Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 19

= July 19 =

Chittenden County, Vermont
I've been there twenty years ago... and today Burlington made the New York Times front page:. The article makes an impression that this once nice town has become a kind of internment camp for the Africans. Indeed, other sources confirm that Chittenden County houses the absolute majority of refugees in Vermont; the number does not seem too big but it is big for a single town. Two questions:
 * Is this a managed program (managed by who? who selects target towns and how?) or the Africans just follow each other?
 * It appears that US Census data for Burlington and the county does not account for the refugees (the racial percentage is too low even discounting the immigration back to 2000). True or false? East of Borschov 04:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its more likely that refugees from the same area simply conglomerate in the same area, for security and cultural purposes. A similar thing happened in the 1960's and 1970's in Lowell, Massachusetts with Cambodian refugees from the "Killing Fields" era of the Khmer Rouge; at one time it had the largest number of Cambodian people outside of Cambodia.  Something similar could be happening in Burlington.  -- Jayron  32  04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I live about a half hour outside of B'ton, so forgive my WP:OR, please. You have to understand something about where Wheeler Elementary (the school in the article) is located within Burlington.  Wheeler is in the North End which is known for being a low income area of town.  So, it's not surprising that refugees would go there.  They'd be less likely to find a high paying job considering a possible (probable?) language disadvantage. They would need somewhere both close to a job (easier to get public transportation and not require another large expense, namely a car) and somewhere that they could afford to live in a state with a fairly high cost of living.
 * I don't know of any state effort to bring in refugees. That said, I can attest to there being many (considering the population figures for the state) people who are originally from other countries living here.  Out of the 30-40 people that I work closest with, I can easily come up with a half dozen names of those who moved to the US from Africa, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe.
 * And lastly, you said "big for a single town". You have to take into account the fact that B'ton is the largest city in the state.  Even the capitol, Montpelier, is only about 1/5th the size of B'ton.  Once you leave the surrounding area, there's a big change.  Public transportation drops off.  The towns are widely spaced and work within them is limited.  There are fewer services in the small towns such as welfare offices, public health services, etc.  Also, rural schools are less likely to be able to handle children in ESL (English as a Second Language) programs.  So, while B'ton is just "a single town" it's also the best place in the state if you're moving here as a refugee.  B'ton is an island of urban in a sea of rural.  Dismas |(talk) 05:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Windward Passage
Why is the Windward Passage called the Windward Passage?  Chzz  ► 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably it has something to do with the nautical terms Windward and leeward (although I don't know about this specific passage - it is far away from the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And, oddly enough, the Leeward Passage would appear to be east of, and thus "windward" of the Windward Passage, given the direction of the local winds. -- Jayron  32  06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on Windward Islands states: "The Windward Islands are called such because they were more windward to sailing ships arriving in the New World than the Leeward Islands, given that the prevailing trade winds in the West Indies blow east to west. The trans-Atlantic currents and winds that provided the fastest route across the ocean brought these ships to the rough dividing line between the Windward and Leeward islands..." I assume that a similar reasoning applies to the Passage, but being a landlubber I don't know.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What services and/or benefits does the monarchy provide the UK?
There was an article recently that the monarchy costs Britons about $1 per person per year. A question a few days ago led someone to point out that the royal family has no real power. Full disclosure - I'm American. I have to ask - in the 21st century what's the damn point of supporting powerless people solely because of their heredity? It seems to be to be the world's most expensive welfare case. I am 100% serious - how do "monarchists" defend this situation? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, the monarchy is an important aspect of British national identity and culture. The U.S. spends money every year on things which exist solely as representations of American national identity and culture, and have no further "purpose".  Think of all of the various monuments, the national 4th of July celebrations, etc. etc.  The monarchy is certainly no less important to the U.K. than anything like that is to the U.S.  Additionally, the British Constitution is built largely on tradition and little else.  While the monarch has no real power, its historical power, even if today it is largely a legal fiction, is an important aspect in lending credibility and weight to the British legal and political system.  The British transition from absolute monarchy to democratic republic has been a gradual one, not marked by a single event, and as such the monarchy has an important role in maintaining the continuity of constitution that supports and justifies the entire apparatus of the British state.  As Americans, we have a distinct time when we came into being.  Our nation has a birthdate (July 4, 1776) and our current state has one too (September 17, 1787).  We have a single document we can point to as the organizing instrument of our entire national state.  Britain has nothing like that.  What they have is a continuum of historical changes which have led up to today, and the monarchy is part of that continuum.  Its a very different way of organizing a state, and it can be hard for an American, like myself and you, to understand, but it works, and so like many things that aren't broken, doesn't need fixing... -- Jayron  32  05:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was all going so well until those last 14 words, Jayron.... :-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though I think Jayron32 pretty much covered it above, see Republicanism in the United Kingdom, the "arguments" page from the Constitutional Monarchy Association and this interview with a monarchist for examples. Gabbe (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't sit down and design a system like ours; it has evolved over a thousand years or more. If a bit of it is seen not to be working (like the House of Lords) we evolve it a bit more. It's ours, it works and most of us like it. We tried being a republic but decided it wasn't for us. Aside from the constitution, the Royal Family work hard to promote UK businesses and highlight the work of charities. They also project the UK image abroad. Queen Elizabeth is well known in many foreign countries; but, for example, how many people in the US know who the President of Germany is? Alansplodge (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bah! The Hun is always switching his head of state – sometimes more than once per decade! How is an honest chap supposed to keep track of such fickleness? Gabbe (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How much money does the Monarchy bring in as a subset of the Tourism industry in the U.K.? Is there any information on that? To put it another way, if the Monarchy were abolished, how much might the U.K. lose in Tourism? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Impossible to know - you'd need to know what motivates tourists to come here, and how would you define what is the contribution of the current monarchy anyway? Trooping The Colour??!!  The history of the monarchy would still remain intact, as it is in places like France.  You also have to bear in mind the benefits of abolishing the monarchy, such as, perhaps, having a few new world class museum and gallery venues (Buck Pal, Windsor, Sandringham etc etc), containing treasures long hidden from view, not to mention visitors to all the future sites of the great revolutionary uprisings of the mid 21st century.  ;-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Queen is not for the benefit of tourists - she's there for us! Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ..although she also performs the ancillary function of bolstering American self-esteem, by reminding them that other parts of the world still have antiquated (but quaint) modes of administration that they outgrew centuries ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider also that nearly all democracies find it necessary to have both a Prime Minister (or equivalent, differently named) and a President (ditto), with the former [ latter D'oh!] usually heading the day-to-day business of government and the latter carrying out more ceremonial duties, providing a national emotional 'focus', and - through a degree of detachment from party politics - providing continuity between changes of the former. The US is somewhat exceptional in partly combining the two roles, and is (I suggest) widely perceived as being somewhat administratively inefficient in consequence. If the UK were to abolish the Monarchy, it would probably have to replace it with a Presidential system of some kind, which (judging by comparisons with other counties) might well prove to be more expensive to run. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the kind of government the UK has, a head of state is essential to the workings of the system, not only to cut ribbons, but to exercise reserve power. For example, right now, the UK is governed by a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the largest and third-largest parties in the House of Commons, respectively. If the coalition were to break up, the Conservative prime minister could ask the queen to dissolve parliament and hold a new election. It would be up to the queen to decide whether to grand the prime minister's wish or give the opposition Labour Party a chance to form a government instead. The question is whether, in this day and age, a hereditary monarch is the right person to do that. Monarchists say only a monarch is untainted by politics. Republicans say a directly or indirectly elected non-executive president, like Israel's Shimon Peres, can do the job without all the extravagances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because when the Head of State represents the UK, with foreign statesman visiting the UK or the Queen travelling abroad, it saves Britain from having the indignity of an ignoramus like George W. Bush as its representative. That was worse than a hereditary monarchy precisely because such a person was chosen to represent them.--Britannicus (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally. Like when he gave your Prime Minister a collection of 25 DVDs that would most likely not even play on his DVD player, or like when he returned a bust of Winston Churchill, or when he insisted on shaking hands with an on-duty marine, or when he told Jay Leno that his bowling "was like Special Olympics, or somethin'," or when he credited his conception to the march at Selma, even though he was 4 years old at the time, or when he claimed that his uncle helped to liberate Auschwitz, even though it was the Russians that did, or when he claimed to have campaigned in 57 states, or when he asserted that 10,000 people died in Kansas, when only 12 actually did, or when he was giving a speech in Sioux Falls and called it "Sioux City," or when he claimed that Hugo Chavez came to power under his predecessor's watch, or when he recommended breathalyzers for asthmatics.... Oh, wait.  That wasn't Bush. Kingsfold (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbols are important. Jayron32 mentioned a few in his reply, and it applies to every country in the world.  This short interview from the Czech Republic talks about their symbols.  They act as rallying points and, well, symbols that represent the land, and often that alone is worth the price.  On a personal note, the attitude of "the Monarchy is outdated" is insulting and naive.  It serves its purpose, even if that purpose is largely symbolic.  Sure, the US doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.  See the Bush bashing above for an equivalent attitude that ought to be annoying to Americans.  Your nation rejected the Crown, but many countries had the opportunity and didn't. Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Disgruntled Jews heading east
Chapters 9 - 10 of the Book of Ezra mentions Ezra forbidding Jews to marry non-Jewish women. One book I am reading claims a disgruntled band of them who did not agree with the decision "set out on a journey to the east...never to be heard from again." Ezra only has 10 chapters, so where did this extra info come from? Is it mentioned in another book of the Bible or is it just speculation on the author's part? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several additional "apocryphal" books of Ezra, usually referred to as Esdras in English; not sure whether that particular story is found in any of them... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Many would argue that the only parts of the Bible that are speculation on the part of the author(s) are the parts between the front and back cover.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, since scrolls don't really have covers. Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Judaism maintains that Ezra and Nehemiah are one book and were erroneously split by Christians, but this is largely irrelevant because nothing further is said about this small opposition to Ezra. The Book of Ezra says nothing of anyone "heading east."  Ezra 10:15 states: "Only Jonathan son of Ashael, Yachzeya son of Tikvah stood against this, and Meshulam and Shabtai the Levites supported them."  No mention is made of where they were, what they did and where they went.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Try an inquiry of the author's basis for that plot element by pursuing direct avenues such as:
 * See whether the author (and this book) have a web site with a forum for asking question on matters of content
 * Contact the author and the publisher's editor(s) via the publisher's address
 * -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been in contact with the author in the past and he is rather fickle. If you challenge his research, he either sends you an angry email or doesn't write back at all. He certainly doesn't have a forum. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's usually a good sign that the book is useless. (And looking at the book on Google Books, and the address of the publisher on Google Maps, it is either self-published or published by one of those places that will publish anything for the right price.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm actually writing a lengthy review for the book that refutes many of the author's claims. I just want to make sure I don't make any mistakes in the process. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the Mormon take on this, see Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We are talking purely about Judaism here. I realize Mormonism has a proclaimed connection to various Jewish tribes, but I'm looking for sources referring only to Judaism. Thank you for contributing, though. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)—


 * Meh. Sorta.  While it's true that Lehi and his group left Jerusalem traveling east (well... southeast...) they didn't leave to protest Ezra's marriage prohibitions-- they had already left more than 100 years before (around 592 BC).  (Additionally, they weren't "Jews" in the "descendants of Judah" sense of the word, so the prohibition wouldn't have even applied to them.) Kingsfold (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A term to call a "sale with right of redemption"
According to the law of certain civil law countries, a "sale with right of redemption" is (§491 of the Civil and Commercial Code (Thailand))

"'A contract of sale whereby the ownership of the property sold passes to the buyer, subject to an agreement that the seller can redeem the property within the period prescribed, provided that such redemption right must be exercised by the seller within the period prescribed by law.'"

Is there, in everyday use English or in another legal systems, for instance, common law system, any term to call such sale?

Thank you so much.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Money-back guarantee"? Wait, let me channel... almost have him... all right, I've -- HI BILLY MAYS HERE WITH TRY AND BUY PROPERTIES.  ARE YOU TIRED OF BUYING PROPERTY ONLY TO REALIZE YOU DIDNT NEED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?  TIRED OF PEOPLE RIPPING YOU OFF WITH SUBSTANDARD PROPERTIES OR OVERINFLATED PRICES?  WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT YOU COULD BUY PROPERTIES FROM TRY AND BUY PROPERTIES WITH A FULL, THAT'S RIGHT FULL MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE?  IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY SATISFIED, JUST SEND THE PROPERTY BACK WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR A FULL, THAT IS 100% REFUND, NO HASSLE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.  BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.  WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT IF YOU BUY NOW, WE'LL INCLUDE NOT ONE, BUT TWO FREE EASEMENTS, AT ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE TO YOU.  BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! IF YOU DECIDE YOU AREN'T 100% SATISFIED FOR ANY REASON, JUST RETURN THE PROPERTY AND KEEP BOTH, THAT'S RIGHT BOTH EASEMENTS AS OUR THANKS FOR TRYING THE PROPERTY!  NO RISK, NO OBLIGATION, PICK UP THAT PHONE AND CALL RIGHT NOW! 84.153.180.220 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful, 84.153, if you had spent more time understanding the question and less time writing gibberish. The question is about a term for a situation in which the seller has the option to buy back, not a situation in which the purchaser has the ability to return the goods for a full refund. The best thing you could do with your answer is to delete it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * oh. well that would colloquially just be called a "buy-back option" or more fully "but with the seller's option to to buy back".  Everyone understands that.  We didn't even need Billy Mays again. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have learnt of the equity of redemption, but I am not certain if it is the same as the right of redemption in civil law.
 * 203.131.212.36 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The subsequent sections of Chapter IV of this document (page 6 onwards) might help clarify what this means.
 * I don't know if this is actually relevant to the OP's question, but it is illegal for non-Thais to own real estate in Thailand. This site discusses various methods to avoid this restriction (though I'm unsure how current or reliable that site is).  Astronaut (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a quote
I think it was from a woman in the late 1800s or early 1900s who said something like "if there is a job for which there is a lot of opportunity now, by the time you get qualified, that job will be glutted." Anybody have a link to the actual quote? Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno but you should read our article hog cycle on this exact subject. 84.153.247.76 (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * actually that article sucks. Anyway the subject is hog cycle (economics), look for it on the web or something. 84.153.247.76 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If while you are in school, there is a shortage of qualified personnel in a particular field, then by the time you graduate with the necessary qualifications, that field's employment market is glutted. -- Marguerite Emmons 71.161.48.176 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman catholic MPS (Commons)
who are they please - as at todays date? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it depends on what you mean by "Catholic". About 68 or 70. Gabbe (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this there are 68 MP's who are Catholics (whatever that means...). Their names are not available at the official site. It's probably considered a private matter. Flamarande (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's private, then how does that website know how many there are? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they were asked in a statistical survey, and the organ doing the statitics has the obligation to release the stats, and also the obligation to keep the names secret. Just liek many other surveys about religion. --Lgriot (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To the OP: You spell "Catholic" with a small "c".  If this is purposeful?  You will get a very different answer in both cases.  MacOfJesus (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * MP & MPS differ. The "S" refers to Scotland, Scotish MPs.  The MPs sit in Westminster (Commons).  MPS meet in Scotland and Scotish Parliament.  MacOfJesus (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's MSPs, actually. And it's spelt Scottish. Just ignore MacofJesus, he's got no idea what he's talking about. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why ask the question, in the literal sense and in the now aquired sense? Question to the OP.   MacOfJesus (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701
Two questions about succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms:


 * 1) I recall reading that, if a Roman Catholic descended from Sophia through a legitimate line raises his/her child as a non-Roman Catholic, the child will have succession rights. Assuming this is true (i.e. parent's religion does not exclude the child), I am wondering what would happen if a man in the line of succession married a Roman Catholic descended from Sophia through a legitimate line, a woman who would've ranked above her spouse in the line had RCs not been barred from succession; which place would their child assume? Would the child come after his father or would the child assume the place his mother would've had had she not been a "papist"? I'd say the child would assume his mother's place but I am not sure.
 * 2) "Illegitimate children are excluded in accordance with the general interpretation of English Common Law by which illegitimate children have no rights of succession to the British Crown. Illegitimate children whose parents later marry do not thereby gain any succession rights to the British Crown." What is a legitimate marriage - only a marriage recognised by the British authorities or a marriage recognised by authorities of the person's homeland? If a person in the line converts to Islam (thereby not losing succession rights because only "papists" are excluded), moves to Saudi Arabia and has two wives as the same time, would his children by both women be in the line of succession? How about children of any other marriage that could not be contracted in a Commonwealth realm? Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that non-Catholic children of Catholic parents are eligible to succeed to the throne. I think you are correct that the child would take the highest place they are eligible for. As for foreign marriages, I expect the same laws would apply as apply to non-royals who married abroad. You can read a bit about those laws here, but I can't find a particularly good description. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but here are my two cents. If marrying a Catholic doesn't cut off one's kids from the line of succession, I guess you would still get a place in line for your highest claim.  As for what marriages count, there are some people in the line who live in other countries and have marriages from those countries, not from the UK, so foreign marriages must count.  Maybe they have to be Protestant marriages, but I've never heard of someone getting kicked off the list for getting a non-religious marriage at city hall.  If you got an Islamic marriage, it looks like you stay on the list by the letter of the law, but they're going to make you convert to Anglicanism before they let you become head of that church.  142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the event of a Roman Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, if they wish to have their marriage accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, the couple have to undertake to raise their children in the Catholic faith. Therefore the first part of the question is less than likely. The Act of Settlement 1701 is also under review, and is likely to be replaced by something more modern at some time in the future. The new UK Coalition doesn't seem to be in any hurry to get entangled in the constitiutions of the Queen's 16 Realms; but if there was any chance that anyone would be affected by it, then moves to reform it would become more urgent. The whole question is pointless speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Real" value of precious metals
I realize that precious metals (Gold, Silver, and Platinum) have a wide variety of practical uses (electronics, jewelry, chemical catalysts, etc.) However, I also realize that to some extent they are valuble "merely" because everyone agrees that they are valuble; that people have confidence that they will be able to exchange them for goods or services at a later date, without the metal ever necessarily being used for anything productive. I found this old thread: Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_February_17, which helps explain some of the why to this question. However, I'd like to know what Gold (or silver or platinum) would be worth if there wasn't this currency-ish quality to it. What if gold was only traded with the intention of someone, at some point, using it, be it in electronics, jewelry, or medicine? Is such a question even possible to answer (I would assume that someone's tried to answer it, but I just don't know).
 * According to this source gold is truly an exceptional case because of "the fundamental difference between gold and all other commodities is that gold is not consumed, it is accumulated." Flamarande (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was interesting (especially since it came from a time with low gold prices, while gold is very high right now). I'm not sure that gold is completely unique in being accumulated; other precious metals (silver and especially platinum), and even certain non-precious metals, like copper, are mostly recycled and remain in the supply pool.  That article correctly points out that the factors governing the price of gold are complex, and lie as much in politics and psychology as much as they do in commercial uses.  But it doesn't answer my main question: what would the price of gold be if people didn't use it as a store of wealth, if it was only used in making jewelry and electronics. Buddy431 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, these three metals are the only examples I could really think of where this is true (they are used, in addition to there practical uses, as a store of value, and this significantly increases there price). I mean, diamonds and other gems sort of apply, but I think that most diamonds that are mined are eventually expected to get turned into jewelry or drill bits, and that the inflated prices more have to do with restricting supply and a good advertising campaign (it's not like central banks keep huge stores of diamonds around to back there currency, or anything like that). And to be sure, there is speculation in any commodity, sometimes leading to artificially high prices (Tulip mania, anyone?). But is there any other examples like gold (or silver, or to a lesser extent platinum) where a large part of there value is just because everyone agrees that they're valuable? Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, probably Petroleum? Stock and shares who are traded in the Stock market are not commodities, but the same principles seem to apply. These things are valuable as long the buyers and sellers agree that they are valuable. Flamarande (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Petroleum is definitely not an example of what I'm looking for. Nearly every drop of petroleum that is pulled from the ground will be distilled, burned, refined, or made into plastic, probably within a short amount of time.  It is not held to a significant extent, and what is held (like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) is not to store value (as gold is), but to provide for short term shortages.  The price that I pay for a barrel of petroleum is probably more or less what it's "actually" worth, given what it is used for.  Similarly, stocks and shares are at least nominally based upon the intrinsic value of the company that puts them out - the potential future earnings, as well as current assets.  Gold, and other precious metals, seem a bit removed from this - they are worth far more than their actual uses would seem to indicate.  I was wondering if there are any other examples like this. Buddy431 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that people hoard gold is an effect of it's already being valuable. It terms of rarity and use, gold is worth a lot on its own (its more rare than, say, aluminum, and you only need a tiny amount to make a useful object).  People only hoard gold because its already valuable, its easy to store (high cost per volume), and will likely remain valuable in the long term (unlike something like a vintage comic, which may be worth a million dollars now, but will lose that value if a generation stops caring about Superman).  The same is sometimes true of petroleum; some corporations sit on known reserves without mining them just because it is a way of storing money and it is something they can trade later.  A better example of something that is expensive just because its expensive is mined diamonds.  For all practical purposes, like drills, we can use diamonds made in a factory.  However, you have to use mined diamonds to propose to someone because they cost more and you have to spend a certain amount on an engagement ring.  Because mined diamonds are expensive, demand increases and makes them even more expensive.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "you have to use mined diamonds to propose to someone because they cost more"   Googlemeister (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to experiment. I recommend that we try proposing to a random sample of women, half of them with an expensive mined diamond and the other half with an inexpensive but nearly identical manufactured diamond and see what the results are.  I hypothesize that a statistically significant portion of the second group will get mad once they find out where their ring came from.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The flaw with the experiment is that I think the women who would accept are going to have an inherent self selection bias, in that the only women who will accept a random marriage proposal from a man with a large diamond ring are going to care about the value of the rock, and not the man. Googlemeister (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we would have to find men that were planning on proposing anyway and divide them into two groups. It might be tough getting ethics approval for this one.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always seemed to me that we use gold because there's just the right amount of it to make it useful. There's too much silver to be the main precious-metal standard, and probably not enough platinum. Diamonds aren't really practical. Commodities certainly aren't. But gold works. Plus, it looks nice. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism
Hello everybody. I am a Swedish university student majoring in English and doing research in the US for my paper. I've studied English since early grammar school, and I flatter myself that my proficiency in the language approaches a near-native level. I was talking to my host family, and my country's economic and the welfare system came up. In my family we have a peculiar habit of referring to the government welfare system as "socialism" even though this is not technically true, it's more of a social-market system. I did this in the conversation, and the person I was talking to made a face. When I asked what he thought was wrong with socialism, he said that socialism led to Communism (which I gathered was considered a bad thing). I'm no economist or political scientist, but doesn't believing socialism leads to Communism make you a Communist? And why would he have had such an aversion to socialism? Thank you. 76.230.249.131 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be very surprised if more than 5% of all Americans could tell you the difference between socialism and communism. As for the negative connotation, the U.S. spent much of the last 50 years in a cold war against communism.  Since most Americans believe that communism and socialism are the same thing, socialism has been the enemy all that time.  Of the 5% who may know the difference, some abhor socialism.  Some love it.  I doubt you were having a discussion with one of those few. --  k a i n a w &trade; 18:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In Marxist-Leninist discourse, a socialist society is a pre-stage to communism. Governments such as those that existed in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe never claimed to be communist, but socialist (developing towards communism). Under socialism class differences still exists, but the state apparatus is dominated by the working class. I doubt that your host family refered to socialism in this sense, though. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless whether you agree with them or not, people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have lots of viewers and listeners in the US. Try searching for their names combined with "socialism" on Youtube and you can find examples of how "socialism" can be described in mainstream US media. Gabbe (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to add "liberalism" to the list. To those folks you just named, liberal = socialist = communist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As others have pointed out, most Americans consider "socialism" and "Communism" to be synonymous. This is a fair exaggeration, to be sure. (The US has been a hybrid socialist/free market economy since the 1930s, at the very least.) But the legacy of the Cold War is that most Americans don't know the difference, and don't care. They've learned to associate "socialism" with "Communism," and don't necessarily consider things like government regulation of financial systems, government subsidies to various sectors of the economy, or the many other ways in which the government participates in the economy to be "socialism" in the strict sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear 76.230.249.13 -- In the United States the rhetorical and political battle over "socialism: was lost long ago, so that most Americans see it as a somewhat alien ideology which is associated either with grim Communist tyranny or with quaint Scandinavian exoticism, but which in either case has no relationship with American political traditions and no real solutions to offer to current problems. If the opponents of a policy proposal can firmly tag it as being "socialist", then that's generally the kiss of death for it in U.S. politics.  One classic work which might still be interesting to read today is "Why there is no Socialism in the United States" by Werner Sombart (1906)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that Sombart is probably not going to be enlightening in regards to making sense of the USA after WWII, which is where the modern fear of socialism originated (as well as the modern contradiction of the US being, in fact, quite socialist in many respects). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fear of "socialism/communism" in the U.S. dates well back into the 19th century. But as has been discussed here before, most Americans know of socialism only from its Marxist-Leninist variety, which is often called "communism." Few Americans know that all but a few Western European countries have been ruled by an ostensibly socialist party at some time. So you shouldn't expect your average man on the street in Atlanta or Sacramento to understand the difference between the terms. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that one could be quite enlightened by US reactions to 19th century or even early 20th century Communism. But I don't think that is what is salient about the modern usage of it, and I would personally dispute that it is a continuous reaction. Pre-Soviet fears of Communism are not quite the same thing as the Cold War ones, at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the core issue is the fear that socialism restricts people's freedom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Social welfare, public healthcare and state education take away your freedom to be starving, ill and illiterate. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are making a big assumption that BB would be starving without welfare, ill without public healthcare, and illiterate without state education. I cannot speak for BB.  For myself, I have never used social welfare and I have never starved.  I have never used public healthcare and I am healthy.  I learned to read and write (and do math) long before stepping foot into a public school.  While there are some people who need these services, the mindset that everyone needs them is a bit absurd. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously I meant a generic "you", not BB personally. To put my point more precisely - social welfare, public healthcare and state education mean that you do not have to live in a society in which it is common to be starving, ill and illiterate, and in which the success of the more fortunate members of that society is at the expense of the less fortunate. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the way you worded that because it allows for an understandable reason that an educated and informed person could dislike socialism. You stated "the success of the more fortunate members ... is at the expense of the less fortunate."  Socialism could be described as: the success of the less fortunate is at the expense of the more fortunate.  Members of the more fortunate could simply dislike providing the expense for socialism regardless of the benefits to society.  Along those lines, it is also reasonable for someone to support socialism policies run by private industry while refusing to accept a state-run socialism policy (mainly because governments tend to be very poor managers of money and programs).  So, ignoring those who are simply ignorant about the subject, there are certainly intelligent people with good arguments against state-run socialism. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you could describe socialism thusly, but I think it's way off the mark. Most of "socialism" as the US popularly considers it consists of social safety nets and not "success".  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone mentioned O'Reilly in this section, and while he could be grouped with the others who consider themselves conservative ideologists, he himself doesn't do so. Many of his views are conservative-leaning, or maybe "traditionalist-leaning", which is not necessarily the same thing. Also, I've heard him say, explicitly, that we need a "safety net", which you are seldom likely to hear a "true" conservative argue for. This is basically the same philosophy as that of the other Roosevelt, Teddy, a relatively liberal Republican, and a fair amount of whose vision for America has been fulfilled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about sweden, but many people in this country believe that goverment is "bad" - that freedom and happiness are maximized when gov't is minimized. This is a complex psychological issue, since even in intelligent people, these ideas don't get expressed logically. For instance, many convervatives are in favor of the "no child left behind" ideas started by G Bush, ideas which resulted in a huge expansion of fed gov't authority in what has been, historically, a lcoal issue in the us - primary education (education before college at age 18, often called K12 education). Yet this huge expansion of fed gov't power did not cause most conservatives to be upset, while Obama's healthcare reform, which is alos a large expansion of gov't authority, does cause people to be upset. I guess the upshot is that "socialism" is, in the US, a word that means the gov't, backed up by police, telling you what to do.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern US war dead
I'm familiar with the images, through movies and television, of two uniformed soldiers walking up to the home of the parents or wife of a recently killed US soldier while they were involved in wars like Korea or Vietnam. What's done now though? Is it still the same two uniformed soldiers making that walk up the sidewalk? Dismas |(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes -- Google "Casualty Notification Officer". A good fictional depiction is the recent film The Messenger, though I can't say how accurate it is. In the Korean War, by the way, casualty notification was still done via telegram and not in person. —Kevin Myers 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now I'm wondering how "casualty notification officer" gets abbreviated to CACO...  Off I go Googling...  Dismas |(talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems it stands for "Casualty Assistance Calls Officer". Dismas |(talk) 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)