Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 29

= June 29 =

Sichuan Migrant Workers in China
How many Sichuan migrants workers are living in each of these Chinese provinces and region: Guangdong Province, Fujian Province, Zhejiang Province and Guangxi Region? Sonic99 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the U.S. hock Taiwan?
Suppose the U.S. made an agreement not to do anything with Chinese rebels - no arms sales to Taiwan, close the consulate, no threats to intervene in conflicts with them (certainly no more nuclear posturing about it), no high level meetings with the Dalai Lama (or Panchen Lama, if he turns up). From the U.S. perspective it would be nothing but accepting reality and putting some IRL trolls out of work disappointing some hawkish commentators, but the Chinese seem to care about that stuff a lot. Question: do they care about it enough that they could be talked into forgiving some meaningful amount of U.S. national debt in return? Wnt (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "IRL"? Within Wikipedia, that's a disambiguation page, which doesn't seem to list anything relevant to this topic.  As for "rebels"....the Communists rebelled against the government that retreated to Taiwan. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, "IRL" means "in real life". Though I spent some time on open wheel racing forums shortly after the split, I doubt that Indy Racing League fans are, as a group, that passionate about Taiwan. :-) Wabbott9  Tell me about it....  01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's levels of wrongness with that question so deep and profound I don't know where to begin to correct them, never mind even answering it. The assumptions that the question makes are so unconnected to reality it would take volumes to begin to peel back the layers of misunderstanding within it. -- Jayron  32  04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, but please do! The level of ignorance in the U.S. regarding the Taiwan situation is indeed hard to exaggerate.  And people have all kinds of odd ideas about it.  So some remedial education here would be most useful to the public interest ... especially with crazy news stories running about the U.S. getting involved in some kind of military conflict over some dispute between Vietnam and China over oil prospecting! Wnt (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a question about the Spratly Islands dispute? -- Jayron  32  05:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to get into that - I'm looking for the more basic perspectives you hint at. For example, to begin with, do you dispute the commonly presented model that U.S. pressure prevents China from invading Taiwan? Wnt (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by calling the Taiwanese "IRL trolls". --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I never meant for that to be taken to mean Taiwanese people.  I meant, certain commentators in the U.S. who push relentlessly and in my view heedlessly for military confrontation or cold war with China over issues like Taiwan and Tibet, which to me seem very unlikely to produce results and distract from any broader goal of supporting human rights as a universal principle. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * US pressure does not prevent China from invading Taiwan, military reality does. China does not have a navy capable of transporting troops in sufficient quantity to do more then die uselessly on a beach were they to attempt to invade.  Think about how many ships and landing craft it took for the D-Day invasion of Normandy.  I don't think that China has anything even close to those kinds of numbers, and logistically, Taiwan would be more difficult, not less.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take it on:


 * 1) Such a betrayal of a US ally would cause all other US allies to jump ship, leading to the collapse of NATO. This would leave the world vulnerable to all sorts of military threats, from terrorists to pirates to Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.


 * 2) The US would do better to default on it's debts. This would cause a worldwide economic crisis, but, in the long run, if the US could no longer borrow money, it would be forced to live within it's means.


 * 3) China and other creditors would want to avoid a US default, so would negotiate down the debt. This is both because getting some of the money is better than none, and also to avoid losing exports to the US as a result of economic collapse there. StuRat (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stu, I would just like to point out that America doesn't own NATO, and NATO would not fall apart just because America reneged on an agreement with an ally. America pulled out of full operation in Libya pretty quickly and NATO didn't fall apart. The US refused to help the UK (and even threatened action at one point) in the Falkland War, but NATO didn't fall apart. America went into Iraq against intenational law and the rulings of the United Nations, boycotting trade with fellow NATO members who helped in the UN rulings, but that didn't cause NATO to fall apart. We've got NATO because we need it, and we will continue to need it even if one member does have a consistent track record of behaving badly from time to time. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The US is pretty much the core of NATO. If the US wasn't part of it, the other members would have to make major increases in their military budgets, perhaps on the order of 10X, to maintain it's current abilities.  I see no sign of a political willingness to do so. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with you there. However, we are not talking about the US not being part of or leaving NATO. We are talking about what would happen to NATO if the US did something (which we both agree as) disagreeable, and the simple answer is nothing. NATO would continue just as it always has. -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. (Taken from the text at the top of this page.) This is a ridiculously speculative question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No predictions of future events? So if I ask when the next total eclipse of the sun will be, that's not one for the reference desk?  And since when aren't requests for opinions answered here frequently? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically the sun is perpetually being eclipsed. You can see it every night if you look at the ground.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardy - WP:FUTURE does a pretty good job of explaining it. Note the phrase "unverifiable speculation". &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually interested more in what was within the current range of possibilities, but due in part to some very unclear phrasing on my part we went off track. Though I doubt NATO has much to say with Taiwan, does it?
 * But there's another assumption to consider: does the U.S., which does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, have any possible treaty obligation to Taiwan? I know that for decades presidents have vaguely been saying "help Taiwan defend itself", but so far as I know, there's no literal betrayal involved if they just stop.  Or is there? Wnt (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The real answer is that you are confusing the interests of politics with the interests of business, and in many cases, they operate in distinct spheres. In the tricky case of Taiwan, they two do not even operate in the same universe.  In the political world, everyone has to pretend that Taiwan doesn't exist.  The One China Policy is so entrenched it borders on blind faith that the policy cannot be touched.  So everyone in the political world operates under the "don't piss off the PRC with regards to Taiwan" mindset.  However, businesspeople don't really care to play political games; their more interested in generating profits, and for them Taiwan is a real place with which to do real business.  The political world is at worst a nuisance for these people.  In fact, as recently as one year ago, the business world directly influenced the political, and China and Taiwan signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement which removed many of the barriers to cross-strait trade (which many wiley businesses were likely skirting anyways with a bit of a "nod and a wink").  You should also read the Cross-Strait relations article, which has lots of good stuff on recent detente between the PRC and Taiwan.  -- Jayron  32  01:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP may also want to consider the current state of amphibious capability within the People’s Liberation Army.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I feel like that is a red herring. Posturing over Taiwan has gone over decades - plenty of time for China to build as many transports and naval vessels as desired.  Heck, with the time and labor force available to them they should have been able to build a 99-mile mole leading out to it like Alexander in the Siege of Tyre...  Wnt (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could remind us of the last time the PLA successfully projected power beyond China's immediate land borders?DOR (HK) (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

house of Hanover
Henry VII was the first Tudor king of England. The Tudors ruled the country from 1485 to 1603. They did so by allying with the Parliament and curbing the powers of the feudal lords. This period in English history led the country to progress and also witnessed the Renaissance and Reformation movements. The Stuarts ruled the country from 1603 to 1714. Thereafter the House of Hanover has been ruling England. seen here This is from a school text book. Hanover dynasty ended at the beginning of the twentieth century. So this is palpably wrong. I can't figure out how come such an obvious error in a text book learnt by hundreds of thousands students. Is there an approach which assimilates the later dynasty under Hanover itself? --117.253.190.68 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The House of Hanover was "ended" after the death of Queen Victoria, so if you read Queen Victoria's descendants as being in "her" dynasty rather than that of Prince Albert, monarchs down to the present day could be mistaken as being in the House of Hanover.
 * Or perhaps that particular text book has not been updated since 1899... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't palpably wrong. The House of Windsor is the current British Royal House; the house of Windsor was created by decree when the house was renamed from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to make it sound more "Britishy".  The question is whether a "house" can be passed "matrilinially".  After all, the British Kings/Queen of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are all still directly descendents of the Hanoverians through Queen Victoria, who was unambiguously a Hanoverian.  By convention, the house name changed to that of her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, however it isn't automatically clear that such change of house name is automatic or standard practice.  Prince Charles is still considered to be of the House of Windsor officially, even though his father was a Prince of Greece (so technically, if we followed Victoria's precedent, he'd be of the House of Greece, or perhaps of the of the House of Mountbatten, or of Battenberg, or of  Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg).  There have also been precedences in many other countries where the children of a female ruler adopted her "house" as their own (i.e., they didn't automatically take the dynastic house of their father).  Look for example on various members of the House of Romanov; several Romanov emperors claim to be Romanovs through female lines, e.g. Peter III of Russia is a Romanov though his only connection to that Dynasty is because his mother was a daughter of Peter the Great.  His patrilinial decent is of the House of Oldenburg.  Back to the throne of the United Kingdom; since the throne has passed via uninterupted primogeniture (i.e. it has always passed to a legal heir who has a legitimate, direct descent to a prior recent monarch, almost always to the closest availible heir) there's not necessarily any reason to consider a "dynastic change" to have occured during the "Victoria-Edward VII" transition; i.e. why should a "dynastic change" occur when a child of a monarch legally inherits the throne without controversy.  This is very different from the situation which caused the Tudor family, or later the House of Hanover, to assume the throne... -- Jayron  32  06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Prince Charles has the "personal surname" Mountbatten-Windsor, as do his sons, so that may become the Royal House when he (or one of them) accedes to the throne, though there seems to be some doubt about the matter. AndrewWTaylor (talk)
 * I think you will find that as a Prince, he still has no surname (but it is unclearly worded). Rmhermen (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I put scare quotes around "personal surname", which is the expression used in the article I linked to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that, in practice, members of Charles' family use the surname "Wales" when needed, and not "Windsor" or "Mountbatten" or "Mountbatten-Windsor". You can clearly see this on the military uniforms of Princes William and Harry, who have the name "Wales" on their uniforms, see here which clearly shows the names "William Wales" and "Harry Wales".  This is, of course, because there isn't any official or traditional custom or practice when dealing with the "last names" of British Royalty.  There just isn't any standard practice or guidance to go by; prior to the early 20th century (when Victoria asked for guidance on what the surname of her children might be) even the concept that Royals would need to carry a surname was seemed "beneath them", as such matters were largely seen as unimportant.  Even names like "William Wales" and "Harry Wales" aren't an endorsement that those last names are their "Official, Sanctioned, and Honest-to-God real Last Names"; rather it is merely a convenience, i.e. in some applications it becomes necessary to put something down in the "Last Name" field, the Princes have chosen to use "Wales" for that purpose.  The use of the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a legal surname is more likely to only be important to later decendents for whom having a surname may be important.  In the British practice, untitled children of the nobility are officially considered commoners; it is the existance of the Title which imparts nobility.  This sort of standing may extend to the monarchs children and grandchildren, but eventually there will become a time when the connection to Roylaty becomes tenuous.  For example, imagine Prince Harry has a son, and then that son has a son, and then that son has a son.  So by what surname will Harry's great-grandson be known (and then pass on to his kids)?  Mountbatten-Windsor would be the likely result.  This is despite the fact that Harry himself has no official surname, and appears to use "Wales" as his default surname.  Furthermore, Prince Williams "convenience surname" likely recently changed; since he is now the Duke of Cambridge, usual practice among the nobility is to use the highest given title as a surname, so perhaps Williams "convenience surname" is now Cambridge instead of Wales.  Or maybe he will keep "Wales" to avoid confusing all of the existing paperwork with that name.  Who knows.  -- Jayron  32  16:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "... prior to the early 20th century (when Victoria asked for guidance on what the surname of her children might be)" - it must have been very early in the 20th century, as the century was only 22 days old when she snuffed it. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  16:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, late 19th is better. The information on Victoria's "Search for a surname" is detailed at House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha, where it was determined that her Children would have the surname "Wettin" if they followed normal naming practices.  The statement has a "cn" tag in our article, but I distinctly remember the information in my pre-Wikipedia memory, so I generally trust it... -- Jayron  32  16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some more examples from the Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth's sister, Princess Margaret maried a man whose birth name was Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, and who carried no titles prior to his marriage, and so used Armstrong-Jones as his surname; however he was given the title Earl of Snowdon, and so began to use Snowdon as his surname.  Their son's birthname is "David Albert Charles Armstrong-Jones", but he uses the name "David Linley" (Linley as a last name) because he has the title "Viscount Linley".  Even though his father used the surname Snowdon, and he uses the surname Linley, his children currently use the surname "Armstrong-Jones", being that they don't have any titles of their own.  -- Jayron  32  16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with some of that. When a peer such as the Earl of Snowdon signs something as simply "Snowdon", he is not claiming that is his surname.  His surname remains Armstrong-Jones, but his title is Viscount Snowdon.  Now, his son David has the courtesy title Viscount Linley,  It's a courtesy title because the Earl is still alive, and David is not yet a peer in his own right, but he is expected to succeed his father when he dies, whereas any younger siblings he may have are not expected to do so.  David's surname remains like his father's, Armstrong-Jones.  His use of "David Linley" is like a stage name; it's recognised as a practicality, but its status is unofficial.  His children have the surname Armstorng-Jones because that is his own surname.  Had it become Linley, their surnames would also be Linley.  But it didn't, and they're not.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how is what you say any different from "Harry Wales" Isn't "Harry Wales" equally as much of a "Stage Name" as "David Linley" is?  That was my only point, that the Royal Family has no defined surname, and that any existing "surnames" in use by the close members of the family are "stage names" as you put it.  The 1960 decree cited above doesn't make any change to the situation of close family members of the monarch, that is it doesn't make Charles's surname "Mountbatten-Windsor", what it does is to give anyone who isn't royal enough to claim "I'm Royal enough not to have a surname" an actual, legal surname, being Mountbatten-Windsor.  -- Jayron  32  19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Princes William and Harry and Charles have no surname at all, and they have to borrow or assume or adopt one when the occasion demands it. Charles used Mountbatten-Windsor when he married Diana; William and Harry use Wales in the armed services - so already we can see these are temporary personal choices and not family names that carry on to the next generation.  William's children may well choose to be known as Whoever Cambridge.  Whereas, the Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley have always had a surname, Armstrong-Jones, and they don't need to borrow anything.  That the Viscount chooses to be known professionally as David Linley is no different from Frances Gumm choosing to be known professionally as Judy Garland, or Paul Hewson choosing to be known professionally as Bono.  That he has taken a part of his courtesy title, Viscount Linley, and reused it in his nom de guerre is neither here not thuerre.  :)  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Jayron  32  19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A further amusing example is that (as I recall from my (and his) youth) when Prince Charles wanted to remain relatively incognito while staying at modest local hotels, visiting museums, etc, he used to sign registers and visitors' books as "Charlie Chester" which, as the Earl of Chester, he legitimately was, though it was also a deliberate allusion to the better known Charlie Chester. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This whole thread makes me think of the scene in Tom Sawyer in which Tom and Huck are pretending to fight a mediæval battle: Huck asks the "other name" of Richard, is told that "kings don't have any but a given name", and is quite displeased. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"divers Abuses"
What is divers Abuses?Curb Chain (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Many abuses. Think diverse. In the context, I think we're chiefly thinking of rotten and pocket boroughs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I first came across this meaning of divers in the Biblical reference to people speaking in "divers tongues". Deep sea divers? Scuba divers? Springboard divers?  And what did their tongues have to do with anything?  Such were my questions, until the phrase was explained to me.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some deep sea divers breath a special air mixture. During decompression, helium may be added, causing raised voice pitch. I've heard a recording of Scott Carpenter making a call from the Sealab II undersea research project to the Johnson White House,  and the White House operator not wanting to put the call through because she thought it was a prank. The "diver's tongue" was too diverse for her taste. Edison (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's an archaic spelling of "diverse", meaning many different kinds. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Or similar to the French divers, meaning "several" or "various", as well as "diverse". French election returns often include a line or column for divers gauche or divers droite (other left-wing or other right-wing parties or candidates). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edn., page 366. "Divers, adj. sundry: several: more than one: same as diverse." DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OED suggests that while it was originally just an alternative spelling of "diverse", the two words are no longer the same (the meanings which are identical to diverse are marked archaic in the OED). "Diverse" means "many different" and "divers" means simply "many". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Chambers is flat out wrong in the final three words; "diverse" has a stronger sense of heterogenity among the nouns that it modifies than "divers" does. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember as a small choirboy singing a hymn which included the line "Oh, in what divers pains they met; Oh, in what joy they went away". I read it as "diver's pains" and having watched too much Jacques Cousteau on the telly, imagined that it referred to the bends. I have now noticed - on trying to find the words to link to - that many versions on the net now say "many pains". Shame. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the EU, but not in the NATO
Why are these countries - Eastland Estonia, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Malta - not in the NATO? Being EU members does not guarantee a place in the NATO, but it certainly could be easies for them to enter it. I'm specially amazed that Finland is not a part of it; having Russia as a neighbor should be a compelling cause to have powerful friends on the other side. Wikiweek (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NATO is primarily a military/defence organization and some of those countries have no interest in mixing themselves up with that. I think Finland was neutral in World War II, but I'm not sure. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But, if you think you could be attacked, which is not the case of Austria, a landlocked country, surrounded by (at present) peaceful countries, it makes sense not to mix yourself up with that. However, Finland and Eastland Estonia have reasons to fear Russia, a bigger and sometimes instable country. Wikiweek (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Austrian State Treaty required Austrian neutrality. I believe Finland had obligations to both NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Finland was certainly not neutral during the second world war. Most of these countries subscribe to a principle of  neutrality and would avoid joining any military alliance.  However, NATO has various  cooperation agreements with non-member states, which cover some of the nations listed. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is Eastland? Sleigh (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Estland is an alternate name for the country most commonly called Estonia in modern English. Though the name derives from the name of the Aesti people who lived their during Roman Empire times, (i.e. Aesti-land, similar to the name of England coming from "Angle-land"), it is so close to "Eastland", and it actually does lie in the Eastern part of Europe (i.e. other that Russia, it is to the "East" of almost everything else) one could see the easy confusion.  -- Jayron  32  15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Estonia is a member of NATO. As for the others, our article on neutrality, referenced by 81.98... above, explains some of the reasoning behind neutrality.  A relatively small country, potentially threatened by much larger powers, might wisely choose not to take sides with either of them.  If that country joined NATO, for example, it could make itself a target for military action by NATO's foes.  As a small, peripheral member of the alliance, the country might fear that other NATO members, if they themselves also faced threats, might not offer an effective protection against attack.  Estonia has chosen to join NATO because of a history of Russian aggression.  However, its accession to NATO has arguably led to increased Russian hostility.  In any conflict between NATO and Russia, Estonia would inevitably face Russian aggression.  Finland has a somewhat different history.  While Finland was once part of the Russian empire, but during World War II, it found itself a pawn between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Wanting to avoid such a fate after the war, it adopted a policy of neutrality, which allowed it to maintain its democracy, unlike other countries bordering the Soviet Union in Europe (apart from Norway with its tiny Arctic boundary). So, neutrality is prized in Finland, whereas Estonia has chosen a different strategy.  Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the Finns were forced to accept nuetrality in a crippling peace deal with the Soviet Union. Besides having to give away large chunks of their territory to the Russians, they were obliged to enter into the "Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" by which they narrowly avoided slipping behind the Iron Curtain, on the understanding that they would observe strict nuetrality, and accept Soviet dictated limitations on the size of their armed forces and the volume of Soviet goods and services that they had to buy. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Crippling" is hardly accurate - the Finnish economy benefited from the ability to trade with the USSR under favourable conditions as well as with the West. Which is another answer to the question why one may want to maintain neutrality.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Finnish anti-NATO sentiment is based on several traditions: first, the careful neutrality of the Cold War era was adopted out of necessity but internalized by the majority of the population as something to be proud of. Second, there is a lot of nationalist sentiment tied with the idea of independence and military self-sufficiency.  Third, knee-jerk anti-American ideas are widespread especially in leftist circles, and NATO membership is believed to lead to participation in US-led foreign wars.  Only about a quarter of Finns favour NATO membership, and the opposition is vehement enough that few people in the political elite are willing to take steps toward membership. It is ironic that the majority of Finnish military officers, i.e. the people responsible for planning Finnish defences, are in favour of NATO membership. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Academics debates these issues as the concept of Finlandization. Matt's talk 06:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Joining NATO doesn't just mean the other members will defend you if you are attacked, it also means you have to defend the other members if they are attacked. The countries you mention may not want such obligations. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't an answer, just a thought: I think that there are dangers to having NATO and Russia physically adjacent to one another.  To give an extreme example, suppose that the Republicans had had their way in making Georgia a NATO member, so that NATO would have considered South Ossetia its own territory, even though that region had claims of independence, and was inhabited primarily by Russian citizens largely favoring Russian rule.  What would have happened when the shooting started?  But in any situation where NATO is patrolling one one side of a fence and the Russian Federation on the other, one wonders how quickly things could get out of hand. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ¶ At the beginning, in the mid-1950's, the European Economic Community had only six members (West Germany, Italy, France and Benelux), but the alignments of the NATO, Warsaw Treaty Organisation and neutral nations had already been set. Spain had not been admitted to NATO because Francisco Franco's government had been aligned too closely with the fascist Axis powers and Spain's admission would have caused anti-NATO outrage in many European members, but had a long-standing defence agreement with the United States. So Spain was neither a NATO member nor really neutral. Otherwise, NATO's members comprised the U.S., Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, the UK, the EEC countries, Portugal, Greece and Turkey.


 * On the other side of the Iron Curtain were the Warsaw Pact nations which before 1962 comprised the Soviet Union and her satellites: the Polish People's Republic, the (East) German Democratic Republic, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Hungarian People's Republic, the Romanian People's Republic, the Bulgarian People's Republic and the People's Republic of Albania. Albania and Romania later withdrew their military cooperation with the Warsaw Pact. Tito's Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, although Communist, was in an anomalous position, having been expelled from the Cominform in 1948, but not militarily allied with the West and helping (together with India and Indonesia) to found the assertively neutral Non-Aligned Bloc.


 * The remaining nations had adopted a policy of neutrality either before, during or after World War II: Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and the Republic of Ireland. You'd have to do your own research into the reasons, but Sweden's been neutral since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Denmark and Norway (like Belgium before World War I) had also been neutral, but were occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940; neither Sweden nor Finland had been occupied by the Germans, although large parts of Finland — part of the Russian Empire before 1917 — had been invaded (and much annexed) by the USSR. (Iceland, then a dependency of occupied Denmark, was "pre-emptively" occupied by the Allies and declared independence in 1943.) Switzerland has been neutral for centuries, and was even hesitant about compromising her neutrality by joining the United Nations. Austria and Finland, as earlier posts explain, reassured Russia of their military (and in Finland's case diplomatic) neutrality as part of post-war treaties that ended or avoided Soviet occupation. Ireland, under Éamon de Valera, was neutral (much to Churchill's outrage) during World War II, and had no interest in joining a military alliance with the United Kingdom, from which she broke after a long bloody struggle for independence, in 1922, then leaving the British Commonwealth by declaring herself a Republic in 1949.


 * ¶ However, there are still natural questions arising from that chronology. How did Portugal, a dictatorship on quasi-fascist lines under Dr António de Oliveira Salazar, join the Free World NATO when her fellow Iberian dictatorship (Spain) could not? What do Greece and Turkey, discontiguous with the other allies, have to do with the North Atlantic? And, like Portugal, how did they fit into a democratic alliance in periods when they were under military (or royalist) dictatorhip? What about countries that were neither allied with either bloc nor traditionally neutral, like Spain, Yugoslavia, and, later, Romania and Albania (the latter aligning herself in 1962 with the People's Republic of China? How did Denmark and Norway (feeling unable to defend themselves against another totalitarian country) end up in NATO, while Sweden and Finland remained outside?


 * ¶ And all this ignores the other half of the question: the complicated set of economic and geo-political considerations that dictated the not-always-consistent pattern of European Union and NATO expansion after the fall of the Iron Curtain 1990. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

history quotes
I have been looking for quotes about the period 1913-1935, though with rather little success. I have little idea where to look for them, other than trying to find specific events from the period to read about, and that seemingly provides few results. I was rather hoping for a wide variety, with references to events and places all across the world.

Any advice on how to better go about doing something like this would be most welcome, to save me having to come back another 118 times to ask after different periods.

79.66.97.193 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd advise reading a history book or two, dealing with the period. Something like this, for instance, has great quotes about the period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not looking for quotes from 1913-35 but about 1913-35, even ones from 2011? Sleigh (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You could find both quotes about that period and from that period by reading significant literature from authors of the period. I would recommend F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemmingway, W. Somerset Maugham, Dorothy Parker, etc.  While not strictly an author, Will Rogers is eminently quotable.  -- Jayron  32  14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Aqueduct in Israel near Lohamei HaGeta'ot
The perimeter wall, of sorts, of Kibbutz Lohame HaGeta'ot is an old Roman aqueduct. It's a rather nice one, fun to walk on and walk alongside on my way to the strip mall nearby, but I don't know its name. All aqueducts have names, no? What is the name of this one? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a picture of it in our article Al-Sumayriyya, it's possible one of the sources used there would give it a name. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When I saw "strip mall" my first thought was a street dominated by strip joints and was a big shocked given the context.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's known as the Pasha's Aqueduct or the aqueduct of Jezzar Pasha. It is "only" about 200 years old.--Cam (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Jezzar Pasha article suggests he caused it to be refurbished; so presumably it dates from an earlier age? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This guide to the antiquities of Accra (page 19/54) says "A new aqueduct was built in the end of the 18th C by Jezzer Pasha, the Ottoman builder of Acre. It was rebuilt by his son, Suleiman, in 1814. The aqueduct was in operation until 1948. This photo shows the aqueduct in Kibbutz Lochamei-Hagetaot, about 6km from the end of the water line in Acre. The next photo shows the aqueduct at the same location, with a double level structure.". Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down to page 23/54, it says that the original Jezza Pasha aqueduct (which ran in pipes) was destroyed during Napoleon's siege of 1799; the open-channel structure visible today is Suleiman Pasha's aqueduct which was built 1814-15. It describes how the double level structure came about. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew name is אמת עכו. --Cam (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a small paragraph about the aqueduct to the Lohamei HaGeta'ot page. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. So it's a Hellenistic one (structure-wise) that was refurbished by this Pasha fellow (kind of like how the Great Wall of China was built (sorta)). That is mildly disappointing. Though it does make the statement about it working up until 1948 more sensible now. I am looking at that aqueduct now (specifically the part you can walk over), from where I am chilling with my laptop. The funny thing is that the source is our digsite. xD At least one part of Kabri Spring is where we do our wet sieving, and believe you me, you don't want to drink that water, but I think the rest of the springs are still in use for Akko and Nahariyya's water supplies (possibly the Kibbutz's water as well). I think my photos are much better than theirs there btw. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 06:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have started an article on it in my userspace. Hope you guys don't mind me using the wording that some of y'all have used here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxes - Good or Bad?
Republicans say raising taxes is bad for the economy and cutting taxes is good for the economy. Democrats say cutting taxes is bad for the national debt. What do objective economists say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.89.34 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you want the opinions of Republican economists or Democrat economists? -- Jayron  32  17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * At least 12 opinions were forthcoming from the 11 who were asked. All of the opinions in your question are true - within limits. All things being equal, decreasing taxes increases consumer demand, which is good for the economy. But cutting taxes (if government services & subsidies are not also cut) will increase the national debt; and the national debt tends to be a bad thing. In part it's a question of timescales - short term good, long term harm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You must force the politician to define what it means to "cut" or "raise" something. The usual politician definition is not what us commoners tend to use. When a politician says he will cut taxes by 2%, what he means is that the current plan is to increase taxes by 5%, but he will cut that down to a 3% increase. When a politician says he will cut spending by 10%, he means that the current plan is to increase spending by 30%, but he will cut that down to 20% increase. There is also a timeframe. If a politician makes a wild claim like cutting taxes by 10%, he means that he plans to cut taxes by 10% over 20 years with the first actual cut to take place 5 years in the future of about 0.1% and an assurance that the tax cut bill will be scrapped long before any change is actually made. So, all in all, neither side is saying anything at all that is meaningful. -- k a i n a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that this also works in reverse. If a temporary tax-cut designed to stimulate the economy is allowed to expire, as planned, the Republicans will then accuse Democrats of "raising taxes". StuRat (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is also compounded by the problem that you can quite literally get a published economist to give a valid, mathematically sound "proof" of any economic theory in existance, and get such works published in peer reviewed journals.


 * Lets say, for the sake of arguement that you have two political parties, The Haters and The Griefers. The Haters want to cut all taxes and spending and the Griefers want to increase taxes and spending.  The Haters and Griefers have these opinions a priori and without any actual proof as to their efficacy.


 * Now, here's the kicker: they need proof, and somewhere some economist (lets call him Joe Blow) has published some work which provides "sound economic theory" which exactly supports the Haters position. A completely different economist (Say Peter Pumpkineater) has done the exact same thing for the Griefers position.  Now, even if neither economist was previously well known or respected for their opinions, because the Haters have decreed Joe Blow's theory to support their political plan, both Joe Blow's unsusbtantiated theories AND the Hater's unsubstantiated political ideology instantly gain credibility.  They grant it to each other.


 * It doesn't matter if actual academics think Joe Blow is a nutjob, the general public doesn't read economics journals, they read newspapers (or blogs, or watch political "news" networks), where they see things like "The Hater's tax cutting plan is supported by economist Joe Blows theories" which is a true statement, but doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Blow is correct, merely that his theories correlate to the Haters tax plans. It is true that he is an economist, and it is true that his theories are in line with what the Haters want to do.


 * It's all a house of cards, however, because none of it is actually any indication that either party has a workable plan for a sound economic policy. The exact same thing is done with the Griefers and the theories of Peter Pumpkinhead; what you end up with is battling "experts" who's contradictory theories are only held in any regard at all because they are in line with people who's personal political interest happens to match them, and not because they are sound in any meaningful way.


 * The reality is, real respected economists with sound economic theories probably preach some middle ground (we should provide some services, and tax the people somewhat to pay for them, but the best plan lies somewhere between "no taxes and no spending" and "tax a lot and spend a lot"), the problem is middle-ground opinions don't win elections, even if they are right... -- Jayron  32  18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Paragraph breaks in short supply shock horror probe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a supply shortage of said breaks so they were too expensive I expect. Googlemeister (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true that no economist is really objective and that facts can be cherry-picked. However, I would like to present the following facts.  Here are the top marginal U.S. income tax rates (income tax rates on income in the top income tax bracket, that is, affecting only the very affluent) every 5 years since 1955:


 * 1955: 91%  1960: 91%  1965:  70%  1970: 71.5%  1975: 70%  1980: 70% 1985: 50% 1990: 31% 1995: 39.6% 2000: 39.6%  2005: 35% 2010: 35% (source: )
 * Now here is the average annual growth rate in real US GDP over the preceding 5-year period for every 5 years since 1960:
 * 1960: 2.5% 1965:  5.0%  1970: 3.4%  1975: 2.7%  1980: 3.7% 1985: 3.2% 1990: 3.2% 1995: 2.5% 2000: 4.3%  2005: 2.4% 2010: 0.9% (source )
 * Do you see a correlation between tax rates and economic growth rates? Economists on the left would argue that, by redistributing income from the rich, who tend to save it, to the less affluent, who tend to spend it, income taxes can spur economic activity.  Also, they would argue, government spending on infrastructure and education tends to raise an economy's productivity and to spur growth more effectively than consumption by the rich.  But of course those economists are biased.   Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey now, no fair bringing facts into this discussion. Facts have no place in helping people reach politicial conclusions.  Politics must only be decided by demagoguery and propaganda, and not by reasoned consideration of actual facts.  How are people going to win elections if they can't declare their opponents to be evil, and instead have to defend their policy positions with actual facts?  Hmmm?  What do you have to say about that?  -- Jayron  32  20:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Marco has not adduced any (useful) facts. All sorts of things impact on economic growth. Is Marco seriously suggesting there is no link between tax rates and demand for goods & services? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am suggesting that high tax rates on the affluent, spent in ways that increase wages for the non-affluent, increase the demand for goods and services. I know that this is contrary to current economic fashion, but Paul Krugman would back me up, and current economic fashion has a lot to do with the fact that the real money in the economic profession comes from saying what people with real money want you to say. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should I be seeing support for this theory in the figures? They seem to show no positive or negative correlation between tax rate and growth rate, for instance both 91% tax and 31% tax seem to cause a 2.5% growth rate, and both 2.5% and 5.0% growth correspond to 91% tax, and although the most recent figures tie low tax to low growth, growth is affected, or ostensibly managed, by a great many factors other than tax rate, isn't it? Like Tagishsimon says, I can't see the use of those facts. Card Zero  (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought Marco polo's point was that there is no correlation either way (probably because these parameters are parts of a much more complicated set of relations), though both sides might use such figures to support their own arguments. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This all depends on what you consider "good" or "bad". For instance, if increasing corporate profits and GDP are your primary goals, then you'll have a very different set of policies than someone who primarily values public health, happiness, and social justice. When you say "good for the economy" -- what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the majority of Americans will benefit from the policy (be able to afford housing, education, healthcare, etc.), or that the Dow Jones and GDP will rise?
 * Also, economics is a social "science", therefore the notion of "objective economists" is absurd. Economists can of course emulate physical scientists (i.e. actual science) by drawing up clever-looking mathematical equations to justify their ideological programmes, but that doesn't mean that these equations are objectively describing reality in the same manner as the laws of thermodynamics. The swill taught in college economics textbooks serves the interests of corporate America, which hires economists to increase profits. They pretend to be immutable "laws" on the same footing as gravity, however, in reality they are just pseudo-scientific justifications for a certain type of economic policy, that benefits a certain group of people (see Dowd, for an interesting history of the development of modern textbook economic theory). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, economic laws are much more akin to (for example) the laws of fluid dynamics than to the law of gravity. The laws of fluid dynamics break down when the number of molecules becomes small enough that Brownian motion becomes a significant factor. A large part of the problem is that the number of "particles" (i.e., humans) isn't large enough to completely drown out the influence of random individual decisions. Wikiant (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue of "random individual decisions" (i.e. those made by human beings with free will and a sense of morality, rather than by purely rational economic calculators) is a serious issue with neo-classical economic theory, to be sure. But it is just one of many flawed assumptions about human nature and society, upon which the theories are based. Others include the assumption of a capitalist economic system (when other alternatives exist) and the complete lack of concern with ecological limitations on consumption. Most of the laws only apply to a non-existent universe occupied by abiotic robots whose primary function is to accumulate wealth. Of course, all scientific models misrepresent reality in some way. But in the case of economics, the particular misrepresentation taught in college textbooks has horrid social consequences when applied in the real world. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most assumptions (e.g., absence of ecological limitations) are abstractions akin to that of the frictionless surface in physics. The abstractions enable the theory to focus on a specific phenomenon. Like the frictionless surface, the fact that the abstractions are unrealistic does not negate the theory, but rather causes predictions to deviate from observations. For every abstraction, there is a more complex theory that removes the abstraction. As expected, fewer abstractions mean a more complicated theory. The economist must then choose between the rock (too many abstractions but equations that are solvable) and the hard place (few abstractions but equations that have no easily attainable solutions). Wikiant (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think economics is a real science. I like to compare it with meteorology.  In both cases, there's real science underneath, but measuring and weighting all the variables is so complex that long-term predictions are not very accurate. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the physical systems that cause weather don't have free will, emotions, and a sense of morality/conscience. They are describing systems to which mechanistic models can realistically be applied. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the law of large numbers applies to both cases, if you have enough random variables, eventually a somewhat predictable pattern will emerge. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are, however, also totally bogus economic theories, like, IMHO, Supply side economics, which argues that the way to improve an economy is to give more money to the rich. This seems like a rather transparent excuse to give more money to the rich. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems like a rather transparent excuse to brush the theories aside. Do the rich or the poor contribute most to wealth-creating activity? I don't know: the rich do all the big, important stuff, because they've managed to persuade other people that they should be allowed to (i.e., that they should have money); they are the after all people we have as a society arbitrarily decided deserve to have the money, and can be assumed to spend the money most wisely (I only mean on average, I'm not denying the existence of rich, lucky idiots!) - they are sort of like our elected directors of activity, where currency units are like voting tokens. On the other hand, there aren't many of them, and there are a lot of the poor, and so a lot of activity there. Since I can't see the point in picking on anyone, I support a flat tax. Card Zero  (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted previously, poor people must spend their money to survive, while rich people have the option of stuffing it in their mattress, if they so please. Also, let's not forget the middle class, which have been the main driver of economic growth.  Why ?  There are many of them, and they tend to do things like start small businesses, while rich people tend to own large, old, inefficient businesses that have lost their entrepreneurial spirit. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes there is a substantial philosophical component to an economist's ideas - which doesn't make them any less objective, if by objective we mean "sincerely attempting to describe reality". Ideas about knowledge and creativity can matter a lot: creativity is connected to creating wealth. So ignoring philosophy, and so epistemology, and so creativity, leads to a rather blinkered and mechanistic form of economics. (Which might be the sort of thing Mesoderm had in mind.) Card Zero  (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, as to whether raising or lowering taxes is best for the economy, it would depend on the current tax rate. If the current tax rate is above the ideal tax rate, lowering it is best, if it's below the ideal tax rate, then raising it is good.  What's the ideal tax rate ?  It's the theoretical amount where government has enough to provide those things which help the economy, like infrastructure, education, police, fire departments, etc. (and which can't be provided more efficiently by private companies), yet the government doesn't have so much money that it wastes it on unnecessary projects.  What percentage is that ?  It's hard to say, but since the US and European economies have both done fairly well, I'd assume the ideal tax rate is somewhere in those ranges.  Countries with much lower tax rates tend to be third world nations with poor economies. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * About the argument that you can increase tax revenue by cutting taxes: This is pretty much as silly as it sounds, at least in the short term. Let's say you cut taxes by 10%.  You would then need the economy to grow 10% more than it would have, this year, to make up the loss.  That's not going to happen.  In the long term it might, but then you not only have the 10% to make up, but all the money borrowed, and interest on it, until the economy grew.  Plus, in the current economic situation in the US, the government might have to default on it's debts while waiting for growth to catch up. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people agree that the Laffer curve does exist -- that is, there is a point past which higher taxes actually reduce revenue, just like a store can only raise the price on a product so much before people stop buying it and revenue goes down. The difference is liberal economists would say we are nowhere near that point. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I once had the difference between the European and American attitudes towards wealth and taxes explained to me this way... a European and an American are walking down the street and see a rich man driving by in a limousine. The European says: "Someday I am going to make that guy get out and walk like me"... the American says: "Someday I am going to be rich enough to ride in a Limousine, like that guy".  Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's important to add what follows the ellipses at the end of the European's statement, namely "...so that we can spend the extra tax revenue to fund schools, health care, and other social programs." ~ Mesoderm (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "...because we can't trust the guy in the limousine to fund such things, because we are at heart authoritarians and have no respect for the individuals we wish to bestow education and health on." Card Zero  (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a non sequitur. You can't leave it up to the rich to pay for schools, health care, etc., of their own free will. First of all, it's vanishingly unlikely that they would, except for their own family members (even then, only the ones they're currently getting along with), and second, why should the poor be dependent on the whim and good will of the rich to ensure their human rights are protected? But anyway, what Blueboar heard is bullshit. Europeans are just as interested as getting into that limousine, and kicking in the teeth of anyone who gets in their way, and then (once in the limousine) loudly whining about being expected to pay taxes on their astronomical incomes, as Americans are. Pais (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC) That's a fairly stupid explanation, but thanks for sharing this gemette of doleful rightwing propaganda. . --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any economist (right or left) who believes that the Laffer curve does not exist. All agree on two points: 0% income tax rate yields zero income tax revenue and 100% income tax rate yields zero income tax revenue. Disagreement surrounds what the Laffer curve looks like between those two points. Wikiant (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxes are bad. Taxes remove income from people which decreases their welfare. Taxes also distort the decisions of economic actors by disincentivising the choice that is now taxed (be it the purchase of an item with sales tax or income subject to income tax or corporate tax). Government spending is good. The provision of public goods as well as welfare programs and other interventions where market failures exist enhance welfare. The question is not whether taxes are bad, the question is whether the damage caused by taxes is worth the benefits gained from what the money is spent on (including administrative costs). Welfare economics is the field that studies this question.Jabberwalkee (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Taxes are a weapon, and like any weapon, they are good when you're pointing them at someone else, and bad when someone else is pointing them at you. In the current American class war, for example, it is generally accepted that the wealthy and wealthy corporations pay little if any tax, and investments and speculations are largely free of tax, while even very low-paid employees pay 15% of their income in FICA tax for "social security" which is an open kitty for the government to borrow against without the intention to repay; plus income, sales, excise and property taxes. Wnt (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not all taxes are bad. They can be used to discourage bad behavior, as in sin taxes.  Perhaps a carbon tax might also encourage alternative energy development.  But, of course, even these taxes must be kept to reasonable levels, or you would get smuggling and, in the case of the carbon tax, destroy the economy.


 * Another tax that might be useful is on short-term speculation, stock and otherwise. Hopefully such a tax, without a corresponding long-term capital gains tax, would encourage stockholders to hold stocks longer, and thus discourage corporations from going for short-term profit at the expense of the companies' long-term health.


 * Inheritance taxes and progressive taxes can also be used to fight the natural tendency of money to migrate from the poor to a few wealthy families, which eventually can otherwise lead to bloody revolutions. Import tariffs can discourage imports and thus support local industries (but, of course, they may cause other nations to impose such tariffs against your nation's exports).


 * Taxes can also be used to make product prices reflect the cost of the entire product life cycle. Without these, a product which is cheap to produce, doesn't last long, and expensive to dispose of properly, will inevitably be produced in large quantities, sold cheaply, and disposed of improperly. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxes are an individual's contribution to society. Corporations and rich people hate it when people join together with their power to act in the public interest because that is in direct opposition to their interests. When taxes are spent on programs or regulatory activity the result is that money is saved in massive amounts because it prevents very expensive problems from coming about later (it's spending smart money sooner rather than an expensive clean up later - multiply that by every program and agency.) Unfortunately, it takes very intelligent and complex analysis to realize this. Blaming welfare recipients for "getting over" on the system and all of the other criticisms involve very simple minded analysis and blaming the victim. It is very easy to target real humans, and very difficult to criticize faceless institutions. Using the media, the power elite has portrayed to the public that taxes are sooooo baaad, and they have been completely successful at this. However lowering taxes are not the real priority in these considerations - increasing wealth and income are the priority. Wouldn't you rather have a million dollars a year taxed high or $10000 a year taxed low? When the economy was very strong in the sixties, the tax rate for some wealthy people was almost 90%. I favor a 100% inheritance tax. Taxes good. Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 100% might be a bit much, leaving the heirs of a rich but uninsured parent homeless. But a highly progressive inheritance tax, topping off at maybe 90% for billionaires, might make sense. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A good reason to temporarily raise taxes is to control an overheated economy, which may lead to inflation and then recession or depression, otherwise. StuRat (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't enjoy paying taxes, but I learned to appreciate Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Roads, public pools, museums, law enforcement, environmental protection, schools, hospitals, public transport, social security, health and safety regulations, border security, public media, ... they all rely to a great degree on public money, and hence taxes. Not everyone will use all services at any one time, but most probably use more than they realize, and will use even more throughout life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What are the consequences of 9/11 on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism?
I'm working on our article on 9/11 and I need to add a subsection on the 9/11's consequences on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism. I'm looking for some ideas (and sources!) for what to write about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it has made commercial flying a lot less convinient. I remember the good old days when you could wear your shoes through security, and have some bottled beverages along with you.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if you go through airport security in nothing but a schlong sock, everyone will understand your reasons. --188.29.241.38 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 9/11 wasn't responsible for either the liquids ban (that was the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot) or the shoe removal (that was Richard Reid, in 2002). Except, I guess, in a very broad terrorist-freakout sense, but it was not directly responsible for either of those policies. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhpas not directly, but it created an environment where such nonsense would be politically viable. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The United States is quite easy — the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the general consolidation of intelligence assets, and the increased use of wiretapping (including warrantless wiretapping) and "coercive interrogation methods" are among the easily documentable results. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Add to that the decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - overt acts in contrast with the long history of covert regime change. Plus ca change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't it be fair to charge next-of-kin?
if someone kills someone but escapes, wouldn't it make sense to incarcerate their next-of-kin until they show up for a trial? Then they don't "get away with it". --188.28.68.241 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What crime did their next-of-kin commit that would necessitate their incarceration? Why should the fact that a man had sex with the woman whose womb I was in mean that I should be held responsible for that man's crimes?  -- Jayron  32  19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be regarded as expedient, but it would hardly be "fair"! It would be a kind of hostage-taking (though not a kind discussed in that article), which is generally viewed rather negatively in the modern world. Collective punishment is another article which touches on the idea. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you didn't happen to like your next of kin it would be a wonderful way to "get" them. APL (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The logical response would be for the imprisoned person's family to capture a member of the judge's family. Franamax (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea that people should be held responsible for actions of their relatives is a very old one, and the Bible is rife with examples. However, with the exception of holding parents responsible for some actions of their underage kids (like habitually skipping school), we no longer believe that. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no, no! You don't call her a hostage, you call her a material witness.  Though charges of aiding and abetting are also handy to throw around.
 * Understand that it is acceptable to threaten to charge, or actually charge, family members for potential crimes, then plea bargain to drop their charges in exchange for a guilty plea from the main target of the investigation. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

war disease deaths
Looking at Civil War deaths, it seems like less then half the deaths were caused by things like bullets and most was from disease. I have a couple questions on that area. First, what was the disease death % for US troops in WW2, and what was it for the Iraq campaign of the 21st century? Googlemeister (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The military may have some official records that come close to your requirements, but I reckon it's a pretty tricky request. Do you count depression followed by suicide two years after returning from active service as a war "disease" death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not unless the Civil War tallied the same. Googlemeister (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the most reliable estimates of total excess deaths resulting from the Iraq War are on the order of hundreds of thousands of civilians (with very few sources saying that it is fewer than 100,000). However, interestingly, it seems that the large majority of these excess deaths are violent deaths (gunshots, bombs, etc.), unlike the Iraq sanctions, which also killed somewhere on the order of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but mostly from disease and malnutrition. It seems from the numbers in the Lancet survey and others that a relatively small proportion of the excess deaths are occurring as a result of disease. I'm not sure about WWII, but would also be very interested to find out. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "The aftermath of the Civil War" Anderson, 2004) page 7 shows far more deaths from "disease" than "killed in battle, including fatal wounds." The book says that official estimates are unreliable. Union: 114,904 from battle, 227, 580 disease. Confederate: 94,000 battle, 164,000 disease. World War II casualties has footnotes following the table "Military Casualties by branch of service" which say for the Germans, "The number killed in action was 2,303,320; died of wounds, disease or accidents 500,165." For the USSR "6,329,600 combat related deaths, 555,500 non combat deaths." US noncombat deaths are not reported in the article, but a footnote refers to Army battle casualties and nonbattle deaths in World War II" which would not open for me. I could not find up-to-the minute tallies for the ongoing wars breaking down the deaths by cause. Modern medicine and a good supply chain likely greatly reduced the proportion of disease deaths in these current wars among the US, Britain etc. Certainly there were many deaths from disease in WW2 and likely in Korea, since the supply chain was hampered and only early antibiotics were available. Allied soldiers as well as Japanese soldiers suffered from limited water, food, and medical supplies in muddy hell holes in the Pacific. Many allied POWs of the Japanese died of disease due to poor food and poor sanitation, as well as lack of medical treatment. Edison (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that proper sanitation is also a critical factor that reduced the percentage of non-POW soldiers who died of disease in later years. For example, digging proper latrines, not near the water supply. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Depending on how you measure, either the Korean War or the Vietnam War was the first major war in history where more soldiers died from wounds than died from disease. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the OP is referring to the American Civil War. There have been lots of Civil Wars. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering my question was US military specific, it is hard to imagine I was talking about the Kongo Civil War now isn't it? Googlemeister (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You only specified US deaths in one of the three conflicts you mentioned. I assumed you wanted all combatants for the Iraq conflict, as did Mesoderm above, which left room for uncertainty. However, if you look, I did indeed presume which Civil War you wanted for exactly the reason you say, which leaves me wondering why your reply is snarky, rather than simply confirming that was what indeed you meant. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly because it appeared to me that you would justify others for being obtuse. I thought I was quite clear from the context that I was not particularly interested in the Jacobites or the Czarists or some other non-US conflict.  Googlemeister (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To folks in the US, the "Civil War" is the one that happened here, and others are identified as "The English Civil War" or whatever. How many civil wars resulted in more deaths and injuries than the American Civil War (~585,000 dead, ~412,000 wounded, out of 3,164,000 combatants)? Death and casualty info is lacking from the list of civil wars and even from the articles about some civil wars. Edison (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been several English civil wars, but let's not have a Wikipedia civil war. I was shot down in flames for trying to help once. I have no idea what Googlemeister means by "Mostly because it appeared to me that you would justify others for being obtuse." but it doesn't exactly sound conciliatory. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How close do the English Civil Wars of the 1600's in total come to 3.1 million combatants and close to a million dead or wounded? Which other Civil Wars since then meet or exceed those numbers? Just curious, and can't find a ready answer in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, one could start with the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Mexican Civil War, ... They make the Irish Civil War (1922-24), which killed more people in two years than the Irish War of Independence (1916-22) had in six, look positively bloodless. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)