Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 December 12

= December 12 =

Finance: They defaulted? So what?
If an entity financially defaults, then what happens? What would be the effect? &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which parts of that article need further explanation, since you are already aware of its existence?-- Jayron 32 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... while the article explains what a default IS... it does not really explain the CONSEQUENCES of a default. This may be because the consequences vary between different legal and financial jurisdictions.  Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the entity this means Bankruptcy. Creditors with connected open contracts, loans, bills etc. have to deal with a new administration, usually special lawyers chosen and assigned by the court that changed the legal status of the entity, which takes over management and assets with the purpose of collecting all capital which is left or can be gained with auctions, sales etc. and distributing that among the creditors. --Kharon (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the US, at least, the court attempts to find an administration capable of successfully carrying on the business of the company. The court may have to choose from competing groups which present themselves as prospective new administrations.  Groups which include experts in the field, often including officers of the now-defunct company, tend to be favoured by the courts.  Also, to have a realistic chance, a contending group must have good financial backing, for legal costs; and connections and good access to information.  Small independent shareholders have little influence and tend to get a rough deal while big players in the company may be able to salvage a considerable part of their assets and control, albeit under a new name.


 * The US writer Thurman Arnold wrote about this process from a critical perspective half a century ago in a book called The Folklore of Capitalism. - - Communpedia Tribal (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The direct legal effect of financial default, such as on a loan, is (usually) the accrual of a cause of action in the creditor. Bankruptcy or foreclosure, as well as the transfer of legal title to property (real or personal) that was used to secure the loan do not automatically occur upon default, though I suppose it's theoretically possible for a contract to contemplate transfer on default. In the case of certain secured transactions, the creditor may be able to take possession of the security without involving the courts (i.e., repossession of an automobile). Finally, default will often indirectly result in harm to the debtor's credit rating if the creditor reports the default/delinquency to the appropriate credit agency. In short, it's possible for nothing to really happen directly as a result of a default, but most creditors do take some sort of action, though it is not always litigation. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a disparity between English and American law here.  In England, bankruptcy is only available to individuals.   A company may petition the court for a winding up, or the creditors may do it (I once petitioned the court to wind up a very large bank - this was a few days before the annual meeting and the newspapers commented how gloomy the chairman looked).   A receiver is then appointed to collect in and distribute the assets (liquidation). 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Insolvency, Liquidation and for UK and Commonwealth systems, Receivership and Administration (law). Alansplodge (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make something clear. The term 'bankruptcy' in the UK is only properly applied when it's about insolvent individuals and partnerships, not companies. In the latter case you refer to the insolvency process as administration or liquidation. News outlets, however, will still use the term 'bankruptcy' when talking about foreign insolvent companies.Hofhof (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Violent jihadists
Of the humans of 2017 who have ever been violent jihadists, how many percent have been pro-violent jihad for as long as they remember, how many were self-radicalized, how many were radicalized by other people and how many are not violent jihadists anymore cause they were "self-unradicalized" or unradicalized by others? What's the most common things that cause humans to change camps? Does being born in the US or the rich countries of Europe vs. an Islamic country change these percentages much? Does being born in the US vs. the rich countries of Europe change these percentages much? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The modern type of Islamist extremism barely even existed before the 1970s. Traditional radical Islamic movements (Kharijites, Qarmatians, Assassins, 19th-century Wahhabis etc.) were generally far more concerned with internal Muslim disputes than with non-Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, that's still true of modern Islamic extremists. According to this source, at least 82% of victims of Islamist extremism are themselves Muslim. ISIS, for example, has killed far more Muslims, than non-Muslims. To quote from a previous refdesk answer:
 * As a comparison, ISIS and Al Qaida spend most of their effort killing other Muslims, Anders Breivik decided to protest the Islamification of Europe by killing white Norwegians, and one of the first acts of mass murder by the Nazis was killing other Nazis. It seems to be pretty common for extremists to spend more effort targeting "traitors" / "sell-outs" / "apostates" / "heretics" on their "own" side than they do on the nominal enemy. Eliyohub (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't know as we don't know how many people in the entire world, that lived in 2017, had ever been violent jihadists. To answer that question would involve asking everyone in the world that has lived in 2017 if they had ever been a violent jihadist and trusting that they would answer truthfully. And then, after doing that and finding which of the 7.6 billion people had been a violent jihadist, you would have to ask them the other questions and trust that they would answer truthfully. Good luck. Nanonic (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I doubt if we can have detailed biographical information on most Islamists and on a global scale.

"What's the most common things that cause humans to change camps?"

That is relatively easy. Disillusionment with their former faction or its leadership, would cause them to turn to more attractive or lucrative alternatives.

"Does being born in the US vs. the rich countries of Europe change these percentages much?"

American and European expatriates have in the past joined the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and any number of Islamist organizations. I am far from certain whether the country of origin plays a defining role in such situations. I live in a Greek city with a relatively large, native-born Muslim minority, but we haven't really experienced incidents of sectarian violence for several decades. Plenty of pious Muslims, but no visible fanatics. (Then again the city has a relatively low rate of violent crimes. I think we had a single murder in the last decade. ) Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There can be no definitive answer to the OP. However, one place to start might be the Suicide Attack Database and related academic projects listed in its "see also" section. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)