Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 14

= August 14 =

Civil rights investigation
I keep reading that, in relation to the recent events in Charlottesville, the FBI are opening a "civil rights investigation". Is that a thing? What would it involve and what are the possible outcomes? -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This and this  should be relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The FBI has a "Civil Rights" division that focuses on a number of civil rights issues.  Most relevant with respect to Charlottesville is that this division often takes the lead in investigating hate crimes.  It is also the division that often investigates police abuses.  So, I would expect they are going to be looking at whether there were any violations of federal hate crimes legislation and whether or not the local police responded appropriately to the situation.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * IANAL and Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. However, our articles say that the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division handles investigations under the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended in 1994 & 2009. The text of the law as passed authorized prison sentences of up to ten years (plus fines) for racist attacks using a weapon, and unlimited detention if a death results from a racist attack. There are probably many amendments and adjustments to that, but there are clearly serious consequences for racist violence. In addition, the Klan Act allows people to sue state authorities for failing to protect their civil rights; I suppose the Justice Dep't might recommend that people take that step (or even underwrite their costs), though they have no formal role in the proceedings. Matt's talk 10:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The background here is that perpetrators of racist crimes were often acquitted by local (usually Southern) juries. Introducing additional federal crimes made it possible to charge them under federal law and be judged by a federal jury. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly. In this case state murder charges will certainly be brought and a fair trial conducted, so it's rather redundant, but there was a time when the state looked the other way to racist violence, perhaps by having a token trial where the defendant would be found innocent, regardless of the evidence. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See also: all-white jury. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deposits on inssured accounts
Hello, does the fdic or ncua can insure acconts held by non redident aliens? 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:DDC:C0:CBA5:61CF (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a relevant quote from the FDIC website: "Any person or entity can have FDIC insurance coverage in an insured bank. A person does not have to be a U.S. citizen or resident to have his or her deposits insured by the FDIC." --Xuxl (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. and for the ncua? 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:DDC:C0:CBA5:61CF (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would be any different in the NCUA than at the FDIC. I couldn't find a document stating this as clearly as the above, but various internal documents mention how to deal with non-citizen borrowers, so it's clear that they lend to them. In fact they are specifically targeted by NCUA as a group not properly served by other existing financial intitutions (see on p. 32 and  on page 9. --Xuxl (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, not insuring accounts owned by certain people/entities would be bad for the FDIC/NCUA. Part of why deposit insurance works so well is that if people know their deposits are insured, they know they don't have to worry about losing them in a bank run, which itself makes a bank run—which might result in a bank failure that the insurance fund would have to cover—less likely. If a bank had lots of deposits by uninsured entities, they would be motivated to withdraw those deposits if they feared a bank run, which would then reduce the bank's deposit base and make it more likely to fail. The only other solution would be to prohibit banks from taking deposits from said entities, but the banks probably wouldn't like that because it would reduce their potential customers. Potential customers probably wouldn't like it either! --47.138.161.183 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited to make a couple points more explicitly. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Taxes on deposit interst savings held by foreigners in the United States
Hello, Does non resident aliens have to pay or just declare saving interests earned on their account deposits? (this includes both federal and/or state level) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:DDC:C0:CBA5:61CF (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See this document entitled: "Aliens - Which Income to Report" from the IRS. . If you have any questions beyond that, you should contact a tax professional as we cannot give any advice of this type. --Xuxl (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a legal advice question which we don't give but I'd note your question is unclear (and actually this is one reason we don't deal with legal advice). You mention "federal and/or state level" but non residents aliens may have additional requirement to declare or pay tax for interest earned on savings held in the United States in any country they are a tax resident in, and possibly (although probably not) also their home country if different. And you didn't specify that you're only interested in requirements for the US. Yet many countries don't have federal and state governments which you did specify, nor did you specify that country/ies the alien was tax resident in nor where they were from. Also the US has 50 states, and also a few non state territories. Maybe there is a website that gives the info for each state and territory but generally asking for the info for all states seems a bit extreme. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Croatia joining the Eurozone - whose interest is it in?
Croatia is joining the E.U., and as such, will need to adopt the Euro as its currency (or may have done so already). My question is, (and I'm no economist), whose interest is it in to see Croatia join the Eurozone, just because some E.U.-wide treaty says new members must do so?

Is it in the interests of the Croations themselves, to have an artificially strong currency, at odds with their economy, which will decimate sectors like tourism?

Is it in the interests of the rest of the E.U. (particularly Germany and France), who will have yet another sick economy to bail out? Don't they have enough on their hands, with Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc, suffering from the "false money against a real economy" problem that the common currency has caused?

So, my question is, who is pushing the "Croatia should adopt the Euro" bandwagon? And in what interest?

you three have answered Euro-questions for me before, so I'm pinging you to hear what you have to say. Other contributors welcome, of course :-) Eliyohub (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's been lots of writing on the costs and benefits of joining the single Euro currency. Here is a speech given by a member of the board at the ECB.  This gives a lot of potential reading as well; of a general nature (not just for Croatia).  -- Jayron 32 16:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? What does the ECB have to do with the eurozone? They're leaving the EU. Obviously there will be future problems for Ireland - especially if as expected they are given full test status - since there will be a customs barrier between the two constituent ... oh, wait. Not that ECB. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also note that joining the EU does not imply adopting the Euro. The Eurozone is a subset of the EU. Examples of states in the EU not using the Euro include Sweden, Poland, and the Czech Republic. On the other hand, Croatia has been an EU member for 4 years. Given that Croatia is a major tourist destination in Europe, going with the Euro might make it more attractive for travellers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * By treaty, all EU member states except the United Kingdom and Denmark are expected to eventually adopt the Euro. See enlargement of the eurozone.  However, it is not an automatic process and depends on the nation adopting certain economic legislation and policies.  Despite the nominal requirement of joining, some of the EU states have long and/or indefinitely delayed the process of joining the Euro.  For example, the Swedish people voted against adopting the Euro and the EU has largely accepted that outcome despite the stated treaty obligation to join.  Back in 2011, Poland announced a 2016 target date for adopting the Euro, but delayed following the European economic crisis, and now say they won't join any earlier than 2020.  Similarly, Czechia originally set a 2014 adoption target but has since delayed it until after 2020.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One advantage for Croatia is that the Euro should be a stable currency, being backed by Germany, etc., making foreign investors more likely to risk investing in Croatia. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Croatia's GDP is 20-25% based on tourism (depending on the source), which makes it the most tourism dependent economy in the EU (slightly ahead of Cyprus and Greece). Joining the Euro should encourage tourism from other Europeans even further.  In the long-term, a stable currency encourages investment and foreign development as it reduces the risk for investors.  I suspect that the government's hope of promoting tourism and foreign investment are the most likely driving factors domestically.  Internationally, remember that the EU project removes customs and freedom of movement barriers.  It is generally to the benefit of the other EU states that their trading partners operate on a level playing field with easy financial transactions and reduced risk of financial manipulation.  On the other hand, an artificially stable currency limits the ability of the government to use monetary policy as a tool for countering economic recessions and instabilities, and increases the risk that a country will need a bailout / debt relief.  That's less important day-to-day but could become an issue when there is another major recession.  As noted above, joining the Euro is now a stated requirement for all new EU states, though some have dragged their feet about joining for decades, while others (e.g. Slovenia / Estonia) rushed to dump their old currency.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In the short term, nobody is pushing Croatia to join the Eurozone, as has made clear. However, the Treaty commitment is there for the long term and for long-term reasons. The question assumes that Euro enlargement is only decided on economic grounds, but they only decide when the country will join the Euro, not why. The long-term aim of the EU is an "ever closer union" in order to make sure that Europe is never destroyed by internecine war again.  EMU is intended to bind Europe's economies together so tightly as to make war impossible; it ultimately rests on geostrategic and ideological grounds. People had talked about it for decades, but it happened in the 1990s not because of some breakthrough in economics or banknote manufacture, but because France demanded EMU as the price of German reunification. It was required of new members to make clear that eastern Europe would no longer be a quasi-colonial periphery; the aim is full integration with western Europe. The last few years have not been kind to political forecasters, but the intention is that Croatians know their destiny is as full members of a democratic and united Europe with a single currency; the fates that befell Poland in 1795 & 1939 and Ukraine in 2014 should become impossible. Matt's talk 00:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is the 🇪🇺 European Union always reduced to economics? It won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize "for over six decades [having] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe".
 * Do you know anyone or do you have own memories about the war in your country 20 years ago? How jaded and or disconnected are you to ignore that and reduce this to a "burden or benefit for your local tourism sector"? --Kharon (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There could be benefits to joining the EU. There are none to joining the EZ: the benefits are trivial, mostly finite & short term compared to the costs- enormous, unbounded and long-term- and visible today across Europe. If Croatia dawdles in joining the EZ, as it is doing now, like forever, see Croatia and the euro then it is OK. For the depressive effect of the Euro on the European economy(ies) depresses everyone it trades with- including Croatia - and this necessitates deficit spending by a responsible government, which Croatia is doing, good for them. Luckily this violates the convergence criteria and prevents them from entering the Euro! Investment and relative prosperity caused by common sense policy (which Euro membership prevents) might well keep their currency's foreign exchange value strong enough.
 * As always in international relations, the first thing to remember - Memorize that Latin! is: An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?! The Euro and the economic destruction it has wreaked has made international and in many countries internal tensions in Europe far higher than in decades. It will keep doing the exact opposite of the purported aim of "ever closer union" and keep making "quasi-colonial periphery" status more permanent until it breaks up the EZ or EU or policies are changed Euro-wide, or at least very hugely in Germany.
 * So who is for the Euro? I don't think a facile, vulgar Marxist answer would be far from the truth. Finance, bankers, multinationals etc. A small wealthy minority who might welcome the minor advantages to them and the enforced support of their social dominance, over the major harms to be suffered by the less wealthy majority. That is something like the lines of the split in the polls in the Greek tragedy, with which I am more familiar. But even more, people who have been duped, who don't understand how bad, who rooted in fantasy the European monetary setup is, who are attracted by the fine-sounding words, not the reality which contradicts them.John Z (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources for these claims? And by that I don't mean opinion pieces in the Daily Telegraph or rants by Joe Random Blogger.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Our article says adopting the euro is a requirement under the terms by which Croatia joined the European Union. But, the country must meet certain criteria before that can happen, and it isn’t doing all that well right now. Fiscal tightening when the economy is weak is counter-productive.

>From what I read (I’m no expert on Croatia), larger businesses have not done very well in the three years since Croatia joined the EU. If the kuna is replaced by the euro, the country won’t be able to devalue in order to seek competitiveness. But, the cost of doing business across boarders – one of the major advantages of the euro – would drop significantly, both for local companies and for those who might invest in Croatia.

>Those may be a minor issues compared to the perception that Croatia is a more modern, more advanced and even more “civilized” place – because it is in the EU – than Serbia. Adopting the euro just enhances the feeling that we’re better than you.

>Finally, personal policy preferences such as that the euro as been an unmitigated disaster do nothing to answer the OP question: who’s on which side of the debate. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)