Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 9

= February 9 =

Extant Mayan And Aztec People
We have extant mayan, incan, and aztec people, right?174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People descended from them anyway (e.g. Maya peoples). "Only" their civilizations were wiped out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The category "Maya" is still in use. There are various ethnic groups that are still called Maya, though they speak a variety of different languages.  The terms Inca and Aztec are not used as labels for peoples today.  In fact, neither term was used as a label for peoples at the times of the empires we describe as Aztec or Inca.  The dominant ethnic group of the Aztec empire referred to itself as the Mexica people.  They were a subgroup of the Nahua peoples.  There is no longer a distinct group that identifies as Mexica, but there are people today who identify as Nahua. The Inca Empire was named after the title of its ruler, the Inca.  Its people, and their descendants today, were/are the Quechuas.  Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialist countries ranked at 2nd and 3rd highest GDPs in the world
According to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per hour worked. Does this mean that contemporary economic theory (that unbridled free-market capitalism is best) is wrong? 89.240.202.189 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few contemporary economic theories (Keynesianism, for example, which is now very much in vogue again, does not hold that unbridled free-market capitalism is best). But any economist would also quickly point out that GDP is not necessarily the best way to measure economic strength, and that the particular metric you've picked GDP per hour worked, gives very different results than, say, List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal), or List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Picking the correct metric is pretty essential to drawing the right conclusions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Picking the correct metric is pretty essential to proving whichever economic theory you like. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ on the OP's assumptions. There are many contemporary economic theories, but if the simplified version of economic theory taught to school kids can be seen as broadly representing mainstream consensus, then that view is definitely not in favour of unbridled free-market capitalism, at least here in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * unbridled capitalism is seen as destructive in almost every context (the exceptions being some radical right-wing perspectives that tie it in with US economic hegemonization and the suppression of third world populations). General academic consensus is that capitalism needs to be moderated by various systems of regulation for he health of the greater society.  the extent of such regulation varies across different perspectives, of course, but no scholars that I know of argue for a regulation-free system.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone ever gets around to actually practicing unbridled free-market capitalism, and somehow also manages to collect sufficient data over a useful period of time (how in the world would that work?) so as to enable economists to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of such a system vis-à-vis 'real world economies, I’d be thrilled if someone would drop me a note on the subject. So far, the only candidate -- and, their data collection is crap -- is Somolia. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * as the old economics joke goes, capitalism is based on the idea that everyone will try to maximize profits and minimize costs. therefore, the ideal capitalist is a professional thief.    -- Ludwigs 2  09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny you should mention that. Richard Armour once wrote that financier John Pierpont Morgan "was known by his initials, J.P., in order to distinguish him from Henry Morgan, the pirate." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From an American perspective, it is considered a necessary admittance for individual liberty that the government holds constituted power through its departments, and that the federal government oversees and administers the states. In similar ways, the market under the influence of the same ideology, stemming in what I'd call individualistic liberalism, demands control. Keep in mind that economy and the nature of states is a fluent evolution, never still and not tomorrow what it was yesterday. Norway, ranking high in standard of living and GDP through work, is doing well in comparison to its contemporaries. My answer: There is no wrong or right, except for at a given time in a given situation. America may have functioned rather well early on, when it was a young republic and the laws were still crafted. Today, however, most will recognize there are legislative difficulties. It is not my intention to discuss American politics, but the parallel to the financial market is that today, Norway might do well. In a few decades, it may not at all, and its policies demand to be altered. Their contemporary economic theory is sufficient for today, but may not in the future. I beg attention to the fact that the future is uncertain, and what we see as a pinnacle of civilization (liberalism and free market, most notably) today may not at all be what we are evolving towards. If a country under one economic model is not doing well, then it should either alter its situation or alter its model; until then I guess it is "wrong". 77.18.3.47 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the data. The list is badly flawed by not representing the entire world. It omits a great many countries, including the entire Middle East. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover, neither Norway nor France are "socialist" in any but the US talk radio sense. They have working market economies with a reasonable (larger than the US) state influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is because Americans appear to define "socialism" as being what Eurpeans would call communism. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, you definitely couldn't call France or Norway "socialist". --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are democratic socialist - Americans can call them whatever they like. 89.240.210.183 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * can, and will, and do, with what Yeats referred to (pejoratively) as 'passionate intensity'. Americans are idiots; I am one, so I know.    -- Ludwigs 2  18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also speculate that countries with lower numbers of hours worked per person would also have a higher GDP per hour worked due to the law of diminishing returns.--203.206.252.44 (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add that a "democratic socialist" country would, by definition, be a democratic country where most of the economy (large corporations, heavy industry and the like) is public/state property. To the best of my knowledge, such a country has never existed: while many successful enterprises have been and are state-owned, the fact remains that no democracy has ever nationalized all the major power centres of the economy. Perhaps a democracy has so many channels constantly open to corporate influence that it can never come close to violating corporate interests so drastically. In contrast, a dictatorship is more unstable and dependent on a few people's whim, so the state is more capable of acting unpredictably, even totally against corporate interests; though on the other hand, it doesn't normally act in the interests of the people for a long time either. But while democratic socialism can hardly arise, undemocratic socialism can hardly survive in the long run, because the ruling "socialist" elite is actually able to profit more from its power position by restoring capitalism on its own terms and by transforming its bureaucratic control of the economy into private possession, as has happened in many ex-Communist countries.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In European usage the term "socialist" tends not to be used in that literal sense. Peter jackson (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Admittedly, the self-designation "socialist party" has long referred to parties such as the French Socialist Party or the British Labour party that aren't really doing anything to "socialize" the economy (this is a result of socialist parties becoming more and more moderate with time). But the designation "socialist country" still refers to a country whose economic system is socialism as opposed to capitalism. Furthermore, the meaning (or, arguably, the near-meaninglessness) of the word "socialist" in the combination "socialist party" is more recent and arguably more of a historical misunderstanding, while the meaning of the word "socialist" in the combination "socialist country" is the original one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, Keynesian economics (whom someone mentioned above as an example of "sorta socialism") is as left as most modern socialist parties could even imagine getting, and indeed most of them have had as little to do with Keynes as with Lenin in the recent decades, because he has been too left-wing for them. Yet at the time when Keynes wrote, he did not see himself as a socialist, rather he was a moderate, an opponent of socialism and indeed did his best to save capitalism and class society. If a country that uses Keynesian policies is a "socialist country", then nearly all of the developed world was socialistic a few decades ago - except that everyone back then agreed that the Leninist countries were the socialist ones.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish Americans would stop misusing the word socialism to mean communism. 92.24.131.69 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not American, and they are not misusing it in that way. Communism (by which most people mean Leninism) is a type of socialism, and this use is not American but universal. If anything, the misuse is the use of socialism to denote "somewhat restraining capitalism by means of regulating the economy, taxing the rich and providing free health care". That's not socialism, that is just humane capitalism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that social democracies are neither pure socialist nor pure capitalist, those saying they have both aspects ofsocialism and capitalism is not unresonable. Alternatively calling them a mixed economy. And the policies many modern socialists advocate and are common in many countries considered social democracies are way more then restraining capitalism by regulating the economy, taxing the rich and providing free health care as mentioned in our socialism article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain the concept of music licensing for online broadcasting to me
I need to understand why Pandora Radio is not available in Canada. According to the company, this is because, "In the USA there is a well understood payment mechanism and fee structure for webcasters - one license and one set of rates for all webcasters and all rightsholders. In most of the rest of the world we are required to negotiate terms separately with each rightsholder."

I don't really know what they're talking about. Can someone take this back to square one and explain it to me in the "for dummies" version? Thanks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that I've never heard of this before, so all I'm saying is my interpretation of their words; I'm not giving you anything based on a knowledge of music licensing. In other words: webcasters (online broadcasters, such as Pandora Radio) have negotiated with the rightholders (people who own the copyrights to the music you want to listen to) to create a system for paying royalties (fees for using their copyrighted material) that seems to apply to most or all US rightsholders.  However, this has only been negotiated under US law; because it's not made to work under other countries' laws, it can only be used in the USA, so they have to make separate arrangements with the same rightsholders to use the music in other countries.  Apparently Pandora hasn't made arrangements with rightsholders under Canadian law, so they can't make it listenable without infringing copyright.  Does this make sense?  Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That much I get. What I don't understand is what is meant by "a well understood payment mechanism and fee structure for webcasters - one license and one set of rates for all webcasters and all rightsholders." This seems to result from a particular piece of U.S. legislation, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. How does that law make Pandora Radio possible? How would Canada have to change its laws to make Pandora available there? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Canadians would have to pass legislation establishing a statutory license for the sort of content required by the webcasters. It probably has this sort of thing in place for traditional radio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Copyright collective for the general situation which applies to ordinary broadcast radio (don't know how digital radio is different). AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the deal: it all started with the PERFORM Act, a bill passed to regulate the use of streaming internet services to play music. In early 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board in the USA decided that the fees for these services would not only increase, but be retroactive to 2006!. A consortium of music copyright holders called SoundExchange pushed the higher rates, and negotiations with 'net streaming services did not go well. Some congressfolk tried to overturn the decision, but failed. After some rather unpleasant negotiations, SoundExchange agreed to postpone the deadline. Pandora was one of the services having the most trouble, as they weren't a typical streaming service and had no "normal" music distribution off the Internet either. Right into late 2008, pure Internet streaming was still being negotiated. It took the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 to finally get negotiations on the ball. It wasn't until mid-2009 that an amicable decision was reached.
 * The upshot of this is, I'd say Pandora is waiting until Canada's media & government settle on fees before deciding to allow streaming there, to make sure they can afford it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so here's what I gather so far: On radio, the stations pay a copyright collective like ASCAP or BMI a fee each time they play a song. Internet music broadcasters instead are governed under the statutory license provision established under the DMCA. There is a single collective called SoundExchange. In Canada, they haven't set up anything like the Copyright Royalty Board or SoundExchange yet, so an Internet broadcaster would have to make separate arrangements with every rightsholder, which is not realistic.
 * What I don't get: Why can't Pandora Radio just go through the same copyright collectives in Canada as radio stations? (ASCAP, BMI or their Canadian equivalents.) Also: Who sets the fees for Internet broadcasters in the U.S.? The Copyright Royalty Board or SoundExchange? This isn't clear from what I've read. Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you've got the gist of it. From what I can tell, SoundExchange "suggests" the rate and the CRB implements it. As for Canada... well, if I were Pandora, I wouldn't bother either. Until the Canadian government makes a legal decision, any agreement Pandora makes with the radio copyright collective could be challenged in court; since there's not a legal foundation for digital streaming (that I know of) in Canada, it would just take one artist who disagrees to bring the whole thing grinding to a halt. I'm sure their lawyers pointed out how expensive such a trial would be, especially if things go against Pandora. Mind you, IANAL, so this is just my opinion based on what I've read. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Transport with horses in China
What kinds of carriages or travois or similar implements drawn by horse did the Chinese use throughout history to transport goods or travel? Thanks for any help 87.111.102.157 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This site is pretty useful. I found the most useful information was from the third paragraph down. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Prussian East India Company
Reading the tabloids this morning, I became aware that a plate on the Antiques Roadshow, valued at £100,000, was designed by the Prussian East India Company for their founder. The world/internet seems to have nothing on this insitution. Only a few German such firms exist, all for Africa and not the Indian subcontinent. Did it really exist, and was just very quiet? Or is somebody here mistaken? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha. Found the answer on Christie's, here, it seems they were only around for 6 years and had 7 ships. Explains the lack of information about them. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our German colleagues have an article on the company: de:Emder Ostasiatische Handelskompanie. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How much of the US's wealth due to its natural resources per capita?
America is about five times the population of for example Great Britain, yet it must be hundreds (?) of times the size, with consequently hundreds of times the natural resources. How much of the US's GDP is due to having much more natural resources per capita compared with smaller more crowded countries? 92.26.29.37 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do natural resources include forestry? Does the profit from oil refineries and steel works count? Sleigh (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)An interesting article to look at is List of countries by GDP sector composition. It doesn't list size of the economy from natural resources, but does include numbers for agriculture, industry, and services.  Interestingly, a higher percentage of the UK's GDP is in agriculture and Industry (presumably where natural resource development is counted) than the US, suggesting that their natural resources are a proportionately bigger part of their economy than the U.S. economy (something that is surprising to me, for the reason you listed in your question).  Based on that alone, I'd say the answer to your question is "not much, if any".  I'm sure you can find a breakdown of different countries' GDPs by more specific sectors, which would probably give you a better idea.  And of course, my answer doesn't take into account historical resource use, which probably has influenced the current sizes of the economies, even if it no longer makes up a significant portion of the economy. Buddy431 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures for Agriculture are 1.0% and 0.9% - not a big difference. Makes me wonder what they do with all that land in the US. I suppose the answer is that agriculture must be more intensive in the UK - fertilisers and machinery - as a result of the higher cost of land. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of the land in the US isn't suitable for farming. Out west you have the deserts of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  Then there's quite a bit of mountainous land in the Rockies and the Appalachians.  And let's not forget the swamps in Florida.  Alaska, which is more than twice the size of Texas, doesn't have much of a growing season either. Dismas |(talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go to this page and click on "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for OECD member countries," you can see how much of each OECD member's gross domestic product comes from agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing. However, GDP is not the same as "wealth." I suppose the questioner is suggesting the U.S. has historically benefited from its abundant natural resources and that may explain the U.S. advantage in GDP per capita now. The assumption may not be on target. I haven't researched this at all, but it seems the relationship between a country's natural gifts and its wealth is not clear-cut. Certainly, you have oil sheikdoms that owe all of their opulence to what's underneath the sand, but then you have countries like DR Congo and Russia that are tremendously blessed in natural resources yet have all kinds of problems and places like Japan and (famously) Hong Kong that are resource-poor but quite wealthy. See resource curse. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just having it, it's knowing what to do with it, and being in a place that allows you to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

as Margret Thatcher once say the greatest natural resource is man (Dr hursday (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Soylent Green.?.hotclaws 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In contrast, in Dilbert's world, people are the 9th most important asset. Number 8 on the list is "carbon paper". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Some economic historians (sorry that I've forgotten which) have argued that the advanced economy of the United States was partly a consequence of its shortage of labor relative to its wealth of resources. According to this theory, it isn't the abundance of resources that accounts for the productivity and relative affluence.  Rather, the shortage (and therefore expense) of labor in the United States favored the invention of labor-saving technologies that maximized productivity per hour of labor and therefore GDP per capita.  Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did the iron ore for battleships come from?
During World Wars I and II, Germany was still making lots of things like tanks, submarines, battleships perhaps. Where did the iron, and before that the iron ore, come from to make them? It would have been difficult to get from abroad then. And now, lots of metal things such as cars are manufactured, yet I've never seen any trainloads of iron ore moving about. They just magically appear as a finished product. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Swedish iron ore during World War II has some information on that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Some of the rest would have been mined at Eisenerz. The demographic figures given in the article would indicate its importance during the Third Reich. See also Noric steel for the place in Roman times.    --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So if the Swedes had stopped iron ore exports, then Germany would not have been able to continue with the war. That makes Sweden friends of the Nazis and not neutral. 89.240.205.46 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty of neutral nations did business with both sides; that's what 'neutral' means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was significant pro-German & pro-Nazi sentiment in Sweden during the Second World War, the then king sharing such feelings. I've got a fascinating memoir by a member of the British Mission in Sweden at the time, which goes into some detail about the shenanigins both the Allies and the Axis got up to in getting neutrality to mean what they wanted it to mean. DuncanHill (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The book, which I highly recommend, is Touchlines of War by Sir Peter Tennant, Hull University Press 1992, ISBN 0859586030. Tennant was British Press Attache in Stockholm from 1939 to 1945, and an SOE agent. DuncanHill (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there also pro-Allies sentiment? Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And anyway, the more likely conclusion is that "if the Swedes had stopped iron ore exports, then Germany would have invaded them too". Remember, it only took them two months to defeat Norway.  Sure, occupying Sweden would have tied up German troops and hurt Germany in the long term, but nobody knew what was going to happen in the long term.  --Anonymous, 05:00 UTC, 2010-02-10.

In terms of 'why you don't see it' things like Ore-bulk-oil carrier and Freight trains and the section on 'heavy duty ore traffic' give you an indication of what form of transport is used. Put simply unless you happen to know what's in a tanker or a freight-train (or for that matter a truck) you'll have little idea of the cargo inside. Iron-ore does appear, however, to be primarily transported by big carriers like oil-tankers and the like. ny156uk (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

oops and also Bulk cargo. ny156uk (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they also recycle stuff,like park railings and pans like they did in Britain?.hotclaws 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Germany also had substantial domestic sources of iron ore in the Siegerland. It may be that Swedish iron ore was more economical, but I am not convinced that a loss of access to Swedish iron ore would have crippled Germany during either war.  Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Swedish ores had a higher Fe content (around 60%) than German ores (I think around 30%), and a lower Pgosphorous content, which made them significantly more attractive. They were quicker to process, used less fuel in refining, and were suitable for alloys that higher Phosphorous ores were not suited for. Sweden also produced ball-bearings, and although SKF (the Swedish bearing company) had a subsidiary in Germany and another in the UK, the Swedish factory was able to produce specialised bearings that were unavailable elsewhere. Ball-bearings were one of the key factors in the Second World War, as in any technological conflict. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)