Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 February 12

= February 12 =

Question about economic prosperity under Democratic United States Presidents?
It states here that one factor that was excluded from consideration in regards to studying why the United States economy tends to, on average, perform better under Democratic United States Presidents is the quality of the economy that various United States Presidents inherited. However, just why exactly was this factor excluded from consideration in this research? After all, it certainly does seem like a HUGE factor that could SIGNIFICANTLY make a difference here. All else being equal, one would think that United States Presidents who came into office with higher unemployment rates would have an easier time with job creation than United States Presidents who came into office with lower unemployment rates–similar to how it's easier for dirt-poor countries to grow at faster rates than it is for wealthy countries, short of exceptional circumstances such as a wealthy country having a lot of natural resources or being a financial/banking hub or whatever. After all, if there is a higher unemployment rate, then it should be easier to create a lot of jobs than it there is a lower unemployment rate, no? Futurist110 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The cited study equates "the economy" with GDP, something that the section on "Reasons" (shouldn't that be "Causes"?) fails to make clear. It does indeed not seem reasonable not to consider "the quality of the (inherited) economy" – but how to define this "quality"? I think, though, that it should be easier to create jobs if the inherited unemployment rate is 9% than if it is 0% and everyone employable is already employed. The study has been criticized, but this is not mentioned. Also, there is a more recent study than the cited one. --Lambiam 08:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As a non-American who is horrified by the GOP, I view the article as a stain on wikipedia as the central idea is nonsense. A better way to measure may be to attribute the 50 years after their presidency, but still, your sample size is far too small to get any statistical power and major economic events fall, to some extent, randomly, so which president catches them is random and the article then boils down to which political group is luckier. You could write the same article but switch out party affiliation for left or right handedness or skin colour and you could find statistically significant differences that also lack statistical power. Of 19 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not read the article, but I think that in most cases a US President's economic policies have very little influence on the vagaries of the economy, so the whole underlying premise that there is a relatively strong causal relationship – and an immediate one at that – may be based on smoke. Moreover, it is not at all clear that their actual policies have anything to do with the ideological policies of their party's platforms. But our opinions are not relevant here; what is relevant is what is reported by reliable sources, and whether it is reflected here from a neutral point of view without undue focus on relatively minor issues. If you see room for improvement, which could involve mentioning published criticism of the concept and the naive ways it is approached, you are more than welcome to give it a hand. --Lambiam 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a statistician so I cannot judge based on personal competences, but the sources seem to be reliable. Perhaps they are cherrypicked? If so, I'd encourage Of_19 to fill in the lacunae.Potugin (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The reasons for a lack of a post-Cold War Marshall-style plan for Russia and the rest of the ex-USSR?
Why exactly was there no post-Cold War equivalent of a Marshall Plan for Russia and the rest of the ex-USSR? Was a fear among Americans and Westerners that a lot of this money was going to get stolen by corrupt ex-USSR politicians and oligarchs had anything to do with this? Futurist110 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article gives an array of arguments why such a plan would have been ineffective or unfeasible. --Lambiam 08:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See also Western Civil-Society Aid to Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The U.S. government and international financial institutions tried to pursue supportive policies and give good advice, but it's questionable whether such advice was always helpful (some of it was generic cookie-cutter Washington Consensus / neoliberalism / free-market fundamentalism slogans not usefully adapted to the specific conditions in Russia in the early 1990s), and some of it ended up helping oligarchs to consolidate their economic power. In general, the "Marshall Plan" metaphor is of somewhat limited usefulness -- in Western Europe after WW2, there were workers with advanced technical skills who had previously worked for successful commercial enterprises, and were willing to do so again if infrastructure damage caused by the war could be repaired.  There are relatively few analogous situations in other times and places... AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Post-World War II Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan? Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some countries in post-WW2 western Europe resumed industrial production at a level of technological sophistication close to being the highest in the world after just a few years, while that was not the case in non-communist East Asia. During the 1950s, Japan had a reputation in Western countries for producing cheap shoddy goods and flimsy gadgets... AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Marshall Plan states "The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-torn regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, improve European prosperity, and prevent the spread of communism." (bolding mine) So it would have been a bit quixotic to provide aid to the enemy. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I said "post-Cold War" here. Futurist110 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarityfiend, I don't think you need to say Oops. You were right.  The situation in 1945 was that the U.S. was worried about the spread of Communism, and saw aid to Europe as a way to check that -- i.e., to gain a geopolitical advantage by countering a rival that might otherwise gain influence in an important region.  In the post-Cold-War era there was nothing comparable.  There was no superpower rival to the U.S. that would be able to exploit economic hardship in Russia, to the disadvantage of the U.S. JamesMLane t c 20:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What better way to hinder the spread of communism than letting free-market fundamentalism infest Russia? --Lambiam 00:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Instead of direct aid, benefits to post-Soviet eastern bloc countries were provided via free trade agreements and the like, which were contingent upon joining western alliances like NATO and the European Union. See Enlargement of NATO and Enlargement of the European Union.  These treaties had many economic and political benefits for former Eastern Bloc countries that obviated the need for direct aid ala the Marshall Plan.  -- Jayron 32 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But not all ex-Communist countries have actually entered either the European Union or NATO yet! Futurist110 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All politics is local. They might have their reasons for not doing so.  Even some historically western powers, such as France, have withdrawn from NATO (see History_of_NATO, and most famously the UK from the European Union; and others have never joined either alliance, though they have been traditionally "aligned" with Western powers.  Every country has its own local politics to contend with, and such local issues are not always part of an easy "Murica vs. The Commies" bipartisan narrative.  The same is true for some of the former Eastern Bloc/Communist countries.  -- Jayron 32 18:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nitpick, but France didn't actually withdraw from NATO itself, only from NATO's integrated military command structure. Futurist110 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Duke, or not Duke; that is the question
I noticed this picture from St. Bartholomew's Day massacre --> ...which came from the Russian Museum collection (here). The title translates as Eve of St. Bartholomew's Night, thus its logical inclusion in the article.

To make a long story short-ish, I'm reasonably certain that the painting depicts the Duke of Alba, relating to: [ Pope Pius V ] [...] bestowed on him a consecrated hat and sword, a present heretofore given only to sovereigns. -- in recognition for his campaign in the Netherlands beginning in 1557 and the subsequent Council of Troubles, etc. ... which relates to the 1572 massacre.

Anyway, I'm trying to directly associate the duke with the painting, and the painting to the massacre. It doesn't help that the Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba article omits mention of the 1572 St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. I've carefully studied the Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding what is and is not considered a "reliable source", and (correct me if I'm wrong), random person on the internet (me) falls in the latter category. I've come to a dead end -- help? 2603:6081:1C00:1187:BCB8:5C65:41CB:FA6C (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The 1852 painting A Huguenot, on St. Bartholomew's Day, Refusing to Shield Himself from Danger by Wearing the Roman Catholic Badge depicts a related (fictional) event, possibly the same as depicted in the 1886 painting Mercy: St Bartholomew’s Day, 1572 It is inspired by Meyerbeer's opera Les Huguenots, and shows in particular a plot element expressed in a quote that accompanied the 1852 painting, reading: "When the clock of the Palais de Justice shall sound upon the great bell, at daybreak, then each good Catholic must bind a strip of white linen round his arm, and place a fair white cross in his cap.—The order of the Duke of Guise." In the 1868 painting by Hūns we see the subject – already clearly identifiable as a Catholic by the crucifix and the triptych of Maria holding the Christ Child – affixing such a white cross to his cap. The Grand Duke of Alba was Governor of the Netherlands at the time of the massacre; he was busy unsuccessfully quenching the Dutch Revolt and there is no reason to think he was in Paris and personally took part in the violence. Perhaps the depicted subject is the Comte de Saint-Bris, one of the characters in the opera. --Lambiam 23:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow! Amazing research; or, was this something you already knew? -- Either way, thank you very much.  --2603:6081:1C00:1187:BCB8:5C65:41CB:FA6C (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, all fresh research. An addition: Meyerbeer's opera was performed in Saint Petersburg in 1850 (in Italian) and again in 1862 (in Russian), so it is quite possible that the painter, Kārlis Hūns, who lived in Saint Petersburg at the time, attended one or more performances. He "eventually settled in Paris and exhibited at the Salon in 1868", so this very painting was possibly part of that exhibition. --Lambiam 00:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Evidently, the resemblance is purely coincidental. -->
 * Extra credit: what's the deal with the stick? --2603:6081:1C00:1187:BCB8:5C65:41CB:FA6C (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC) ... Note: the file description for this engraved illustration mentions almost everything but the stick: File:Bor-Nederlantsche-Oorloghen 9152.tif
 * Presaging Roosevelt's "carry a big stick"? --Lambiam 11:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See Baton (military): "Batons were given to top commanders in most European armies from at least the Renaissance, as a revival of classical practice. They were typically presented by the monarch, and latterly were often elaborate pieces of metalwork, though earlier portraits show plain batons of wood, often longer and thinner than later examples". Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see fasces. The use of sticks (or in the case of fasces, a bundle of sticks) dates to Etruscans, where it was a symbol of power.  This was passed on to the Roman Empire, where a magistrate's imperium was designated by the right to bear a certain type of fasces.  The symbology of the Roman Empire was later adopted (for obvious reasons) by the National Fascist Party of Italy, and the modern word "Fascism" derives from "Fasces".  -- Jayron 32 15:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)