Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 17

= February 17 =

King Charles' Letter of Thanks to the Cornish
Several Cornish churches have a copy of a Letter of Thanks from Charles I to the inhabitants of Cornwall. Does anyone have a link to an online text of it please? DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's OK, have found a couple, one here and another here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Michel Foucault geopolitics view
What was his geopolitical view or approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.137 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the context in which you're asking this? I don't think of Foucault as having a particular geopolitical approach. His general approach to power and politics is looking at the relationship between the state and its subjects, or the more subtle ways in which power percolates through everyday practice. I'm not sure I've ever seen him write about nations qua nations, much less their relationships with one another. But I am certainly not an expert on Foucault, and have only read the "main," major works. My immediate thought, though, is that asking what Foucault thought about geopolitics is kind of like asking what Marx thought about the ontological argument; you could probably come up with an answer through a very creative reading of his works, but it's really just not the right question, as its a somewhat different domain from what he does. But maybe someone else on here will have a better answer than this. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with 98 - Foucault was much more in the sociological vein than the political. I can't remember anywhere where he spoke analytically about the relationship between states (though I dimly recall that there might be some material relating to immigrants and states in one of the interview books...).  -- Ludwigs 2  08:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, people who write about geopolitics often incorporate perspectives derived from Foucault. So you might find something useful in theory chapters of geopolitics textbooks. Or textbooks on human/social/political geography. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I would probably try to figure out what geopolitical thinkers get out of Foucault. I wouldn't necessarily be trying to chase over Foucault's works for his own geopolitical views, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from his writings, Foucault personally was an active anti-imperialist. See this discussion.  Although the linked discussion lacks citations, my doctoral advisor was personally acquainted with Foucault and remarked on his street activism.  Marco polo (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What could that number of gold coins buy in the 1300s?
In a Facebook app game called Verdonia, I have 1.49Q gold coins. You've read that right: 1.49 Quadrillion gold coins, thanks to hyperinflation of Zimbabwean proportions in the in-game economy.

Now, if a traveler from the future landed in the 1300s with 1.49 quadrillion gold coins (This technology makes it every bit authentic, atom-by-atom), and it was somewhere on the British Isles, what could it buy the traveler back in those days? --70.179.187.21 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If gold held it's value, the Universe, probably. But it wouldn't. I suspect you'd find it was basically useless, for anything except ship's ballast. Actually, I suspect that much gold is going to have a gravitational field all of it's own, though I'm not going to do the maths. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) That's a tricky question. According to the gold article, all the gold that's ever been mined is 5.3 billion ounces. If each of your gold coins is 1/10th of an ounce pure gold, you'd have about 28,000 times all the gold that's ever been around, let along the gold supply of 1300. The sudden appearance of this much gold, without any increase in real economic production, would cause a catastrophic collapse in gold prices relative to everything else, and the medieval world would switch to silver or some other measure of value. Incidentally, I don't know how you'd carry your 149 trillion ounces of gold. The gold article says the 5.3 billion ounces would make a cube 20.4 meters on each side. Presumably, 149 trillion ounces of gold, then, would equal a cube about 571.2 kilometers on each side, or half the size of LA and reaching into space. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)What happened to Spain would be instructive. Spain, commanding much of the New World, was able to import large amounts of gold and silver from the Americas. This was initially a boon, as Spain paid off a large portion of its debts, but inflation drove up the price of goods, as gold suddenly became plentiful, and everything else stayed the same. - By the way, your math is a bit off, as you've forgotten to account for the cube. A cube 20.4 meters on a side is 20.4m*20.4m*20.4m = 8500 m^3. If this weighs 5.3 billion ounces, this would put the 149 trillion ounces at 8500 m^3 * 149 trillion / 5.3 billion = 240 million m^3 or a cube about 620 meters on a side (as 620m*620m*620m = 240 million m^3). That 240 million cubic meters of gold would cover the whole of England to a depth of 1.8 mm, (~1/16th of an inch), or the city of London to a depth of 15 cm (1/2 foot). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the real world, gold is a traditional inflation hedge because there's only a finite amount it around, so that type of hyperinflation can't happen with it. As for the volume of the coins, I get 149 trillion troy ounces (31.1 grams/troy ounce) = 4.6e15 grams, at 19.3g/cm3 = 2.4e14 cm3 = 2.4e8 m3 = a cube 621 meters on a side, much less than 571.2km, but still a completely ridiculous amount. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You could pave the streets with gold! I estimate that the modern USA interstate system could be paved to a depth of 10cm with your coins. The roads in medieval England should be no problem at all. APL (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to put it in a medieval context, the ransom demanded for the release of Richard I of England was 150,000 marks or 65,000 pounds of silver. This was considerably more than the English Exchequer could raise - only 80,000 marks were paid in the end, which was enough to build a new city with. Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1st Follow-up by OP
Ah, 620 meters to each side. The future traveler would have to hollow out a hill by teleporting the innards to some other location, before beaming the massive cube into place, if he's going to hide it.

Alternatively, a teleportal could be used to deposit the coins to the user at a command, but to limit the influence of future tech, hiding it in a hill might do it a little better.

Now, for as long as the economy doesn't "find out" that there is a sudden, overabundant hidden stash of gold coins, I suppose the traveler could use the funds to build a Channel Bridge and even bridges to Ireland and the Isle of Man. (Throw enough money at innovation, and it'll happen, sometime.)

Then as a time-traveling civic servant, how would he perfect the medieval society of the British Isles with all that cash? (I'll start you off: By making all levels of education free to everybody. By paving all poorly-kept roads. Now, your ideas?)


 * Unless you could buy a cure for the plague, all that money probably isn't going to help you mid-century... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Antibiotics work pretty well on plague, if you can bring some back with you. The archetypal novel about time traveling back to the middle ages with modern (i.e. 19th century) knowledge is probably A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain, a very entertaining read. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If antibiotics (and a way to make them) were introduced in the 1300s, would we have a problem? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I might suggest in a very Adam Smithian way that this approach to innovation is likely to lead to stagnation. What you want is a populace that will innovate independently. Giving them all everything at once won't lead to that. In fact, much of England's innovations in the 17th century, just to jump ahead, occurred because their capital outlays were quite limited, creating opportunities to develop what we now consider the tools of finance. In any case, at that time period, your biggest enemy of innovation is the fact that your European population is ridiculously low. You can't fix that quickly even with a lot of money.
 * Anyway, if I wanted to stimulate medieval innovation, I'd become a notorious moneylender. Nothing would be given out that wasn't expected to be paid back — I'd be injecting capital, but in a way that guaranteed it would be put to profitable use. I wouldn't need the profits, of course, but if your borrowers aren't scrambling to get profits themselves, you're not going to end up with innovation. In other words, act like a Medici, and hope for a few Leonardos and Galileos. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not referring to that epitome of charm, grace and benevolence, that incomparable mistress of good deeds - Catherine de' Medici (Shudder). --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The RPG sourcebook GURPS Time Travel mentioned several ways that you could raise the "local Tech Level" by several "points" when you travel into the past, improving countless lives, just by bringing back some information; no gold required. Instilling hand washing and the germ theory of disease, and getting the locals to stop bloodletting would all be very important, though of course you, the time traveler, may get yourself burned as a witch, so be careful.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Living in Beijing with only $550 US a month
If my lodgings are paid for, how comfortably could I live on $550 US a month in Beijing? I would need to pay for my own food and bills like phone and internet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish to know, too, but with my SSI payment of $674/month
If I studied abroad in Beijing, then how well would I live on the SSI standard payment?

(I'd more likely study in a least-expensive college town of China that has some type of international study program with K-State.) --70.179.187.21 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a rough guide, I'm told a US dollar (exchanged) in China has about 3x the purchasing power as in the US, so you can live reasonably comfortably on those amounts. That's for basic non-touristic living-type stuff like food, housing, clothes, etc.  Mobile phone service and internet service are also quite cheap, but internet connections to outside China are rather slow.  Imported goods, high tech gadgets, and gasoline are about as expensive as anywhere else, so having a car is a luxury.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * US$550 is CN¥3600, or thereabouts. ¥3600 is not a small amount of money once rent is taken out of the equation. According to Google (and Baidu), a primary or secondary school teacher generally gets a take-home pay of ¥4000-5000 a month, and they have to pay rent.
 * The real question I think is whether you can live in the "domestic economy" rather than the "international economy". If you have the language ability and the lifestyle adaptability to shop locally and eat locally (etc), then ¥3600 is plenty to live on. You will find US$1 has 6-7 times the purchasing power it does in the US for local equivalent goods or services. However, if you can't live without, say, Starbucks (¥20 for a cup of coffee, last time I checked), or you eat out at expat-orientated places rather than local restaurants, then your US$1 will have approximately 1-1.5 times the purcahsing power at home, maybe even less, and your ¥3600 will become a bit tight quite quickly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, then it's decided. I need to study abroad to China sometime soon! --129.130.96.147 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you must make sure to check to make sure of what you need to do to still qualify for the payments, including qualifying as a resident of your state. Our article seems to say that if you are a student who'll be studying abroad for less than one year then you still qualify as a resident, but the decision is too important to rely on the Wikipedia article &mdash; you need to check with the source.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

M1911's small magazine size
According to our M1911 pistol article, the only magazine available for the M1911, the primary United States military pistol from 1911 to 1985, holds 7 rounds. This is puzzling to me because 7 rounds seems really, really low and awful in combat. It would seem that with the M1911 pistol, you would often be frantically reloading in mid-combat while the enemy is taking you down. The situation would be especially bad when pinned down alone in a firefight against two or more enemy combatants. By comparison and contrast, the M1911's post-1985 replacement, the M9, has the much larger (over double) magazine size of 15 rounds. Does anyone have any insight into this? Is the figure of only 7 rounds given in the M1911 article wrong? Or if that figure is correct, why was the US military willing to accept such a low magazine size for so many decades? Am I correct in thinking that even without considering its other improvements, the M9 is already vastly superior to the M1911 on the basis of magazine size alone? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 13:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One possibility is that the M1911, as a side arm, is as much a mark of rank or authority as an actual weapon. While you could use a pistol in combat, given a choice, you might have preferred to employ:
 * The M1917 Enfield rifle (in World War I), with its six-round magazine and five-round clip
 * The M1 Garand rifle (in World War II and Korea), with an eight-round clip
 * The M16 rifle (Vietnam to very recently], with a 20-round magazine
 * ...or perhaps something like a bazooka, a hand grenade, a mortar round, or an artillery barrage.
 * My non-expert impression is that any of these rifles would have greater range and overall effectiveness than a pistol most of the time. Consider the final fighting scene in Saving Private Ryan,  which has Captain John Miller, fatally wounded, firing his sidearm at an advancing Tiger tank.  He has no expectation of stopping the tank; the pistol's the last weapon he has, since it's part of what he carries as an officer.  If he'd had a more effective weapon, he'd have used it. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that pistols are normally secondary to rifles in combat. But there are definitely times when you have to resort to your secondary weapon (not to mention that rifles are unwieldy in very close quarters combat). Also, pistol-carrying was not limited to officers; the rank-and-file carried pistols as well. The fact remains that the small magazine size seems to make the M1911 a horrible choice for a combat pistol. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * VariousCasings.jpg
 * First, rifles of the same era did not have large magazines either. The standard revolver were either 5 or 6 shot, so seven is actually an increase. Second, the .45 has a much larger round (takes up more space) than the 9mm. There were concerns over the stopping power of the smaller 9mm round in the military and in some police forces. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would second 75 &mdash; the point of comparison is a six-shot revolver. The likelihood of an infantryman having to use a pistol to shoot lots of rounds is low, and you have to balance things like weight and complexity when deciding on a sidearm. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But clearly the US military did eventually decide that a larger magazine size was better, since they did select the M9 to replace the M1911. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are entire books written about the military's weapon choices and why they preferred particular calibers over others. The story I'd always heard, and is cited in our M1911 pistol article under the History section, is that the .38 long colt round used before didn't have the stopping power needed in the Philippines. List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces is a good place to at least compare. The .45 ACP is a larger cartridge too than say the 9mm used in the M9. Trade-off between number of rounds versus the strength of the round are common sources of debate. Police departments, militaries, and citizens make these kinds of trade-off decisions every day when they select a gun. Shadowjams (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The political and military aspirations of the US led to the taking of control of the Phillipine Islands from the Spanish in the 1890's. Thereafter, Phillipine rebels opposed US control See Phillipine Insurrection, 1899-1902, when the US failed to grant independence to the Phillipines. US Army forces found that  38 calibre revolver pistol rounds lacked "knockdown" capability, such that a Phillipine nationalist might be fatally wounded by pistol bullets, but still proceed in his attack on US forces, even if only armed with a machete, to the point of killing or injuring one of the US occupation forces. The US armorers responded after the Phillipines insurrection by developing the 45 automatic, whose goal was to open such a large exit wound that the attacker would fall down very quickly due to rapid blood loss and decrease of blood flow to the brain, rather than continuing the attack. The 45 automatic could carry 2 more rounds 7 plus one in the chamber) than its predecessor 38 revolver, so it was not seen as being deficient in the rounds available.  If quick reloading was needed, the automatic was still quicker than the revolver. Edison (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a number of forums on the net with threads like this or this; "In terms of military operations, pistols are nearly useless." is a commonly expressed sentiment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is if that applies to any kind of warfare (including urban combat) or only 'traditional' fighting (you know that of Saving Private Ryan and such). 212.169.181.138 (talk)

Cold war
Many people misuse the term cold war means that U.S. and Russia are cold climate countries. Is there any definition that have been misuse to term the era?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.158 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 17 February 2011


 * I'm terribly confused. I don't think people mis-use it to mean that US and Russia are cold climate countries. They sometimes pun on the "cold" metaphor (especially since Russia is quite cold much of the time), but I'm fairly sure that is intentional. I have no idea what your second section is asking, sorry — please clarify. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Mr.98: I have never ever heard of anyone thinking that the term Cold War referred to the climate (as in weather, not as in political climate) of the US and the USSR, and I don't understand the second part of your question either. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 15:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call the US a cold climate country, unless you compare it to Mexico. It is actually mixed climate, with all types of climates represented, from arctic to desert. Quest09 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been told that Russians have a perception of the U.S. as practically a tropical country, that what in the U.S. is the stereotype of Florida, Hawaii, and Southern California (warm weather, sunny beaches, palm trees) is in Russia the stereotype of the entire U.S. (Maybe they need to read yesterday's TFA, Climate of Minnesota, especially the section on its portrayal in popular culture.) Pais (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP geolocates to Canada, wouldn't Canadians also have such perception of the US? 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. A lot of us live next to the cold parts of the US, and we know our neighbours very very well. Besides, we've seen Fargo and we've observed Mister Rogers (he doesn't wear a sweater for nothing). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See Cod Wars for wars in a cold climate.--Shantavira|feed me 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See also the "Codpiece Wars". --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was "Cold War" vs. "Hot War", the latter being conventional war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with Winter War. Which was cold. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1970s-era photos
I have loads of photos taken in the 1970s. When these are enlarged I see that they are made up of tiny dots which ruin the enlarged image. Is there any technology currently available that can eliminate those horrible dots? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you blowing up prints, or enlarging from the negatives? you'll have better luck with the latter -  a print will have granulation and other flaws at a certain level  that will magnify along with the rest of the picture.


 * If you're stuck dealing with prints, and if you're digitizing them, photo manipulation apps (like GIMP or Photoshop) often have despeckling filters or other tools that might improve picture quality somewhat, but only to a certain extent. the photo just doesn't contain enough information to give a perfect enlargement.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The negatives have long since vanished. I'll try Photoshop. Thanks. Why did they use the speckles back then? Just like old newspaper photos.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a scan for us to look at? Old newspaper photos used halftone screens because newspapers were not printed with any grayscale capability; halftoning the photo allowed gray-looking areas of a photo by using only black ink.  Surely your photos aren't that bad.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I uploaded it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are these pictures printed on photo paper, e.g. the end product from rolls of film that were dropped off at the drugstore / chemist and picked up four days later? How are you getting them into the digital format? Scanner?  Have you checked the scanner settings?  -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the print smooth, or bumpy? It looks to me like it was printed on fancy "textured" print paper and all those artifacts are the little bumps. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The print is bumpy and I believe they were called silk finish. I used the scanner to uload them into digital format.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I recall that finish. Rounded corners, no borders, and built-in lack of sharpness.  Check to see if your scanning software has a "descreening" option, which might help somewhat.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So I believe the problem isn't that the photo is halftoned or composed of tiny dots, but that during the scan, the bumps on the finish are reflecting light from the sides in a way that creates these artifacts. Sorry, I don't have any experience scanning such prints.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the case you could probably get better luck with a copy stand.  That's can be a lot of effort if you don't already have one set up. APL (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The main thing that is happening is that the pixel-size for the scanner is interacting with the dot-size in the photos, in an effect known as aliasing. The best solution is to scan at the maximum resolution you can handle, and then scale down the image after scanning. There are, as other responses have said, tools to despeckle images, but in my experience the results for images like this are almost always disappointing -- you get a result that just looks dull and blurry. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that aliasing is the main problem &mdash; look at how the artifacts are all short vertical lines. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are copying prints with the "silk" texture, so to avoid the dotty artifacts, you must get control of the lighting. I would aim a digital camera down at the print, and first try using a pair of lights clamped onto something such that you can move them in and out to vary the angle at which they hit the photo. For photo copying, a 45 degree angle was standard, but that was for glossy photos. You might do better with the lights at a greater or lesser angle. Phase two of the project would be to place a polarizing filter screen over the lights. With the correct orientation of the polarizing filter material, you should be able to minimize the artifacts. A polarizing filter installed over the camera lens can also be helpful. Edison (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I vaguely considered the drastic option of changing the texture of the photos, by coating them with a thin layer of clear varnish such as floor polish. 81.131.44.21 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you using your own scanner, or have you had them professionally scanned? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming these are printed photographs and you are scanning with a flatbed scanner, what happens to the scan results if you turn the print to some other angles and rescan? Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One wonders if you took three scans — each one 45º to the other — and then aligned them in as layers and played with some of the various layer transparency options (e.g. Screen or Multiply or etc.), if that might end up having some kind of canceling effect for the white spot differences. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the linked photo the actual size of the scan? If so, I recommend scanning to a much larger size than the actual picture is, and see how it looks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the actual photo is smaller and square in shape; this has been cropped to cut off the background details. There are several others similar to it. I would take the originals to a photographer to see what can be done but am afraid of losing the photos. They were taken on my 16th birthday and rather precious to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Scanning and the links at the end may help. Your scanner software many have a descreening option, althouigh its probably optimised for halftone rather than what you have. When I used a median filter in Irfanview it did improve it a little. Some of the commercial software listed here Noise_reduction may do the job. If you still have the negatives, then they could be scanned directly to give much better quality. 92.15.16.146 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I uploaded a new Photoshop-despeckled version. It may be a bit blurrier, though.  (Feel free to just revert back to the speckled one if you think it's better or if you'd like to try to play around with improving that version yourself -- nice 70's pic btw! :).  WikiDao    &#9775;  15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great, WikiDao! Thanks a million.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh, no offense to anyone, but that looks worse to me than the version with the artifacts. It looks like it's been crudely Photoshopped by hand.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

JSF, GE & UTX
So this morning the news reported that the U.S. House of Representatives voted to end funding for the "extra" engine being developed by GE & Rolls-Royce Corporation for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Assuming the decision isn't overturned, this would seem to be detrimental to GE and a bonus for Pratt & Whitney, which now would have something of a monopoly.

This morning, though, GE stock went up quickly and stayed there throughout the day, and UTX (Pratt's parent company) dropped ~0.5% and has stayed there. Even considering the fact that traders probably anticipated the Senate's decision, what could account for the counterintuitive response in the market? Or is it more likely unrelated and due to other factors? jeffjon (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Searching for "GE" at finance.yahoo.com just now, the JSF engine story wasn't even on the first page of search results for me. It's such a huge company that there are plenty of investors who buy it and sell it as a proxy for the US economy, so your last sentence is presumably correct.  Another story of today that may have affected GE stock: this story claiming the Obama administration favors lowering corporate taxes on income earned abroad.  Unfortunately the answer to why stocks fluctuate is almost always "who knows?"  Especially annoying to me are the 100% BS quips that you hear on TV and radio where the business-news announcer makes incredibly broad claims about causality like "Stocks rose today after the new jobs report came out" or "Stocks fell broadly after Libyan police were reported to have killed demonstrators."  Every hour, people and companies buy and sell stocks for millions of different reasons that are not correlated.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, The Pentagon itself wants the program killed, but congressmen and senators keep re-funding it because of the pork barrel. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the major producers of those engines just happen to exist in the Congressional districts of John Boehner and Eric Cantor.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They have to be in someone's district. Googlemeister (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GE's revenue is about $18 billion a year. The amount at issue was $450 million, and who knows how much of that would have gone to GE. Plus, the vote wasn't that much of a surprise. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The $18.7 billion that Mwalcoff notes was revenue for the aviation segment of GE's technology group in 2009; the segment's profit was $3.9 billion. For all of GE, consolidated revenue in 2009 was $157 billion. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)