Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 December 5

= December 5 =

Why do conservatives tend to favor regressive taxes?
Why do many conservatives tend to have an affinity for regressive taxes? e.g sales taxes, especially on food and rent, or combining a property tax cut with a sales tax hike (which makes all renters worse off)


 * Fiscal conservatism (traditional 'republicanism', or 'right-wing thinking')in the United States is associated with supply-side economics and traditional and strict laissez faire policies. They believe that the least government involvement is the best way to lead to economic growth, which will, in turn, make everybody better off.  That means that any tax levied should be "non-distortionary"; it shouldn't influence people's behavior.   A progressive tax system tends to produce a distortion; it more highly discourages the next unit of output from the 'most productive' people (the people who are able to draw the highest wages).  People who follow this ideology would prefer a "flat tax," (considering the net effect of sales, income, investment and other taxes) all else being equal.


 * Sales taxes are definitely regressive. But when put together with a progressive income tax, they may just end up flattening the whole marginal taxation curve.  Even a 'flat tax' is progressive if there is a 'basic amount' that isn't taxable.  The average tax rate goes up with income (even if the marginal tax rate stays flat).


 * The way I look at the battle between left and right is as one between equity and efficiency. There are plenty of 'equity' or 'equality'-based arguments that throw wrenches in the right-wing ideologies as the best means of 'increasing total utility' (a word for "happiness" or "usefulness").  For example, clearly a dollar of income is marginally more valuable to a low-income person than a high-income person.  The condition for maximum utility, however, is that everyone's marginal utility be the same as everyone else's.  This suggests that the best way to maximize total utility is for everyone's income to be the same.  A supply-sider would say that situation would discourage further production and economic growth and make future generations (or future years for this generation) worse-off than they otherwise could be.  Naturally, the only solution to this problem is to find out 1) by how much a progressive reform will reduce future production and 2) find out at what 'discount' or 'interest' rate we discount that future utility loss back to present value, and 3) set the "present value of the future loss of utility" equal to the "current gain in utility" that the progressive reform causes.


 * There is also the idea that income disparity leads to a system that is best described using a 'Class model' (lower class, middle class, upper class) where only the upper classes have access to the education needed to become that 'most highly productive worker,' resulting in other labour allocation inefficiencies.


 * It's best to not make judgments on potential policies based on any sort of underlying ideology. Rather, it's best to consider each from cost-benefit "present value of all future utility" point of view.


 * The progressivity of sales taxes can also be improved by exempting or zero-rating food, shelter and other basic goods.NByz (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NByz is right to an extent, but I think it represents a particular world and moral view as well as an economic one. If the extreme of the economic left-wing is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (a quote from Marx. Not accusing anyone of being Communist before you get all crazy) then the extreme of the right-wing would be "From each in his ability to each in his ability." Morally, the right wing beleives that one should be deserving of what they receive as measured by its usefulness to society. Ayn Rand (a laissez faire fanatic) said "Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."


 * The question for many on the right is what is more just. Should someone who does a job that society doesn't value (a low paying job) contribute less to the upkeep of the government than someone who does a job that society values more? A person with right wing ideology would say no and would probably even prefer a user pays system. If the rich person eats well and gets lots of exercise why should they subsidise the extra healh care costs of the poor person? A flat "living in society" tax would be the ideal extreme right-wing tax. It does not discourage extra (marginal) consumption or production and it represents the equal rights/responsibilities of people within society. Of course such a tax would be unrealistic, but idealogically it represents the pure right-wing (and is certainly a "regressive tax")

Jabberwalkee (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I know for a fact that the moral view you mention is held among many. I organized a mayoral campaign for someone over this last year who - it slowly came out (in my eyes) - held it himself.  He had some very good intuition about economics, and "the free market usually achieving the best resource allocation", but it was supported by his own competitiveness, not economic theory.


 * Also, a "living in society tax" (we call it a lump-sum tax, as opposed to the flat tax mentioned above) is certainly regressive. But in most economic models, it's - by far - the most efficient in the near term; it doesn't distort the free market resource allocation at all.  It's only when you relax the (very necessary) assumptions within those models (perfect information, no administrative or transaction costs, the fact that individuals are not homogeneous and also experience diminishing marginal returns to income etc.) that they fare not as useful in real life.  I stand by the idea that people who study economics do so in a very statistical and logical way.  Normative Economics usually tries to present things in a way that accomplishes a socially responsible goal, usually "maximizing total utility."  There will likely be many applications for Lump-Sum Taxes in the future that can take advantage of this efficiency gain, without being offset by a larger equity loss.NByz (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely the main problem with a lump-sum tax would be that it wouldn't make enough money. You can't set the tax amount higher than the poorest can afford to pay (not necessarily pay comfortably, but they need to have at least that much money, plus enough for the bare essentials that the state doesn't pay for), which would be quite a small amount (even if you take it to the extreme and say that those that can't afford to pay their way should just be allowed to starve to death - there's only so many people you can allow to starve before under-population becomes an issue). Your total tax revenue would then be that small amount times the total population, which isn't going to be enough to cover even those few things that really need to be state run (the armed forces, for example). --Tango (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the "people aren't homogeneous" problem (most economic models assume everyone is 'average'). But there are oligopolistic industries in which the firms are nearly homogeneous.  Also, something like the window tax (in some sort of environment where people couldn't choose how many windows they had after the tax had been implemented) would achieve all of the benefits of a lump-sum tax (not influencing decisions) while remaining somewhat progressive.  Maybe a "functioning neuron tax", assuming people wouldn't intentionally cause brain injuries...  Keeping the idea of a lump-sum tax in the mind to address future taxation problems is useful (they're used in economics problems all the time).  They remind us of the one extreme: perfectly non-distorting taxes.NByz (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always assumed that all the arguments of political conservatives for flat taxes and such are just a way to lower how much they pay, essentially selfishness. A true flat tax is completely unworkable, both because it would provide insufficient revenue and because the poor would be unable to pay.  As noted above, it could work if you have a huge standard deduction, like with a nominal 50% tax rate with the first $20,000 excluded, but then this is just a progressive tax in disguise, with a 0% rate at $20K, a 10% tax rate at $25K, a 25% rate at $40K, a 40% rate at $100K, etc.  While sales taxes probably charge a higher rate to the poor than the rich (since the rich spend less of their money on items which have sales tax), sales taxes still likely take in more total money from the rich. StuRat (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While I tend to agree with your suggested motivation, not all political conservatives are wealthy - support for such policies also relies on those who are less well off but like to imagine that they will soon be rich and will then benefit from flat or regressive taxation. Warofdreams talk 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right that a flat tax is a progressive tax (but perhaps not in disguise!). Like I mention above, a flat tax with a large excluded amount means that the average tax rate increases for every dollar above the basic amount, even though the marginal tax rate stays the same.  Most proponents of the flat tax use this argument often.  Like I mention above, though, it's best not to be a proponent of anything, but rather examine each individually.  Maybe I'm biased, but I rather like the tax system we have in Canada:  A reasonable basic amount, and only three brackets.  I would just prefer fewer services and lower marginal rates in each bracket.NByz (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whereas opposition to tax simplification is motivated by what, a desire to pay more (or perhaps to spend more on compliance)? Is selfishness legitimate for some voters and not others?  —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you set a generous tax-free earnings amount (say £15k) and then everything above that is taxed at a constant rate you have a simple tax system (at least on earnings). If you have a tax-free bracket, a 10% rate on the next X then a 20% rate on the next Y and then a 40% rate above Z you have a more complicated process. The benefit of the flat-tax is that it simplifies the tax system. It can allow for the poorest in society to pay (in wage-income terms) no tax. People appear to have preconceptions about how the tax would be implemented and ignore that the idea itself is a reasonably simple theory - the implementation will vary depending on the political party proposing/bring in the tax. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That "simple" argument is used a lot, but I don't rteally buy it. Calculating tax in three brackets is really not that tough, it takes about 6 lines on my tax form. There are at least 400 lines in all, if you include all the schedules, special deductions, blah, blah. There are many other ways to simplify the income tax system than making 3 numbers into one. Franamax (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It does add some confusion if you have a PAYE system and multiple sources of income. It's not too difficult to deal with, though, which is why the simplicity arguing rarely gets much support. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the simplicity arguement. If you are talking about compuational simplicity vs complexity, that arguement went out with the invention of the calculator. If you're talking about complexity of the law and the inability of people to understand it, that arguement goes back at least as far back as Cain pleading that he didn't fully understand the strictures and consequences of murder. Many laws are as complex as the tax code, that's why we have lawyers. Phil_burnstein (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if you made the tax code simpler you can spend less money on lawyers (and accountants). Having different bands for income tax doesn't make a great deal of difference to the tax code, though, it's the various deductions and special rates and things that complicate matters. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think mainstream conservatives in any country favour regressive taxation. There is a global consensus for moderately progressive taxation. Compared with the extremes of earlier times, disagreements over the level of progression in modern debate are minor questions of degree. Abberley2 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Buses in my city travel 100+/mph
How can I stop these crazy things? I think the drivers are all mad at thier Xs or something cause they sure bring out the ol' leadfoot. I aint lookin for no legal recourse here, and wouldnt get advice from y'all nohow. Are those things that the cops use to kill engines available to the public?--Sunburned Baby (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by NByz (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see it now, SB, duelling universal engine-killing remotes flicking out all across the lanes. Zap! no zap you! Zap you m...f... – so expect to get a badge before you get the tools. But I could be wrong, it's a big world. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it all buses or just the ones with Keanu Reeves on?-- WORM  MЯOW  08:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually very surprised that there are busses that can make it up to 100mph - and even more surprised that they don't have speed regulators on them. I suspect our OP is exaggerating somewhat. SteveBaker (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bus drivers are expected to keep to a certain schedule, so if they get held up in traffic, they probably try to make up the time on the open stretches. Their sheer size (the buses, not the drivers) and the fact that they usually travel in the curb lane may also make them seem to be going faster than they are.
 * You should talk to your city council, or call a newspaper and see if they will assign someone to check with a radar gun and write a story. Advocating for your local transit to have the little gizmos that delay traffic-light changes until the bus gets through the intersection would also help the buses to keep to their schedule without having to speed. Franamax (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas in Australia
Christmas in the United States is marketed and celebrated with songs and decorations focused on winter. For example, Santa Claus is pictured in a heavy wool suit and cap driving a team of reindeer on his sleigh through the snow (or the air). People wear Santa-like wool (or faux wool) hats. Buildings are decorated with evergreen branches and wreaths as a reminder of the one part of the landscape that remains green through the winter. Many Christmas songs refer to snow. I happen to live in a part of the United States where snow is a real possibility and cold weather a near certainty at Christmas. However, I lived for several years in coastal California, where snow is almost unknown (except on distant mountain peaks) and lots of plants not only remain green but turn green during winter. When I lived in California (having grown up in a snowier climate), I found the wintry and snowy iconography of Christmas weirdly out of place. Still, while California has a mild climate, even in California, the nights are longer, the days are shorter, and there is sometimes a chill in the air in late December.

In Australia, on the other hand, Christmas, a holiday that probably originated as a winter solstice celebration, is celebrated near the summer solstice, when days are warm and long, nights are short, and people can frolic comfortably in the surf in just a bikini. Do Australians sing Christmas songs about sleigh rides in the snow or about the "deep of winter"? Do they picture Santa Claus or Father Christmas driving his reindeer down the beach in a heavy wool suit? Wouldn't he be sweating uncomfortably? Don't those songs about snow and winter seem completely out of place? If Christmas in Australia is not associated with images of winter, what images do Australians associate with the holiday? Thanks! Marco polo (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of this is answered in our article on Christmas worldwide. Nanonic (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read that article. But as someone who live in Australia, the answer to most of your questions is yes. Our Christmas images very much come from the Northern Hemisphere. So all images of Santa show him in a think coat and what not. - Akamad (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. The article mentions that television ratings crash (as of this past week I noticed) to the level of unabashed repeats of old shows willy nilly. Families can be individually creative about the emblems of Christmas, but households in some neighbourhoods make decorating the outside: the house and garden flashy and families drive around to see the displays. Christmas dinner can be anything from a seafood buffet to barbecues to the traditional roast dinner – with paper hats, candles, green and red everywhere and the classic northern hemi christmas tree. Media advertising is pushing the Santa in board shorts near a red/white caravan and a clothesline before a surfboard magically appears in his arms and he heads to the surf. But that's advertising... Some community groups hold carols in the park around the suburbs. It's sweltering day this minute, Julia Rossi (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reminded of the Rolf Harris song "Six white boomers" (1961) which claims that when Santa crosses the equator to head down to Australia, he swaps out the Reindeer for six snow-white "boomers" (Adult, male kangaroos are called 'boomers') to pull his sleigh. The names of the boomers - and whether any of them has a glowing nose - is sadly not recorded in the lyrics. SteveBaker (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another Australian Christmas song that parodies images of santa riding on a sleigh in Australia is Christmas where the Gum Trees Grow. An American song on the same theme is Santa's Gonna Come in a Pickup Truck - pickup trufcks are similar to what Australians call utes. We have other Australian Christmas carols, and a tradition of Carols by Candlelight.

Here in Perth, it's usually between 25 and 35°C (77 and 95°F) on Christmas day, but the conditions vary within Australia. It snowed on the mountains on Christmas day, 2006, but temperatures have been as high as 48.3°C (118.9 °F) in Gascoyne Junction, Western Australia, on Christmas day (see this radio program transcript). You can find averages and extreme temperatures for many Australian places at on Christmas day this site by a climatologist who is now at the Bureau of Meteorology. Graham 87 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been known to snow in Hobart on Christmas Day (or at least on Mt Wellington). In Canberra ("the heart of the nation"), where I lived for many years, it can be stinking hot at Christmas, but the really hot weather tends not to start till early January, and I have many memories of surprisingly cool Christmas Days there.  The Australian Christmas Carols of William G. James became very popular, particularly the one that starts "The north wind is tossing the leaves, the red dust is over the town ...".  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in New Jersey, which I dislike, and had to work late on Christmas Eve two or three years ago. It was snowing here and believe me, I wasn't the happy man. I had on internet radio a Sydney station, I think it might have been 2GB Racing (Does that sound familiar?). Callers, already celebrating Christmas, were describing their day, which seemed to run thusly: 1-- Open presents. 2-- Hop down to the market for fresh seafood. 3-- Eat the fresh seafood. 4-- Head off to Bondi or wherever for a day in the sun and sea. Envious I was, envious I am. 98.235.67.132 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that Australia isn't the only country in the world that celebrates Christmas in summer: see South Africa, Brazil, etc etc. In South Africa a lot of the carols focus on the story of christmas, but sadly there are still a few that talk about dashing through the snow etc etc. The explanation is simply that these songs and themes are all American because America has been the biggest developer of the modern Christmas affair. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rail intersections with no switches
Are there any surface rail intersections that do not have switches or any other interchange mechanism, or where the switches are unused, but where both tracks are in use? Neon Merlin  03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean an intersection at the same elevation...Railroad switch has a lot of information - but I think what you want is a Level junction - there are four of them in the photo over HERE ====&gt;


 * And if you read the article, you'll see that they are not all that uncommon, particularly when the two tracks were built by different companies.


 * Here in Toronto I can think of a place where there are two such rail intersections close together, as a double-track CP line running roughly east-west crosses two CN lines running roughly N-S and NW-SE. The first is near Lansdowne Avenue and Dundas Street (at latitude/longitude coordinates 43.66729,-79.44904); the second is half a mile west of there (at 43.66723,-79.46).


 * If you look an aerial view of the second junction (in Google Maps, say), you will see that there do seem to be junction curves connecting the two lines. But if you look more carefully, you will see that they do not touch the straight double track of the CN line.  Instead they lead to other CP tracks which run alongside the CN tracks, on the west side south of the junction and on the east side north of it.  I remember when there was also a single track across the center of the junction, connecting those latter two CP tracks to each other -- it crossed the east-west double CP track and the NW-SE double CN track on the level in almost the same place, effectively a six-pointed arrangement!  The railways must have decided that this was not used enough to be worth the cost of maintaining such an expensive bit of specialwork and taken it out.


 * --Anonymous, 05:05 UTC, December 5, 5005... er, I mean 2008.

Verst
Is the verst still a standard unit of measurement in Russia? The Wikipedia article refers to it as obsolete, but it's used in the lead section of Tsarskoye Selo. I figure it should probably be removed anyway per WP:UNITS, but now my curiosity's been piqued. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union abolished all but metric units in 1924. Chances are it has survived as a customary unit. Shouldn't be in that article anyhow. Fribbler (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Fullobeans (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Piglets and other baby animals
Eating Lamb is pretty normal and Venison (Calf meat?) isn't that unusual, but I have never heard of eating Piglet. Is there a special name for meat from young-pigs like there is for meat from sheep/cows? Also what other animals are routinely eaten that are eaten in both young and old form. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For eating young pigs, see suckling pig. (Warning - if you don't like the idea of food that looks back at you you may find the picture at the top of that page unpleasant.) Gandalf61 (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Poussin aka Spatchcock. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that calf meat is called veal, while venison is deer meat. --Sean 14:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do eggs count? In some cases though the eggs may be eaten but the bird is not, gulls eggs for example. Duck and duckling. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about duck eggs where the embryo is almost fully formed and the egg is pickled? I believe it's a Chinese delicacy (though it makes me shudder just a bit). Franamax (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Worst is the indonesian delicacy which can be found with the street vendors as well they call it BALUT which is a completelt formed chick within the egg after hatching for 14 days, they are boiled and eaten juicySeekhle (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I live Indonesia and I never heard any such food. Isn't that Phillippine? Salbazier (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article balut supports Salbazier on this - balut appears to be eaten in the Philippines, Cambodia, and Vietnam. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Chapan article
In the article "Chapan", It said that Hamid Karzai wears a grey colour karakul cap which means it represents the Tajiks, so what Pashtuns, Uzbeks and Turkmen; Baloch and Hazara people? Also, you said chapan is Uzbek. So, what about Pashtun, turkmen, Baloch, Tajik and Hazara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.239 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Where can I get some flamethrowers?
I promise to use them responsibly.GarageShipbuilder (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From our article on flamethrowers, there appear to be several different kinds of flamethrowers; it would help answer your question if we knew what you are planning to do with yours. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just guessing - does he want to build ships in his garage? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It used to be possible to buy small flamethrowers for killing weeds in your back yard. Nothing very exciting - but possible. SteveBaker (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That's just a way to convince your wife to let you buy a flamethrower, surely? --Tango (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - it turns out that you can still get those things...This one produces a 2' long 5" wide flame, half a million BTU's of 2000 degF flaming death!...OK, not exactly a full-scale military flame thrower - but pretty impressive for killing weeds! Yours for $50 from Amazon (you have to provide your own propane tank). This  review of the beast is pretty funny. SteveBaker (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This thread (including SteveBaker's link) once again proves that the Reference Desk is great stuff to read over breakfast. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

naa, people, zippo lighter and supersoaker water pistol. fill it with parafin. use duct tape to fi the lighter to the water pistol and bobs your uncle. tried and tested, though original research is discouraged.

Devaluation (of national currency).
I am in the UK where the Bank of England have just reduced the base rate to 2%. I lived through the Wilson years when he told us "the £ in your pocket is still the same" (despite it being worth less in international currency markets by about 14%). I am also reading that China has beeen gradually reducing the value of the Yuan so as to retain its export market - and the expression used on Wiki is "beggar my neighbour", such that further devaluations by China will have a de-stabilising effect on world economies (Obama). My question is, if other major international currencies keep getting devalued by their respective governments as a ploy to gain an increased export market and reduce relatively expensive imports, where does it all end? And secondly, again in the UK, what is the effect of a national base rate of 0% interest? Does that mean I can borrow money without paying any interest on the loan? 92.20.50.40 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A drop in the purchasing power of a currency in its domestic market is called inflation. Devaluation of a currency doesn't necessarily cause inflation - it makes imports more expensive, which could increase the price of any product that has imported components (which is a large number of products in most countries today), but there are many other factors affecting inflation, so it is impossible to say exactly what would happen to prices if you devalue a currency. The way China's government keeps its currency artificially low is by buying up any foreign currency at an artificially high price. Obviously, buying something for more than it is worth is a very expensive thing to do, so there is a limit to how much it can do so before it runs out of money (and would have to print more, which would cause inflation), I'm not sure what the cost is or how much more they could afford, but there is a limit somewhere (the lower the price of Yuan is compared to its real value, but more it costs the state to buy all the foreign currency, so they can't devalue it too far). Also, the foreign currency the Chinese government buys is pretty useless to it - it can't convert it back to Yuan without driving the value of the Yuan back up, so instead it just has to hold onto it, which is why China has such massive foreign reserves. It can invest it overseas (in US treasury bonds for instance), but it can't spend it in China. This gives it significant influence on the international stage, but isn't much good at home. The other side to keeping exports cheap is that imports are expensive, so standard of living is reduced for the Chinese people. The economic growth that the large exports allow compensates for that, but only so much, if they took it too far things would get very bad for the Chinese people (some would say they are already very bad - I don't know enough about the situation to comment). Oh, and a zero percent base rate means banks can borrow for free, it doesn't mean you can - the banks will charge you interest in order to make a profit. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of China, there is no need to buy foreign currency at an inflated price to suppress the yuan. China has a large current account surplus, because its exports are worth more than its imports.  As a result, it earns more foreign currency than it spends.  Normally, a Chinese exporter would convert the foreign currency into local currency, and this would drive up the price of China's currency.  Instead, the Chinese central bank in effect prints yuan, exchanges them for the foreign currency (usually US dollars) and uses the foreign currency to buy government bonds (mainly US Treasury bills) to its already massive reserves to keep the yuan from appreciating.  To answer your question, no one knows where it will all end.  The world's central banks seem to be launching a mutual campaign of what is called competitive devaluation.  Their goal is not only to gain advantage for their exporters but also to prevent deflation.  There is some danger that competitive devaluation, if unchecked, could lead to inflation or even hyperinflation in some countries, and trade barriers to protect domestic industries in others, both of which would disrupt international trade.  So competitive devaluation is likely to be self-defeating in the long run.  Marco polo (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're describing *is* buying foreign currency at an inflated price. If the central bank wasn't offering a higher price than anyone else, exporters wouldn't sell their foreign currency to the central bank. They would sell it on the free market, driving up the value of the Yuan. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In a sense, the price that the central bank pays is inflated; however, exporters (or more accurately, I think, their banks) don't have a choice in the matter. In China, they are required to hand over their foreign exchange to the central bank.  Marco polo (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tango, the Chinese government isn’t at all worried about converting its dollar holdings into renminbi and having the result of driving up the value of the currency. As in all supply and demand cases, if you add dramatically to the supply (convert dollars to renminbi), the price falls (depreciation) relative to other prices (inflation). However, more to the point, there is no reasonable appreciation / depreciation of the renminbi (say, under 50%) that is going to have a significant impact on China’s exports. Its competitiveness is far more broadly based than mere exchange rate measures. Finally, the Chinese consumer really doesn’t care much about the price of imports; Mrs. Zhou Sixpack doesn’t buy much from abroad. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bank difficulties with home loan (EMI)
What is the difference between the floating rate of interest and fixed rate of interest? as i have a home loan with Citibank india and as the economy has crashed should i assume that the rate of interest i need to pay will be lower now, i have had no information for this from the bank so far.My monthly EMI was increased substantially the last year, i believe it should be decreased now? Can i do something about it? any advices pleaseSeekhle (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Read your loan documents carefully. It is doubtful that anyone here knows specifically what it says in the contract that you signed.  For anything you don't understand, call or visit the bank to get a clear explanation.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The economic troubles don't necessarily mean interest rates will decrease - central banks around the world have been lowering the rates they charge banks, but that doesn't mean banks are lowering the rates they charge customers (some are, certainly, I have no idea what is going on in India at the moment). You are currently on a floating rate mortgage, which means your interest rate changes as the economic situation changes. You could switch to a fixed rate mortgage (they may well be administration fees, etc., to pay to do that) which would stay at the same rate for a given length of time - this is a gamble, if interest rates go up, you've saved money, if they go down, you've lost money (I'm not going to try and guess what they're going to do - see a financial advisor if you want detailed advice). It may also be possible to get a "tracker mortgage" which is a fixed amount about the national base rate set by the central bank, that's similar to a floating rate except the central bank makes the decisions rather than your bank. What it is best for you to do will depend on the details of your situation, so I can't really advise you - you'll have to see a professional financial advisor. --Tango (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You will have chosen either fixed rate or floating (variable) rate when you took out the mortgage. You might have changed that if you renewed the mortgage. Your mortgage documents will tell you which. Note that even if interest rates change, your mortgage rate may not necessarily change, or it may not change for quite a while (seeks or months). Ask your mortgage company about anything you don't understand. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rate of Fire of a Micro Uzi
per http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28053216/

In an article pertaining to a gun related accident, Hampden District Attorney William Bennett said in a news release regarding the Micro Uzi, "It is not a hunting weapon. It has a rate of fire of 1,700 rounds per second."

I don't know much about firearms - but 1,700 rounds a second seems beyond ridiculous. The artice on Uzi states 600 rounds per minute. Is 1,700 rounds a second possible? By the way which submachine gun has the highest rate of fire (and what is the rate)?Bikingshaun (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rate of fire article has some useful information, including this: "Another factor influencing rate of fire is the supply of ammunition. At 100 RPS, a one-second burst from the M134 [a type of minigun mounted on helicopters] would use approximately 2.5 kg (5 lb) of 7.62 mm ammunition; this alone would make it an impractical weapon for infantry who have to carry a reasonable supply of ammunition with them." I'm sure he must have meant 1,700 rounds per minute (28.33 RPS). Recury (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1,700 rounds a *minute* might be possible, per second sounds unlikely. Our article Rate of fire, gives lots of numbers in the range of 1000s RP*M*, it's only example of RPS is 100 RPS in an example of something that isn't possible (due to the sheer amount of ammunition you would get through). I expect he misspoke and meant per minute. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The M61 Vulcan cannon used to hold the record for the highest rate of fire (perhaps it still does - I'm not sure). But it shoots 6600 rounds per minute...that's 110 per second.  So so our rate of fire article could use some work!


 * STOP PRESS: the Russian Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 claims 10,000 rounds per minute (166 per second!!). Running out of ammo is certainly a problem - the MiG 31 carries only 2 seconds worth of ammunition for it's Gsh-6 cannon!


 * But certainly an Uzi hand-gun can't possibly come close to that...no way.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, the sentence about the MiG 31 in that article is very confusing, but it does not appear to say that this aircraft carries a GSh-6-23 with 2 seconds' worth of ammunition. --Anon, 23:36 UTC, December 5, 2008.
 * Indeed. It seems to say they can carry a maximum of just over 5 seconds worth. I don't know where the 260 rounds figure came from. --Tango (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm - the MiG-31 article has the same confusion. In the body of the article it says it carries 800 rounds - but in the summary table at the bottom, it says 260 rounds.  There is a discussion about this on the article's talk page - it's a mess!  Someone says it's 800 PLUS a further 260 in an optional external pod...someone else says this is impossible - the weight/bulk of 800 rounds of 23mm ammo is too much...sounds like nobody really knows.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

1700 rounds per second is impossible; he made a mistake. Per [], the Micro-Uzi is capable of firing at 1250 rounds per minute, which personally surprised me as I had expected it to be lower. Acceptable (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with very high rates of fire is that the barrel overheats, warps, cracks or blows apart. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Skins
I changed my 'skin' to 'MySkin', but unfortunately it does not offer the choice of 'preferences' etc., that you normally get. Nor does it offer a search box. Now, how do I change this bloody thing back to normal, without the 'preferences' thingy? Bloody annoying!--KageTora (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this link work: Special:Preferences? Algebraist 20:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, just for future reference, you should probably ask this at the help desk. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

American and British english
what are the most fundamental differences between a british and an American english verbal and written,which can prove as a foundation or a starting point for the training i will want to impart to few people involved in mailing the American as well as British customers.Can anyone suggest me from the training perspective?eagerly waiting and thanking you in advanceVikram79 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A good starting point would be our article American and British English differences. -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The differences come in at all levels of language. You could spend a lifetime learning the differences. I'm a Brit living in the US and although I've been here 15 years, I still find new things that I hadn't noticed before. SteveBaker (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We represent things differently in writing - for example, 12/6/08 is the sixth of December in the US, but it's the twelfth of June in the UK.
 * We spell things differently ('color' vs 'colour' is the most well known one - but consider 'plow' versus 'plough'). Most words that end 'ize' in US english are 'ise' in UK english.  US english has gone through a partial effort to simplify it and make spelling fit pronunciation more accurately - but the effort was rather half-hearted, so now we have all of the disadvantages of different spellings without the advantages of a streamlined, cleaned-up language.
 * We pronounce things differently (many Americans do not pronounce the 'h' in the word 'herb' - but all British people do - the word 'garage' has a very soft second 'g' in the US - in the UK, many people would pronounce it 'garridge'). Some pronunciation differences are so extreme that they've essentially become new words entirely.  The last letter of the alphabet is 'Zee' in US english and 'Zed' in UK english.
 * There are a few subtle differences in punctuation.
 * We use different words (my favorite example (for which there is a long and highly embarrasing story) is the word 'rubber' - which is a condom in the US but a pencil eraser in the UK) - parts of cars are the most confusing 'hood' becomes 'bonnet', 'trunk' becomes 'boot'...there are probably 100 words for car parts that are different. Some of these things are quite subtle.  We both use 'ocean' to talk about the Atlantic and Pacific and 'sea' to talk about the Mediterranian and North Sea - but when you are talking generally about large bodies of non-specific salty water - Americans always talk about 'the ocean' and the British talk about 'the sea'.
 * We phrase things differently (in the US, a baby 'learns to speak' - in the UK they 'learn to talk').
 * We handle slang words quite differently. Slang in the US changes very slowly - it takes 10 to 20 years for a word to gain popularity and fade out again.   In the UK it happens much faster.
 * People have larger vocabularies in the UK than in the US.
 * We have different accents (of course) - but dialects and accents are much more varied in the UK than in the US - in some places in the UK, you can tell where someone comes from to within a few streets by their accent...but in the US, you're lucky if you can nail it down to within a single state.


 * That thing about what a baby learns seems dodgy to me. And I'm afraid I'll have to slap a "citation needed" on that vocabulary claim.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like a citation for the "Brits have a larger vocabulary" bit as well. Dismas |(talk) 21:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an American, and while there is a British stereotype that Americans have a limited vocabulary (perhaps based on a certain American president), I have worked in the UK and the States as an editor and doubt that the stereotype is true. Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like a source on the existence of the stereotype. Algebraist 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've certainly never come across that stereotype (well, I've come across the stereotype that Americans are generally less intelligent than other nationalities, I guess it could be a sub-stereotype of that [of course, I've come across the same stereotype for the Irish, the French, Belgians, people from rural areas, people from cities, etc.]). British English may well have a larger lexicon overall, due to the greater number of and variation between dialects, but I doubt there is much difference between individuals. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, sorry; the people responsible for perpetuating that stereotype have been sacked. It is, in fact, llamas that have a larger vocabulary.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  21:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we knew that! --Tango (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My favorite (favourite) is the British equivelant of voicemail - answerphone. Love it! Bikingshaun (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ansaphone. Algebraist 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The essential difference is that our (British) English is right :p -mattbuck (Talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed - English is the language spoken in England, anything else is wrong. :) --Tango (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, strictly speaking, the language should have been renamed "American" at the end of World War II. But you know, all that paperwork, plus we were feeling generous. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it would have had to have been the *end* of WWII, wouldn't it? ;) --Tango (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to Americans - stop claiming that you, personally, rescused Europe from the Nazis. It was 60 years ago, the rest of us have moved on. (I post this here as I reply elsewhere). -mattbuck (Talk) 01:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the Nazis? World War II was when we took over the world. --Trovatore (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, mobile phones seem to always have voicemail, never an answerphone. I think answerphone really refers to the device, voicemail the function. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, answering machine makes explicit a distinction related to that: that 'voicemail' involves a central server.
 * Interestingly, 'answerphone' is an example of a particular subclass of differences: words that are originally trade names, but used more generally only on one side of the Atlantic. (I knew that that 'answerphone' was derived from the trade name 'Ansaphone', but had supposed that this was a British company. However, from this it appears I was wrong). Others are 'Hoover' ('vacuum' to Americans) and 'Kleenex' ('tissue' to Britons - we recognise the name, but don't normally use it generically). --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bandaid is in the same category as kleenex. Algebraist 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then there's pavement vs. sidewalk vs. footpath. Just imagine if Freddie had sung "I have often walked down this street before, But the sidewalk/footpath always seemed to stay beneath my feet before ..".  But apparently the Philadelphians knew what he was singing about.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that we don't have the word pavement. It just doesn't mean sidewalk. It means the stuff the sidewalk (or the street) is made out of. And that makes perfect sense in the context of the song. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The sidewalk article seems to suggest it is the U.S. version of pavement, from my reading.  Maybe it's in need of elaboration.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the case. However, the Americans also have a word 'pavement', which means something else, as Trovatore explained. Algebraist 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it, and there's a subtlety here that I can't quite pin down. The simple thing to say would be that a Commonwealth speaker can understand how an American hears the line by singing ...but the concrete always stayed beneath my feet before. But actually that's not quite right; that's too materials-oriented.
 * In the style of analogies tests, I would say that sidewalk:trail :: pavement:ground would be a good analogy. On the other hand sidewalk:trail :: pavement:dirt is not quite right.  I can't put my finger on what exactly is the distinction. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...on the roadway, or on the pavements gray... sounds redundant to my ears. A better comparison might be 'dry land' vs. 'the waters'; the world is divided into that part which has been paved, and that part which is not (yet). Another use would be: 'a place for victims'; as in he was found face down on the pavement, often covered in blood. A paving material would be a distant third, and most would simply say asphalt.&mdash;eric 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The British seem to have sometimes taken the first popular brand name for 19th/20th century inventions as the descriptive noun: Gramophone, Hoover. It reminds me of old folks in rural areas who called a refrigerator a "Frigidaire." Edison (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal favorite (favourite?) comparison is this: If a man says, "I'm mad about my flat," in the U.K. he is saying that he likes his apartment, while in the U.S. he is angry about a punctured tire (tyre?). — Michael J  01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have but one more comment: Ghoti. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to the American/English dichotomy specifically? Algebraist 02:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He wants us to explain that 'Ghoti' spells 'Fish':
 * GH as in enouGH
 * O as in wOmen
 * TI as in staTIon.
 * But that's the same in both dialects of English. SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew that. Even if I didn't, we have an article. What I don't know is how ghoti is relevant to the matter at hand. Algebraist 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the link between that and American vs. British English, but some fish does sound good right now. I could really go for some baked salmon. Useight (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vikram (you remember him? the person who asked a question?), you mention training people to respond to customers from the U.S. and from the U.K.  I know something about the training field, and I'm going to guess you're not in either country for the sake of this response.  Tell your staff not to try and be what they're not.  A native of either of these countries, in another part of his own country, will give himself away by accent or by figure of speech or some other regional anchor.  Americans who grew up in the midwest hear "have a catch" when the poor fool clearly meant to say "play catch."  New Yorkers queue up by waiting on line, and think it's a peculiarity that the rest of the country waits in line.
 * It does make sense to know relevant differences, though "relevance" depends on your products and your customers. (UK visitors must be shocked when they get biscuits here.)  Concentrate on the big picture and on solving customer's problems, and no one will care if you don't use English in the same way as the children back in/on the street where you were born.  And remember, that fop Freddie grew up to be Sherlock Holmes.  --- OtherDave (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in real life Jeremy Brett was married but had sex with other men. Not that there's anything wrong with that (apart from the adultery issue), but if Freddie had done it, I'm sure Eliza Eynsford-Hill née Dolittle would have been most unimpressed.  Maybe that's why he had difficulty in "showing her" his feelings, and could only talk about them.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between American and British English: The British invented the language, the Americans perfected it. You may now return to your regularly scheduled jingoist debate.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll have perfected it when you stop forgetting the letter "u". -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When you think about lift vs elevator it's hard to decide which dialect got it right as they both make sense. When you think about hood vs bonnet in the context of the engine compartment of a car, it's hard to decide for the opposite reason in that neither dialect makes any sense at all. The same applies really to the old color vs colour - if you're really going by how the ending is pronounced, it's probably the O that needed dropping, so unless someone spells it colur we're back in the land of "everybody's wrong!". :D ~ mazca  t 12:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about colə? Why spell a schwa using a couple of hundred different combinations of vowels and consonants when we can just write 'ə' and be done with it? --Tango (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful, some dialects pronounce the r. Algebraist 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, damn, I forgot about the rhotics... There's just no end to how wrong people can be, is there? --Tango (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of us pronounce -r- as -w-. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even at the end of a word? --Tango (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, something like Grrrr I would :) DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget that English was not standardized until after the American Revolution (up to that point, it could be "color" or "colour", standardized or standardised, etc), and that glamour is more common in the US than in the UK, where you are more likely to see glamor... Also, English is the dirty back-alley whore of languages and in fact is mostly made up of stuff stolen from other languages, not to mention the fact that it is a decendent of Germanic languages. Ergo, the creation of English would not be possible had the Brits not taken it upon themselves to modify a language which was not originally theirs. :P --69.146.230.243 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Glamour is British English - have never seen glamor in British use. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, glamor is not common anywhere. It doesn't fall into the same category as words like honor, color, labor, which are all Latin words that the Brits semi-Gallicized, back when they thought the French were cool, and which the Americans took back to their roots.  But glamour was never Latin.  It was, IIRC, a Scots word, cognate to grammar, and meaning something like magic spell (of course, you won't have much luck casting magic spells if you do them ungrammatically). --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Chambers Dictionary has glamour, but glamor for the US spelling. It actually derives from the Middle English word grammery, skill in grammar, hence magic. DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say the dictionary is wrong, but on reflection it depends. If it's saying that glamor exists as a US variant, I suppose that's probably true. However, by a large margin, it is not the preferred spelling in the States.  This is my impression, at least; I don't really know how to check it.
 * It also occurred to me that there are some -or versus -our words that don't fit the model I described. Honor, color, labor, odor, and tumor all fit that model, but neighbor and behavior do not (neither is a Latin word, nor has a French cognate, and for that matter I don't know a French cognate for labor though surely there must be one).  So they must have come along for the ride, so to speak, and it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the same thing to happen to glamour.  But for the most part it didn't. --Trovatore (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Chambers simply says "in U.S. glamor" - the same as it does for honor and labor. It would be interesting to know what an American Dictionary on historical lines said. As for labour - it derives from the Old French labour, labeur, ultimately from the Latin labor. Neighbour is from the Old English neahgebur - from neah meaning near and gebur meaning farmer. Behaviour is formed from behave, and derives from the prefix be and the word have - one of the earliest meanings of behave is to bear, or carry. I think the transition from that meaning to a sense of holding or carrying oneself well is fairly straightforward. DuncanHill (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My 2000 edition American Random House says "glamour or glamor," but "glamorize or glamourize" and "glamorous or glamourous." That's in keeping with my experience; "glamour" is a common American spelling but "glamourous" looks completely alien to me. --Fullobeans (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember exactly where I read that, but I do distinctly recall it being said that glamor is more common in the UK, and I have never once seen it used in the states... But regardless, it's still a word which contains a u after an o that is commonplace in the US, and you're all ignoring the point I was trying to make anyway: we didn't "change" the language, we simply standardized variations of it that already existed, and the Brits did likewise. We just so happened to standardize different variations. We didn't mess up the language any more than it already was, and it's really, really irritating when people get all huffy about it and complain about how Americans have ruined English. Augh. --69.146.230.243 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The French cognate of labour is labourer, to plough (or to plow, coincidentally taking us back to a different US/UK variation). Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I should have come up with that. Margot, labourez les vignes, vignes, vignes, vignolets//Margot, labourez les vignes bientôt. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoes
Do women's shoes tend to last longer than men's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.123.154 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A totally uniformed opinion: I imagine that equivalent styles are made to an equivalent standard. There is a stereotype / perceived impression that women have more shoes than men and thus wear each pair less often than a man does, so equivalent styles would last much longer. On the other hand "fashionable" shoes may be designed for prettiness rather than strength and thus may not last as long - and a fashionable lady may only want to wear them a small number of times. Thus I think your question is too imprecise to answer categorically. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's very variable. In my experience, women often buy cheap shoes on an impulse as they walk past the shoe shop, they where them out for one night and the heel breaks off. If a woman buys good quality shoes, though, I expect they last just as long as good quality men's shoes. --Tango (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Might it have something to do with the number of pairs owned by women compared to men and thus the consequent lower use of any one pair of shoes thus giving the impression that women's shoes last longer. Richard Avery (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I assume it is, yeah. My shoes don't last long chronologically even though I wear them until they're falling apart and look like pieces of dead whale: because I only tend to own two pairs of shoes at any given time. So the shoes actually rack up an awful lot of mileage in a short amount of time. ~ mazca  t 14:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)