Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 31

= March 31 =

Real estate loans as a percentage of all outstanding bank loans
From this site:

In addition to new loans for real estate, the total outstanding balance of all real estate loans in Japan (in 2015 65.7102 trillion JPY, or approximately 14% of all outstanding bank loans) has also been growing over the last few years, and last year reached the highest level in 18 years.

Is it just me or does 14% seem really low? I was expecting somewhere closer to 50%.

For comparison this Forbes article says that real estate accounts for 45.2% of all US commercial bank lending in 2015, which is more in line with what I was expecting.

1. How come the Japanese number is so much lower than the American one? Or are these two numbers not comparable because I misinterpreted them somehow?

2. What are the statistics for other developed countries? Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are probably other explanations as well, but I think the low share of real estate loans in Japan has less to do with low amounts of real estate loans and more to do with high amounts of other commercial lending. As this site indicates, "In Japan, bank loans are still the dominant form of credit provision". The chart on page 7 of this shows how differently Japan and US corporate borrowing is structured in this sense. As a matter of fact, when I was a student, Japan and Germany were given as primary examples of banking-heavy economies, while USA and UK were the two examples of market-heavy economies (and the money raised through the market does not show up in bank lending). In Japan, when a large corporation would need financing, it would go to a bank (or establish it's own bank, as many conglomerates have done), while in USA, they would likely issue bonds. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Japan also has a proportionally enormous public debt, although I'm not sure if debt securities are included in the "outstanding bank loans" figure cited above. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Transparency effect in marble sculpture
Some marble sculptures feature a transparent effect, wherein we see "through" fabric to the figure underneath. I thought I once learned a semi-formal name for this style/technique, but I can't seem to find it again. So is there a name for this, and can you tell me? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently called "wet drapery" or "wet drapery technique" (I was expecting an Italian, Latin or Greek term, but if one exists, I haven't found it yet).  Alansplodge (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Phidian wet drapery technique gets a lot of results, after a clever Greek chap called Phidias who was rather good at it. Our Temple of Athena Nike article says of the Cult statue and frieze; "The famous frieze of Athena adjusting her sandal is an example of Wet drapery. Wet drapery involves showing the form of the body but also concealing the body with the drapery of the clothing." Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I too was thinking there would be an Italian term or something a little fancier for the Art History crowd to use, but I guess not. This does help me find more examples though, so thanks! SemanticMantis (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just on the offchance, I ran "wet drapery" through Bing Translate which gave the French translation as draperie mouillée. Pasting this into Google found an English blog article called Draperie Mouillée and also the rather more authoritative-sounding Writing About Art - Historical Analysis (near the bottom of the page in the paragraph starting "Botticelli’s Primavera is one of the many images discussed by Clark...") which also uses the French term. The Italian translation is panneggio bagnato which has an article in the Italian Wikipedia and surprisingly, the French Wikipedia too, but I was unable to locate any usage in an English language text. So I think you would be quite justified in using either the French or the Italian terms (or both) to impress your friends. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Can the U.S elect a dead president?


If there was a will to do this, could a dead person be elected president? For example, Ronald Reagan could be a write in candidate, and his corpse could be placed on the debate stage during the primary season with re-runs of notable lines. Then during the presidential inauguration, if he wins, a recording of a previous inauguration could used.

So there is there a law or statute that allows or prevents a dead person from being president? --Steeloosk (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, see Article Two of the United States Constitution as supplemented by Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which are the statutes in question. They both make it clear that the dead are unable to execute the duties of the office of President.  -- Jayron 32 18:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to know that the US Constitution, while failing to think of many obvious issues for centuries like what to do if the veep dies, (unintentionally?) explicitly forbade a dead leader from the very beginning. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that everybody who has ever held the office, from the very first office holder, has recognized the Vice President as a basically useless office: "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet the common fate.". It does not seem all that odd that no one thought it necessary to replace any vacancies there.  The Vice President has one constitutional role: To break tie votes in the Senate.  The other, which is to be alive in case the President dies, is not itself all that important, since the constitution allows Congress to pass further laws to supplement the Presidential succession as necessary.  -- Jayron 32 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the 25th amendment, he has an additional constitutional role, as someone who can (with the cooperation of others) declare the president unable to fulfill his duties, and effectively depose him. - Nunh-huh 05:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who gives orders to the military if the British simultaneously assassinate POTUS and spare POTUS and launch a surprise War of 1812 and Congress is scattered in every state in recess? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See United States presidential line of succession. -- Jayron 32 12:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was not aware that this was dealt with (somewhat) by 1792 (Presidential Succession Act of 1792) and including the cabinet by 1886. I'd always thought there was no one after the VP until one of the early Cold War amendments. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Constitution specifies that the President has to take the oath of office before he does anything as President. It's hard to take the oath of office if you're dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just ask him, do you agree with this oath? Silence impling consent. Llaanngg (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see this in a future movie, Weekend at the White House with Bernie..... - Nunh-huh 05:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Technically, it doesn't explicitly forbid a dead leader - Art 4 doesn't mention that they need to be alive, and Art 6 only states that one who dies in office will be replaced. If they are already dead when they are elected, then their death does not occur during their term.  Of course, they would  be unable to perform the duties of the office, and so disqualified in that way. Though again, there is technically nothing stopping them from being elected, but once elected power would pass to the VP - but only if the VP gives a written declaration that the president is unable to perform the duties (25th amendment).  So a dead president running with a dead VP would create a deadlock - without a VP, the president can't be declared unfit to serve, and without a president a new VP can't be appointed.  Since the death has already happened, 25th amendment section 1 would not trigger. MChesterMC (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, Ronald Reagan, even were he not dead, would be ineligible because of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. -- Jayron 32 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I always thought he was a case of "The lights are on but nobody's home". I'm glad he was rejected for Rick Blaine.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, when why is Kim Il-Sung able to govern North Korea even though he is clinically dead? --Steeloosk (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The laws and traditions of North Korea have no bearing on the laws and traditions of any other country. For background to Kim Il-sung's role in the constitution of North Korea, you can read Eternal President of the Republic.  However, that office has no authority in the United States, and neither does the Constitution of North Korea, which only applies to North Korea, and cannot be used to answer your initial question.  -- Jayron 32 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kim isn't really dead. He's just very Il. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The popular vote could "elect" a dead person, or elect a living person who died before taking office, but the popular vote doesn't count, except for electing electors. It's the electors that would decide who would be president if the popular vote were to go to a man or woman who, for example, were assassinated before their term began. - Nunh-huh 00:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change anything. There is nothing explicitly preventing the electors from voting for a dead person, either.  Well, at least not in general &mdash; some states do regulate the electors' votes, though the constitutionality of this has never been tested.  See faithless elector.  I don't know whether any states have other restrictions on electors, such as requiring them to vote for someone who is alive; I sort of doubt it, but in principle I can't rule it out. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Patsy Mink was elected to Congress after she died, so I guess technically the answer is yes. Ueutyi (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mel Carnahan was posthumously elected to the Senate. Neutralitytalk 06:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Escapism
What is the best and most rewarding form of escapism??--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Im looking for references on the best form of escapism for humans. Can any one point me in the right direction??--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you trust Google, its top hit suggests Fawsley Hall is the place to get away to. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the short term, probably something like heroin. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

English Lityerature
Whats the F*=???*kn point of studying it?? It never helped me in my life.--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And you have the hide to accuse me of trollish posts. Pots and black kettles etc.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many subjects in school that don't help most people get a job (gym, art, music, social studies). Thus, if you see the only purpose in school as prepping you to work, then school isn't very focused on that.  A trade school might be a better match for you, if that's what you want. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Some subjects won't be needed by most people.  However, most of them will be needed by some people.  School generally doesn't teach enough of any subject for you to make a career of it - but hopefully it can teach enough of it for people to work out if they want to take it further if it interests them.
 * 2) Some people find it interesting, even if they don't make a career of it. Iapetus (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would add
 * 3. It might contribute to making you a sufficiently rounded human being that others will be prepared to spend time associating with you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So what job would a good understanding of Literature get you. Or how would it enhance your life? I never heard anyone talkin literature down the pub.--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're frequenting the wrong pubs. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah well, Jack, we dont have that sort of airy-fiary pubs in the –normal, sorry I mean northern hemishere.--178.101.224.162 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Um .... The Eagle and Child and or as CambridgeBayWeather mentioned   , also since you mention airy-fiary  ........ And the highest latitude I've been in the northern hemisphere is I think Sabah and I never did English literature. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For some perhaps it helps improve their spelling, even if it unfortunately didn't help you in this way. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As for jobs well there is What can I do with an English Literature degree? and What Can You Do With an English Literature Degree? As to pubs in the UK well there does seem to some sort of connection. Literary tales from Scotland’s pubs and bars, A Scottish Pub Tour like no other, Author List of Pubs & Inns with a literary connection and Welcome to the London Literary Pub Crawl (is that last in English? Google wants to translate it into English!) CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Studying Chaucer will help you greatly when it comes to understanding Scots, at least in its written form. But I guess OP is not likely to be a big reader of Irvine Welsh books. (And you'll still get embarrassed reading Porno (novel) on public transport.)--Shirt58 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainly because one has to read the sodding thing out loud to get the sense of it ;) Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  05:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)