Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 3

= February 3 =

I would like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying
Hi, I'd like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying (which I'm generally against, by all countries - I think in general there are better ways to use resources together and grow as a world economy). Besides replying here (from wherever) obviously I'm interested in any books or references by current or ex-Chinese spies detailing their perspective, and also organizationally how China feels and what they're like. This information is quite easy to find and skim through in half an afternoon on most countries but I haven't heard much about China, perhaps due to a lack of translations. Any references would be appreciated - my goal is genuinely to understand the Chinese perspective. Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I did find Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad just now, which is an interesting article. However, it doesn't have any material on perspective or philosophy, other than mentioning bolstering the economy through industrial espionage. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt if you will find much from the Chinese perspective, since they just deny that they do any economic spying. Hard to say why you would do something you claim not to have done. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't stop them giving perspectives on other aspects of spying, the OP mentioned resources and world economy, but they didn't say they were only interested in economic spying. Anyway even in China people are often able to publish stuff which doesn't toe with the official line and of course, ex-spys living in other countries are sometimes able to sometimes get away with publishing stuff they aren't supposed to publish. So the fact that China may deny they do any economic spying doesn't stop people offering perspectives in support of the idea and, in fact it may not completely stop people publishing stuff claiming they were involved in it. (Of course, it's always wise to read any claims with a grain of salt. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. Everything StuRat says applies just as well to the spying by every country (obviously they will deny it) but it is quite easy to read about other countries' perspectives in an afternoon.  Obviously there were large revelations such as the fact that everyone was surprised by Snowden's specific revelations about the scope of spying by America on Americans and details thereof, but everyone knew what the NSA's mission and general MO was or philosophy, i.e. vacuum (hoover) up everything, sort later as appropriate.  Of course the official perspective was that nobody should know any of that, but it didn't stop it being 'in the air' so to speak.  I didn't ask for details, just general Chinese perspectives and what's hanging in the air and philosophically around their foreign spying and general things, nothing specific.  The kind of thing you could read in a well-researched spy novel that doesn't actually say anything specific enough for anyone to even bother to keep it from being published, such as the fact that Le Carré (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy etc) was an actual ex-spy giving a certain perspective.   So I'm just looking for the same, fine acceptabe perspectives from the Chinese side, nothing they would even bother to keep from being published. (Everyone likes to express themselves and be understood, and also dialogue always helps everyone in general - it's the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today.)  I'd just like to understand their attitudes etc a bit better when it comes to spying, and welcome any kind of reply or speculation or what-not, general resources.  I'm not looking for facts here, which for obvious reasons would be buried or gainsaid.  Just perspectives, philosophy, etc.  References to read for half an afternoon, or anyone's reply or speculation here :) Really, I'm open to anything.  The article I linked was super-short and didn't help. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a big difference. The US (and other countries) admit to spying, in general, although they may deny specific instances (or give a "no comment").  The CIA has a "covert service", after all.  China, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in economic spying.  Part of the reason is democracy.  In a democracy, transparency is important, so they couldn't just deny that the CIA or MI6 exist.  StuRat (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the OP talking about government spying, or industrial spying? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They're kind of one in the same in China. The government spies on foreign industries, and gives the info to their own industry, to give them a competitive advantage. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. It's just that the OP is talking about the world economy, which suggests more directly to do with industrial spying, as opposed to trying to find out troop deployments and the like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OP here. I'm not picky, just give me large references or summarize them at length or synthesize your own opinion based on knowledge or readings. I would have liked the article I had linked if it had some of the questions I raised answered.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused here. Why do you keep referring to economic spying? The OP never said, and seem to have confirmed above they are just interested in economic spying. China may be somewhat more secretive but AFAIK, they admit to spying with the in general with the Ministry of State Security (China) etc, just as the US and other countries do. As AnonMoos said below, depending on your definition the US likewise denies involvement in economic spying, although particularly with recent revelations I think many would call that in to question. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OP here. even if they admit something it doesn't really give me a perspective.  for example I'm sure the department of agriculture in the united states admits everything, it's just a boring old government division, I picked it to be a boring example here.  reading United_States_Department_of_Agriculture is filed with tons of facts nobody has any reason to deny but just doesn't tell me what it's like to be an employee there or what their perspective is.  if you google https://www.google.com/search?q=what+it%27s+like+to+work+for+department+of+agriculture+united+states nobody has bothered to write that, because who cares.  I picked this department as the most boring thing I could possibly think of.  I'm sure I could skim a book on it though if someone wrote one, but in this case it's not my request. in this case I'm asking about china's foreign service stuff, I'm sure parts are just as boring.  but in this case I'd skim a book if someone has written one.  I'm really not looking for facts here, and they wouldn't help me. I wouldn't even read it if we had as detailed and long an article as my boring example.  By the way it could just be my impression that in general spying is boring thankless work, obviously books would be about the exciting parts.  so did anybody write any? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

212.96.61.236 -- Some of the recent disputes between the US and China on the subject are because the US draws a clear "red line" around government spying as industrial espionage for the benefit of companies not directly part of the government, while China doesn't see why such a distinction is important... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks I guess but this gives very little flavor. I'd just like to know what it's like for them, in practice, etc.  there's tons of spy books about other countries, some written by ex spies, and they all read the same (and are pretty boring).  so if they're all the same, it gives a good flavor to how things are done.  but do you have a book recommendation with a chinese perspective, for example? might be interesting. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Does this sound like it might be along the right lines? Some of the results here seem like they might help too. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * sure. I'd just prefer for someone else to do that reading.  could you summarize those books? I'll reply with my personal details.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleveraging and the World Wars
Hello, I know that when I ask this question there will be a torrent of "we don't answer 'what ifs' on the Reference Desk" [NPA], but I was hoping one of you might help me find some resources which could answer. I understand that Britain underwent a massive debt reduction programme during the 1800s. My question is, if Britian hadn't of done this, would it have fallen into economic collapse during the World Wars? 203.96.131.17 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. There's an important note at the end of this response.


 * I'm not an expert in the 1800s, but have a firm answer for you based on economic analysis you will find very useful, and almost certainly has all the predictive value you asked about. In general unless the debt was over 100% of GDP, it was almost certainly quite manageable and would not have led to collapse. Over that amount would have been extremely problematic and very likely would have led to a collapse if there was no bailout, debt reduction, or external factor. This is to be taken seriously, and I would like to demonstrate it for you.  Have a look here: List of countries by public debt and sort by the sixth column, "Net government debt as % of GDP (IMF)" from highest to lowest.  As you can see the list starts (after you have sorted it):

List

 * Notice anything about those countries and the sixth column?


 * This is a Backtesting exercise to prove my point. This column is from 2012 data, and obviously the countries in the news about dire economic straits (Grece, Italy, Portugal, and at the time Ireland) are at the very top of the sorted list, all above 100%.  After you move past 100% to lower levels you get some of the largest current economies that have particularly rosy outlooks this year.  (Click through to the actual list and sort it and look through it yourself.)  I would say that debt up to a large percentage of GDP is absolutely manageable, but over 100% becomes problematic.  (This is not only my own opinion.)


 * Secondly, note the similarity with "Buffet's key metric" (Google this phrase) -- i.e. in that it is also based on GDP. For why you must pay attention to his most important metric, recall that Warren Buffet went from personally being worth a few thousand dollars working for a paycheck as an investment salesman, to generating double-digit returns (leading with a 2 or 3) for 5 decades until his company Berkshire Hathaway was the fourth largest in the world, he was personally worth $73.8 billion and being among the top couple of richest people on investment alone.  Which is approximately 738,000x growth in his personal wealth made via investment, over 50 years, i.e. 1.31x (31% annual) growth sustained for 50 years.  (Give or take, this is rough and not inflation-adjusted etc.) He knows how to invest for sustained growth.  He has become the world's second richest man - around and annually vying with Bill Gates who founded Microsoft, a 338.65B company and top 35 in America and who personally built it to this size.  In Buffett's case, this was made with pure investment, (that's his personal wealth, his wealth under management is much larger) with those returns being sustained year over year over year..  So I would just say, I would look at his feedback extremely carefully.  That is how you get to 31% growth for decades to come, as he did.  Look at Buffet's key metric, notice it is based on GDP, and look also at debt ratios based on GDP size.  You can comfortably deal with any debt up to very close to 100% of GDP.  Regarding what this figure was in the 1800's, you will have to investigate.  If it was over 100% it would have fallen into economic collapse based on all available evidence, all of which is to be taken quite seriously.


 * Important note: by the way the questioner sounds like they're interested in history, which is a humanities subject. If they could in exchange try to research the prevoius question above this one and give a summary or any references they could find it would be appreciated.  Just general things, nothing specific or that would cause a problem or hasn't appeared elsewhere already.  Things I would find out anyway from public sources if I had a lot more time - I just think a lot hasn't been translated or well-researched novels haven't been published by people who know.  That sort of thing.   Any speculation or general ideas based on a quick reading would also be appreciated.  I took quite a bit of time to prepare this response, so a similar quick look by OP at some sources and a general summary of what they say for my question would be appreciated.  I don't really have so much time or, as I mentioned, such an interest in history.  General impressions would be fine too.  Thanks for any time you have for this, it would be very greatly appreciated, and, as mentioned in one of my responses above, I am sure even the mainland would not mind once they realize this public information "is the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today", as well as being public and nonspecific anyway.  Thanks again, and I will be happy to answer more questions if you help me with the above. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no rule that dictates that debt levels greater than 100% of GDP are problematic. It depends very much on the growth rate of the economy in question.  As long as the economy is growing faster than the stock of debt, debt will decrease as a percentage of GDP.  Debt exceeding 100% of GDP may be problematic in times of recession, but those have typically been short lived in modern times.  According to our article History of the British national debt, the national debt of the UK exceeded 200% of GDP after the Napoleonic Wars. However, because Britain was then the world's leading industrial power, with a steadily growing economy, it was able to reduce its debt as a percentage of GDP steadily during the 19th century. Its successful record of economic growth and debt repayment certainly helped the UK borrow the funds it needed to fight the world wars in the 20th century.  Even if Britain had not been able to reduce its debt level during the 19th century, it would have had other options entering the world wars, such as instituting a command economy involving some nationalization. Such a policy arguably could have left the UK economically weaker after the world wars, but would not necessarily have entailed "economic collapse". Repudiating debt would have meant a financial crisis and losses for Britain's wealthy elite, but redistribution and a reduction in economic inequality, which could have resulted from a command economy, could also have resulted in renewed economic vigor if, say, the country's capital had been privatized by granting shares in firms to employees. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The ratio alone isn't that important. As long as the borrowed money is put into adventures that create more profit than the interest on the loan there is really no problem. The table that was placed above isn't very important because it fails to mention the estimated future gdp-debt ratios and debts owned. Some countries, like Canada, owe over half a trillion in debts and continually run deficit budgets, but when you see that the economy is growing faster than the debt and that the interest rates paid out are low and that the country loans out more money at higher interest rates then you see that everything is fine. And back to the WWI context, after Britain won, well to the victor goes the spoils, either flex your obvious military might or tell them to collect what is owed from the Axis. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correlation isn't causation, but if you get the top 5 developed countries that are IN HUGE TROUBLE out of the top 10 when sorting 100 datapoints on a field, then maybe that field is worth paying attention to as a predictor. (Though there could be a data bias of only troubled countries having their debt listed in that field, since lots of countries were blank.) You don't have to be tall to be in the MBA but if you get the 3 top scorers out of the top 5 sorted by height of 50 players, well, it does tell you something. It would be like the 5 most expensive buildings in the world being in the top 10 sorted by height of 100 expensive buildings.  You would have to concude that height is a great predictor of most expensive.  Debt/GDP is a great predictor of dire straits with a few exceptions (including bailout.)  It really is a real rule.  As for whether height is, just sort all MBA players by height and see if the top scorers are in the top few.  I don't know the answer (which is the point, it's experimental) but if so, then height (probably) really does matter. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to just be making it up as you go. You don't seem to realize that most investors don't loan money to nations which are IN HUGE TROUBLE. Many debt free nations are that way because no one will loan them money. Like people, countries have credit ratings, and similarly, a person with millions in debt often is, or will be, wealthier than an average debt-free individual. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. We are not using debt to predict wealth. We are asking what tends to happen when extraordinarily high debt exists and is retained. (The question asks about this scenario explicitly.)  For an analogy about the difference, obviously height doesn't predict MBA playing ability all that well, as it's a sport and skill.  you can't just measure heights.  But if you're 7 foot tall (very rare), you have a 17% chance of playing in the MBA.  If you have over 100% of your GDP as debt (very rare), your odds of impending ruin are high, as I showed.  I didn't mean to go too far beyond the OP's question to try to apply it to other scenarios, i.e. more average levels of debt. sorry if I gave that impression.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A nation could very well hold a 100:1 Debt:GDP ratio without any problem so long as it maintains a credit rating of AAA. Of course the nation would only keep the AAA rating if it was wisely using the borrowed money to create profit over the interest paid. If Britain during the 1800s did not have many profitable adventures in which to invest the money it was borrowing than it would be very important to pay down the debt. If Britain had opportunities to use borrowed capital to increase their GDP by more than the interest cost than keeping the debt would be wise. If you look at a world map of debt:gdp ratios you will see nations like Canada, Japan, and Ireland, borrowing money to increase their GDPs (infrastructure, research, re-lending) and nations like Norway, Saudi Arabia, and PRC holding no debt as all the profitable adventures for them are already fully funded. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * what you've written about 100:1 ratio is true. But only in the same way that a 12-person unincorporated community can become the world's leading economic superpower in 108 minutes if it is allowed to borrow unlimited money at -0.5% interest rate in any currencies.
 * (still massively tricky, because the created cash has to be locked up so as not to spoof the market, which is massively difficult to set up in 108 minutes without being an actual entity even if several of the 12 knows exactly what they're doing, there's instant agreement on independence and interim government within seconds, in perfect philosophical alignment on all issues. then quadrillions have to be locked up and inaccessible with a few trillion to spend now and $50 trillion due as interests payments, for 1 example (another is simply no plan to repay). still won't have real economic output until it spends tons of that cash - which here is essentially redistributory seigniorage from all 196 countries, not any real output. very tricky, 99% chance of failure, huge chance of devaluing entire world economy massively - but more surprising things have happened, it's easily in the realm of possible within 108 minutes for them to become the world's leading superpower.)
 * But anyway, I think the OP was interested in realistic scenarios, not 100:1 debt:gdp ratios retaining AAA rating or unlimited cash in any currency at -0.5% rate to 12 random people. I would say the two are about equally realistic, and in fact QE (quantitative easing) means the world has a lot more experience with this second scenario than yours, and the 12 now-bankers are a good analogy for how many people feel (in this scenario how the 'rest of the world' would feel) about Wall Street over the last few years, and their views on its real economic contribution.  Bet you didn't expect that connection! :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much all those contributors who answered! 203.96.130.148 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Grumble: debt is an amount of money, GDP is an amount of money divided by time. A ratio between them ought to be expressed in units of time (e.g. days), rather than a dimensionless "%". —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Short story about soldier ants
As a young teenager I read a short story about a devastating army of soldier ants. I loved it, but can't remember much about it, other than they were a ruinous threat, possibly considered a danger to people and this - the most specific memory - that at one point someone needs stitches and they use soldier ant heads to do the trick. It might have been in a Reader's Digest book and at a guess I read it c.1984. Any help identifying it? --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking "Leiningen Versus the Ants"... I recall reading that when I was younger. Scared the daylights out of me (though I'll admit I didn't recall the title). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be! I've scanned it and it does seem familiar, though I must have synthesised the memory of the ant-head-stitches. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, ant head stitching is a real thing, not fiction. See the end of Dorylus. I'm guessing this was fiction, because ants aren't generally a threat to human communities (though it is true that a toddler can get pretty damaged playing in a nest of fire ants). Also, "soldier" isn't the name of an ant species or family. You might be thinking of driver ants or army ants, which are new world and old world variants on the same theme. "Soldier" usually refers to a caste of sterile worker ants, see Ant. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's about 30 years ago, so details are somewhat fuzzy. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've heard "Leiningen" dramatized for radio, btw. —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the same story, it was most likely in the late 70's, but could have been published any time before that. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The book I found could have been a few years old. Do you remember ant-head-stitches, Medeis? --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was in grade school, perhaps four decades and a 1,000 novels ago. I remember it involved an ingenious farmer whose farm was overrun in Africa or South America, his animals killed, and he had to abandon the site.  I remember the ant-head anecdote, but can't say it was part of the story.  It would have been in a book or a collection that I got from an elementary school for kids 6-12 years old, but they weren't very censorious.  Basically, if you could and wanted to read a story you were allowed.  The story sticks out because I almost only read non-fiction back then.  Of course I have nothing more useful to say than that I read such a story in the same era. Having just read Leiningen Versus the Ants I am quite sure that it was that story I read. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Take your stinking mandibles off me, you damn dirty ant! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw the film adaptation, The Naked Jungle, and remember thinking how stupid he was to stay, when the natives told him to flee. Unfortunately, his actions got many people killed.StuRat (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, nobody tells Charlton Heston what to do (except Chuck Norris). They can have the plantation when they take it from his cold, dead hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

name of germanic tribe
Which germanic tribe cut off the aqueducts of ancient rome during the sixth century when they sacked it? Also, what was the background surrounding this invasion of rome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.87 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Siege_of_Rome_(537–38) --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Angels/Demons
In Kabbalah there are angels of sacred prostitution, which are the first vampires. – True/False? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Sacred prostitution doesn't have much to do with vampires. Lilith, often associated with those angels, but not one herself, is often confused/associated with Lamia, famous for drinking blood. Which (if any) of these demons/angels existed first is virtually unanswerable, but the stories of Lamia predate those of Lilith and crew. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Vampire folklore by region is sort of interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks InedibleHulk! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

Prophet Moses
"In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife saved him." – true/false?

Does anyone know the story? A definition would be sufficient as this is not something for me to learn. The original sentence is as follows: “In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife threw a foreskin at it.” I believe the gentleman/lady was trying to throw humour.

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
 * See Zipporah at the inn. Nanonic (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The story is recounted in Moses: A Life which is a rather skeptical and irreverant work. It implies she saved him from what was the equivalent of a demon (nephilim?) by circumcising him and providing his foreskin as a blood sacrifice.  It is implied that much of what became Judaism was inherited from Moses's father-in-law. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The nephilim are half god, half human. The nephalem are the half demon, half angels. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found the Kirsch in storage, but am reading Almond's The Devil: a New Biography. The latter doesn't strike me as the most careful of sources, but it implies that some of the Nephilim were fallen.  In any case, Kirsch argues that the circumcision story is far older than most of the Bible, with the Nephilim only mentioned in the 4th-2nd centuries BC per Almond.  I just happened to be reading this now, and have no expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, me neither. I've read a little bit here and there, and there are a lot of twists on the story. Ancient giants tend to stir people's imaginations more than regular-sized legends. First I've heard of anyone tossing a foreskin, in any book. Cool tale. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a confused combination of Zipporah at the inn and the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. In Genesis 32:22-30, Jacob is about to cross a river when God appears in the shape of an ordinary man.  Jacob wrestles with God and wins; his name is then changed to Israel (meaning "he who wrestled with God").  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol. Its not me InedibleHulk, the statement is from Rationalwiki. Someone has to be mad (crazy) to write such thing... Thank you all, and Medeis . I've saved the links, I'll read through the links when I get some free time... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))