Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 5

= October 5 =

Can you end the recession by sabotaging the gold market?
I was reading that gold is still going up, past $1300 per ounce now, and it brings a question to mind: if so many investors have money tied up in gold (prices), then what happens if you abruptly sabotage the market, say, by announcing a large new find of gold ores or a relaxation of environmental restrictions on mining? Do the investors turn around, take their money out of gold in a great rush, buy bonds and IPOs and otherwise invest in productive enterprise, leading to a sudden kickstart of the economy? With people like Soros saying the price is already a "bubble", I'd think that even some rudimentary rumor-mongering in the public interest by a group like Anonymous (group) might be enough to do the job. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The recession isn't caused by a single thing, like gold investing. While gold investment is traditionally a hedge against poor stock prices because they traditionally move in opposite directions, that doesn't mean that artificially depressing the gold market would force people into stocks.  They may be forced into low-yield/low-risk investments like, say, a savings account or CDs or government bonds.  That would actually cause a worsening of the recession, since a big problem right now is that companies are sitting on HUGE cash reserves (basicly in straight savings accounts) and they are a) not investing it in stocks and b) not paying dividends and c) not hiring more employees with it.  If you killed the gold market, you could possibly drive investors into THAT position, which could have a greater adverse effect.  -- Jayron  32  01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fed could easily crash the price of gold by dumping its 10,000+ tons of gold reserves on the market, but the squealing would be so loud that they wouldn't dare. But in any case I doubt it would solve the problem -- there is already plenty of cash in circulation; the problem is that corporations are satisfied to sit on it because the inflation rate is so low.  The most efficient way to mobilize that money is by jacking up inflation prospects -- currently the Fed is trying to do that by jawboning, but it isn't clear that it will work. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reasons why sabotaging the gold market would not end the recession (putting aside the technical point that the recession ended last year, meaning that the period of economic contraction ended then, although we are not yet in a situation of normal economic growth). First, investment in gold was not a cause of the recession and, as Jayron32 says, there is no reason to think that lower gold prices would necessary improve economic conditions.  Second, the gold market is no longer a very big part of the economy, so changes in the market would be unlikely to have a big effect of any kind.  Third, high risk and volatility in any market is bad for the economy, so a collapse of the gold market would have a negative economic effect (mitigated by the gold market's relatively small size, as already mentioned).  John M Baker (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a fallacy here. Let's say the market capitalization of the gold market is $1 trillion. Now let's say overnight, the price of gold drops 90%. That doesn't mean there's $900 billion suddenly available to invest in other things. Rather, that $900 billion simply disappears. If lots of people rush to sell their gold, and there's not an equal number of people clamoring to buy gold, the price the gold owners will get for their holdings will be a lot less than the market price the day before. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is yet another fallacy. The $1 trillion isn't taken out of the economy and converted to gold, it's paid to people who sell gold, and use the money to spend on other things, like factories, cars, and Rolex watches. I would expect a fairly small portion of the money to be used to dig up more gold. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And when the price of gold crashed, you would get some unemployed gold miners too, and it is hard to see how more unemployed people would help the situation. Googlemeister (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and investors would buy platinum instead. People invest in precious metals when they don't trust conventional investments and currencies.  The price will fall naturally to the true market value when normal investment is perceived as safe again.    D b f i r s   15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, isn't there a fallacy in the fallacy? If the government prints lots of money, it doesn't mean that everyone gets richer — and if $900 billion suddenly disappears, it doesn't mean that the population as a whole gets poorer either.  Rather it means that those who own other assets gain in purchasing power, right? Wnt (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's important to differentiate between "cash value" and "utility value". As in, if the government mails everyone ten crisp hundred-dollar bills we're all $1000 richer, in cash terms, but in utility value terms, those thousand dollars would not allow you to buy anything you couldn't previously because prices would have increased correspondingly (assuming enough time, prices not being too sticky, etc). Crashing the gold market would destroy some of the cash value of gold investors, and it would also probably decrease the utility value of even more people, because of the drastic increase in market volatility. (Capital markets are like angry bears -- it's important to avoid sudden movement.) It's difficult to conceive of a scenario where that crash is beneficial. As pointed out above, the $900 billion (or whatever) is just gone; maybe folks about to invest in gold would invest elsewhere, but more likely they would invest even more in gold, as it's suddenly become undervalued. 71.120.202.130 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Prison in Sweeden
I am reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which is set in Sweden.

In the book the main protagonist is sentenced to 180 days in prison for libel against an individual (which seems to be a criminal offence).

However, once convicted and sentenced, he does not go to prison straight away. In fact he is left on his own and moves house to another city/county. When he feels he wants to go to prison, several months down the line, he calls up the authorities and organises a time at his own convenience. He is surprised by how "easy" it is to get in to prison. He also suggest that once in prison he gets out early partially because he didn't use his "leave entitlement".

Now my question is, is this how it works in Sweden and to what extent? In what circumstances are you permitted not to go to prison straight away? Is it just because this is a non-violent offence?

In the UK, I think (but am not sure), that sometimes if you appealing a conviction you sometimes can stay out of prison even if you are convicted and sentenced. But only till you appeal. This does not seem to be the case in the book.

Thanks (this question is not asking for legal advice) 195.102.147.48 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This also fascinated me when I read the book. You may be interested to read this excellent summary of the workings of the Swedish prison system here, although unfortunately it doesn't address the question of a convicted person choosing the date of imprisonment.  The entire system appears to be based on the idea of reform and prevention of reoffending, however, with great emphasis laid on helping offenders to maintain their personal and working lives despite their conviction, so the choice of incarceration date thing would not surprise me.  The document does confirm the right of (well-behaved) prisoners to a certain number of days' home leave, so that aspect of the story seems true.  I was very surprised recently when a German friend mentioned she'd been given a driving ban of several weeks for a motoring offence, and had been able to choose when the ban started in order to fit around work and personal commitments.  I'm in the UK and our system does not offer options of this kind, but it does appear that they exist elsewhere.   Ka renjc 08:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to be the first to point out that "main protagonist" is a tautology. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Literally, yes. But following your link to Protagonist, you find, for example: "When the work contains subplots, these may have different protagonists from the main plot."  One might therefore refer to the protagonist of the main plotline as the "main protagonist" without provoking too loud a howl of anguish, even from a pedant like me :)  Ka renjc 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a similar reaction to the entire description of the Swedish prison system in the Larsson book, which made it sound like a nice hotel. I'm sure that's only because it was the least dangerous of the prisons, but still, in the US you are so often told that all prison is an unending cycle of violence and rape, even the less serious ones. Granted this assessment is one part Hollywood mixed with one part extremely corrupted prison system, but still. It's hard to see how unnecessary that is without alternatives being presented.
 * Another odd arrangement that I (an American) could hardly conceive of was the idea of a prison furlough, which I saw depicted in an Israeli film. A vacation from prison! And then you go back again, when you're done with your vacation. What? I guess we do have them in the US in some limited circumstances, but they seem rather rare. Clearly a different set of expectations about the justice system, though I have to say that for non-violent or very minimal offenses it sounds awfully humane. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The U.S. has prison furloughs as well as house arrest and other less stringent prison arrangements. Two famous furloughed American prisoners were Mark Henderson and Willie Horton.  While Mr. Horton's furlough resulted some unfortunate further crimes commited, Mr. Henderson's furlough was entirely on the up-and-up (unless you are a Miami Dolphins fan).  See also Work release, which has been a part of practice in the U.S. since 1913.  -- Jayron  32  05:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Justice Center Leoben, an Austrian prison, was making the rounds in papers and e-mails a couple of years ago. Be sure to read the Jim Lewis article linked in there, the first couple of paragraphs pretty much sum up all the stupid responses I heard and all the answers I used when discussing this place. Because, let's face it, even when gild of gold and rubies, a prison is still a prison. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Poetry ref. in the film "The Good Sheperd" (by de Niro, 2006)
Hello, can you tell me

1/ what Pr Fredericks hints at when, going meekly to his death, he ties up Wilson's shoelace & says "bootmakers to the kings" : I think you answered previously to that by : "he speaks about humble people being the weary soles of the powerfull..." ; but I rather think it is a quotation. But where from ? Gospell ? Shakespeare ?

2/ what is the poem he tries to make Wilson believe to be his own creation ? It speaks of ebullient spring on earth, while the cockoo sings "not yet, not yet..." .

Thanks a lot beforehand Arapaima (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this the poem is by Trumbull Stickney. DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Metapoints for metafilter! :) That's a good discussion of part 2) of this question they had over there.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, though maybe some metapointers went too far in their speculations : I think the prof. simply wanted to seduce the student by impressing him, but it did not work... Anyway, thanks a lot folks (& now Trumbull Stickney has a small article on WP fr, rightly since he worked in our Sorbonne around 1900 & even won there a doctorat ès lettres...) Arapaima (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Most Controversial Bills in American History
An article that documents some of the most controversial bills in the history of American Congress.

A lot of bills and legislation that we view as fundamental to our livelihood and seem that if they were up for vote again then they would be passed inevitably, were, at one time, extremely controversial in their day of reckoning. Some examples off the top of the head (unfortunately, these are not sourced, more on this later) are:


 * Pure Food and Drug Act (businessmen everywhere were aghast at how they thought prices would rise in order to meet the "ridiculous" demand of sending materials and ingredients to the government for testing, and if their product was found unclean, they would be taken off shelves... before this Act, cocaine could be served as a "hangover cure" and couldn't be regulated).
 * Sherman Anti-Trust Act, instrumental in eventually breaking monopolies and competition-stifling corporations.
 * 13th and 14th Amendments, as some where aghast at the fact that slaves weren't going to be slaves anymore.

These bills are viewed as pretty much a "done deal" and debate over them is somewhat immutable. No one could feasibly overturn the Pure F&D Act or the 13th and 14th amendments.

My request comes at a time when it seems every big bill in congress completely envelops the public in debate. Debate in classrooms, schools, workplaces, and, of course, congress. Bills like the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (the bank, GM, and economy bail-out bill ~$700 billion) and the recent healthcare act are extremely controversial and would be included. But the article would be more than informative if we record the public outrage and/or debate, and document it for future generations. When universal healthcare is taken for granted in the future, we can show that at one time, it was very up in the air.

To clarify, of course every bill generates debate, especially because we have a two party system that both obstruct each other, but bills that also generate intense and enormous debate in the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.56.85 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific question, or are you requesting an article be created? Fribbler (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like both. But an article mainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.248.241 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a page for article requests: Requested articles.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The most momentously controversial bill in U.S. history would have to be the Kansas–Nebraska Act -- it destroyed the Whig party, created the Republican party, and set the stage for the coming of the Civil War. And a lot of people (both at the time, and subsequent historians) have had a hard time figuring out what Stephen A. Douglas was even trying to accomplish by pushing the bill through -- if he was trying to prepare the way for a mid-latitude transcontinental railway route, or advance his presidential prospects for 1856 or 1860, then it really backfired quite spectacularly.  What it did do was abruptly revive the slavery issue in American politics (somewhat quiescent since the previous compromise of 1850), and persuade a lot of Northerners that there was an aggressive expansionistic "Slave Power" which wouldn't keep to any bargains or agreements, but was relentlessly malevolent in always seeking additional power for itself, and to crush all opposition.  Douglas seemed to have a curious blind spot, in that he was completely and utterly unable to understand how a reasonable person of good-will in practical politics who was not a "fanatical" immediatist abolitionist could have legitimate moral and other concerns about the existence and (especially) the spread of slavery... AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Digital Millennium Copyright Act --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The DMCA was not controversial amongst Congress, I don't think, which is what the OP is asking about. From what I can tell it passed without any trouble. It was only some time later that people started to complain about "unexpected consequences" and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was pretty controversial; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was as well. In general though the opposition was limited to a small, hard-core group of Southern Congressmen who tried their best to derail voting on them by means of filibuster. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Any short list of controversial acts of Congress would include the Sedition Act of 1798, the Embargo Act of 1807, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the Patriot Act. —Kevin Myers 14:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Though again we might want to make the distinction between controversial within Congress and controversial outside of Congress or afterwards. The Patriot Act, for example, was extremely controversial outside of Congress and after it was passed, but within Congress it shuffled through committees and votes without much controversy (and passed both the House and Senate with overwhelming majorities thanks to post-9/11 jitters). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I’d go with Smoot-Hawley as (a) one of the root causes of the Great Depression; and (b) one of the root causes of the backlash, which was a system of rules, institutions and procedures that resulted in the greatest prosperity for the most people in all of human history.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy during the legislative process and controversy after the real effects of the legislation are understood can be very different. The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Volstead Act were enacted reasonably quickly. Neither article has much to say about contemporary opposition. There was certainly a lot of controversy afterward. Zoonoses (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is deflation evil?
The computer hardware industry seems to live in a perpetual state of deflation. If one year ago, for $20, you would only get a 4GB pen-drive, today you get the 8GB version. Is deflation so bad?--Quest09 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read Moore's law? I can remember when only governments or very large companies could afford a computer.  Now I have two!  I consider this to be "a good thing"!    D b f i r s   16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When isolated to a particular segment of the economy, deflation can be a positive force for innovation, as those who fail to innovate get left behind: computing, mobile phone technology and the like are good examples. On a broader scale, it can be very bad. In a moderately inflationary economic environment, money becomes less valuable over time, creating an incentive to invest the money in order to keep up with or exceed inflation. In a deflationary environment, money, left alone, becomes more valuable, creating a disincentive for investment, leading to stifled innovation and stopping investment in the future, and leading to the so-called "deflationary spiral."  Acroterion  (talk)  16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the crucial issue, with respect to the OP, is distinction between scales, and in the case of computer equipment, the convergence of rapid innovation with falling prices. There is an argument to be made that the "deflation" seen in computrer equipment is just a reflection of an intensely competitive and innovative environment, rather than true deflation, as Kainaw observes below; but Comet Tuttle's point is that this produces much the same behavior. Were enough people to keep their money in their pocket and wait for the next product cycle, a deflationary spiral would occur in this market too, but there are presently enough consumers who want the latest thing pumping in money for the spiral to be avoided.   Acroterion  (talk)  17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * True economic deflation is bad. If the value of a dollar continues to rise, you will be able to purchase more with your dollar next week than you can today. There is no reason to invest your money in anything because simply sticking a dollar in your pocket will increase your net worth. What this question is referring to is not deflation. The supply of 8GB pen-drives has increased. Therefore, the cost of 8GB pen-drives has decreased. The decrease in price of a specific item is not considered deflation of the economy. Overall, the purchasing power of the dollar has continued to decrease over time. In the tech industry, supply and demand still influence the price of specific items. When a new product hits the market, supply is low and demand is high. Then, the item is mass-produced while people continue to purchase the item. So, supply increases and demand falls. It is the standard supply and demand economic model. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I view Quest09's description more charitably. Definitely the same sort of behavior is incentivized &mdash; I'll leave my $1000 in the bank, thank you, because I am 100% certain that I can buy a better computer at the same price if I wait for 4 months, despite today's rate of general monetary inflation.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Currency deflation (as mentioned by Acroterion) is being experienced in Japan at present and is indeed a serious problem there as it encourages people to just leave money under the mattress where it increases in real value. Reductions in the price of computers, however, just mean that more people are able to buy them, and that they replace them more regularly.  It is true, as Comet Tuttle says, that many people delay buying (I did so for ten years, during which time the cost reduced by over 90%), but others are keen to purchase the latest fastest model, so older used computers are now sometimes available at zero cost.  This encourages those who would not have spent money in this way to get on the first rung of the ladder, and many subsequently go on to buy a newer, faster machine.  In this way, the price reduction expands the market, so is of benefit to the economy.    D b f i r s   17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Deflation is a problem in a consumption-driven economy. It is less of an issue in an investment-driven economy, provided that the rate of return from investments is greater than the rate of inflation.  This was the case during the period from about 1870 to 1900.  Although there were a series of recessions during that period (including the Long Depression) and this period was largely one of economic stagnation in the UK, it was a period of dramatic growth in most other Western nations, including the United States and Germany.   This growth occurred against a backdrop of price deflation.  Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Deflation in the computer hardware industry is potentially evil. If it caused prices to fall so fast that nobody was buying anything because everybody was waiting for prices to fall further, it would cause very serious problems.  However, the hardware makers work pretty hard to make it attractive to buy things now rather than waiting.  They don't always succeed, of course, but they seem to do well enough to stay in business. Looie496 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This language is somewhat overblown. Evil is a quality of individuals. One might say that the act of an evil person is an evil act. If it were possible for a single person to create deflation within an entire worldwide industry, and that person were evil (not sure how we determine this, but ...) then I suppose we could describe that deflation as evil. But normally, it wouldn't get any worse than undesirable. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Jack, I think Planned obsolescence may be of interest to you an the OP, in the case that "Evil is a quality of individuals." 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Planned obsolescence may also be undesirable, even highly so, depending on where one sits in the food chain. But evil?  That's a whole different ball game.  (Jack) --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Electronics is different from most things. A lot of people have a desire to get the latest technology, even if they have to pay more for it. Witness the people who line up for the latest iPhone when it comes out. Therefore, deflation in electronics doesn't usually lead to a downward spiral of price cuts and people waiting for more price cuts. Clothing, housing and the like are different. People are usually happy to wait a little while to buy a house if they think house prices are going to continue to fall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

as the user above mentioned It's more a case of supply and demand as soon as something new comes out fewer people want the older versions/models etc.. so more of the older models lay around in retail shops taking up valuable space. And the way most succesful companies stage new product launches is after the predecessor has already paid for it's costs and made a profit meaning they don't really care if it sells or not and the cycle begins anew with the new product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a sidetrack from the original poster's question, but I disagree with 209's claim, "they don't really care if it sells or not". This will vary by country and by product, I'm sure, but most types of products sold in the US at the major retailers are, surprisingly, a consignment business.  There is the initial "sell-in", in which the retailer agrees to buy 10,000 units from the supplier at the price of, say, US$100; and then when the sales drop significantly after, say, 6,000 of the units have "sold through" to consumers over a period of 3 months, then the retailer demands, and the supplier gives, a "price protection" credit, in which the retailer is credited, say, US$10 per unit still on the shelf; the retailer then drops the price of the item by, say, US$15, goosing sales of another 2,000 units at the reduced price.  Then when sales slow again, there's another round of price protection, and this continues until all the items have sold through.  If some units never sell through then the retailer can actually return the unsold items to the supplier for a refund.  There are exceptions; mom-and-pop stores that buy from distributors probably have less ability to return product; and some entire categories of products are truly sold to retailers with a "no returns" policy, and there's no price protection, so the retailers assume all the risk; but I believe most products in the US are returnable.  So, suppliers care very much whether their products sell through to consumers.  Some companies and divisions of companies have been known to "stuff the channel" with an amount of goods that they know for sure will not sell; depending on the accounting used by the company, this may make the quarterly revenue number look really good, but the managers know that a lot of that product is coming back next quarter, which will produce an accounting loss.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to remember a science fiction novel from the 60's
Hi There, I'm trying to remember a science fiction novel I read a long time ago. I'm thinking it was written in the 60's, a long novel, divided into 4 parts or books, that ends with a character floating in space at the end of the universe. He is about to fall into a sigularity or some such thing and his body will affect a new universe that is about to be born. He had a female partner, maybe there were four humans at the end, and each of them will also fall into the singularity and form there own universes. i remember a point in the story, again at the end I think where he hears a pinging noise that is the sound of hydrogen atoms coming into existence. I can't remember if the characters are the same throughout the story as it was a long book covering a long span of time, but there is always a way to keep characters. I think it was written by a respected author but it was not Asimov or Heinlein. any of this sound familiar? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.170 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it A Clash of Cymbals, the last volume of Cities in Flight by James Blish? --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) or indeed that whole series. Rojomoke (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactley! Thanks so much, you folks rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.170 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman Emperor Julian II
Why is Emperor Julian the Apostate known as Julian II, when there were no other emperors named Julian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegerbil (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not certain, but my guess is that Julian I would be Didius Julianus, who reigned for three months in the year 193. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article Julian suggests Sabinus Iulianus as Julian I. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now think of some reasons why Flavius Claudius Julianus was not in fact known as "Julian II", and who named him "Julian the Apostate", and you'll be making progress.--Wetman (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation
Hey all! I'm writing a paper on the problems of the Articles of Confederation and how they were solved by the constitution. Were there any problems that were not solved by the constitution? It's not really covered much in my text or lecture notes. THanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read Articles of Confederation? Does it help? (That is assuming that you are talking about the particular one that that articles relates to, out of the many countries in the world). --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After you're done reading the Articles of Confederation article go read the actual Articles. They're short and an interesting read.


 * You could probably take any contemporary (or older) constitutional issue of debate and say it wasn't fixed by the Constitution. Slavery might be a big one, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. There were conscious reasons at the time they didn't address certain issues. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A good thing to do, also, is to read the Federalist Papers, or at least some of the key ones. They were basically a defense of the Constitution as it was eventually written, and much of the problems they claim the Constitution is designed to fix were problems under the Articles of Confederation.  -- Jayron  32  02:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all (although this may seem condescending or patronising), your question assumes that there were problems with the Articles of Confederation that were mitigated or solved by the Constitution. This is now an overwhelming consensus among historians, but it was not the view of the Anti-Federalists at the time, and it has never been a universal or unanimous view. Have you come to that conclusion yourself, or can you approach the question afresh as something like: how effective were the Articles of Confederation, what were their successes and failures, and in what ways (if any) did the Constitution improve upon them or make things worse?
 * I've never been able to read all the way through the Federalist Papers, which are of course the classic statement of the Federalist case, although some of them are quite readable and enlightening. But I was enthralled by reading James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (available free on line), where Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton debated some very hard philosophical and practical issues with Anti-Federalists like George Mason of Virginia. (Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were co-authors of the Federalist Papers; Madison was secretary to the Constitutional Convention). There are some popular paperback collections of anti-Federalist works, as well as a two-volume collection in the Library of America, although out of the historical context of give-and-take they can be as unappealing to a general reader as the pro-Federalist polemics that they were answering or provoking.
 * A modern statement of the anti-Federalist position can be found in two very readable books by Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederaton: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781 (1940) and The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781-1789 (1950). They were strongly rebutted by a solid book by Richard B. Morris in the New American Nation series, The Forging of the Union, 1781–1789 (Harper 1987), which is easily readable although not so gracefully written as Jensen's books. All of these have been published in paperback, although I think they're all now out of print. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to endorse reading the Anti-federalists. Ratification of the United States Constitution was not an overwhelming done deal. Many patriots of the American Revolution opposed the proposed Constitution on liberty grounds. This area is a personal interest of mine. A volume is available from Liberty Books or someother conservative group.My volume is packed away. Also, the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights were sketchy in many areas because of political deals. It was assumed George Washington would be president. Many themes we consider constitutional were left to the daily push and pull of politics in the first administration. Sadly, little is known about these Americans. The response to their views is as important as Hamilton, Jay and Madison in The Federalist Papers.75Janice (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)75Janice


 * Among problems not solved by the Constitution, slavery in the United States is the elephant in the room. But how about women's suffrage?--Wetman (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For that matter, any kind of suffrage (many free-born white American men couldn't vote either, especially if they owned no property). See Dorr Rebellion for a struggle over the suffrage and the structure of state government in Rhode Island, which didn't approach having universal male suffrage until about 1900. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to read the Whiskey Rebellion article, as to why those in rebellion didn't think the Constitution resolved their problems. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If we follow this line of argument, we could say that the Constitution failed to cure cancer. Yes, there were a lot of problems that were not solved by the Constitution, but that's not really the question at hand. The men who gathered at the Constitutional Convention believed that the Articles of Confederation had certain limitations that needed to be fixed. (Slavery and suffrage, like cancer, were not among the problems that they sought to remedy.) The general idea was that there needed to be a stronger central government with more power over the individual states—a government better able to direct economic and foreign policy.


 * What the original questioner seems to be asking is: Did the Constitution solve all of the problems that the delegates perceived to be a part of the Confederation? It's an interesting question. I think the answer is "yes". The delegates created the type of stronger national government that they thought was needed. For example, the federal suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and Hamilton's economic program would not have been possible under the Confederation. Indeed, it might be argued that the Constitutional Convention succeeded too well from the perspective of guys like Madison. Madison, it should be remembered, originally wanted the new Congress to have the ability to invalidate state laws! He began to see things differently when he saw the Federalist agenda, of course. —Kevin Myers 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

safety on the floors and grounds
I had a feeling many "Rosies" wore work boots in the shipyards and defense plants during WWII. So I went to Payless ShoeSource. There I looked at work boots. The soles were oil resistant. I then went to Foot Locker to find the same thing. A sales associate tried to help me as best as possible. Some work boots had oil resistant soles, and some had skid resistant soles. I'm trying to find work boots with soles that are both oil and skid resistant. What's a good place to look? Plus, did any oil drop on the floors and grounds of shipyards and defense plants during the war?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oil drops on the ground of manufacturing facilities every day, some more than others of course. Dismas |(talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several styles, both oil- and slip- (skid) resistant here. Googling "oil-resistant, skid-resistant work boots",(without the quotation marks) gave me pages of results. Bielle (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a flash: is your mention of "Rosies" because you want work boots for women with those characteristics? If so, here's one. Just add "for women" to the search string noted in the preceding paragraph. Bielle (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for. Now all I need is to find is a patriotically decorated hard hat.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy-peasy: "Show your patriotism with this V-Gard ® patriotic hard hat with Fas-Trac ™ ratchet suspension. Attractive full-color graphics won't chip, fade or peel... Patriotic hard hat is compatible with face shields, earmuffs or welding helmets." Only $25.75. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if that's too subdued, subtle or nuanced, how about showing the true thoughts within your pretty little head with this external protection for its contents? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pretty little head"? Bielle (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a hardhat sticker in the right vein: . Bielle (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The entry in this http://www.carmenelectrode.com/category/rosie-the-riveter/ blog for 5th. March 2010 gives a picture of a poster telling women what they should wear at work. 92.28.245.77 (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad it's too late to enter their "Dirtiest Rosies" contest, which close on June 1st. http://www.rosiesworkwear.com/blog/tag/dirtiest-rosies/ —— Shakescene (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Martins should fill that requirement.I'm a woman and have several pairs.Incidentally,googling turned up hundreds of hits.Hotclaws (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)