Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 25

= January 25 =

Immunity for diplomats' children
Is there a reason to expect that children of diplomats are protected by diplomatic immunity? I read recently about it in the case of Jens Soering (see: Jens_Soering). Quest09 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason to expect it is that Article 37, section 1, of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states: "The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36." ---Sluzzelin  talk  02:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, why wasn't Jens Soering, the son of a German diplomat, judged in Germany? Quest09 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The key words appear to be "forming part of his household". Soering was about 20 at the time of the murder and was possibly living on his own. In that case, the immunity would not extend to him. Bielle (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note here that regarding immunity for diplomats, it is attached only to true diplomats, consular and other adjunct officials are granted a lesser degree of rights at least within the US. An immunity only extending to actions within their official duties.  As a result, it would be within rights of a shrewd prosecutor to argue bad acts by family inherently falls outside of their official role. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just in the US that consular officials enjoy lesser immunity than diplomats. In the Vienna Convention refered above, consular immunity is limited to the performance of official duties, and does not extend to members of the household. I don't know all the details of the Soering case, but it is to be kept in mind that immunity for dependents only applies in the country of accreditation and is limited to dependents living with the diplomat who has immunity because of his or her diplomatic status. As the young Soering was living in another city and was a college student at the time, it's likely the US would not have considered him a dependent and therefore would not have granted him any diplomatic immunity.--Xuxl (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Jens Soring acted in this way after the murder accusation. Had he fled to Germany, he would not be deported, not just because his father is/was a diplomat, but also because Germany do not deport its own citizens. 212.169.185.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I don't think any country deports its own citizens (although that's essentially what exile is, but that's a very rare punishment these days, at least officially). Do you mean "extradites"? --Tango (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

cancelled coins of denomiation of 25 paise coins by R.B.I.w.e.f.June2011
Sir, It is learned from the News papers that the Governor of R.B.I.has declared that, they are going to cancell the coins of 25 paise,w.e.f.June,2011.As they declared of cancellation,they did not give any alternatives to, those who are in possession of so many coins which are accumulated with the public, since long as 25 paise coins have been ceased in the market long back, though it was not officially declared.With this situation general public suffers a lot .As I enqired in S.B.I./Govt Treasuries regarding the policy of refunding the coins,but I was told that they have not received any letter to that effect It is my kind request to you guide me from where can I get information/or I can ask the authorities for the said matter.There are millions of Indians like me  who will  lose the money for no fault of theirs,with present conditions of hard living I hope will get reply soon. ////////// Yeolekar,A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvinddy (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this refers to the Reserve Bank of India. If the coins will be withdrawn from circulation in June, you have more than five months to return them to the bank, and deposit them, if you have an account, or request larger-denomination notes. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the people who address us as "Sir" as if they were writing a letter to the editor. Pais (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was formatted as a letter. As Indian English explains, some of their formal epistolatory style comes directly from the East India Company. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The RBI has not yet announced its procedures for the call-in of the coins, according to stories I've read such as &. As others have noted, the best option open to you is to have such coins converted into 50 paise or 1 rupee coins. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

World War Two
I need to know if Rehburg, Germany was a part of the East or West during WW II. Basically, if a plane was shot down over Rehburg, Germany or Bad Rehburg, Germany, would that have been considered enemy territory?

Thank you so much, Hazel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjk49 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no division into West Germany and East Germany during World War II. All of Germany was (from the Allies' point of view) enemy territory, at least until the Western Allied invasion of Germany. After the war, Rehburg-Loccum, which is in Lower Saxony, was in West Germany. Pais (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Germany was not divided into east & west until after WW2, and so the question appears to be null. It was in Germany. Assuming the plane was from the allies, it would be enemy territory. If it was an axis plane, then it would be on friendly territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, according to this map, the area where Rehburg is was under Allied control by 9 April 1945. If an Allied plane was shot down there after that date, it would be on friendly territory. Pais (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Partition of Germany for a little more background. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

would it be considered wrong to deceive someone in poker or part of te game?
I would not consider it ethical for someone to "hustle" in any betting game - deceiving people and thereby taking advantage of them. isn't it different in poker though? isn't that what you're there to do? to be deceived? If someone sat down at your table and played for an hour, then on their very last hand showed that the whole hour had been an elobarote ploy, and got up again with all of your money (and that of others), having made an expert play - would that be considered swindling, hustling, and deceitful? Or is that what you are at the poker table to experience, like the entertainment of pro wrestling, and the fake soap opera aspect played as though it were real? (which I don't consider deceitful in the least - it IS the game). Thanks for your perspective, especially from poker players... Would the person who did that (winnig a lot of money in the process) be a "swindler" or a "good poker player"? Thanks. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a gambler, but I suppose it depends on whether the deception is allowed within the rules of the game. Bluffing in poker is (if my knowledge of poker, which is derived entirely from TV shows, is correct) is allowed, but hiding an ace in your sleeve is not. Someone who wins using the former strategy would then be considered a good poker player, while someone who wins using the latter strategy would be considered a cheat. Wikipedia has an article on Cheating in poker that may interest you. Pais (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * no, it's not that. it's misrepresenting your ability...is that a swindle?  ("hustling")?  91.183.62.45 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) This may verge on asking for opinions rather than facts, but my understanding and experience of playing poker is that deceiving one's opponents as to one's ability and legitimately concealed card holdings is an essential aspect of poker in its advanced forms. Bluffing - by betting heavily on a poor hand so as to intimidate others into folding - is within both the rules and the spirit of the game. Actively misleading opponents by facial expressions as to how good one's hand in is arguably just an extension of maintaining a 'poker face' so as not to give any such information. Deliberately playing poorly before taking a big pot on the last hand is arguably more questionable, but presumably everyone else in the game is playing (and gambling) willingly and has the same opportunity for the same ploy. Hustling, like most confidence tricks, often depends upon the 'victim' being both gullible and greedy, in the sense of being eager to win money from someone the victim thinks is less skilled. Obviously, using any form of cheating (concealed or marked cards, dishonest shuffles, colluding kibbitzers, etc.) crosses the line into swindling. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We also have an article on Slow play (poker). I think it's considered to be in the spirit of the game. Sandbagging in pool, however, is not. (Especially when handicapping is part of the score, see Sandbag). ---Sluzzelin talk  16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

aspect I'm interested in
Please elaborate on exactly this sentence. "Deliberately playing poorly before taking a big pot on the last hand is arguably more questionable.". This is the essence of my question. What makes you say that? Do you believe it is questionable, or in fact part of the game? In other words: is the person who wins using this tactic a "questionable player" or a "very good player". Please answer in as much detail as possible. Especially if you're a poker player. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier answers below will have likely superceded this late one, but since you ask - I would consider misleadingly poor play to be impolite behaviour amongst relatives or friends playing for amusement and trivial stakes, but a perfectly fair (though risky) tactic if playing seriously for serious money (as I used to long ago, but not in the last 3 decades): however, in some circumstances others might differ and make their disapproval robustly plain, so I might not use the tactic if, to put it bluntly, I were to judge that it might get me beaten up. Also, I would and have done so when invited to join a game with other players of unknown abilities, but would not have deliberately tried to lure known poorer players into playing with me. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are describing is a Card shark, which according to our article is an "expert card gambler who takes advantage of less-skilled players, without implication of actual cheating at cards". A Card shark (or sharp), then, may be considered a "hustler" or a "swindler" (especially by those hustled or swindled;) without necessarily also being considered a "cheat". There is nothing within the rules of the game that requires players to accurately reveal their skill level to the other players before, during, or after game-play. WikiDao   &#9775;  16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm talking about getting the sharks to play very loosely by pretending to be one of their fish. Does sitting down at a table, spilling small chips for an hour, then suddenly cleaning up with great play - if I sit down with 400 in chips and get up an hour later with 5000 through this techique make me a "great player" (for the table), owing to the fact that I won, or a swindler?  Poker player responses especially welcome!  You can go beyond morals too: is it rude of me? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In poker, "bluffing" is usually limited to the use of facial expressions, body language, and betting patterns, but does not extend to other types of deception; it is definately not "anything goes". For example, it is considered against the rules to make statements about or give away any direct information about your hole cards.  You cannot state "I have two diamonds.  I just need three more for a flush", whether you are lying OR telling the truth.  It's also considered bad form to be overly demonstrative, for example folding a hand preflop in Texas Hold'em, and then reacting to the flop cards as though you blew what should have been a good hand; since that gives information to other players about what cards you may have had.  I have seen several players cautioned at televised events for doing exactly that.  Also, bluffing only happens in the context of the hand; it is considered very bad form in most poker games to intentionally lose hands to make others think you are a worse player than you are; or to collude with other players secretly to, for example, always lose hands to a friend to give him a stronger chip position.  There is also the issue of the "string bet", whereby you cannot indicate a likely bet on your part outside of your turn.  If you pick up chips before your bet while someone else is making a decision, as though you were going to bet, you cannot then fold your hand after they make a bet.  Also, you cannot slowly add chips in phases to the pot to see others reactions; bets must be made cleanly and in one motion.  (after EC with above, responding to it) At any game I have played in, it would be considered very bad form to intentionally play badly hand after hand to "suck people in" (i.e. "Sandbagging"), only to later reverse yourself and suddenly start playing well.  Players with a reputation for doing that would get disinvited from playing very quickly.  -- Jayron  32  16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "sharks ... pretending to be one of their fish" is precisely the definition of what a card shark is. You can be a great player without being a "shark".  To be a shark, you must be a great player who pretends to not be a great player for the purpose of getting not-so-great players to play with you.  (You are not a shark if you are a not-so-great player and happen to just get lucky enough to win big, of course).  I am an amateur poker player who has played occasionally with much better players, and though I have never lost heavily to a great player who was pretending to be a not-so-great player, if I did I would not consider it "rude" or "immoral" of the person to have gotten away with that ploy, I would consider it to have been just part of the game (and my fault for having been "fooled").   WikiDao    &#9775;  16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (But clearly I am speaking informally from an amateur perspective. I defer to what appears to be Jayron's greater expertise in this matter;).  WikiDao    &#9775;  17:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're both probably right on this WikiDao. It's all about context and knowing your environment.  I have a rotating homegame I have been playing in for over 10 years; the players change over time but most of us have been playing together for years.  Its a $20.00 stake, the money is so low to keep bad feelings to a minimum; its basically an excuse to spend 20 bucks for the chance to drink beer and say rude things about women with your friends.  In a game like that, attitudes and conventions are very different than in games like casino-run tournaments and cash games, which is ALSO going to be different than the sort of games that go on is sketchy, underground poker clubs.  What is laughed off and considered "good form" in the context of a home game can get your knees broken if you are playing in a different sort of crowd.  If you know that your friends consider something OK, go with it.  If you are in an environment with a bunch of strangers, it pays to play it straight until you can judge the "unwritten rules" and "codes of conduct" allowed.  -- Jayron  32  17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Faking a lack of skill, or faking a phony tell is a trick that you could really only do once. So a weekly game between freinds wouldn't really be vulnerable to that sort of sandbagging. APL (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I rarely play poker, but I'm surprised no one picked up that the premise of the question involves getting up from the table after a single big-wining hand.
 * Surely that's not considered friendly? APL (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also not the kind of thing you can do in a home game where play usually goes on until a certain time or all the beer's gone. This question seems to be geared to gambling with strangers to me. And there's little point in sharking unless there's substantial money on the table.  In that context I do believe that sandbagging your opponents might lead to a disagreement. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This question really can only be answered with opinion, so I will relate an anecdote. In undergraduate college I used to run fairly large weekly tournaments with a buy in structure that set aside a bonus that got added back into the pot at the end of every month in a bonus tourney (people who missed tournaments had to pay extra to get into the bonus tourney to encourage people to come every week).  At what was probably the biggest tournament I ran we had something like 42 people and a pot of about $3k.  This guy shows up (the friend of a friend of a regular) acting kinda drunk (and drinks through the whole tourney) and making a bunch of very beginner mistakes (including asking for the ranking of hands a couple of times), but he wins the key hands and ends up taking the whole thing down and walking away with about $2k.  Some people got pissed, but it was impossible to tell if he was deliberately down playing his ability or if he just got very lucky (who knows maybe a combination of the two?).  We never saw him again. Personally I don't have a problem with it (and I was playing in the tourney too), but I know others did.  It also could be a bit of a dangerous move, I know some people at the tournament where pretty angry and fortunately they weren't violent, but I could see the situation ending badly if it were only slightly different (This event actually led me to scale down the size of the tournaments while raising the stakes).  Context is the key here.  In a low stakes friendly game this kind of deception is going to be inappropriate and is unlikely to get you invited back.  In private games like the one I described it is also going to frowned on by some of the players and could conceivably get the swindler beat up and his money taken by disgruntled players.  In a casino context it might be frowned on by some of the players, but the casino certainly wouldn't care and you aren't likely to get robbed a casino.  This sort of deception is certainly within the rules of the game, but it is likely to upset people, on the other hand poker players tend to get upset at just about anything that causes them to lose.  -- Daniel  19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the anecdote. I never ask about rankings.  Would that anecdote have worked differently if he had started by saying "Look, I'm not dumb, okay?  I know exactly what I'm doing.  Are we all clear on this"?  Then I would argue, he was just the best poker player there - and that's why he is the one who walked away with the cash.  91.183.62.45 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If he had done as you said and made it clear to everyone that he was an expert player and then proceeded to play like a drunk beginner, it would certainly lessened the acrimony at the end. However it would also certainly weaken the effectiveness of his ploy, possibly to the point uselessness.  The point of this type of play is to cause players to let the guard down and open themselves up to big losses.  If players believe that another player is skilled they aren't going to let their guard down even if this player is playing like a fish.  Here is another related anecdote (sort of the opposite situation):  I once ate lunch with a moderately famous photographer and the conversation turned to poker, he proceeded to tell me what a great player he was and that he always took all the money from everyone he played with.  I saw this a sign that he was in fact a fish.  Besides the fact that taking everyone's money every time is basically impossible, a really good player would not want to advertise their skill to such an extent.  Not advertising your ability is different than deliberately playing like a chump and is certainly acceptable in all situations.  -- Daniel  20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OP here
Oh. Guys, I need way more etiquette than this. I really thought - due to bluffing - that it was kind of "anything goes". You're basically telling me that bluffing is okay, but bluffing about bluffing is not okay. In other words, you're saying that it's okay to pretend to have a strong hand while having a weak one. But it's NOT okay to only be PRETENDING to have been pretending to have a strong hand, expressly so that you will be called out on it, everyone can see that you're a bluffer, and next time also pretend to be bluffing, but this time 5x bigger, and this time without actually bluffing at all - you do have the nuts. THat's what it comes down to what you guys are telling me: bluffing is okay; bluffing about bluffing is not okay. Really, guys? Really? You want me to be more predictable, so you can get my money? And you will call me rude or immoral if I'm not predictable enough for you (when I bluff, I have to really want to be trying to bluff: I can't just be wanting you to see me "try to bluff"). Let's make a compromise, since that's obviously wrong. How would you feel about if when I sat down at the table, I outright told you "I'm not a beginner, don't mistake me one. If you see me acting like a beginner, it's just because I have greater mathematical insight than you.  Got it?" And get everyone to consent to the fact that I"m not actually a beginner. Then I can proceed to pretend to bluff, have them get on to the fact that I'm a (pretend) bluffer, and then have them try to call my pretend bluffs, which are real.  Obviously this is just good math, and good poker.  With the disclaimer I just provided, would you feel that what I was doing with my specially deep mathematical knowledge was okay?  (And, for reference: that's exactly what I did the last time I sat down to play poker - began with that disclaimer.)  91.183.62.45 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the crux of the disagreement wasn't bluffing about bluffing but rather the means available to you to bluff. Most poker players I know frown on exaggerated displays of emotion and talking about your cards could give other people at the table an unfair edge (IE if you say you had the jack of spades and that's a card I need for a straight flush, I know now that I cannot possibly get the hand I was hoping for, other players, not knowing I needed that card, are at a disadvantage because I knew what was in your hand).  Given that those are the norms, it would be, in my opinion, highly questionable to act as if you are unaware of the rules of poker (unwritten or written) to give other players the impression that you are not a poker player.  Honestly, though, they might well assume you're an online poker player, good at the game, unaware of the norms of table play. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OP: there are three levels here:
 * Playing (assumedly well). perfectly acceptable, and generally generating respect
 * Hustling (pretending to play poorly while actually being able to play well). Hustling is basically acceptable in any gambling game, but hustlers are generally considered small-change chumps, and no one much likes them.
 * Cheating: artificially influencing the game to get a better chance of winning. not nice, can get you shot.
 * really good gamblers don't try to fake out people about how good they are. they are usually pretty arrogant about it.  The arrogance is part of getting big pots: people will put down serious money to challenge a good gambler. If a good gambler wanted to hustle someone they could (and there would be nothing ethically wrong with doing so), but why would they?  You can't hustle other good gamblers (part of being a good gambler is not being gullible enough to fall for that stuff), and hustling average gamblers is not going to net you much money (if you shoot fish in a barrel you end up with small fish and a barrel full of holes, yah?).  Don't think about this as there being rules against it; it's just not practical for good gamblers to hustle.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay - I've decided to "show more of my cards". In the secton below, I detailed my strategy in more detail.  My original suggestion that I "pretended to be a fish" was a simplification, but I realize it's not enough to the answer I'm really looking for.  Please read my actual strategy, Ludwig2s, below, and I very much welcome your perspective.  Especially not so much the strategy, but the strategy after having made the appropriate disclaimer.  viz: "I'm about to play in a way that's hard to read, but it's not because I'm a fish, but because I have a very excellent strategy.  Same goes for paying attention to anythign but the cards - please don't think that the cards aren't important to me or that I'm not interested in winning."  I literally want to reduce the amount of information available about me to other players.  And yes, that often resembles a fish, who can't even read his own cards.  Normally, the only person who would make the kind of mistake that gets you to the showdown with an 8 high is a fish.  However, my strategy of going to the showdown SOMETIMES despite having 0 personal information about my hole cards (didn't really look) in order to reduce the signal to noise ratio for that particular hand to 0, is the single OTHER case anyone would ever go to showdown all-in with off-suit 5 and 8...    So, my play WILL resemble that of a fish, from time to time.  Is that okay, as long as I give the appropriate disclaimer?  I'm just a better poker player, due to my math tools.  Can I use this fact in the way I suggest, while remaining honest, upright, and having good character (much more important to me than being able to utilize my greater understanding of mathematics, statitics, probability, signals theory, and psychology).  Thank you. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Essence of my Strategy
My strategy doesn't really come from "faking a lack of skill". Instead it comes from this: there is no 'way' that I play a particular hand. It depends on whether I'm playing tight or loose at the moment, which is random. Why is it random? Because if there WERE a way I played a particular hand in a particular situation, others could hone in on that and I could lose. This way, there are two ways I can play any particular hand: tight or loose. They have no way of knowing which mode I'm in - only I know. So, by not having ONE algorithm for how to play a hand in a given situation, I become a stronger player than them: I can't be read. Since, there's nothing to read - my actions are not determined by my cards, but by my cards and a random number which they don't know. This is a very powerful way of playing - but it also means that sometimes I will have to say no to hands with good pot odds, just because I'm in a very cautious/risk-averse mode just then. There is one more thing. I like to pay attention to something other than the poker cards (without slowing the game), so that my behavior is not influenced by a single source of entropy -- the cards -- but two: a conversation/whatever's going on on the TV behind me/etc etc. It's not that I want to seem "distracted" -- it's that I want to decrease the signal to noise ratio, by having my attention split between the signal (the cards I'm seeing) and the noise (the cadence of a conversation, or another game, or anything else). Would you consider it ethical/okay of me to use both of the above strategies? 1) alternating weak and strong plays, so that I am totally unpredictable, since I literally do not follow any algorithm that determines my play. and 2) splitting my attention so that my immediate reaction (when I'm not the player whose turn it is) is not determined by a single source of signal, but a source of signal and a greater source of noise (such as a conversation with a hot woman to my right)...  Again, the underlying mathematical reason for both of these things is not to appear to be a bad player, or to appear to be distracted. It's to be a BETTER player. To play meta-bluffs and meta-poker. If I start the game by telling people that's I'm neither weak nor distracted, but in fact just a very good player, does my strategy become okay? Or do you guys insist that I both become more predictable (playing the same situations in the same way - not sometimes "wrong" -- with negative pot odds -- and sometimes "right" -- with positive pot odds) and much easier to read, by focusing my attention on the consequences of the game no matter what? To royally fuck with the other players' signal-to-noise ratio, when I'm in my most aggressive mode, I will bet and raise, and even go all-in, while having only PRETENDED to look at my hole cards. Since I myself do not know the value of my hand, the opponents' signal to noise ratio is reduced to literally 0. However, they have no way of knowing, in the same situation, whether I am currently playing so hyper-aggressively, or in fact am playing extremely tightly at the moment. Do you think it would be wrong of me to go all the way to an all-in showdown without having looked at my hole cards? (Having only pretended to?) Please give me detailed etiquette and moral guidance on all of the above points. Thank you. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing your betting strategy is a major part of playing poker, this isn't deceptive. If your strategy is to "bet so that I am hard to read" that is kinda, sorta, exactly what good poker players do every day.  -- Jayron  32  18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic reason I resemble a fish
The essential reason I will always resemble a fish is that it would seem only a fish would play randomly -- it seems at any skill level above total beginner, your play would in no way resemble random play. But that is bad poker. Because if it is anything less than random, then it can be read. So, the perfect play is, on some level, indistinguishable from being a total beginner's play who is just playing literally randomly. I never ask myself "what would a fish do" and just do that. Instead, I just play using the above algorithm, while being aware of what it LOOKS LIKE I'm doing. What impression my play -- which is not determined by me, but a random source as well -- makes it look like I'm doing. So, is there any way for me to apply the above algorithm (which is correct, and mathematically works) without accidentally stepping on toes and being accused of sandbagging? Would it be sufficient to start the egame with a declaration that everything I do is calculated, and I am not a beginner or a fish? It still seems to me like I should be able to continue doing what I'm diong -- which comes from having a degree in math and deep understanding in poker -- while giving people fair warning that I'm not a fish.... Also, on the same token, what if in the beginning I will tell people that I will not keep playing the game if I win a really, really big pot - since I would just lose it again (which is true). If in the beginning I tell people that I'm not a fish, and I tell people that if I win really big I will leave before I blow it all (which is true -- I would blow it all: from hitting my hyper-aggressive mode, and going all in with the whole winnings without having looked at my hole cards), then does it make it okay and acceptable and ethical and a decent thing to do to apply all of the above mathematical tools I have developed, resulting in play that seems close to random (which means it is perfect poker play, perfectly unreadable) despite my assurances that I wasn't a fish, and which results in my winning a big pot, and, just as I gave fair warning of in the beginning, not continuing the pattern, but leaving with it? How would you feel about this if I told you all this at the onset? Thanks... 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.s. I would also say that if I pay attention to other things than the cards, it doesn't mean that I don't care about the cards. They shouldn't think that it's all the same to me, on the contrary, I do care about winning... If I told that at the onset, then would it be okay to then distract myself with other sources of input than the cards, so that I become less readable?  Thanks... 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically guys, the common thing in this whole thread is: I've developed great poker tools through mathematics (entropy) and signals theory, and would like to apply them without misleading anyone: ethically, correctly, and with character. Can I do it? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * End point to me is that betting systems, other than perfect strategy, and card counting in blackjack, are usually losing propositions. Intentionally playing worse than your best will almost always guarantee a worse outcome than consistent play at your highest level, unless you are hustling.  You might win some pots going all-in on a weak hand and forcing players questioning the value of their hand to abandon it.  But you're only liable to take small pots that way as people strongly invested in the hand feel that they have a good chance of a strong hand and might well call your bluff, this is more likely if they think you are playing wild.  Going all-in without even LOOKING at your cards is suicidal, yes your opponents know nothing about your hand because they can't read you at all, but there is so much other information on the table that their guess as to your hand is only part of it.  What if you go all-in on, a terrible hand that has a minuscule probability even with the best possible cards convert into a good hand?  What if they have two aces in their hand?  In addition, if I saw someone playing that aggressively, I'd walk away from the game.  It's not pleasant to play with a rampaging bull. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)I didn't read all that stuff about you being a fish, but the answer you're looking for is "yes". Employing your own strategy is entirely part of the given rules of virtually any game; bluffing and employing meta-strategies goes to the very heart of advanced poker. Let's say you do it: play dumb and then clean up in the end. What's the guy gonna say? "Hey, that's not fair, I thought I could take advantage of your lack of skill with impunity!" Just remember, and I can't stress this enough: lots of very smart people have lost their shirts around a poker table. Just as you are free to lose the first few hands in an effort to bluff them into thinking you're unskilled, they're just as free to stand up after taking half your money and walk away. Matt Deres (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you make a good point, an old gambler's adage is "it's impossible to cheat an honest man." Most con games rely on the mark's greed. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OP, are you really trying to say that your carefully-considered and "mathematically superior" strategy for playing poker is to make your bets without reference to, or even knowledge of, the cards you have?
 * And what you would like to ask us about that here at the Wikipedia Humanities Reference desk is: do we think that you can do that and still be a good person?
 * Did I get the wrong impression somehow, after reading everything you have written above, or is that really what you are asking, and if so is it because you are deliberately trolling, perhaps? No offense; it's just I'm finding it sort of difficult to understand otherwise.   WikiDao    &#9775;  21:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a poker-playing, computer-programming, surrealist friend who comes out with shit like this, so I'm going to assume good faith. He doesn't even always lose all his money every time we play, either. One of the nice things about poker is that being sufficiently bizarre and sphinx-like will get you quite a long way, whatever cards you have. 81.131.14.206 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that if you deployed this betting strategy against me I would have no trouble at all with your betting strategy and would offer to buy you a drink if only you return next week with more cash.
 * You see, your strategy would work if the goal in poker was "Don't ever betray your cards, even a little, for any reason".  But that isn't the goal in poker. The goal is to win As many hands as possible. Keeping your cards secret is only a means to that ends.   Remember, at the start of any given hand, the odds are against you having the winning hand. If you don't take deliberate action to improve your odds, then statistically breaking even is the best you can hope for.
 * Imagine a simple dice game. Each player secretly throws a die and highest throw wins. You don't even look at your die and place a bet every throw.   Your opponent only places a bet if his own throw is above three. You haven't betrayed any knowledge of your die, but he has greatly improved his odds.
 * On the other hand, this : "Also, on the same token, what if in the beginning I will tell people that I will not keep playing the game if I win a really, really big pot" would be unacceptable in most friendly games. APL (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * what if I got up and cashed out most of it? (this is a casino), to return and keep laying with less? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, This very simple strategy is not new. It occurs to everyone who wins a big hand. It's called a "Hit and Run". It's considered rude because it's against the spirit of the game. Winning at poker over many hands requires a good amount of skill. Winning a single hand and then leaving requires only luck.
 * Casinos will have rules to discourage [Hit-And-Run] poker playing, but it won't be strictly illegal. (They can't force you to keep playing.) You might not get to try this trick more than once, and you will not make any friends. APL (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find online poker more to your liking. In poker, as in most things, people are more tolerant of jerks online. APL (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * After sleeping on this and thinking about the problem through the night, I have finally come to the main problem with your strategy, and it comes down to one of the most popular misconceptions about poker: your strategy places on overemphasis on one type of knowledge; that of "reading other players" and does not give enough emphasis on the other, that of "reading your cards". Poker is really mostly about reading the cards correctly, and there's only a small amount of importance in reading other people.  Popular poker movies make it seem like the only way to really win at Poker is to have a sort of telepathic ability to read people's hands; in reality such ability only plays a small amount of good poker players strategy.  Lets put some numbers behind it; lets just throw a wild guess and say that 10% of poker playing comes from reading people, and the other 90% comes from knowing what to do with the cards you are dealt.  People who completely ignore the psychological aspect of poker will do far better than people who completely ignore the card strategy in poker.  While the psychological aspect will generally seperate the really great players from the merely good players, it doesn't hold that psychology will overcome a really shitty playing strategy all by itself, which is essentially what the OP's proposal is all about; the idea that he can screw with good players minds enough to make them confused enough to forget how to play poker well.  It just doesn't work that way.  Read a book like Super/System.  While there is parts of the book that covers reading people, the parts of that book that have endured are the betting strategies and not the psychological aspects of it.  The No-Limit Texas Hold'em strategy outlined in Super/System (known as "Tight-Aggressive") has so dominated the game of poker at the professional level that it is akin to the Fosbury Flop in High Jump, or the T formation in American Football; it revolutionized the game so much that everyone does it as a given because it works so well against just about any other system.  The Super/System Tight-Aggressive betting strategy is basically about playing the odds with the cards you have, and maximizing the value of your cards by only playing winners, and maximizing the value of potential winners with big bets.  Various people have made variations on the Tight-Aggresive strategy, but like the T-Formation basically destroyed the single wing, and still forms the core strategy of all American football to this day, Super/System's betting strategies have done the same for poker.  There are very successful professional players, like Daniel Negreanu who's success does not come from his ability to prevent others from reading him; instead it comes from his encyclopedic knowledge of other players and of the odds regarding his hand in relation to others.  He knows exactly how other players play their cards, and uses that knowledge to his advantage in deciding how to play his own.  But he doesn't put any credence in the "cold-read" and his strategy ignores that aspect of the game, with great success I might note.  The idea that one could devise a betting strategy to "fool" other players in making a bad "cold read" on you, an unknown player, when the really good players don't even play that way, is pretty lousy strategy.  The best advice is play your cards as best as possible; if someone is an obvious read, use that information to your advantage, but don't worry too much about trying to deceive others by the way you describe.  It just doesn't work.  -- Jayron  32  15:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that Poker bots can often play decently against human players by reading the cards only. Especially players who don't realize they're playing against bots. APL (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One further issue: unless you're using a tool (dice, a computer, etc) to generate your randomness, you're not being random. The human mind is very bad at being random, and if you try to be random what will most likely happen is that you will start following a pattern that you don't recognize, but which others will pick up on - that will make you a worse poker player, not a better one.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This (the 10% and 90% part) isn't really true, because around a poker table with a lot of weak players, being able to sense weakness gives a great advantage, and so the psychological player will take risks which, on average, allow him to the steam-roller the statistical player, who will behave conservatively and usually die a slow and boring death. (The psychological player won't fare well in a head-to-head against the automaton player, though, unless he can switch strategies.) Lots depends, of course, on whether we're talking about professional poker where all the other players are known personalities, backroom poker where the others are strangers or play infrequently, or online poker where you can't guess what people are like at all and they might all be robots. 81.131.49.248 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My 2p's worth: poker is a game. A real game, not something that's metaphorically a game. Provided you play within the rules, you can do whatever you like. Bluff etc is a well known part of the game. Beginners learn by losing to more experienced players. 92.15.23.216 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnulf
Who is the most likely Arnulf noted on an English parish church notice-board as a rector of St James' Church, Stretham, Cambridgeshire on or before 1222?
 * A search through the Domesday Book reveals two Arnulf's
 * Arnulf d'Ardres
 * Arnulf de Hesdin

--Senra (Talk) 16:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia disambiguation reveals 12: Arnulfs on Wikipedia
 * Google reveals a few: Arnulf's on Google
 * There are no Arnulf's mentioned in Meadows P., 2010 Ely: Bishops and Diocese, 1109-2009. Boydell Press. ISBN 1843835401


 * Just some guy, most likely. Important enough to be rector of a church, but that's not such a big deal. Arnulf is a pretty popular medieval name. If he's anyone, you might be able to find some more info in the relevant Victoria County History, or Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. I think they are all online at British-History.ac.uk (I'll look further when I get a chance later today). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, nothing in the Fasti (which doesn't seem to go down to this level of clergy), or in the VCH (which talks about Stretham here). Where did you see this note about Arnulf in 1222? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

is it true that japanese, when recycling, sort their trash into 10+ categories?
if so, exactly how many? --59.189.218.40 (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It varies from place to place, and exact numbers of categories are hard to come by, but in 2005 Yokohama did update it's rules to require 10 types of sorting not 5. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And, again from 2005, one town had 44 categories. Nanonic (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 10 really isn't all that many; I'd hazard that most people in developed countries have the opportunity, if not the obligation, to sort into at least that many categories. Looking at my own situation in the UK (the UK having been one of the poorer performers in recycling among Western European countries):
 * plastic, metal, and glass containers go in one box, but are separated by the scaffy when he picks stuff up (that is, right there in the street, rather than later). If the council provided three containers for this I'd happily separate them myself. If I take the glass to the recycling centre (or the drop off point at various shops) I'm supposed to sort the cullet into three (clear,brown,green).  So, for containers alone, that's five.
 * at home all paper goes togther, but at the office we split clean white paper (shreddings) from others (brown paper, coloured paper, newsprint). So that's another two.
 * then there's basic landfill. I live in a flat so we don't get green/food collection, but our neighbours with gardens do get a green collection (for composting) so that's two more for them.
 * I live near the edge of town; if I was another half mile or so out, the local pig farmer would collect food waste for pigswill.
 * I return plastic bags and depleted batteries to the supermarket, and old cloth to a bin outside the supermarket. Unwanted and expired medicine goes back to the pharmacist.
 * Beyond that there's all the different categories of stuff that the local civic recycling centre wants me to separate anything I take there: in addition to most of the categories above, there's wood, rubble (stone/bricks/plaster etc.), scrap metal, electrical goods, paint, and motor oil.
 * So that's 15+ categories (but households sort into only three or four categories for curbside collection). In practice most stuff goes into one of the basic categories and the whole process isn't burdensome at all. 44 categories does seem like more of a challenge, however. -- 87.112.107.231 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I lived in Japan for 2 years and agree that it varies from city to city. In my area, the local government distributed an information card to each household that explained what went where via pictures -- very handy. We had somewhere around 10 categories, but nearly all of your daily waste falls into "burnable" (food, paper, etc) or glass. How often do you throw out electrical appliances, umbrellas, etc? In practical use, it wasn't a hassle at all, and I wish more places took the trouble. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Classifying into 10 categories is certainly common in many places. Here in Spain you have normal, paper, glass, packages+plastic, batteries, cooking oil, clothes, and electronic garbage containers. (That makes 8). 88.24.238.251 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In Greenwich, U.K. we have three bins - Mixed dry recycling (Metal, glass, plastic, card and paper), Compostable waste (all food waste and gardening waste) and residual waste. Clothes, drink cartons, batteries, electrical goods, furniture, paint etc. have to be taken to either recycling points at supermarkets or at the local council waste centre, but we don't generate too much of those, so an occasional trip is fine. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

bbc iplayer
Does anyone know how to tell how long programs are available on bbc's iplayer site for? I have tried noting down the dates and times they give for each program, but it seems half of them are wrong, sometimes by two or three days.

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It varies. They're all supposed to be available for at least a week (except perhaps films) but some things are on for longer.  They'll often keep a few episodes of serial things, as a series catchup, for longer. But I can't see a pattern to what is kept longer and what isn't. 87.112.107.231 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of partial lot legal description
When I asked the cemetery sexton where exactly was Lot E-41 ("E" is a section within the cemetery), his answer was:

 It is approximately 13 rods E. of North corner of north line of cemetery.

What does that description say EXACTLY using feet as the measurment?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to our Rod (unit) article, one rod is equal to 16.5 feet. So 13 rods would be 214.5 feet.
 * I don't know how the cemetery is laid out, do you have a map? One possibility is that it is a perfectly square cemetery with borders running N, E, W, and S, in which case the sexton would presumably have meant to say the North-West corner of the cemetery, and that the lot lies on the North boundary line exactly 214.5 feet East from that corner.  There are other possibilities, though, so without further information I'm afraid I cannot respond more EXACTLY.  WikiDao    &#9775;  22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the cemetery plot map.


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/5339246227/in/set-72157619909680727/


 * Lets assume North-West corner of the cemetery as you say, THEN would that mean 214.5 feet East to the Northwest corner of Lot 41?
 * There are 5 grave spaces in each Lot and each space is 4 feet. Then from the North line to the South line I assume 20 feet with no setbacks. What would a typical length be for the lay of the body of West line to East line? The headstones are on the far West end.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is low inflation the highest goal of economists?
Would an economist running a country stick with a low inflation target even though it pushed the economy into another recession or even depression? Thanks 92.28.244.122 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just today MSN ran an article about the need for inflation, to increase the "cost of money" (IE the interest rate) and encourage saving over borrowing. Deflation is far more a threat to an economy than Inflation, because it makes consumers clam up and stop spending. Why buy anything major today when it's going to be cheaper tomorrow?  In addition, normal inflation is a key part of borrowing, eith money becoming worth less over time it helps offset interest on long-term loans like house mortgages and governmental debt.  So, in short, SOME inflation could be argued to be a good thing, just not too much, and deflation is even worse than inflation. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know where 65.29 got this thing that deflation is worse than inflation. Deflation is never too extreme,but it can last for a decade. Japan had 10 years of slight deflation. Here in Germany we got minor periods of time with deflation (but not with high inflation, which was rather moderate), but the country if growing now heavily, so no main harm. In the 20's - 30's inflation has wrecked the german economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.185.76 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm passing along what I heard/read. And in many ways Japan's slight deflation has lead to serious economic problems.  Inflation to a *modest* level is good for an economy, for the reasons I outlined above.  Hyperinflation is something else entirely, and usually is not purely economic in nature.  Hyperinflation usually also comes with serious societal upheaval and leads to serious long-term problems and short-term utter collapse.  Deflation, however, causes contraction of the economy, amplifies debt and encourages consumers not to spend. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You might also be interested in the phenomenon of stagflation. Some fear* that the UK economy may currently be in danger of this. * (OK, weasel words, but such was a suggestion on a BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme a few hours ago.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Some left-leaning economists (I seem to remember Robert Reich being among them) have not been pleased by the way that the Fed in the U.S. has sometimes interpreted a low unemployment rate as a sign that the economy is on the verge of overheating, so that it's time to raise interest rates. However, the Fed is not supposed to place low inflation as a priority above sliding into recession... AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a complex question. One source of complexity is that if a government has its own currency, it always has the option of paying its bills, to its own citizens at least, by printing money. This naturally produces inflation. Thus inflation in some cases functions as a sort of tax, reducing the value of the money that is in circulation and giving that value to the central government. It is actually the easiest tax for a government to collect, because they don't have to force anybody to give them money -- they just print it. Thus it happens sometimes that weak governments, even those run by economists, turn to inflation in order to stave off fiscal collapse. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with overemphasis on inflation is that it often misses other factors which may be a greater reflection on the health of an economy. Inflation generally only deals with the price of goods, but ignores other factors like wages and purchasing power and things like that.  The value of currency means next to nothing in isolation.  For example, if inflation is 5%, but over the same time period wages went up 10%, that represents an increase in real wages, and as a result, we can say that the economy is healthier, since people can now buy more today than a year ago, even though everything costs more.  Some economists will often skip past inflation (because that deals in currency, which in the world of fiat currency, is a very ephemeral concept) and look at things like labor equivalency in real goods; for example the time needed to work to be able to purchase a common item, like a loaf of bread.  If in country A, it takes the average worker 10 minutes to earn a "loaf of bread", and in country B, it takes the same worker 1 hour to earn the same amount, we can say that worker A is better off than worker B, and Country A has a stronger economy than Country B; even though we have no idea what the relative strength of their currencies is.  Which is not to say that inflation is not important.  A small, single-digit annual percent inflation isn't much to worry about.  The real problem with inflation is hyperinflation, which results in unpredictability for the average citizen.  If you just got paid $1000, you want to know what that $1000 is going to buy.  In a market experiencing hyperinflation, you don't know hour to hour what your money will be worth, and that uncertaintly leads to all sorts of problems.  Brazil in the mid 1990's came up with a novel solution to inflation problems; it basically created confidence in its currency system by creating a "virtual currency", which by law did not change its value.  See Plano Real for how it worked.  But the early 1990's Brazilian currency situation was a mess, due to unpredictable inflation, often with prices doubling over a matter of hours.  Under normal circumstances, small amounts of inflation have effects on the economy (such as driving large institutions to alter their credit/savings ratios and things like that), but in general it doesn't affect normal behavior of the average consumer all that much.  A 3% inflation rate doesn't make you more likely to buy a car or a gallon of milk than, say, a 5% inflation rate would.  But if inflation was fluctuating between 30% and 50%, it would have a very different effect on your purchasing habits.  -- Jayron  32  06:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Subjectively, to me as an average bloke, higher inflation made me feel prosperous and optimistic about the future as I would get better off as I grew older because the real value of my mortgage would fall and my equity increase. With very low rates of inflation I have none of that - the future looks grim, so I hang on tightly to my money, do not spend, do not invest. 92.15.28.68 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot "do not spend, do not invest" your money. You always have to do one of both, saving is also investing.Quest09 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if a) you save the money in coffee cans buried in your back yard and b) you save the money in a financial instrument whose interest or Return on Investment is less than inflation. In both of those cases, you lose value, which is sorta the exact opposite of the purpose of investment.  -- Jayron  32  13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, 'saving' the money in a financial instrument, of any sort, is already investing. If it pays less than inflation, it's a bad investment, but still an investment. You are right about a), but no normal person would do that. Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

I wonder what the current Bank Of England governor, Mervyn King, is required to do. Has he a mandate to pursue low inflation at all costs, or have the politicians cut him some slack? 92.15.28.68 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find relevant correspondance on the Treasury website. Although control of inflation is supposed to be his primary mandate, when he writes to explain that inflation is over target, the response tends to be along the lines that everything is fine, and no doubt it will sort itself out in time. Warofdreams talk 14:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Politicians want to be re-elected, so they tend to tolerate mild inflation when the alternative is a wrenching depression. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the original question, it is useful to think about who is willing and able to pay for the services of economists. A few are employed solely by academic institutions, but most receive some or all of their income from corporate and financial entities controlled by very wealthy people.  This circumstance has led to economic discourse being dominated by economists working in the service of the wealthy.  It is also illuminating to consider who benefits and who loses from various policies.  A scenario in which pay is rising at the same rate or faster than prices, short of disruptive hyperinflation, benefits those who rely on wage or salary income (as opposed to investment income) and whose financial debts exceed their assets (such as homeowners whose savings are lower in value than their mortgage).  A scenario in which pay is falling or rising more slowly than prices benefits those who rely more on investment income than on wages and those whose financial assets exceed their financial debts.  Low inflation, particularly in wages, and particularly when accompanied by inflation in financial assets, such as is now underway, benefits those with financial assets because it allows them to claim a greater share of an economy's production of real goods and services.  (Real assets, such as houses and factories, tend to rise in price with inflation, whereas financial assets often do not.)  So, a policy prioritizing the prevention of inflation, and particularly wage inflation, is a policy of favoring those with net financial assets against wage earners with net financial debts (such as mortgages).  The pervasiveness of this kind of policy and the near-consensus among economists that such a policy is desirable, demonstrates the balance of social power and the force of cultural hegemony.  Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mervyn King, as Governor of the Bank of England, is a member of the Monetary Policy Committee. The government sets an inflation target (currently 2%) and the MPC is responsible for directing monetary policy in order to meet this target. Their main tool for doing this is to set the Bank of England Base Rate. The MPC takes decisions on monetary policy by majority voting. The MPC is intended to act independently of the government - the theory being that responsible management of monetary policy requires a long term view and should not be left in the hands politicians whose primary concern is the result of the next election or by-election. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems dumb that the only goal they have been given is virtually zero inflation, at the expense of anything else. The 2% rule must have been a rebound from the high inflation (due to oil shocks) of the 70s, and is not appropriate to current conditions. Is it a coincidence that social mobility was higher in the 70s than it is now? 92.28.250.90 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go back to the inflation / deflation question, and say that deflation is much worse. Asset values fall (real estate); sales transactions fall (postponed purchases); and once the monetary authorities have slashed interest rates to zero, there's nowhere to go. Inflation, on the other hand, quickly responds to higher interest rates, and if you doubt that, then the interest rates aren't high enough. Sure, you get a recession, but then rates can be cut. With deflation, you get the recession (or worse) with no monetary mechanism to address it. So, with half as many tools (fiscal, yes; monetary, no) to fight deflation, the least damaging option is inflation. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DOR - You can pump more money into the system (Quantitative easing to try kick start the economy and this would result in inflation - so you have that tool in your bag - a tool that's being used in a number of countries at the moment (the UK being one of them). ny156uk (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)