Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 6

= May 6 =

Probable cause
A police officer suspects someone of having something illegal, but he doesn't have enough proof to establish probable cause. He then asks the person for permission to search his stuff. If the person consents, the officer searches him. If the person refuses, he must be hiding something, so the officer has probable cause to search him anyway. Would this work? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. See right to silence.  --99.237.234.104 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have heard a police officer in the United States say specifically that if he asks to search something (say a vehicle) but doesn't have probable cause or a warrant, he can't without permission. His course of action then is to wait until the drug dogs get there and walk around the car.  Should the dogs bark, he said that that was probable cause. Falconus p  t   c 02:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Police officers tend to have some tricks up their sleeves in tricking people who don't know their rights. One example is asking "do you know what will happen to you if you don't do what a police officer tells you?" The answer is nothing, but most people don't know this apparantly. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? It seems to me that evidence obtained by that kind of trickery would be deemed inadmissible.  --99.237.234.104 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * William Chambliss, "Policing the Ghetto underclass" in Social Problems (1994). There are two accounts of this.  On page page 179:
 * "The officer requests permission to search the car. The individual refuses the officer's request. The officer begins pressuring the driver with threats: 'You know what happens if you refuse to obey a police officer’s request?' The driver says nothing, shrugs and gets out of the car. The car is searched and nothing is found."
 * And on page 180:
 * "The officer on the driver's side asks: 'Can we search your car?' The driver says 'No.' The officer then says, 'You know what will happen if you refuse a police officer's request?' The driver then says 'OK you can look.' Both occupants are told to get out of the car and the car is searched."
 * I've also been told, less reliably, that anything other than closing your door and locking it (whether it's your house or your car) is construable by a police officer as consent for a search and admissible as evidence in court. Even if you say "I do not consent to a search," evidence found can still be permissible if it's just your word against the officer's (they've already violated your rights, what's a little perjury to seal the deal?). — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Search and Seizure article. Also look at Terry stop. In the U.S., the police can frisk anyone they suspect with a reasonable suspicion, a lenient standard. If, during that frisk, they feel something that may give them probable cause, then probable cause analysis applies. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking because I saw on the news that a town near me is planning to have a mandatory brethalyzer checkpoint. As they're checking everyone, rather than only those who appear intoxicated, you're within your rights to refuse. However, the police claims that a person would only refuse if he's intoxicated, so they'll have a judge on-site to sign search warrants to do blood tests on those who refuse. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to a news story about this? The situation sounds rather extraordinary.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really remarkable. DUI checkpoints are part of an exception to the 4th amendment for "public safety" although it's relatively limited. There have been cities that have tried to expand it to more general concerns, like checking for drugs, and those have been struck down. The exception for vehicle checkpoints must have a neutral criteria and cannot be general law enforcement, but rather aimed towards the safety concern. The exception is controversial, but it's an established doctrine. As for refusing breath tests, those laws vary a lot state to state so don't believe what you hear from friends and on the internet regarding the consequences of refusal, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What seems extraordinary is that they're using refusal as evidence for incrimination. If a warrant is issued based on refusal, then one is not within their rights to refuse.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  22:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to refuse a court order (which is a court order to the sheriff, but by proxy the party searched) then you need an express reason to do so. The most obvious reason would in this case would be the 5th amendment (in the U.S., which I think we've all assumed this question is referring to) which has been regularly held to not apply to "non testimonial" evidence, including things like blood or hair samples. The Federal rules of civil procedure (and most states) have special requirements for these kinds of examinations, but they're not constitutionally based and they largely are at the discretion of the trial court in the case. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have is the logic, which is what the OP's question is really about. Refusal of a search should never be construed as actionable evidence of guilt.  If you don't have a right to refuse the test either way, then they don't need to argue its base in guilt in the first place to justify a nonconsentual test.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  08:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Judge knowingly permitting perjury?
Right now, I'm watching a Law and Order episode in which a witness, fearing for his safety, testifies to a judge privately and is told by the judge to lie in open court: the judge says that the secret testimony is good enough. Would such a situation really be possible in real life under New York law? Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems remarkable to me, but I haven't seen the episode. A judge shouldn't ever advise a party before it about legal questions, nor should any officer of the court ever make a false statement before it. That is basic legal ethics. Shadowjams (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And secret testimony in general is pretty constrained to national security issues, I believe. And even then it is controversial and problematic (and probably wouldn't be used in a criminal case). The reason is pretty straightforward: the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says you are allowed to face both your accuser and know the testimony against you, in criminal proceedings. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be legally allowed? No.  A judge cannot legally permit — much less, encourage — false testimony before the court.  He would likely lose his license to practice law, and he would lose his position as a judge.  This conduct violates basic legal (and judicial) ethics, and he would be disbarred.  As to your specific question — would it be possible? — yes, of course, it would be possible ... but not legally so.  Judges are human and can either be incompetent (i.e., make errors) or be corrupt (e.g., take bribes, commit crimes, etc.).  Perjury is a crime ... no ethical or law-abiding judge would facilitate it, conspire in it, or be party to it.  Thanks.   (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC))


 * However.. in the event that the judge did encourage perjury and was caught, he would go under review probably by some panel of senior judges or by ministers etc and they will take into account the circumstances and any mitigating factors before they would remove his license and remove him/her from the bench. So in a crazy legal drama like Law & Order, the judge could do it knowing the risk. Rfwoolf (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the world of Hollywood and television fiction, of course, anything goes. In real life, yes and no.  A judge could "hedge his bets" and take his chances, knowing the risks and likely consequences.  But, a judgeship is a very political position, open to intense public scrutiny.  The public outrage would be intense for his removal.  After all, what credibility would he have left?  A judge's ethics are supposed to be beyond reproach, and he is obligated to avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety.  No one in a political position of power (e.g., the Governor of the state; the Attorney General of the state; etc.) could look the public in the eye and defend a judge under these circumstances.  It would be political suicide (and simply not worth it) for the overseeing public officials to support the judge in such a case.  So, practically speaking, the judge knows this (in real life).  In the world of TV drama, it's up for grabs — limited by the imagination of the writing team and the need for good television ratings.  (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

UK election polling times
What times of day do the polls open and close in the UK election? --130.216.44.59 (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Too Big to Fail
The definition in the article's second paragraph is not accompanied by any citations. Can someone please hunt down a source that either verifies or refutes the claim? 128.59.180.241 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That sort of issue should be dealt with on that page's talk page, or at the appropriate project page, like WP:FINANCE. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is the right place to ask for references. WP Project talk pages are for discussing issues that pertain to multiple articles in a certain field. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified: my request originated as a question ("Has TBTF ever meant immune to failure?"). I framed it as a hunt for sources because (1) I wanted to make sure the answer was researched, and (2) I wanted the research to go into the article, so others would benefit.
 * Shadowjams, I'm glad you raised the issue, because it gives me a chance to share a slightly related gripe: having followed Reference Desk pages for about a year, I am surprised at how rarely an answer is accompanied with an edit in the article space to memorialize the effort. -Original inquirer, now posting as 160.39.221.164 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, but the reference desk is not the place to ask for modifications to articles. There's an entire system set up around that sort of thing, and if there are specific problems you have, but aren't comfortable changing yourself, the project pages are a good place to start.


 * Does too big to fail mean immune to failure? Neither of those definitions have any [known to me] meaning under U.S. law, so I don't think the distinction is meaningful, unless there's some popular usage. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the original post in this thread. The questioner is not asking for "modifications to articles". They want references. When you want references, you go to the reference desk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a fair question for the Reference Desk. We help people find information.  We can certainly try to help find references for articles.
 * After a moderate amount of searching, I cannot find a reference that supports the definition in the article's second paragraph. It is certainly not a definition in wide use today.  I question whether that definition belongs in the article, since it is tangential to the subject of the article.  I'd say your next step is to go to the article's Talk page and suggest deleting the definition for that reason.  Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was jesus executed?
I'm not talking about the religious reason, he died for our sins, I don't buy that nonsense. I'm just interested in the historical reasons. I read the section on Historical Jesus regarding his execution, and I don't completely understand all of the context. Now I heard he was killed simply for saying he was the son of god, and the jews considered that blasphemy, but that sounds a bit extreme. I know this was back in those days, and it was a different culture, but to execute someone over just that sounds like it's too much. Sedition also sounds a bit odd. If he was planning sedition, and the Romans took it as a serious threat, wouldn't it make more sense to imprison him? If his followers were large enough to be that much of a threat, they would be afraid that they would want to take revenge for killing him in such a public way. Did he do anything that caused people to die in the same way that Shoko Asahara or Jim Jones did? ScienceApe (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- you might set a better tone to persuade people to cooperate with you if you didn't start off by insulting their religion, and leaving the word "Jews" uncapitalized could give people the wrong idea. In any case, the New Testament makes it fairly clear that the Sadducee/High-priestly elite of the time (not "Jews" generally) thought he was a religious troublemaker with grandiose pretensions who could agitate people and/or cause problems with the continually very touchy Roman-Jewish relations.  They couldn't execute him because such inferior local "native" authorities weren't allowed to impose the death penalty under the Roman system.  So they had to hand him over to the Romans to be executed -- but since Jewish religious offenses were not a crime under Roman law, they also had to present him as being a political rebel.  The Roman authorities were more or less aware that he wasn't really a political rebel, but were willing to kill him anyway, partly to preserve their working relationship with the Sadducee/High-priestly elite. AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good summary. It's also worth pointing out that there were a number of "false messiahs" running around, and they often ended up being disposed of and were thus permanently out of the way of both the Romans and the Jewish honchos. The Jesus situation turned out differently, to put it mildly. I think the question "why weren't they imprisoned" is answerable by the deterrence factor. Crucifixion was a horrible way to die, and the theory was that it would make other potential troublemakers think twice before making trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article says "Some scholars suggest that Pilate executed Jesus as a public nuisance, perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities.", which implies the opposite. I was taught that the Romans tolerated most religions, most of the time, but could not abide any kind of political insurrection. It seems the cross bore a sign that read "King of the Jews". Sounds a political crime to me. New Testament sources on the role of the Jews in Jesus' death are useful, but do need to be considered with their bias (anti Jewish) and time of writing (generally much later) borne in mind. As indeed are the writings of historians and biblical scholars. See Historiography. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The King of the Jews" was put there to mock Jesus. It's most likely Jesus was considered a dangerous agitator and the authorities feared his influence over the populace. The main problem with understanding the life of Jesus from a distance of more than 2,000 years is due to the brief space he occupies in the Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at an interesting article with the background to the trial here. They argue that the motivation for the arrest of Jesus was the earlier altercation with the money-changers in the Temple in Jerusalem and that the "King of the Jews" allegation came from Judas Iscariot. According to the Gospel accounts, Pilate had some sympathy with Jesus, but felt he had no alternative but to go along with the wishes of the Sanhedrin. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For blasphemy. See Mat: 26 v.57-68.  See Mark: 14  v.53-65.  See Luke: 22  v. 66- 23  v.1.  See John: 19 v. 6-7.  The Christian notion of God versus the Jewish.  MacOfJesus (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can check the top Exegesis on this if you need further help. The Gospels are very clear on this.  I am amazed at the misunderstanding of this, as the Gospels are so clear.  MacOfJesus (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "...perhaps with the cooperation of the Jewish authorities"? That's rather understating things. As noted in Arrest of Jesus it was initially the Sanhedrin that had Him arrested and then condemned Him to death. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, but more as the initiators, see the Gospel references above. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Passion (Christianity) describes the details of the process, and asserts that the Jewish authorities were active participants and instigators throughout. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus, had no magical powers. He was (however) likely a carismatic fellow & had a growing number of followers. Thus he became a political threat to the Romans & had to be eliminated. No doubt, when the Romans had him up on bogus charges of treason, they (the Romans) planted people in the crowds to start the calls for Jesus's crusifiction. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit like the crowd in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. "Cut 'im down, cut 'im down".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The questioner asks for the "historical reasons" for the execution of Jesus. My answer would be that there are no truly historical reasons. We have only reasons mentioned by the Christian Gospels.  These are our only source of information about the supposed execution of Jesus. These are sacred texts written to provide the foundation for a religious sect, early Christianity. They do not meet the definition of reliable historical sources.  We have no way of knowing for sure whether events they describe actually happened, because those events are not documented in surviving Roman documents or in any other sources.  Some scholars question whether a "historical Jesus" even existed. See Christ myth theory.  Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thankyou! I've been saying that for years. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're speaking the probable truth. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then consult Pliny and Pliny the Younger & Johnathan, Josephus on Jesus, also C.G. Jung on myth. Also consult the Gospel according to Pilate, often referred to as the Acts of Pilate :   MacOfJesus (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are, in fact, other contemporary references: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No passages in ancient documents referring to Jesus are in fact contemporary with the supposed dates of Jesus. They all date from at least 60 years later. With the exception of the passage in Josephus, references outside of Christian texts refer to the beliefs of Christians as such, rather than offering independent documentation for the basis of those Christian beliefs. The passage in Josephus, while supposedly written in the 90s CE (some 60 years after the supposed crucifixion and ascension of Jesus), is not cited by any other source until the 300s.  You would think that an earlier Christian source would have seized on this independent corroboration, if it existed before the 300s.  This suggests that a Christian inserted these references to Jesus into the work of Josephus.  As Christianity became the official religion of the empire, it is likely that the versions of Josephus that mentioned Jesus would be accepted as authoritative, while those that did not would be rejected and not recopied. We cannot know for sure, since the works of Josephus were copied and recopied many times.  The oldest copies that survive were created a thousand years after the original.  Let me be clear that I am not arguing that Jesus did not exist.  I am just arguing that we don't know whether he existed.  Marco polo (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The existence of Jesus is just about as well-established as any other figure of ancient times who was not a ruler or high government official, and is not mentioned in inscriptions of strictly contemporary date. There are many thousands of names mentioned in ancient texts (including some relatively famous ones) whose existence we have less evidence for than we do for that of Jesus.  Also, the Christians of the earliest centuries really would not have cared too much about Josephus (whom they would not have had any reason to revere as any kind of religious authority), and also would not have cared too much about the so-called "question of the historical Jesus" (which hardly anybody in the world ever cared about before the 18th century)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to http://multilingualbible.com/matthew/27-18.htm and http://multilingualbible.com/mark/15-10.htm, the execution of Jesus was motivated by envy on the part of the chief priests. However, other Bible passages mention accusations which they contrived against him as pretexts. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Pliny the Elder (23-79) together with Pliny the Younger (63-c.113) were contemporary and completely independant and were pure historians, and wrote their works real-time, for, we believe a sponsor. You need, then, to study their works independantly of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaeda, and would not have the original works.  Have you studied the Acts of Pilate, Pilate's witness?  He was contemporary, very much so!  MacOfJesus (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the historicity of what you may read in the Acts of Pilate see Acts of Pilate.--Wetman (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think that early Christians would have wanted to cite independent evidence backing their claim that Jesus existed, if there had been any such evidence to cite. (Pliny the Elder never mentions Jesus, and Pliny the Younger mentions him, but only because he is reporting on the existence of Christians who worship him. Pliny the Younger documents the existence of Christians, not of Jesus. Nobody questions the existence of Christians.)  In addition to rulers and high government officials, I would argue that the existence of a number of scholars and literary figures is better established than that of Jesus through contemporary citations.  It is certainly true that there are a number of names mentioned in ancient sources whose existence could be called into question.  In most cases, though, there is no reason to call their existence into question.  Jesus is different.  He is claimed to be the son of God, born to a virgin, and to have risen from the dead.  Those are some pretty extraordinary claims.  In my mind, a source, such as any of the Gospels, that makes those claims, is more open to question than a source that does not make extraordinary claims about the people it mentions. I disagree that nobody in ancient times would have cared about whether Jesus really existed. The claims about him were so extraordinary that I'm sure many non-Christians questioned his existence.  I agree that nobody would have openly questioned the existence of Jesus between the 5th and the 18th centuries.  On the one hand, modern historiographical standards of objectivity hardly existed during that period.  If a source was considered authoritative, it was accepted with little critical questioning.  On the other hand, questioning the existence of Jesus would have been profoundly blasphemous and heretical and would have been grounds for burning at the stake.  Marco polo (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but one does not have to take Jesus as a historical figure to answer the question. Its possible to read a work of fiction and answer, from within the context of that work, why something happened, especially if the text explained it. In this case, you don't have to accept a single word of the Bible as true to answer the question.  You can just read the Bible and give the answer the Bible does.  The Gospel of Mark, starting at Mark 14:43 and continuing through Mark 15-15 covers this.  In Mark, Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"  62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."  63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death.  Since the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to carry out the death sentance, they handed him to Pilate to do it.  Luke 22 and 23 tell a similar story, but in that bit, the time before Pilate is expanded, showing his reluctance to execute Jesus, starting at Luke 23:13 13Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16Therefore, I will punish him and then release him."  However, the people demanded his execution, and Pilate relents, in order to keep the peace.  Starting at Luke 23:22 22For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." 23But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.  John and Matthew tell basicly the same story as Luke, a bit different dialogue, but they pretty much agree on events.  -- Jayron  32  19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * However, Saint John's Gospel spells it out even more clearly: 19:v.6-7:  "We have a Law and according to that Law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God". (JB).  MacOfJesus (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have written and studied Philosophical writings and other secular related studies but I never came across anything like this. ( Fine, but one does not have to take Jesus as a historical figure to answer the question. Its possible to read a work of fiction and answer, from within the context of that work, why something happened, especially if the text explained it. In this case, you don't have to accept a single word of the Bible as true to answer the question.  You can just read the Bible and give the answer the Bible does. ) To quote Jayron32.  If this kind of "histeria" occured there, there would be questions of mental sability!   MacOfJesus (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayron's answer is correct and on track. If I asked, "What did The Voice say to Ray Kinsella in the cornfield?", the correct answer wouldn't be, "Field of Dreams is fictional." The answer would be, "'If you build it, he will come.'" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding that the Jews could not condemn someone to death, whether "he deserved to die" or not, they had no death penalty. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * for the above please. Googlemeister (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they had the death penalty, Everard! What do you think stoning resulted in?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation request; that is cited in the Gospel references already given. This was the reason why they brought Him to Pilate in the first place. I thought you would have looked up the sources already given by now! Is there any point in giving these if they are not read or going to be read? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I read it, they had the religious authority to condemn, but they lacked the legal authority to carry it out. Hence they went to Pontius Pilate to have him finish the job. Pilate, having reached his weekly quota of executions, and wanting to leave work early that Friday to go watch Ben-Hur and Messala in the big chariot smackdown, was reluctant to do it; but the mob outside his office talked him into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference is precice in Saint John 18 v. 31-32. It is clear they did not have this authorithy.  If they stoned to death in the Roman times, they did so illegally as in the case of Saint Stephen.  Where is it cited:  "There is none so blind as those who will not see"?  MacOfJesus (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Was stoning actually ordered by the authorities, or was it typically (theoretically) a spontaneous act by the public? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer is in the New Testament writings. If you study the account of Saint Stephen and the Commentaries from Scripture Scholars, you will find the answer.  I recommend The Jerome Biblical Commentry.  However, you may not accept these, so what is the point in finding them?  MacOfJesus (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We need some reading comprehension classes around here. The OP clearly states that s/he is not interested in the religious arguments, only the historic ones. Given the lack of substantial data from non-Gospel sources, the short answer is this: we don't know. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My original answer was: For blasphemy.  See Mat: 26 v.57-68.  See Mark: 14  v.53-65.  See Luke: 22  v. 66- 23  v.1.  See John: 19 v. 6-7.  The Christian notion of God versus the Jewish.   However if the OP came back to say he/she was non-accepting of this answer, then we could give alternative suggestions.  Our answer might be that it is hard to find study on this outside the Gospel exept maybe the Acts of Pilate and others.  Which we did suggest.  I hope he/she has read these by now.   MacOfJesus (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Romans in AD 30(ish) crucified people for two crimes and only two crimes: 1) treason, and 2) escaping from slavery. Thus, Jesus was crucified for treason.  If the story of his armed military riot in the temple is true, this act during Passover Week was the sort of thing that would result in summary execution; Passover week, with the huge temporary crowds in Jerusalem, was a tinderbox of anti-Roman rebellion, and Pilate (an extremely vicious and brutal man who condemned thousands of Jews to death -- and that much we DO know, absolutely for certain) would have had a standing order to execute anyone committing any rebellious act.  Nothing in the gospels after Jesus' arrest is true, other than the fact that he was crucified; there would have been no Christian-Jewish witnesses.  In any case, he certainly would not have been brought to Pilate, much less have engaged in discourse with that singularly brutal Roman official.  The Jews had nothing to do with it; all of the gospels were written after the Jewish(-Roman) War of AD 66-70, when Christian proselytyzers were attempting to separate themselves from the Jews and appeal to gentiles while avoiding Roman censure (kissing up to Rome, in fact).  The Barabbas (Barabbas = "son-of-father") story is absurd; there is no record, in any imperial territory, of the Romans ever having a "spare this condemned criminal" tradition, much less one by popular acclimation.  Even if one accepts the gospel account, it makes no sense for the Jews to be absolutely enamored of Jesus on Palm Sunday and then turn violently against him four days later.  The blood libel in Matthew is one of the most shameful legacies of the human race, besides being the gratuitous fictional construct of a 1st century cultist who had no idea how much death and misery would result from his toadying to contemporary Rome.  Again:  Jesus was executed for treason, by the Romans ... and the Jews had nothing to do with it. 63.17.55.105 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, these were not the only reasons, Saint Dismas "for our crimes". Murder was high on the list. Pilate, the Governor, had the right to decide. He was anxious to placate the crowd. He placed the reason over/behind the cross. If it were a Roman Citizen that was accused, then they had the right to appeal to Rome. Pilate, for getting it wrong in Roman eyes, we believe, was bannished to Ethiopia. Have you studied his account; Acts of Pilate? MacOfJesus (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that a Roman Citizen was protected from this form of execution, by Law. However, if you have seen the film "Sparticus", they did not always keep their own Laws. Not like The Medes and The Persians. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting
I have registered to vote but have not received anything to confirm this, what do I need to vote, can I take my passport and tell them my address? Will they stop me from voting with out a card? please help I DID register, and really want to vote! Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming you're in the UK, I'm pretty sure there is something about that going on today..., then you're fine.
 * You self identify, give them your name and address and that's fine. You don't need any form of ID.
 * ALR (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All the information you should need is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As ALR says, you just turn up and tell them your name and address. Nothing else needed. 89.243.159.221 (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The voting card is for information only. Your passport will be sufficent.  Berfore 10PM.  Helpline: 0207-525 7373). Simple! Bring a utility bill showing your name and address as well, usually there is a person there who knows everyone in the community and able to identify. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The passport may be sufficient (or may not, as it doesn't show the holder's address), but it is not necessary, as others have said. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you are in Northern Ireland - you need some form of photo ID to vote there. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a polling card either, and have just voted. They have a list of everybody registered to vote in the area. I'm not sure what would have happened if somebody had turned up earlier in the day claiming to be me, and taken my vote? 213.122.52.129 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, you are issued with another ballot paper (pink in colour, I think) which is then placed in a sealed envelope inside the ballot box. This is then only counted if the result is a tie. Dalliance (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you voted yet? I forgot to mention; you have to go to the appropriate Polling Station where your address is, that is where your Street is listed.  If you show some proof of who you are and your address there is usually no problem.  The penalties for cheating are severe. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you managed to vote: there are some weird stories about some polling stations, and it sounds like a lot of people didn't get to vote. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Government-run drug research
New medical drugs are apparantly discovered and developed by commercial companies and are usually very expensive, at least to begin with. Would it be a good idea for a government, or a group of governments, to do drug discovery and development, so that the costs would be lower? The costs of drug d&d may be high, but they would avoid having to pay the big profit included in the price. 89.243.159.221 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think the government would do it cheaper? If there are dozens of drug companies all struggling at the same level of effort, then they should all discover new money-making drugs at the same rate. Assuming the government's no different (maybe they'd be worse), why would the government's discovery be cheaper? The assumption might be that the company "profits" and the government does not. But the question is then how much does a company "profit". It's not Revenue minus Expenses. It has to also include the cost of funding, whether through equity or through loans/bonds. Same for government--municipal bonds? And if a company makes a lot of money then you would expect them to attract competitors. Those competitors will lower their prices just below the previous one, decreasing their profit. If I can make a widget for $3 and sell it for $4, then my competitor who can make it for $3 will sell it for $3.99. This cycle continues, until the "profit" equals the total costs. If that doesn't happen, you have to ask who or why isn't it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That assumes no barriers to entry - if, for example, producing the widget requires patented technology, or the construction of a very expensive specialised manufacturing plant, that won't happen. And there are reasons why a system without competition might be more efficient - no duplication of effort, no concerns over potential espionage, more opportunities to work collaboratively. Warofdreams talk 14:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to think about the cost structure when the pharmaceutical is retailed, and the period over which the patent is protected. Testing of pharma is time consuming, and expensive, the patent is lodged quite quickly so much of the testing eats into the period that the patent is protected.  Licensing also takes up part of that time.  So if you have say a 20 year patent period the supplier may only be able to sell it commercially for half or less than half of that time.  So all of the costs need to be recouped in that period, leading to high cost, moderate volume, high margin business models.  There is also a lot of risk, a very small proportion of patented products make it to the shelves, so the profitability also has to support abortive investigations.
 * Once the patent has expired and it becomes a generic it becomes a low production cost, high volume, low margin business model and you get different businesses involved.
 * Governments still have to patent and similar issues arise around the emergence of a generics market. You'd be loading up government with the high cost, high risk part of the business, and then the generics market would really pick up the profitability anyway.
 * That's even before one considers the general philosophical principle of whether government should be involved in that kind of thing at all. No, IMHO.
 * ALR (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Competition fuels innovation, among other things. As do profits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the government does spend several billions a year on biomedical research (see National Institutes of Health), some of which does lead to drug-related treatments. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that it is terribly unfashionable to advocate a role for government outside of war and law enforcement, but I think a strong case can be made that the government could bring down the cost of drug development. A big part of the cost of pharmaceuticals is the profit taken by private firms.  That cost (and their profits) have been growing much faster than the rest of the economy in recent years.  Since governments pay most of the cost of healthcare in most countries, and a big share even in the United States, governments could realize savings by eliminating profits and outsize executive compensation from the cost of drugs.  Acting in concert, governments could also bring down the cost of drugs by eliminating competition among drug firms for talented researchers, which would allow governments to pay those researchers salaries just enough to attract talent, but they would not have to get into bidding wars. Finally, governments could focus research on drugs that address the most pressing medical needs rather than the greatest opportunities for profit.  There is certainly overlap between those two goals, but also a fair amount of divergence.  For example, many deadly diseases that affect millions of poor people in poor parts of Africa, Asia, or Latin America get little attention from drug companies.  However, drug companies invest large amounts of resources in developing subtle new variations of existing antidepressants or drugs to address erectile dysfunction because they know that affluent people in rich countries will pay for them. Governments could reallocate resources to maximize public health rather than profits and executive compensation.  Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean revenue, gross or net profit? Probably more realistic to think about Return, which is generally not that great in the pure new pharma industries.  Reward reflects risk.
 * In any case what you're advocating is nationalisation of the pharma industry, state intervention on a massive scale, which would bring with it all of the public finance governance incumbent on the holders of tax equity. You'd also expose the industry to political imperatives, by exposing the development work to competition from all of the other arms of government competing for the base funding.
 * I don't know of any nationalised industry that's been all that competitive in a free market, so that involves protectionism. A pretty significant philosophical adjustment, although I appreciate that the US is quite protectionist in a number of fields.
 * ALR (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that competitiveness in a capitalist market is somewhat at odds with maximizing public health. The point of medicine is not to make money but to save lives. Marco polo (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the majority of people enter the professions which are the most lucrative. Altruism rarely plays a part in their decision.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The thought of replacing the several private pharma companies with a single government-run organization is truly frightening. Socialists mean well, but they're overly idealistic. A government can (and often does) perpetuate itself without producing anything useful. In the market economy, competition spurs development of new products, and the government's role is to regulate, i.e. to keep an eye on them and try to ensure that the products are good (which they obviously do not always succeed at doing). If the government itself is running a business, it's a monopoly with virtually no accountability, funded by compulsary tax dollars rather than by theoretically voluntary expenditures. Yikes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In most places government is accountable to voters. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Every few years, at election time, and not just on health care but all issues. But if you buy (or don't buy) a particular product, you are casting a direct vote, then and there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your argument, Marco polo, about pharmaceutical corporations delivering large amounts of the wealth they generate to shareholders, directors and senior executives while manufacturing medication that is not in the best interest of public health. But there are also significant problems with your suggestion. A state-owned company still employs executives/directors and will have to offer them large salaries to compete with the private sector. There's also the problem of "political appointments" which is more common in a nationalised industry. Regarding the competition over technical expertise/researchers: if the state-owned entity doesn't offer technical experts the kind of salaries they get in other sectors then, over the long term, fewer experts will go into this industry. Nationalising the pharmaceutical industry simply gives politicians more control over the economy. Even though companies don't care about national health interests, you know they're going maximise profits – so you can incentivise them to produce more useful products using regulation/legislation/tax-breaks etc. But politicians also don't care about national health interests, they try to win elections and increase their positional and political influence - give them this and they'll just use it as another political tool. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The exact same tired libertarian argument as the above has been used for years against the prospect of universal health care in America, but health care capitalism has brought America to the #37 rank worldwide, and all the universal health care countries beat America handily. There's good logic on both sides of the argument but remember that we enjoy evidence here on the Reference Desk, so I have to conclude the evidence goes against the "invisible hand of Adam Smith will take care of our health" theory.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is truly frightening is that you can sue a private company but not the government. Bearing that in mind, would the nationalised companies put that much effort into ensuring that the drugs they produce were safe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can sue governments, it's just more difficult and you can't always manage to jump through the necessary hoops. The safety measures aren't decided by the companies based on what will avoid them getting sued but by public regulation anyway. You have to prove the drug is reasonably safe to it licensed. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, the government is not accountable, except through the painful process of voting for representatives. When you buy or don't buy a product, you are casting a direct vote for or against that product. That's true democracy. Countering the argument about the "invisible hand of Adam Smith" is "the invisible hand of the government", which is a lot scarier. If you trust your government too much, woe be unto you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't choose what drugs to take. I trust my doctor to do that. Individuals having a big role in what prescription drugs they take (and the associated advertising of them) is an idea that is pretty much unique to the US. --Tango (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comet, first UHC (as I understand it), refers to medical services and financing - not drug manufacturing. And I didn't say that free markets will "take care of our health" - I'm saying that it's not clear that a government-run pharmaceutical industry will. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously; what I was trying to state was that your tired libertarian argument has been used for years against universal health care, in the claim that medical care will actually worsen; yet our alternative, pure capitalism, has left the US ranked as the lowest of the developed Western countries. The argument is demonstrably bogus on the health care side, and my argument is that it's equally bogus on the pharmaceutical side.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any arguments for the healthcare side, nor did I advocate "pure capitalism". It's irrelevant that someone else may have applied my comments (wrongly) to another debate. There is considerable evidence that state provided health services and medical financing improves healthcare. Where is the evidence that state-owned drug manufacturing improves healthcare or the manufacturing of drugs? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Universal health care, free at the point of consumption is perfectly achievable in a free market economy. The State funds the delivery of service and acts as a commissioner of services on behalf of the consumer.  The private sector compete to deliver the services and that competition is mediated by the commissioners.
 * And fwiw, from what I've seen of mediated private sector provision it's generally comparable quality and lower cost than state delivered.
 * ALR (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And this notion of "free" health care is bogus. It's from tax revenues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Free at the point of consumption, it's part of living in a civilised society. People have a choice to consume that or fund private provision.
 * ALR (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, nobody has claimed that universal health care is free; we all know that we pay taxes to the government for the health care rather than writing checks to the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled that someone always feels the need to point this out every time universal healthcare is brought up. Do they think entire populations of other countries are ignorant of the need to fund things? "Free at the point of delivery" has always been the long version. How these things are funded are big election issues, with the parties positioning themselves on what they'll do about funding. We all know that free healthcare is paid for, by us. Just like free education is paid for, by us. Having said this, the UK pays less in tax per head for healthcare than the US does. So, you could look at it as a saving... 86.178.228.18 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are the profits of Big Pharma really that big? In terms of absolute number of dollars it sounds like a really big number, but isn't that mostly because it is an enormous industry? The profit margins (once you take into account all the ideas that never make it to market) are fairly modest, I believe. You may save a few billion dollars worldwide by taking drugs companies public, but that is a tiny amount compared to how much is spent on healthcare and would probably be cancelled out by the inefficiency that typically plagues public organisations. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly a lot of money is wasted on salami drugs, and market forces select for drugs that treat diseases, not for those the cure them. So there is a divergence between the interests of society and the natural direction of the market. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Treatments are better for the sellers but the buyers would rather have cures. So if one company started selling cures, people would favour that one and the guys who sell treatments will lose. Unless I'm missing something. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Margins are quite high on what they sell, but Return on Investment isn't that great. The industry is heavily segmented, with the developers and the generics producers existing in parallel, but not really competing except in the patent transition period.
 * ALR (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The case for nationalization is even stronger than Marco makes out. As others have pointed out, the universal experience outside the USA has been that nationalized/socialized health care delivers superior care at lower cost (than the US insane asylum health care non-system). Why shouldn't this be true for drugs?   Several  important things are omitted or underemphasized above. Government granted interference in markets by patents are a or the major reason for the high cost of drugs.  They should simply be eliminated, so drugs are priced at their marginal cost, a tiny fraction of their current price. Second, most research is already done by the government; historically when prices were lower, this was even truer. Frequently the government already has paid for the expensive part, while private industry reaps the rewards. Third, the patent + "free-market" model has led to focusing on copycat drugs and according to some experts, a declining rate of innovation.  Fourth, drug companies spend more on advertising, most of very  of dubious benefit - much illegal not so long ago in the USA - than on research.  People to read on these topics are Marcia Angell  and Dean Baker, who has said "We recognize that patents are a way to provide incentives for research, but where is the economic research that shows that they are the most efficient way? You won't find it, because economists have mostly chosen to ignore the issue."  Also: ". Just looking at the U.S. numbers, we spend $150 billion a year in higher drug prices to get $30 billion a year in research from the pharmaceutical industry"  (Subtracting copycat drug research of $20 billion, one gets $10 billion for real private research expenditures in 2007)      .  The only arguments I can see against nationalizing the drug companies are ideological, the obstacles political, the benefits obvious.John Z (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that your trust your government so well. We Americans have an inherent distrust of government. Europeans are much more used to turning over their freedom of choice to the governments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're conflating state sponsored healthcare, and the production of Pharmaceuticals. There is a pretty clear case for state sponsored healthcare being available to the citizen, but there are fairly intense debates about how that is delivered.  There is a migration towards the commissioning model that I've mentioned above.
 * The arguments aren't as clear about production, particularly where you're conflating innovation, and generics.
 * ALR (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "We Americans have an inherent distrust of government", and maintain this "history" is largely a conservative invention meant to bolster the weight of their arguments. Think FDR.  Even older, more conservative Americans aren't about to vote against Social Security, Medicare, the local library, or fire department.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a reference, guys, on the question about profitability, instead of just giving offhand opinions? We have an article on the pharmaceutical industry that includes a table of profits; see Pharmaceutical industry.  As an exercise, I typed in the revenue and net income numbers of the ten largest components of the Fidelity Select Pharmaceuticals mutual fund (FPHAX) and came up with an aggregate total of a 20.8% margin (dividing revenue by net income).  This selection of companies isn't representative except that they were selected by the fund manager, at least as of late last year, as the best set of pharma stocks to own in his opinion.  The largest 4 holdings are Merck, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Novartis.  Anyway, yes, very profitable.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that's a realistic comparator, you'd need to strip out the contribution from non-pharma business units, and also separate out the development business units from the generics businesses. All of those have generics businesses, but I'm not up to date on how governance arrangements are set up for them.
 * ALR (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the analysis could be improved with some work, but I think it's in the ballpark. It strikes me the generics businesses must have a lower margin due to competition, and as for the non-pharma business units, I looked at J&J's 2009 annual report and found that their pharmaceutical division's margin was 28.5%, down from 31% the year before.  By the way, J&J's report says in 2009 their pharmaceutical division's R&D expense was 20.4% of sales.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a couple of years since I was doing any analysis in this area, but generics businesses were on about 5% Gross Margin; it's very much a cost leadership model.
 * From memory the Pharma development was returning about 10-15%, that's not published it was the result of the analysis. That's a little behind standard comparators, good performance would be about 20%, and if you start looking at professional service businesses it's about 40%.
 * ALR (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a source that professional service businesses typically have a 40% margin? That's way too high.  I randomly selected EDS as a professional service type of business, and their margin was 3.2% in 2007.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't consider EDS as Professional Services, David Maister has done some work on it but the 40% is pretty consistent. Probably worth defining Prof Services as Accountancy, Consulting, Legal Services, Audit.
 * Structurally these are businesses that have low fixed costs and a lot of intellectual capital.
 * ALR (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're going to have to cite a source for the 40% number. I looked up Accenture's numbers and their margin has ranged between 5.8% and 7.3% over the last five years.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Finding something up to date and in the public domain may take a little time. As I said, Maister is the author that springs to mind, he's done a couple of books on Prof Service management.  Those figures are from work that the market analysts in my firm develop.  However I have a feeling that we're talking about different market segments; EDS, ACN, HP, Fujitsu and IBM are System Integrators, all of who are somewhat lower GM and profitability.  To an extent because they're selling a broadly commoditised service for large swathes of their business; outsourced CRM, payroll, Systems Management etc.
 * Examples of what I'm talking about in Professional Services are McKinsey, Bain, KPMG, Allen & Overy, DLA Piper and my own firm (that I'm not going to identify). Most of those are not publicly traded, they tend to be Limited Liability Partnerships, so the details of their operating performance are a bit more opaque.
 * In any case, the question was about the advisability of the public sector getting into the pharmaceutical research business. I don't see a clear case having been made for nationalisation of either the R&D dominated side of the industry or the generics side.  It's also clear that there are a range of different understandings of where these industries fit into the healthcare market, and how the healthcare market as a whole should be delivered.
 * Notwithstanding the philosophical economic positions the arguments for state intervention do assume nationalisation and import controls. The arguments against hinge on the behavioural effects of competition.  We are missing some context from the original questioner, what government is being suggested.  In the US the healthcare system is very different from what we have here in the UK, which is again very different from what is delivered in France, Singapore or Germany.  State provision of Pharma industry would have very different effects in each of these healthcare systems.  Thinking about the supply chain in the US, any efficiencies would probably be lost in the mediation by insurers, particularly across state boundaries.  In the UK it would need a fairly significant restructuring of the whole system which is designed to mediate private sector supply.
 * Reading into the question part of the justification appears to be about the compensation schemes available to those that run these private sector companies. That looks almost punitive, and it doesn't consider what happens when people move out of the industry to gain a comparable compensation scheme again.
 * ALR (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have been clearer and not used a misleading and taboo word like "nationalization." Dean Baker Financing Drug Research: What Are the Issues?, Joseph Stiglitz Prizes, Not Patents et al propose much less government interference in the drug market. The present government interference, dwarfing all other proposals', is the granting of patent monopolies. Get rid of that, and perforce, almost all research will be financed more directly by the government or non-profit institutions, because drugs being sold at about marginal cost as generics will not be able to support the same level of research. The point is that patents exist for a reason, promoting innovation, and experience shows that in the particular case of drugs, they are an extremely inefficient way of financing research. Again, many here do not seem to realize that only a small fraction of the cost of drugs goes toward research costs, which have little effect on pricing.

Do people really have philosophical objections to less government interference in the free market? Removing patent protection would have the effect everywhere of dropping drug prices to a small fraction of the present cost. All drugs would be generics. An enormous gain in efficiency in the USA would arise from simply not doing idiotic things - like spending enormous sums on drug marketing, more than on research. The USA got along very well for a long time - almost all the 20th century, without nail fungus infomercials. Under the current system, the drug cos have an enormous financial incentive to lie about their wares' safety and effectiveness, concoct imaginary plagues and their cures, etc. So of course they do. The dogma that competition and high prices spur research, which would diminish under the various public funding schemes is frankly BS, argued from a theoretical basis, like much modern writing on economics, with not even an attempt to look at the real world. Thinking about "the advisability of the public sector getting into the pharmaceutical research business" ignores the fact that it always has been in that business, quite successfully. The US model was once closer to what people like Baker and Stieglitz suggest, more gummint supported research, much less private research, and lower drug costs and it had more (or at least as much) innovation than nowadays. (The turning point might have been the Bayh-Dole Act). Import controls, which currently help keep prices high in the super-protected US market, would be eliminated, not enlarged.John Z (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not have to be either/or. You could have both private and government business going on at the same time, as I believe happens with 'defence', and as happens with UK healthcare. There is lots of cheap labour from research students. It would I expect be a very good thing to publish all research findings rather than keeping them as commercial secrets, and to pool the knowledge and resources from several countries, including avoiding too much duplication of effort as someone pointed out. The are various pan-government humanitarian agencies, a World Medicines Organisation would be a good one to add, particularly as they would be interested in developing treatments for third-world illnesses that would not otherwise be done due to them not being profitable. 89.241.144.51 (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The specific method of drug research financing, whether performed by public or private institutions, is not as important as getting out of the worst of all possible systems which we have now. The main thing is to get rid of patent monopolies and high drug prices, which cause enormous economic inefficiency. I think most posters above do not realize how big the economic benefit would be, not a few billion, but tens or hundreds of billions, probably larger than removing all other trade protectionist measures put together. Baker and others estimate that just the deadweight loss due to drug monopolies in the USA is something like $60 -100 billion, something on the order of 0.5% of GDP, and his 2004 paper I linked to lists other significant efficiencies to be gained by different research financing.John Z (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * John Z is absolutely correct. The government ALREADY subsidizes drug research, by granting patent monopolies; the people pay for this subsidization by paying inflated prices on all patented products before they become generic (upon patent expiration).  It's hilarious that words like "capitalism" and "free markets" appear in the above discussion (and possibly evidence of extremely effective brainwashing).  Patents are the exact opposite of free market competition.  In a free market, the moment a drug came on the market it would be copied by anyone with the interest to do so, and sold at generic prices immediately.  I mean, DUH!63.17.55.105 (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question indicates that some governments already do fund non-commercial drug reasearch to a certain extent. 78.146.87.143 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bluebelle
Here is a very recent story about the Bluebelle: Decades Later, Sea Tragedy Survivor Breaks Silence. Does Wikipedia have any articles at all about this event? I tried all of the obvious search terms, and I could not find anything at all. Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't see one either, looking for Alone: Orphaned on the Ocean or her last name. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have started a stub based on the above source and other sources found at this google news search: . The article is at Bluebelle (ship).  Anyone can now edit it to add info.  Its an interesting story; I may take a crack at expanding this into a full article as well.  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that it is an interesting — actually, fascinating — story.  That was why I assumed that Wikipedia would have had something on it already.  Especially since this happened so long ago (1961, I believe).  Thanks for starting the article.   (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC))


 * You'd be surprised how much stuff Wikipedia doesn't have an article about. There's quite a lot actually, and the older a subject is, the less likely it is to find an article on it.  Most of my recent article creations have been about forgotten but important subjects like this.  See WP:NOTDONE.  There's oodles of good subjects for articles which have not yet been created.  It just takes someone like you to find it and notice it.  -- Jayron  32  20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Time_(magazine) published an article on 1 Dec 1961 here. Life_(magazine) published an article on the same date, which is here. Zoonoses (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. And thanks to Jayron32 for starting the new article on this subject. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

France Gini question
I was looking at of Gini coefficients since 1950, and I was surprised to see that in 1960, France had by far the highest coefficient of any Western country listed, being even more of an outlier than the US is today. Why did France have such a uniquely high level of inequality compared to, say, Britain or Germany? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Algeria. -- Jayron  32  20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Lazar, I spent about an hour on google last night trying to find an answer to this question. I ended up skimming through two papers by Thomas Piketty but I couldn't find an answer. I see the French Wikipedia has an article on Income inequality in France which (according to my reading of the google-translated version) doesn't use the gini index to measure inequality in its discussion. Anyway, just want to let you know that your question wasn't ignored and whatever the answer is, I'm sure Jayron's answer (whatever it is) is incomplete at best. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Jayron's answer is probably spot on. Algeria was part of Metropolitan France, so I would expect it to have been included in whatever dataset was used to come up with the Gini figures. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why did it take so long to reach Germany and UK levels after 1962? There's a data point from the mid 70s that's still significantly higher than Germany and the UK. Another point from around 1980 that's marginally higher than Germany and well above the UK. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A good question. Looking at our article on the Gini coefficient it does appear that there are several factors which may affect the figure and prevent it giving a "true" indication of egalitarianism. DuncanHill (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This source (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/atkinson-piketty-saezJEL09series.xls|Table 5) has says a smaller share of national wealth was held by the top 1% and 10% in France in 1949 than in Germany or the UK. In the same source, Table 7 says there was no change in the share of top earners between 1949 and 2005 (which seems hard to believe). But, this source (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/47/2492180.xls|Table EQ8.1) has Gini coefficients for 21 countries, mostly Europe (plus Japan and the US) for periods described as “mid-70s,” “mid-80s” and “most recent.” However, there is no data for France (or Germany) in the first column, which suggests that one of the answers to why France seems to be less equal is bad (no) data. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)