Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 June 16

= June 16 =

Neon Phaleron
Does anybody know what this is? I can find some mention of it, a postcard on WP, and several restaurant names of bing/google but no specifics. It is based somewhere close to Athens. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Does Neo Phaliron Velodrome help? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's an old-fashioned anglicisation/transliteration (using Katharevousa morphology) of Neo Faliro, a waterfront neighborhood of Peireus/Athens. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolute monarchies that are fully industrialized
Are industrialized absolute monarchies possible?Uncle dan is home (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What constitutes "fully industrialized"? Absolute monarchy lists all the current ones.  Would any of those count? Iapetus (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Brunei, Qatar, and the UAE: Notable developing countries. Why, I can't even imagine a skyscraper in these third world hovels! Imagine. Just the thought! --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The only real difference between an absolute monarchy and a dictatorship is the title used by the person in charge. As there have been fully industrialised dictatorships, there is nothing inherent to the system of government which prevents an absolute monarchy also being industrialised. Wymspen (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The two certainly aren't mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean that they tend to exist in tandem, either. An absolute monarchy does imply a degree of control over the economy, that, like communism, might tend to stifle development.  Also, if it becomes a kleptocracy, this also siphons money out of the economy, needed for development.  Russia and Zimbabwe, while not absolute monarchies, are good examples.  Were they more democratic and less corrupt, they would have no sanctions against them, and presumably would have healthier economies.  StuRat (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Those favoring snarky comments over useful contributions might bear in mind that skyscrapers have nothing to do with whether a country is industrialized, or not. One is a town planning feature, the other a stage of economic development.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Calculating the appropriate tax level directly from the value of natural resources
My views on liberalism have led me to the conclusion that every human being should be able to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, but that those things not created by mankind should be fairly shared by all the people. This is somewhat comparable to Single Taxer ideas, though they had many elaborations I don't understand. But if natural resources are considered property and unequally shared, then social taxation would be taken to be an attempt to correct this to match a more fair model. Accordingly, it should be possible to calculate the "fair" level of tax to compensate for an unfair division, i.e. to calculate the fair share of land, wells and mines for oil, gas, coal, gold, iron, radio spectrum licensing and so on to which all people should be inherently entitled, then calculate the rate at which they could rent it out on the market. That might then be worked into a number for appropriate social welfare for a person who is supported based entirely based on his own labor. But I'm not an economist and even if I did this daunting task no one would believe me. But ... given that it seems a logical underpinning for the entire liberal philosophy, is there a chance someone else has tried to do it and gotten at least a rough sense of what that formula would work out to?

It is my suspicion that our lack of knowledge or consideration of this number is the fundamental basis of the conflict between liberal and conservative positions. Wnt (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In ye old times on alt.politics.libertarian there was a bit of criticism about the private ownership of land (and by extension natural resources), since, if you follow e.g. John Locke's idea of property, you can only acquire resources from the commons if "there is enough, and as good, left in common for others", which, arguably never is true for naturally limited resources. Thus, land and natural  resources should be held in common for all mankind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * While you are discussing ownership of resources, you appear to be describing the mills system for property tax. Do you know how that works? However, I believe you are going off in the wrong direction. Taxes have been used to redistribute wealth, look into why Harrison wrote Taxman. Did taxing the rich at nearly 100% redistribute wealth to the poor? No. The problem with taxes isn't money or percentages. It is humans. Government is made of humans and humans cannot be trusted. They inevitably become corrupt and wasteful. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise with corporations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No. A corporation exists to make money. The owners/stockholders of the corporation are supposed to make money. A government exists to serve the people. The representatives in government are supposed to serve the people. In reality, the representatives in government ignore the people and use their positions to make money. Claiming that a corporation is corrupt because it turns a profit is just new age silliness. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You: "Government is made of humans and humans cannot be trusted. They inevitably become corrupt and wasteful." Them: "Likewise with corporations." You: "No!" Apparently corporations aren't made up of humans. Who knew? --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is not that corporations do not screw over the public, but that it is the job of corporations to serve the interests of their owners (which often may involve screwing over the public), and thus that the situations are not comparable - corporations are doing what they are supposed to do, while government is not. That is, at least, a bit cynical, but there is a certain point there. In reality both corporations and government suffer from the principal–agent problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Corporations cannot become corrupt and wasteful and continue to exist. Governments can. The "too big to fail" theory in corporations has failed itself. Whenever someone criticizes government, there is a kneejerk reaction to say "corporations too". I believe it is important to recognize that corporations and governments are not the same. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The government, in theory, answers to the public. What part of the public do corporations answer to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They answer to the public in the sense that if they don't fulfil a need they go out of business.  Their integrity is guaranteed (theoretically) by the requirement to have their accounts audited. 2A02:C7F:BE2D:9E00:C049:10E7:D61B:C61C (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are effective laws against a monopoly (another argument entirely), then corporations have competition. The corporation must provide goods or services that the public is willing to purchase. If the corporation does not do that, the corporation will fail and cease to exist. Governments are monopolies. You can't choose to pay your taxes to the alternative good state government, putting the bad one out of business. Governments theoretically serve the people, but taxes are collected with out without good service for the people. If service for the people gets really bad, the solution is invariably to raise taxes. So, it is profitable for governments to provide bad service. Because a very very small percent of government is elected, there is no reason for government to get better. The public cannot vote them out of their job. All incentive is for the government employees (not elected officials) to do less work and find ways to collect more money. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So, what we need is to abolish government and let corporations totally run the world? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How does that logically follow? The entire point I've made is that corporations and governments are not related. They have different goals and serve different needs. Privatizing government services doesn't magically solve the problem. It appears that you (Baseball Bugs) believe that government and corporations are interchangeable entities. I personally see government and organized religion as far more interchangeable, but I really don't want to sidetrack this further. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If heroin was made legal corporations would start selling it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It once was legal and corporations did sell it. Why? Because the public purchased it. If the public wouldn't purchase it, it wouldn't be sold. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be good for society to start again though? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Close. We need to abolish states and let corporations, whose viability depends on state-created artificial scarcities, collapse. —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While there is less incentive for government to run efficiently, there is some.  Eventually an inefficiently run department will come to the attention of the voters, who will then ask their reps to improve efficiency, either by replacing the "deadwood" or by outsourcing the department's job entirely, firing everyone.  The department head, knowing that his job is on the line, will hopefully implement efficiency improvements before that becomes necessary.  One important factor in solving government inefficiency problems is that there must be government transparency.  That is, the public must know how much of their taxes are being spent and what is being produced.  (In some cases, the second part is rather obvious, like smooth roads versus roads full of potholes.)


 * There is, however, one case where it is actually in the interest of government agencies to run inefficiently. If having a surplus this year means they are not allowed to save it for next year, and that this will be seen as them having been budgeted too much money and result in a tighter budget next year, then spending that surplus is in their interest.  Hopefully, though, they can spend it on something worthwhile, like new computers, so it's not entirely wasted.  StuRat (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Corporations cannot become corrupt and wasteful and continue to exist". Iapetus (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to read up on resource curse and Dutch disease, as they relate to how having certain easily extracted, readily exported natural resources can actually harm a nation. Your idea of sharing such resources equally might help.  Also, just slowing things down and not over-relying on that one sector seems to be critical to the health of the nation.  Venezuela is a good example of how NOT to do it. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Are Australia and Canada experiencing this? I suppose Japan would be doing just fine with few natural resources if they could stop the 1990 economic bubble but all countries can't be this. For every Coruscant, Japan, and Singapore there has to be a grain planet providing natural resources. Interestingly, the Coruscant of the Earth is a small country that's 85% oil production by GDP. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (Coruscant is a fictional Star Wars location, to anyone who is confused.)


 * Australia and Canada both have diverse economies. Canada does have tar sands which could prove to be a resource curse, but factors such as low oil prices, the low quality of tar sands oil, difficulty getting pipelines completed in the US for environmental reasons, and competition from cheap natural gas obtained by fracking, have all limited the rate of expansion of this sector of the Canadian economy, perhaps to the benefit of Canada overall. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So far I'm seeing a lot of discussion that doesn't seem extremely relevant. Maybe I should start doing an amateur calculation just to show what I mean:


 * The total private land value in the U.S. is about $15 trillion . (They say $14.88 trillion to be precise, but we can't be precise.  For example, much public land is being exploited privately while the taxpayers get basically nothing for it, so the real value should be more; but we'll still need some public land in any utopian system, so I'll say less than 2 might as well be 1.  Similarly, it is fair to say the U.S. is a fairly rich country, with a third of a trillion people on a third of one decent continent, but again, all mysteries of exchange value and depression of value by totalitarianism and war aside, I don't believe it would be a factor of 2 off the other way)


 * A graph downloaded here suggests a rent-to-price ratio of about 5%, though with some weird gyrations during the Great Recession and a bit lower (4.5%) currently.


 * The current system is distorted because the Single Taxer program is already in place -- there is property tax -- but the effect of that is blunted because of the system of locally funding schools and zoning poor people out of rich neighborhoods. So I can assume that the "true market value" of land, absent a property tax system, would be higher, but I don't have any idea how much or how to figure that out.


 * I am also neglecting things like radio spectrum, fishing quota holdings, etc., which are a lot of value but I don't think they will match the bulk land value.

But to take a first stab in the dark, that's $15 trillion / 330 million = $45,000 ??? And I'm already confused. Actually, I went back to that article and it says structures - the land is only $10 trillion. Government says $11 trillion. But how many couples in the U.S. live in a $90,000 house (including surrounding land)? Remember - we're not talking about their equity when you subtract loans, but the actual value of the house. Even condos sell for more than that. So ... ? If I used this figure I'd come up with only $2000 in support for a homeless person, but it doesn't seem believable. Can anyone debug this? Wnt (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I should add that if we could get past the first part, there's also the question of what to do about money made out of nothing. I mean, the Federal Reserve prints free money and (sometimes) gets interest from it; that goes free to banks, but what if its benefits were evenly distributed to the people? But first I would like to see a more tangible and less philosophically mysterious calculation sorted out. Wnt (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A quote from David Lammy, the M P for Tottenham:

"You can't contract everything out to the private sector. The private sector do some wonderful things, but they have for-profit motives; they cut corners."

This is in the context of a company supplying non-fire resistent cladding for Grenfell Tower instead of fire-resistent cladding. The saving? Five thousand pounds in a budget of ten million. 86.176.19.17 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it certain that 1 WTC would have collapsed by the plane crash?

 * Disclaimer: This is not a 9/11 conspiracy question. I do not intend to have claims of an "inside job", a targeted detonation etc. to be discussed here, even though I can't prevent it.

It's broad consensus that in the 9/11 attacks, 1 WTC (North Tower) and 2 WTC (South Tower) collapsed following the respective plane crash into each tower. However, I think there is a gap in reasoning. Taken from the timeline: The North Tower was hit by the plane significantly higher than the South Tower, which obviously meant less significant structural damage. Therefore, the North Tower took much longer to collapse (102 min) than the South Tower (56 min). The collapse of the two towers damaged all other WTC buildings beyond repair, of which 7 WTC subsequently also collapsed, spawning additional conspiracy theories. But then, one open question remains: The collapse of the South Tower obviously inflicted additional heavy damage to the North Tower, which still withstood for another half an hour. So... is it even certain that the North Tower would have collapsed by the impact of AA 11 alone? Assume UA 175 would have never hit the South Tower for whatever reason - would the North Tower possibly have endured and not collapsed? Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered? --KnightMove (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 8:46:40 AM: American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Center between the 93rd and 99th floors.
 * 9:03:02 AM: United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower of the World Trade Center between the 77th and 85th floors.
 * 9:58:59 AM: The South Tower collapses.
 * 10:28:22 AM: The North Tower collapses.


 * I am obviously not an expert, but the collapse of 1 seemed to come from the collapse of the floors above the impact site, which created compound stress and brought the whole tower down. This was all well above any damage from the impact or collapse of 2. The damage to 7 and the damage to 1 wouldn't be analogous, because 7 collapsed due to damage and fire caused by the collapse of the towers, whereas 1 definitely collapsed because of the failure of the upper floors, and not from any damage from 2. Could damage from 2 have weakened the lower half of the building? Perhaps, but the upper half would still have collapsed. So in my completely lay opinion, 1 would have collapsed regardless of the existence of 2 - once the upper floors gave way, even if the lower 70 floors were completely undamaged, the building would have crumbled. At best, in the absence of 2, the lower half of 1 might have remained, still structurally stable enough to withstand the impacts from above, but ... I doubt it. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There were less floors above where the plane crashed into the North tower so it required more structural damage before the burning floors collapsed due to the weight above. The fire was the main cause of structural damage as it caused the steel to lose strength. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The OP's statement that a lower collision automatically means more damage is not correct, certainly not when talking about the initial damage.  However, if high enough up, a collision might not have caused the building to collapse, so in that sense a lower collision could eventually cause more damage. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty focusing on the question because of the included image. It shows the building as being at least 1,000 feet apart. That is about 10 times the distance between the towers. Is there a reason that they are being shown so far apart? Is the goal to make it hard to explain how damage to one could affect the other? I'm seeing a conspiracy theory in the creation of the image itself. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The 2010s footprints are ~150 or ~35 feet apart from the compass directions that only show one side of the tower and slightly over 150 ft from the directions of maximum separation (but then you'd see a bit of the second side of the tower). The Twin Towers were this distance apart pretty much. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * NOT an expert argument, but... My understanding is that the structural elements that failed were not the main supporting beams.  Instead, some kind of steel element supporting individual floors failed, and then there was a chain reaction after some number "pancaked" into each other.  As a result, I'd think that the up-down position of the plane crash would be virtually irrelevant -- the "rate limiting step" (to abuse a phrase) here is the collapse of initial, identical sets of floors in impact site fires which were, at a zero-order approximation, the same overall size and intensity. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Majority of the main supporting columns in the core failed by being cut in half by the plane. About half of the supporting column strength was in the edge so if the margin of safety was double strength the planes did most of it and the fire, floor sagging, floor-to-edge connectors failing and pancaking did the rest. And something about a hat truss (the thing that caps the structural​ parts and keeps the core and edge columns connected, the floors being insufficient). The hat truss is less hot, being further away, so it might not be irrelevant. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "Majority of the main supporting columns in the core failed by being cut in half by the plane." I don't believe that's correct, as the columns were massive and the plane was lightweight, except for certain components like engines and landing gear.  I believe Wnt is correct. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually we're all wrong. The pancake theory is debunked and most core columns weren't severed (but some were). "Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers." Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that in Britain, after the Ronan Point disaster, building regulations were amended so that buildings would not collapse if part of the support structure gave way. 2A02:C7F:BE2D:9E00:A2:C382:E0D6:2FD7 (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by 'part'. They didn't collapse when just part of the support structure gave way. They collapsed when a lot of the support structure gave way. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The approach I like is the internal support structures used now, plus an external space frame, which has the advantage of not being much affected by fire, since nothing flammable is near it. If you pour fuel on it, it will pour right off, without a building to hold it in place and allow temperatures to build up to the failure temp.  Some examples: . StuRat (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Dower lands of English queens
What lands were given to English queens as dower? I have found information indicating that there were traditional dower lands that were passed from one queen to another, but I do not know which. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Matilda of Scotland: A Study in Medieval Queenship by Lois L. Huneycutt (p. 57) points out that it was unlikely that there was a fixed area of land permanently set aside as dower, because if the dowager queen made use of the dower on the death of the king, his successor would also need to provide a dower for the new consort. Even in the 20th century, we have had two bereaved queens at the same time. Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I have read these lands passed from the queen dowager to the queen consort on the former's death, or from one queen consort to the next. The queen consort was without land for as long as her predecessor was alive. Such was the case for Berengaria of Navarre (lands held by Eleanor of Aquitaine, her mother-in-law), Isabella of France (lands held by Margaret of France, her aunt and stepmother-in-law), Philippa of Hainault (lands held by Isabella of France, her mother-in-law), etc. Even if that is not so, what lands did individual queens receive? Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dowager Queen Catherine lived at Chelsea Old Manor when she remarried, acquired by her late husband, sold by Oliver Cromwell. Sleigh (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned I meant queens up to around 1350. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Page 69 of the book Alan linked to lists Exeter, Winchester, Rockingham and Rutland as being among the lands sometimes dowered on English queens in the early middle ages. --Antiquary (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some more detail about the dower system (although no specific place-names) at Three Medieval Queens: Queenship and the Crown in Fourteenth-Century England by Lisa Benz St. John (p. 81 onwards). However, it says on p. 83: "From the fourteenth century onward, queen consorts were traditionally assigned the same lands for their dower as their predecessors". So it seems that the system was only regularised at the end of the period you are interested in. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)