first glance, I'm not sure; I mostly get my American politics news from American sources on the web. I'm well aware of the campaign to "keep government out of Medicare" though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)