Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 10

= July 10 =

Canadian Obama
This is more of a theoretical question. Say Obama immigrated to Canada, became a citizen, and later became a politician. Based on his political values, beliefs and ideologies (which, I have to say, I know little about, as with his Democratic party), which party would he most likely lean towards as a Canadian? Thanks! 64.229.5.242 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Its very hard to say as his actions and publicly revealed thoughts must be kept moderate for political/electioneering reasons. For example, Obama has made some changes to the healthcare system. Does the new healthcare system represent Obama's ideal? Probably not, it is probably just a move in the direction he wants to go, how far he wishes to go is unknown. So, if Obama was placed in Canada with public health care already in place, would he move even more towards greater access/funding of public healthcare or perhaps would he think the Canadian system is just fine how it is? Who knows.
 * In general however, the Canadian political spectrum is shifted quite a bit to the "left" of the american spectrum, I mean, issues like gay marriage, abortion, and public healthcare aren't even issues in Canada, though many "right-wingers" in the US still get in a huff over these issues.
 * The democrats are supposably near the conservative party, but Harper and Obama are hardly similar. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion he'd be either a Red Tory like Joe Clark or a Blue Liberal like Scott Brison. However, the definition of "conservative" and "liberal" in Canada are strikingly different than in the US; for one thing, many of the hot-button issues in the US are (as Unique Ubiquitous says) just not issues here to the same extent, and the issues we have - national unity, crime (or the appearance of it), Afghanistan, robocalls (ugh), oil sands, rising housing prices, shortages of workers in the West - are either untranslatable to American politics or the opposite of what you're going through. And although Obama is popular, he isn't the most popular US president even today - Bill Clinton is still not just the most popular US president by far, but perhaps the most popular American. I think he has an approval rating still in the high 90s. --NellieBly (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, does anyone know of a politician who has been active in the national politics of multiple countries? Obviously there are examples like Sinn Fein and the Basque Nationalist Party who campaign in cross-border regions, but I am wondering if there are real examples of high-profile politicians adjusting their publicly-stated beliefs to fit into a different political culture. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Simón Bolívar might work there. He led Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia to independence.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There've been numerous cases of politicians from Commonwealth countries who've been elevated to the peerage and sat in the UK House of Lords, contributing to the making of British laws (Stanley Bruce and Richard Casey, Baron Casey are two Australian examples. In 1942 Winston Churchill had appointed Casey to the post of Minister Resident in the Middle East; having an Australian serving in a UK ministry put noses out of joint in two countries). And a few cases of members of the UK House of Commons who've migrated to the former colonies and got involved in local politics (William Yates (politician) is one I know about).  Also, a few cases of former politicians who migrated to the UK and got themselves elected to the lower house there (such as Sir George Reid, former Prime Minister of Australia, who was elected unopposed to a London constituency and later died there).  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you go back to the colonial era, I imagine people have served as governors of several colonies, (hopefully) adjusted to fit the cultures of each. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, many examples of that. Not sure that they fit the notion of "politician", though, as they were all, at least in theory, representing the monarch and above politics.  In fact, at least in Australia till the mid 1930s, they were representing the British government and doing their bidding, but that doesn't make them politicians in the sense I think friend 130.88 means.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  03:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To be a good colonial governor, a person should concern himself with local customs, opinion, etc., to avoid pissing off the locals and getting a rebellion. So, if kissing babies is required to avoid this, so be it. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a politician may sometimes require you to kiss babies. But not everyone who kisses babies is a politician.  Most parents, for example, are not politicians.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  00:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd know better if you'd ever had your kids ask you which of them is your favorite. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're mainly asking about politicians in democracies and/or republics, 130.88, but there's also the example of Jean Bernadotte. Not really a politician of any stripe until elected king of Sweden, but if being a general in Napoleon's army is an apolitical job, I will eat my hat. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was a freedom fighter/guerilla not just for his homeland Italy, but also for Brazil and Uruguay. Not really a "politician", though. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tadeusz Kościuszko immediately sprang to mind; even in terms of countries extant during his lifetime, there's at least two unconnectedly: the USA and Poland. Similarly, Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette was politically active in the USA and in France. I'm sure there are other well-known examples. If I think of any, I'll post them. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WW2 POW internment
Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau's biography says, "[h]e was captured in Italy in 1945 and spent two years as an American prisoner of war."

Why did the US keep prisoners for 1.5+ years after the war ended? Where did they keep them?

67.117.146.199 (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Camp Rupert held POWs until the end of 1946.  There's a list of other camps  here, most only until 1946.  I didn't check them all, and not all list the dates, so perhaps there was one open until 1947.  RudolfRed (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this book he was captured by U.S. forces in the Po valley on May 5, 1945, spent the next two years in U.S.-run POW camps in Italy, and released and returned to Germany in June 1947.--Cam (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking generally, Prisoner of war and Forced labor of Germans after World War II say many were kept until 1947 or even 1948 and used for forced labor, particularly doing agricultural work; many were initially kept in the USA or Canada and later sent to camps in the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He should (and probably did) consider himself lucky he wasn't captured by the Soviets. Forced labour of Germans after World War II states "The last major repatriation of Germans from the Soviet Union occurred in 1956." Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that returning massive numbers of prisoners immediately to Germany may have been unwise, as, without adequate housing or industry to employ them, they were likely to become criminals or die. I believe this happened following the US Civil War, for example, where many returning rebel soldiers became criminals, like Frank and Jesse James. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that there was real concern that returned POWs might join the Werwolf resistance movement. This article from LIFE Magazine, 18 Mar 1946, Nazi PWs Learn Democracy suggests that they weren't released until they had been "de-Nazified". Alansplodge (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have time for a lengthy read, The War for the German Mind: Re-Educating Hitler's Soldiers by Arthur L. Smith is viewable online. Alansplodge (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Me again. www.historicaleye.com - The art of survival says; "For those in British and French hands repatriation was relatively slow, primarily because the POW had become a vital component within the workforce of these countries, particularly in the agriculture and reconstruction sectors. A second factor in the slow return of German POWs was the Allied denazification programme, a gargantuan but necessary task that sought to screen the prisoners’ histories and to ascertain where their sympathies now lay.". Some of them chose not to go home at all, a famous example is Bert Trautmann. Alansplodge (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent answers. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Utility and Util
The greater the utility, the greater the util is... Is this concept correct? thanks--180.234.38.225 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very hard to say. What might "util" be?  Is it a real word?  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * util suggests that 'util' is a real word, and that it is used in (eg) economics, to provide theoretical quanta of utility. So by definition, the greater the utility of something, the more utils it provides to an effective user. However, outside such theoretical discussions, the term is useless. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quantity of utility? Oh lord, I thought we killed off that research programme in the 19th century as pseudoscience with the critique of utilitarianism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We did, but someone forgot to tell the econometricians. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow neuroscientists never got the message. There is a pretty strong case that decision-making within the brain is based on a neural representation of utility -- at any rate research into that idea has been active and productive.  If you are interested, the book Your Brain Is (Almost) Perfect: How We Make Decisions by Read Montague covers the ideas at a popular level.  As far as I know, nobody talks about 'utils', though. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be extraordinarily surprised if neuroscientists actually demonstrate the commensurably of desires between individuals; which leaves any single individual model as an individual preference ranked order, which IIRC wasn't ruled out by the critique of utilitarian economics. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the summary of behavioral economics (Kahneman Nobel Prize for prospect theory etc.) was basically the opposite of that there was a consistent utility function in humans. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prospect theory describes a vulgar economic model which is reliant upon the standard vulgar economic equation of utility with marginal cost preference as price. To quote Brecht here, "I don't know what a man is, I only know his price."  The problems with using price as a proxy for actual utility are manifold.  Firstly, and obviously, price preference only measures effective demand, and not utility.  Price can't allow comparative utility because it poorly represents actual satisfactions of desire.  At a more fundamental level, desires are satiated with actual useful things (in capitalism: some forms of use values) within the person; marginal cost preference as price relates in no way to real utility as the satisfaction of desires.  We can say that consumers desire objects, that consumers relatively preference desired objects, sometimes even in price order; but none of this relates to the differences in the capacity of objects to satisfy desires or actual utility.  You're confusing a "term of art" in vulgar economics with actual utility per utilitarianism.  Many political economics consider vulgar economic's conflation of utility with price to be absurd; compare to Marx's non-quantified denomination of utility in commodities through his differentiation of "use value" (boolean, incommensurable) with "exchange value" (having an extent, commensurable), both of which are incommensurable with the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * the greater the utility of something, the more utils it provides to an effective user - I think I found the answer. It is similar to the statement I mentioned above. If not then let me know. Thanks Alex.--180.234.253.130 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether it's the right answer depends on the context. If you tell us a bit more about the context, we may be able to give you better advice. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In standard utilitarianism, utility depends on the user. Thus, one liter of water would provide only a very small number of utils, but a large number of utils to a thirsty traveler in the desert. This leads to interesting concepts like a the utility monster that derives so much utility from everything that naive optimization of utility would deprive all other members of society of resources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I am talking about cardinal utility (I should've mentioned it). Cardinal utility can be measured directly by utils (well, it can also be measured indirectly in terms of money which is not my point). So the greater the utility the greater the util is.--180.234.253.130 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [Nitpick alert] If the util is a unit, your sentence should read: "the greater the utility, the greater the number of utils" or something like that. However, using such an obscure word seems to me to be a good way to generate lots of futils. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "How many utils can I buy with a mon ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's just the units of utility in a utility function. So yes. 124.170.120.245 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish cruiser Hamediah 1913 ?
Hello learned ones ! I've discovered a little book : Spunyarn, written by Sub (A.C. Barker, R.N.V.R. , S) , in which Sub describes his time aboard a HMS (cruiser) patrolling about 1913 the Lebannon coast , along with a German and a US man of war , while anti-european mobs riot in the ports & a turkish cruiser (the Hamediah) "plays havoc in the eastern Mediterranean" , "camouflaged during the day and without lights during the night". To what events does Sub refer ? Is that Hamediah known ? What do "R.N.V.R., S" mean ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arapaima (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. Sorry can't help with the S (maybe it stands for Seaman?). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief google reveals a contemporary who might be the same person, "231080 A.C. Barker. L.Sig. R.N." (though Barker is not a very rare surname). L.Sig would be Leading Signalman. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the OP's A C Barker is R.N.V.R. not R.N. However, this Google Books link to The WRNS: A History of the Women's Royal Naval Service says; "The first six off1cers were appointed to the RNVR(S) Officers' Signal Course ...", which suggests that the "S" does indeed stand for "Signals". There are several Google results for "RNVR Signals Branch". I suspect that someone with the nom de plume of "Sub" is likely to have been a Sub-Lieutenant. Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The events referred to is the famous raid of the Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye during the First Balkan War. Constantine  ✍  10:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot to all jack-tars ! Arapaima (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Qing wigs
What is the name of the wig/hairstyle pictured here on Empress Cixi which was common among the Imperial women during the Qing Dynasty and what is the history behind it? Was it a Manchu fashion?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ChinaCulture.org names it (without references) "Liangbatou, "Qitou" or "Jingtou" and says it is a Manchu style. Not found historical discussion yet. 174.88.9.150 (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chinese names corresponding to those terms are "两把头", "旗头", and "京头" respectively. The three terms mean, respectively, "hairstyle with two bunches [of hair]" (which refers to the way the hair is split in the middle before being tied to the headdress), "hairstyle of [the people of] the Banners" ("Banners", referring to the Eight Banners, is commonly used to refer to the Manchus), and "hairstyle of the capital" (since the hairstyle was often seen in Beijing, the capital).
 * To clarify, this hairstyle is arranged by tying the hair at the top of the head and then splitting into two and tying into a knot/bun; the "board" that can be seen in photos like the above is a fan-shaped headdress. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Turns out Chinese Wikipedia has an article on this: zh:二把頭, as do the Japanese and Korean Wikipedias (Wikipediae?), talking about the simpler, origianl form of the hairstyle, and also separately zh:大拉翅 (that's "Dalachi", transliterated), about the headdress as used in the more elaborate form favoured by imperial women in the late Qing dynasty. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just what does SIPC cover?
If SIPC doesn't cover fraud, only insolvency, then what prevents an MF Global or PFGBest from happening in the stock brokerage industry? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's Securities Investor Protection Corporation for those who thought SIPC may have been a reference to the 10th Sydney International Piano Competition, currently under way. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  19:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not expert on the SIPC or its rules, but I believe that it protects against broker-dealer collapse. I think your question is referring to fraud in the underlying security, which is not what the SIPC (or most other forms of insurance) protect. Shadowjams (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that's what they mean, but their wording is quite ambiguous. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that SIPC does cover some kinds of fraud; its coverage of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities represented the largest set of claims against SIPC ever. John M Baker (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

World Jewish Population in 1850-1890
Does anyone have data on what the total world Jewish population in 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1890 was? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a lack of good information, based on what it says at Historical Jewish population comparisons and Jewish population. Reasons include countries not conducting detailed censuses or population surveys, censuses not asking about religion, and the complexity of who counts as a Jew (ethnic or practising religious).  With 7.8m in 1882 and 10.6m in 1900 you could probably estimate 1890 and less accurately extrapolate to the earlier years. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I extrapolated for some years but I did manage to find estimates for the total world Jewish population in 1840, 1850, 1860, and 1880.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:58oywoZKYNYJ:www.lapetus.uchile.cl/lapetus/archivos/1272744939Jud%25C3%25ADosenEuropa3vv.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj00vqu4StSzv3uYWVauyaTZnHoyh4IcKxHULjjZ1JpNya2Ois0WjsS89ITruFmYStvCAhpZHXVRhRtAMdlLtciWrlG1V8eelfu4Emx7gedhpg1UQEET8505m8JlbhqXJZNFEG-&sig=AHIEtbQLQEX0TpVsdoNgeAYan8DhzmH20A

http://www.jewishgen.org/databases/givennames/dbdespop.htm

I used this data to create a new table of the world, U.S., and Palestine/Israel Jewish populations between 1850 and 1910 on that Historical Jewish population comparisons page.

Futurist110 (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "Wayane" in the current Eritrean or Ethiopian political context
Hi,

There are many mentions of "wayane" on the web but I can not find a definition anywhere (in the context of the Eritrean independence war or current Eritrean or Ethiopian politics). Is this definition available anywhere online?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Found and Tigrayan People's Liberation Front says: "TPLF ... known more commonly and sometimes pejoratively in Ethiopia as Woyane or Weyane". See also Woyane rebellion. Apokrif (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

slaget på Loheden (1331)
Is the "slaget på Loheden (1331)" and a "battle at Danevirke" in Eric Christoffersen of Denmark's article the same event? Okay now this source says "Paa Flugten efter Kampen ved Slesvig 30. Nov. 1331 styrtede E. med Hesten ved Danevirke, og Faldet forvoldte, at han kort efter døde i Kiel (1332)." or "On the flight after the battle of Schleswig 30th November 1331 E. crashed with the horse at Dannevirke and fall injury that he soon after died in Kiel (1332)." But if Danevirke is only the site of his accident and not the battle why does his fahter's article place his defeat in 1331 at Danevirke. We got Loheden, Schleswig and Danevirke now, and I still have no idea where Loheden is.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Some quick iw-searches reveals that Danish Wikipedia has an article entitled Slaget på Lohede, but that battle occured in 1261, and an article on a place called Lohede. The final n in Loheden, I guess, would be the definite article. Given that Danish Lohede is relatively close to the Danevirke (Norwegian Wikipedia even places the 1261 Slaget på Lohede at Danevirke), it seems plausible that these are two different names for the same battle...
 * Another option is that the historians who wrote those books got their Erik Christofferesen's confused.
 * 1261: Slaget på Lohede, Erik V Christoffersen (son of Christopher I) was defeated and taken prisoner along with his mother. (The battle is refered to as Battle of Lo Heath in the article Eric V of Denmark.)
 * 1331: Battle at Danevirke, Eric VI Christofferson (son of Christoffer II and grandson of Erik V) is defeated and flees to Kiel where he dies.
 * I have very little knowledge about medival Danish history, I am just referencing WP articles... V85 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

the meaning of robinson crusoe and cast away
What is the message of the story of Robinson Crusoe, and spin offs like the film Cast Away? Is it disgrace can happen in your life and why perseverance will take you out of it OOOOR is the portrait of those years on your own, in a desert island, trying to make sense of it all, simply an allegory for life itself? Plusanother (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The message of Robinson Crusoe seemed to be that "savages", namely Friday, are just as moral as us, perhaps moreso (although it did seem to say that they need to be "civilized"). StuRat (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my reading, it's less that Friday is "just as moral", it's that all of the savages are completely lost without civilized people to teach them not to eat each other and to worship the right god. Once shown the light, though, they recognize its truth, become pretty manageable, yadda yadda. The representation of the "savages", and Crusoe's unabashed belief in his right to keep them as slaves (literal slaves — I'm not being metaphorical, that's the term he uses), struck this reader as the most appalling part of the narrative from a modern viewpoint. I find the religious arguments that Crusoe lectures on at length to be closer to the intended interpretation. I don't think Cast Away is quite the same thing in this respect, but I haven't actually seen it. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't reveal any information about Cast Away if you didn't see it, but yes, you are right on your supposition. Plusanother (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Robinson believed in slavery at the beginning, but did he by the end ? StuRat (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha, here's where I reveal that I'm actually 80% through it, and currently reading it, so I don't actually know the end, and don't want to spoil it by looking it up! But I was indeed surprised to find that he crashes on the island while on a slavery run, which made me think, oh, he'll conclude that slavery is the cause of his evil. But then, just before he gets Friday (whose footprint was not the one on the island, incidentally — I had always thought it was the same in cultural depictions, but it is not so!), he contemplates how great it would be to have a slave, and even has Friday call him "Master". But who knows, maybe he'll change his tune. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe Daniel Defoe was trying to slowly drag the reader from a pro-slavery to anti-slavery position, by having us watch as Robinson takes that journey himself. Of course, the book was written at a time when pro-slavery attitudes were prevalent.  The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is similar, in it's method, although this was published after slavery had been abolished (Twain apparently thought some Americans still needed convincing).  A modern equivalent might be Archie Bunker, who, over the course of All in the Family, slowly changed from a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot, to a more tolerant bigot. :-)  StuRat (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, this theme is more mixed in the novel (there's quite a bit of exhalation of the superiority of "civilized" people, while still making some critics of the excesses of certain colonial forces. But in modern film adaptations the message is less direct and more idealized towards modern perspectives, with Crusoe rejecting his earlier sense of superiority more or less completely.  Likewise, Friday goes from a character who is converted to Christianity and "saved" from savagery in the book, to a character who slowly brings Crusoe around to a more balanced perspective in the movies (especially the most recent one).  Regardless, to address the OP's question more directly, I'd say the major themes, in all versions, concern he nature of variance in culture and what constitutes the truly core principles that make a person "moral," with a particular slant towards religion and social hierarchy. Snow (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You can read many messages into such stories. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Always handy to have an encyclopedia to consult to answer such questions: Robinson Crusoe --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read that link before posting the question, Tagishsimon, however, maybe I expressed my doubts poorly. The interpretations there don't touch the topic of how it related to life, more from an existential perspective. I want to know if it's too much bending, if we don't just interpret it as a moral or religious message, but as an analysis of life at it is. Plusanother (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought the message of Cast Away was that if you're going to be stranded, try to do it where there will be lots of useful stuff washing ashore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, volleyballs are terrific people. Snow (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Violation of Principle of equal marginal utility
Under what curcumstances Principle of equal marginal utility is violated? I found a link here, which states "Limitation of the Law of Equi- Marginal Utility". Should I assume it the violation of Principle of equal marginal utility per dollar spent?

Are Equimarginal Utility and Principle of equal marginal utility same?--180.234.240.203 (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They seem to list the conditions where they are violated, in that article. Except for them being poorly translated into English, I agree with them.  And yes, I believe that "Equimarginal Utility" is just a shortened way to write "Principle of equal marginal utility". StuRat (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me rewrite the reasons for violations of this principle, but in proper English:


 * Ignorance: If a consumer is ignorant of prices, utility, etc., he may make suboptimal choices.


 * Inefficient organizer: The inefficient business organizer will fail to achieve the best result from the land, labour and capital that he employs.


 * Unlimited resources: When the resources are free, this law is meaningless. (Air, for example.)


 * Hold of custom and fashion: It the purchase is strongly influenced by custom and fashion, the choices will not be optimal. (Although, one could argue, that those customs and fashions change the utility of those items.  I'd also throw religion into the mix, as pork may be the best value of protein for the rupee/dollar, but, if your religion prohibits it, that's out.)


 * Frequent changes in prices of different goods and services make observance of this law difficult. For example, constantly changing gasoline/petrol prices make it difficult to buy from the least expensive station.


 * StuRat (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And let me add some more:


 * Short-term orientation: Those only concerned with the short-term may make poor choices in the long term. For example, rent-to-own stores provide furniture, appliances, etc., at a lower initial cost, but higher long-term cost.


 * Fraud and deception: Customers may purchase items which seem to have a high ratio of utility to price, but are actually cheap counterfeits (sometimes legal), which will soon break.


 * Insufficient math skills: If prices are provided for different units, time frames, etc., possibly with compound interest, the customer may be unable to compare them, even though the information is all available to do so. For example, gasoline prices in the US are in US$ per gallon, while, in Canada, they are in CAN$ per liter, making comparisons difficult for cross-border traffic.


 * Incompatible units: In another example, apples and oranges may be sold as price per weight, price per item, or price per volume. Comparing these various prices is difficult, and requires equipment, like a scale.


 * Veblen goods, where much of the value of the product is due to it's price alone, not it's inherent utility.


 * StuRat (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sturat. Just another Silly questions, can I write "Law" instead of "Principle" of equal marginal utility per dollar spent? Is law and principle in this context same ragarding equal marginal equality?--180.234.217.32 (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This depends almost entirely on how closely you want to tie your argument to the correctness or fallacy of marginalist models. If you're making a marginalist argument in a marginalist forum and marginalists call it a law, then call it a law. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Steady on, Fifelfoo. Don't diss my man Alfred Marshall. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, when I'm not an encyclopaedist I'm much more collegial about other people's strange and inexplicable disciplinary practices (provided that I explain that they're wrong...in fact, isn't that what collegiality is all about?; social tolerance combined with scholarly critique). As an encyclopaedist contextualism is almost mandatory. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd only use "law" to mean something without exceptions, like "the law of gravity". But, economics seems to use it more liberally, so, I suppose, it's OK. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)