Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 18

= January 18 =

Situation in Haiti
I'm really thinking about leaving my job for a week and traveling to Haiti; I'm watching CBS News, and everyone keeps saying something should be done. I also heard on the news that they need manpower more than anything. Is this true? If not, I'm not going to look for a way to go, but if so, I will go if I can find a trip in my area. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What they probably will need is men and money. If I were you, I would start by calling my local Red Cross chapter. I have a hunch they could point you to some reputable, legitimate assistance agencies who could tell you what's needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea; additionally, even some of the millions of dollars being thrown at this might be able to pay for the trip that way... maybe. Thanks Baseball Bugs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I emphasize "reputable" is especially for anyone who intends to donate money, as phony donation-accepting websites and such always pop up when disasters happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard charitable organizations are discouraging people from trying to go to Haiti unless they are with the military or a search and rescue team or something like that. They say donating money is the best thing you can do right now. The problem in Haiti is not a lack of manpower per se -- it's a logistical issue with getting all of the people who want to come and all of the supplies they're bringing into the affected areas. The airport there is overloaded with flights, and the only alternative is to fly into Santo Domingo and drive 12 hours on winding, narrow roads from there. (The sea port is inoperable.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note there will be a telethon for Haiti on all the major North American networks on Friday. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The company I work for is soliciting donations from employees. I would guess that's happening in a lot of companies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, contact your local Red Cross chapter. I doubt you could be much help in Haiti unless you have some useful expertise, but if you tell the Red Cross you would like to donate your time I'm sure they'll find something for you to do - perhaps you could help fundraise in your home country? --Tango (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably can't help much by trying to get there. Even many experts can't get in. (Though politicians and media seem to have no problem, as always.) This weekend, an 80-person search-and-rescue team from Ohio, with two planes full of supplies and equipment, was told to stay home because of logistical difficulties in Haiti. Donate money now; if you want to help in person, they'll need assistance there for years to come, long after the story fades from the headlines. —Kevin Myers 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that you have enough skills (manpower, language, otherwise) to recoup the travel expenses that you will spend getting there? So let's assume it costs $1k round-trip to get there and back. Will you produce $1k of good over and above what someone who is already there (or is a native Haitian) will do? Because otherwise, why not just donate the travel expenses and let those already there do the actual work.--droptone (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to pontificate, but as Kevin Myers pointed out, Haiti will still need lots of help in the years following the aftermath of the earthquake. One of the most impoverished nations on Earth...one media commentator said a new Marshall Plan was needed for Haiti post-recovery...perhaps the greatest humanitarian challenge will be to help Haiti and the bottom run of the underdeveloped countries achieve a higher Human Development Index within the next few decades --达伟 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would love to hook up with a company tasked with restoring the electric grid over the coming months. Edison (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like to set up a nice DC power grid Edison? Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the downtown, I would vote for a nice 120 volt or 480 volt networked secondary grid with multiple feeders from redundant substations. Such a system could operate without an interruption for decades, and could be self clearing when there was a cable fault. That assumes it was properly maintained, not always the case in large U.S. cities. This provides about the same reliability as a DC grid with backup storage batteries 100 years ago in the U.S. Next best would be automatic throwover installations at hospitals, government building and public works, which provide automatic restoration of power after a few seconds of outage on the normal feed. Edison (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...thereby supplying some of the poorest people on Earth with a DC supply that will burn up their few AC-only appliances, i.e. anything with a power transformer or a synchronous motor e.g. clocks, and that cannot be distributed efficiently over a large area without excessively thick cables... ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I either heard on tv or read online somewhere that recent aid thinkinmg is that the best thing to do after the first few days is to simply give the locals money. For example building houses for people caught up in the tsunami was not as good as giving people money to build their own houses. The people given money to build houses were happier with them, and the money gave employment to the builders and helped build up and restore the local economy. And I agree that it would not help to go out there as an unskilled person - you would be mlore of a burden than an asset, and get in the way. Better to donate your air fare to a reputable charity. 92.24.114.231 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing that many Wikipedians might be able to do is to attend or organise a Crisis camp, as explained at Crisis Commons. You don't have to be a geek, but it helps. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg
Is the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg legal under Australian copyright law? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't give legal advice on here, and this isn't the place to hold discussions over whether images on Wikipedia or Commons conform with its copyright policies. Don't come looking to us as a way of overruling decisions you aren't happy with on here or on Commons. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer, but US law says nothing about this, so it could probably be uploaded to en.wikipedia.org (instead of Commons) and not get deleted deleted on that basis. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe, maybe not. It might be copyrighted some individual. In any case, this user has been trying to get it deleted, as far as I can tell, and on Commons they decided against deleting it. I think that's really all that's at issue, here. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, 84.61.165.65 nominated it for deletion, and it's probably going to be deleted in the end, but 84.61.165.65 has issued a flood of pointless irrelevant queries and abrupt ultimatums which have not helped clarify any issues or move the deletion discusion along... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Its Australia day on 26 Jan, and the last two years at A.D gatherings I have seen a number of alternative australian flags being handed out; sometimes with a leaflet explaining why their flag is a better one. Some australians are unhappy with Australia day "Invasion Day". Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon me, all that info was mostly available at Australia Day Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with moderate inflation?
A lot of people and governments are in debt. A modest regulated inflation rate of say 10% for a few years would stimulate the economy due to increased borrowing for business growth because borrowers can see that they will not be burdened with debt forever - inflation will gradually decrease it. In other words the real inflation rate will be low, perhaps even negative. Consumers will go out and spend. So whats wrong with moderate regulated inflation? 89.240.50.241 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want to discuss moderate inflation, or a 10% rate of inflation? I do not think the two are the same. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the 2.5% target for inflation in the UK, for example, is that in most peoples minds its the same as 0%. And it is just a knife-edge away from deflation, as we are currently seeing. I'm also wondering how the Bank Of England is going to revive the economy when its also required to keep inflation at virtually zero. 89.240.50.241 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno; I think you're imagined people are being a bit insensitive here ... 2.5% never seemed that near to deflation until we most recent financial collapse, and I tend to think you're confusing a once in two generations cataclysm with business as usual, which is probably not a very useful thing to do. Put another way, I think there is a gulf between 2.5% and 0% which requires a large shock before it precipitates. Here's what the Bank of Canada has to say about the benefits of low inflation and the perils of high- and I really think that 10% is (albeit at the low end of) high.
 * The BoE has a difficult task, for sure. But I do not see that it is more difficult to grow the economy with a 2.5% to 4% target band, than it would be to revive it with a 10% or greater target; and my reading of the linked article suggests that all other things being equal, it will be easier to do with low inflation targets than with high inflation targets, unless one wishes to cause further boom & bust down the line. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the UK target is 2%, not 2.5%, but that isn't very important. 2% is generally considered to be "moderate inflation", 10% is "high inflation". High inflation won't increase borrowing because interest rates would increase to compensate. Existing debt (with a fixed interest rate) would decrease in real value, which would help sort out government debt, but new debt would just have high interest rates so inflation would make no difference. You have to remember that inflation doesn't create wealth, it just moves it around a bit. Yes, government debt would go down in real terms, but only because the value of everyone's investment portfolios (which includes people's pension schemes) would also go down in real terms. Inflation is often described as a tax on holding money - high inflation can have all the same downsides as high taxes. Another problem with high inflation is that it has a tendency to become higher - you get an inflationary spiral which leads to hyperinflation, which is extremely damaging to an economy. --Tango (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The big drawback of low inflation is that it encourages people just to save money, and the economy stagnates. With higher levels of inflation people get off their backsides and look for ways to create wealth, which creates a higher standard of living for them and for society as a whole. As mentioned above, the potential wealth-creators are not put off by being lumbered with debts which never diminish. 78.146.100.48 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That cuts both ways. You could equally argue that high inflation makes saving pointless, so encourages people not to bother working, live off inflation-adjusted social security and help pitch their country into an even greater financial black hole. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * High inflation means people spend their money, boosting the economy. Low inflation means that the rich do not bother working. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The danger from deflation, IMHO, is exaggerated. For example, the world has experienced massive deflation in consumer electronics for decades (the average price of a home computer has hovered around $1,000 since the 1970s yet the capabilities have continually grown -- hence, the price-per-capability has been falling steadily). Consumer demand for home electronics has grown and the industry has been one of the healthiest. Wikiant (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The price per capability may have gone down, but the required level of capability has been going up. In 1995, a large program might take 100-200 MB of hard drive space.  Now there are a great deal of programs that take 10x that amount.  Processor and memory requirements have also gone up.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The change in requirements is irrelevant. It is like saying that the price of food has gone up because you are eating more. Inflation is a measure of the change in the price per unit, not the change in the total amount spent. Wikiant (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you can use computers getting cheaper as an argument for deflation. Technology becomes cheaper because more efficient processes to make them are developed, that is certainly "good" deflation of price.  For an economy as a whole, deflation usually signifies a stagnated or shrinking economy.  That can lead to a deflationary spiral.  That's "bad" deflation, and as I understand can be very tricky for governments to get out of, as demonstrated during the great depression and Japan's Lost Decade.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then the evil you fear is not inflation but the phenomenon that *caused* the inflation. The OP asked "what's wrong with inflation." The answer is still, "nothing." What's (possibly) wrong is the thing that caused the inflation. Wikiant (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree for deflation - it is usually symptomatic of problems that aren't immediately clear. But inflation seems a little more direct and easier for people to wrap their heads around (their money is worth less!).  I agree though, inflation is a problem for people on a personal level only if their income and/or savings aren't increasing at the same rate of inflation.  If inflation is running at 10% but your wages or your nest egg are increasing at 20%, there's nothing really wrong with inflation.  That's probably the situation many Chinese are in at the moment.  But if inflation is at 10% and your wages and savings are only growing at 5%, inflation is bad.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Even here, the problem isn't inflation, but *unexpected* inflation. For example, if inflation were always and will always be 10%, everyone would (correctly) incorporate the price growth into their decision making. All rental contracts would include a minimum 10% price increase clause. All banks would pay a minimum of 10% interest. All wage contracts would include a minimum 10% annual adjustment. The problem comes when inflation is unexpected. Then, people find themselves locked into contracts that they would not have signed had they known what inflation was truly going to be. The problem in this case is not inflation but uncertainty. Wikiant (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Low inflation suits the rich - they can just live off their money. Their money keeps its value. The rich do not want any inflation, because then they'd have to work like the rest of us. Low inflation keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the rich can invest their money at a higher return rate when there is more inflation, and do not really suffer, whereas, inflation is not as likely to raise Joe Workers wages to the same extent. Googlemeister (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you say. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Meaning The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is what we've seen recently. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's money illusion. The higher nominal interest rate compensates for inflation so the real interest rate is (in theory) unchanged. BTW, at least in the United States, the proverb that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is not necessarily true. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States (published by the Bureau of the Census), since 1980 the percentage of households earning less than $75,000 (after adjusting for inflation) has been steadily shrinking while the number earning above $75,000 has been steadily growing. It is generally true that the richer get richer faster than the poor get richer, but the poor do not (on average) get poorer. Wikiant (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall from the news more than once that the poor had in fact been getting poorer in the US in the last few years. The results must vary with where you choose to put the cut-off level and your time-scale. "Lies, Dammned Lies, and Statistics" as Gladstone once said. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is possible that it is a matter of defining "the poor", however, many of the citations on income disparity are based on the gini coefficient, which measures the disparity in income between the rich and the poor. The problem is that gini is frequently misrepresented -- increasing *disparity* in incomes doesn't necessarily mean that the poor are getting poorer, just that they aren't getting richer as fast as the rich are getting richer. Wikiant (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still a disparity if for example the poor got 1% wealthier and the rich got 100% wealthier. 78.149.139.201 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to 78.151 that the poor tend to get stuffed irrespective of the prevailing rate of inflation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics is usually attributed to Gladstone's arch-nemesis Benjamin Disraeli. Its first appearance was in Mark Twain's Autobiography (vol. 1, p. 246), which was published 14 years after Twain's death and 43 years after Disraeli's death, so it's probably in the same camp as Oscar Wilde's supposed claim I have nothing to declare but my genius, of which no contemporary record exists.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Books returns several quotes for this phrase from the early 1890s - before Twain's autobiography - but nothing earlier. [I am aware that many of these results are for journals and Google's dates are often wrong, but I've cross-checked a couple of them, and some definitely do date from the 1890s). Warofdreams talk 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Moderately high inflation is excellent for the majority if average income increases at the same or a higher rate; and it is still good (better than low/no/de-inflation) for the majority even if it somewhat outpaces income. Inflation decreases the burden on debtors and increases the burden on lenders. "Debtors" in the aggregate are everyday people -- the majority, who tend to have negative net wealth. Lenders are "big money" -- the banks. The populist debates of the circa-1900 era about "free silver" precisely concerned this issue. Think bankrupt farmers in the early 1930s (or 1890s) were thrilled by deflation? -- guess again. See the book "Secrets of the Temple" by William Greider; see also Kenneth Galbraith's work in the early 1970s. The fact that "inflation" equals "bad" in the popular mind is attributable to corporate-media propaganda, skillfully deployed for generations. (Note that I am not referring to hyperinflation.) When "money is worth less" it's good for you if you have negative wealth, as most people do. A negative times a negative is a positive.