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

= June 25 =

list of countries which face economical crisis.
I wanted to know the list of countries through out the world which have faced the economical crisis till date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.160.212 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that be pretty much all of them (especially during the Great Depression)? I think you need to refine your search criteria a bit. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How to wear a dhoti/lungi
Hi, is there anyone who can advise me on the proper way of wearing a dhoti/lungi (of this variety) without it falling down at inopportune moments? :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  hemicycle  ─╢ 09:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a dhoti, not a lungi. The tying styles vary by region/socio-ethnic community but all of them hold well. Check for the Kerala style. You always have the option of using a belt over the veshti/dhoti, or even keeping it in place with the help of safety pins. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are wearing it for the first time, always use a belt over it, else there is a high probability of a wardrobe malfunction.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Low inflation the cause of our problems?
Would the various world economic problems of recent years and currently have been so bad if there was a thicker cushion of inflation? I'm wondering if trying to hold inflation a knife-edge away from deflation is, in the light of recent experience, a mistaken idea. I've heard the arguement that those who live off capital will suffer due to inflation, but the numbers of these must be tiny compared with the millions with mortgages and businesses with growth/investment borrowing, assuming wage increases roughly match inflation (which they are not doing at the moment at least in the UK). 92.28.251.178 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Those people who live off a fixed income lose out, most notably pensioners - some of the most vulnerable. However, that's probably not the best argument to make. Britain is currently a world away from deflation, and efforts like quanititive easing have been shown to raise inflation, although there have been varying amounts of success. The Bank of England has a target of 3% inflation which it believes it optimal; I'm not in a position to argue against a world-class independent body. I think one worry is of a wage-price spiral if we ran high inflation (particularly if not cost-push inflation). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The target is 2%, not 3% (although that's 2% CPI, which on average is nearly 3% RPI). Also, pensioners in the UK, at least, tend to have index-linked pensions, so they are protected against inflation (although often not against very high inflation - a lot of pensions are linked to Limited Price Inflation (LPI) which is a lesser of RPI and 5% each year, so if RPI goes over 5% they will lose out in real terms). --Tango (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with high inflation, is that while it does reduce the value of debts to both the state and individuals, it also creates an unstable economic environment which harms investment and so on, which in the long run is much worse for the economy than the benefits it brings. 91.85.140.182 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if trying to flatten the business cycle (which I think you allude to) is a good thing, or even possible. The death of worn out outmoded businesses in the slump and rebirth of new innovative ones in booms may be a good thing in the long run. Perhaps its like the seasons, and if you try to stop the business cycle you just get a perpetual winter. Or a perpetual autumn, where old businesses die but new ones never grow. Reminds me of simulated annealing. 92.28.255.229 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have the cause and effect mixed up. That is, low inflation is the typical result of recession, not the cause.  When the economy is bad, firms that raise prices lose income when people stop buying, and employees who demand wage hikes don't get them or are laid off.


 * As for reducing debt, that doesn't apply to variable rate mortgages or new fixed rate loans, both of which figure in the inflation rate. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When there is a comfortable amount of inflation, firms can raise prices and increase wages without stopping people from buying or having to lay people off. High interest rates are due to trying to force inflation down. So on the contrary, you have cause and effect mixed up. 92.28.255.229 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Firms raising prices is inflation. Inflation doesn't facilitate it, it simply is it. High central bank base rates are used to bring down inflation, but they are only weakly correlate with the interest rates banks charge on loans. High inflation means the bank needs to charge more interest to make the same return in real terms (and it is return in real terms that matters), so high inflation means high interest rates. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When the economy has an inflation-cushion, firms can raise prices etc if they need to. Regarding you comments about the interest rates bank charges, I do not believe they commonly do their accounts on a real basis, and even if they did then they or the consumer would be no worse off. I believe the interest rate they charge is due to risk and competition etc. 2.101.3.206 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "inflation-cushion"? If there is no inflation and firms feel the need to raise prices then they do so and suddenly there is inflation. You can't separate inflation from firms raising prices. It isn't one causing the other, they are the same thing, by definition. You are right that interest rates are set according to risk and competition, but risk includes "inflation risk". You won't generally find loans being offered at sub-inflation rates, since that would, in real terms, mean giving money away. --Tango (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean when Jim's Cafe puts up the price of a cup of tea by 10p rather than going out of business, then suddenly there's inflation? Inflation offers firms the choice between less profit or going out of business, rather than simply going out of business. 92.29.127.234 (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You lost me. Why couldn't they also adjust their prices in a time of no inflation ? StuRat (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because they'd go out of business. 2.97.219.42 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe they will and maybe they won't, just like during an inflationary period. In other words, there's no difference. StuRat (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the comments above. 92.29.120.26 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The only witch trial of Portugal
It seems that Portugal hade nearly no witch trials leading to death sentences, except for two: the Witch trial of Lisbon (1599), and the Witch trial of Évora (1626). As the only two witch trials in their country, they should have articles here, but I can find no information of them. Have anyone heard of them? Can you perhaps give me a name of one of the condemned, or any other information, by which I can at least google for them? I would be gratefull for any information at all. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the article about the Portuguese Inquisition that held its first Auto-da-fé in 1540. Henry Charles Lea in A History of the Inquisition of Spain writes that between 1540 and 1794, tribunals in Lisbon, Porto, Coimbra and Évora resulted in the burning of 1,175 persons. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those articles are about heresy rather than witchcraft in particular, and they do not mention these cases. I am talking about witches, not heretics. While witches were considered as heretics as well, heretics and sorcerers are not the same thing. There where to have been several witch trials, but only these two led to an execution. Many people was executed and burned as heretics in Portgual, but only two trials about sorcery was to have led to a death sentence. --Aciram (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pope John XXII in 1320 authorized the inquisition to persecute witchcraft as a type of heresy. Inquisition trials for sorcery and witchcraft in Portugal reached a late crescendo (1715 to 1755). This e-book may tell you more about specific cases. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily relevant to Portugal, but in England also the actual offense for which "witches" were often tried was more usually heresy, rather than witchcraft in itself. Equally, in some periods one might have been tried for maleficium - bringing about actual harm through sorcery - rather than merely "being a witch." The book Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England  by Keith Thomas (Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1971, various other editions to 1997) goes into the topic in some detail, as it relies heavily on legal records of the period. {The poster (and witch) formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.171 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I have all the information of course, that is why I am asking, but reading about witch trials in general, most books insists on the facts that:
 * 1. Portugal may have had many witch trials, but only on two occasions did these witch trials lead to an execution. These occasions was in Lisbon in 1599 (several women), and Evora in 1626 (one woman).
 * 2. Only in the case in Evora in 1626 was the woman executed by the Inquisition. The Lisbon case in 1599 was to have been handled by the secular or royal court.
 * This may be wrong, of course, after all it was only mentioned in a breaf sentence, but all of the books of witch craft in Europa I have red instisted that this was the case, although no one of them really described the witch hunt of Portugal more than in a few sentences, so I would like to know more about these cases. Perhaps the witch trials of 1715-1755 never lead to any death sentences - they did not always do so. I know that witch craft was considered to be heresy, but there is still quite a difference between them. Thank you so far for your efforts though!--Aciram (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked this question on other places as well, but it seems that information about the witch hunt is extremely hard to come buy when it comes to Portugal. Are there no one interested in witch hunt who may know? --Aciram (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Column 5
What does the phrase "Column Five" mean in World War II terminology? I have heard it used in movies, etc. and am unsure of its meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.150.4 (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC) I added the title. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Fifth Column. The phrase was originally used by Emilio Mola in the Spanish Civil War, and refers to agents working behind enemy lines for sabotage, subversion, etc. Tevildo (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the OP really heard the precise formulation "Column Five", or is s/he re-remembering from "fifth column"? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A translation maybe? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicago and Houston
Which part of Chicago do Bangladeshi-Americans live? Which part of Houston do Bangladeshi-Americans live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.248 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Devon Avenue in Chicago has many restaurants, grocery stores, appliance stores and video stores catering to and operated by folks from the subcontinent which includes Bangladesh. It would be a likely locale, but that would not rule out other neighborhoods. Edison (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical UK sovereign debt defaults
Has HMG ever missed a payment on the National Debt? I recently read an article about US defaults and it set me wondering. I can't think of any instance since 1707, even during the South Sea Bubble. Matt's talk 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. As explained in Rise of Neville Chamberlain the UK defaulted on its debts to the US as a result of the failure of the London Economic Conference and the passing of the Johnson Act. If you mean domestic debt, then no, not since 1707 so far as I am aware. Much before that time it was always in default, but holders of government debt would not have expected to be paid on time. We don't have an article that deals with that period so far as I can tell. Roseveare's The Treasury 1660–1870 covers it, but I'm sure it won't be the only book to do so. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)"The National Debt" is a somewhat nebulous concept, there isn't one single creditor to whom payments need to be made in the same way as a bank debt - but simply answered yes, for sure, if for no other example than second world war loans - defaulted 6 times, before finally finishing repayment in 2005. I seem to recall reading, but can't remember where, that Finland is very proud of being the only country which actually paid all of its war debts, and on time --22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (also an ec) There is the matter of the debts owing to the United States from the Great War, which amounted to £866m ($4.4bn) in 1934. The United States government gave every nation involved (for it was not just the UK) a moratorium on repaying in 1931 due to the economic crisis. Payments of other nations' war debts slowly stopped at the same time (France, Belgium, Poland and Estonia defaulted in June 1933, while Italy, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Latvia made part payments; only Finland paid the full amount) and the debts remain technically still outstanding, but no-one has ever tried to enforce payment since the 1930s. See brief mention in BBC News piece. Former chancellor Viscount Snowden referred to failing to repay the debt to the USA as a default in a press statement in October 1935 (see The Times, 31 October 1935, p. 8). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)