Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 April 8

= April 8 =

protectionism
How deep are the roots of protectionism responsible for the currunt economic meltdown. Is it really responsible? What are the other factors. Anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's reference desk is not really the place to start an open discussion. We do have articles on Protectionism and on the Late 2000s recession and on the Financial crisis of 2007–2010.  You are free to form your own opinions based on your reading of those articles.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the period since the early 1980s has seen unprecedented globalisation and the removal of protectionist policies. There has also been many calls since the start of the crisis for nations not to introduce new protectionist measures (clearly, these are being made because some countries have been tempted to).  If you were to claim that protectionism was responsible for the current slump, you would have to explain why it caused a crisis now, rather than ten or twenty years ago, when globalisation had not moved so far. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard anyone argue that protectionism got the world into this economic downturn. Mostly the fears seem the other way around: that the economic slump will cause protectionism.  That indeed seems to be the case, and is of great concern to people that believe free markets are a crucial element of advancing the human condition.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept that unrestricted free markets and free trade will lead to global economic growth has certainly been widely discredited by the current crisis, which could lead to what critics call protectionism and advocates are more likely to call fair trade (requiring trade partners to have comparable environmental, health, and safety standards, for example). StuRat (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although it would take some gall to present the US government's attempt to exclude foreign steel in stimulus projects or European banks' beggar thy neighbour policies as "fair trade". I'd also say the dramatic improvements in the lives of millions of Chinese and Indians suggest that, "fair or not", global free trade has been of net benefit to the world.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There certainly are those who benefit from free trade, at least initially. The wealthy in every country seem to benefit, for example.  For the poor and middle class it's not so clear.  In the West those groups are likely to lose their jobs or have lower wages as a result of competing with third-world wages, health, safety, and environmental standards.  This is somewhat offset by lower prices for imported goods, but not for long.


 * The West also loses it's industrial capacity, which has both negative economic and defense implications. In China and India there are more factory jobs, but they often pay the bare minimum that a person needs to survive.  So, like in Dickens' London, conditions are often horrid.  I saw a description of a town in India where leather is tanned.   The entire town smells of rotting animal skins, chemicals pollute the water, and clumps of animal fur blow through the streets.  It might be worth it if they were getting rich, but only the factory owners are.  In the case of China, this economic growth also props up a deeply corrupt and anti-democratic government.  And products and services from China and India are often inferior.  A wrench from China that breaks when you use it or a call center operator from India who can't understand you or do anything more than read "answers" from a book aren't really very helpful, even when the lower cost is factored in.


 * But the most troubling aspects are what happens in the long run. In the case of earlier "third-world nations", like Japan, which competed with the West, the size of the population was such that bringing Japan up to the economic level of North America and Europe only required small economic dislocations here.  However, the populations of India and China are such that achieving economic equality via free trade will be more about bringing the economies of the West down the their level than bringing them up to ours. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really believe free trade only benefits the wealthy, and that it is "not clear" for the lower and middle classes, please watch this video and share your thoughts on it with me. Also note that poverty rates in China have dropped from over 60% to under 10% since economic reforms were started.  Similarly, the rate in India has dropped from 60% in 1981 to 42% today.  Liberal economic reforms can be shown to have been beneficial throughout the world in every size and type of economy, from South Korea to Singapore and Hong Kong to ex-soviet states.  And yes, now in China and India as well.  If your argument is that China and India shouldn't be allowed to compete with the rest of the world because their economies could become so big they'd swamp our own, then I think you're starting to demonstrate the thin line between protectionism and "fair trade" quite well.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You said "beneficial throughout the world in every size and type of economy" but then only listed developing nations in Asia. Can Africa be shown to have benefited ?  Can the poor and middle class of Western Europe and North America ?  As for poverty levels in China and India, there's a problem in measuring poverty strictly by income level.  Subsistence farmers can, and have, existed for centuries with little or no cash.  They tend to have a barter economy, not a cash economy.  This makes determining the rate of poverty of such people quite difficult.  So, a good portion of those former 60% "living in poverty" in China may have been doing just fine.  Of course, once they leave the farms and move to factories in the cities, then they do need cash.  I've seen lots of documentaries on the life of the average Chinese factory worker, and it doesn't look like much of a life. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, how about Ireland, Spain, Ukraine and other former soviet satellites? Indeed, that Western Europe has seen the growth it has since the 70s as mature economies is somewhat surprising.  I would also sheepishly add Canada to the list, NAFTA and other trade has been of measurable success on a holistic basis.  Africa remains crippled by corruption, misgovernment, disease and so forth.  To suggest "free trade" is alive on the continent seems a reach to me, as does the expectation that free trade alone can solve all of society's problems.  But when the continent's emergence does finally happen (as we all presumably hope it will, sooner rather than later) it will be powered by engaging the outside world in trade, and using the funds generated to educate their population and keep it healthy, not by "riding it out" on the developed world's charity.
 * I'm pretty surprised you went the "living as a Chinese peasant wasn't so bad" tack. Perhaps you could peruse Wikipedia's list of famines.  By my count of the list, in the 20th century alone 29 million Chinese peasants died in famines, that we know of.  It seems almost obscene to me that someone would claim that they were better off quietly starving in the countryside than they are working in factories.  Ya, the work and the pay suck.  But it beats the hell out of being dead, and at least they have the opportunity to provide stability for themselves and their families and the promise of a better life.  All of which explains why hundreds of millions of Chinese have moved from rural areas to cities, the motivation behind which was a little unclear under your tele-tubby-esque depiction of their barter-system life in the country.
 * I'm sorry, I don't mean to be flippant or start a big argument here. But I don't agree at all with what you've said on this topic.  I feel that if the world doesn't manage to better equalize the living conditions of its people globally, humanity's long term prospects are dim.  The only realistic way to raise hundreds of millions of people in the third world out of poverty seems to me to be allowing them access to a fair marketplace, to our marketplace.  You try to justify excluding them from it by saying they have to work in terrible conditions, when it seems to me your real fear is that they will work so cheaply as to endanger Western jobs.  You seem to be trying to disguise protectionism as altruism.  TastyCakes (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about famines caused by the Great Leap Forward and other idiotic policies of Mao, that's really not due to free trade or a lack thereof, that's due to totalitarianism and how it gives one person the power to do suicidal things like this to their country. If we allow free trade with countries with billions of employees who work for 10 cents an hour, that will bring our wages down to that level, not theirs up to match ours.  If, on the other hand, we insist that they pay comparable wages to our own (or perhaps a bit less, to allow for the added expense of shipping products around the world), then fewer jobs will be created there, but they will be be high quality jobs, not slave labor.  This will also have the side benefit of preventing Western economies from collapsing. StuRat (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The causes of famines in China over the years have been all sorts of things, the "Great Leap Forward" being the most famous of the past century. However, the reason peasants are vulnerable to turbulence, whether it be political or natural, is that they are by definition subsistence farmers.  They grow enough to survive on and that's it.  Nothing saved, nothing to "barter" with the outside world if it fails that year.  Their greatest vulnerability is usually that they are isolated, not just from the world economy, but often from the economy of the rest of their own country, meaning they can't sell their surplus in good years to generate a cushion for the bad.  The boom in trade, domestic and international, is indisputably the main reason famines occur very infrequently in economically integrated areas (the only examples that comes to mind are the Irish potato famines over 200 years ago).
 * Forcing trading partners to pay wages similar to our own is a complete impossibility: if you require this you are essentially not allowing trade. There is no way that India, with a billion people making, on average, $2,500 a year, could just say "ok, you must pay a minimum of $25,000 a year for any work done".  It is infantile to even suggest so.  Do you honestly think you could have 90%+ unemployment, but that it would be ok because the other 10% is making first world wages?  What do you want those other 90% of people (over 900 million people in India) to do exactly?  Or do you expect a magical ten fold increase of India's GDP as a response to your "fair wage" policies?  And how is it "fair" to pay one Indian 10 times as much as his starving neighbour is willing to do it for?
 * I do not believe the evidence supports your claim that China and India's workers will drag our wages down into their world rather than the other way around. Indeed, wages in China (particularly along the coast) have risen from rock bottom to the point where companies are looking to other countries like Vietnam for their low cost labour, yet Western standards of livings haven't dropped.  At what point do you expect this Western employment catastrophe to occur?  China has been growing at breakneck pace for decades now to no measurable effect for Western economies as a whole, India almost as long.  Yes, the garment factories and many other industries are long gone.  But they have been more than replaced by other industries, as demonstrated by the fact that GDP per capita and incomes haven't dropped.  Yes, the West is at a disadvantage when it comes to cheap labour, but it has pretty much every other economic advantage: infrastructure, education, capital and technology.  Presumably we also retain our competitive work ethic. If we can't prosper with all those advantages, in my opinion, we don't deserve to get paid ten times as much as Indians.
 * All that said, I agree that countries that wish to trade with the West must be willing to play by our rules. That includes bars on child labour, indentured labour and unreasonably dangerous conditions, as well as compliance with our intellectual property laws.  Perhaps most importantly, it means they must open up their markets to us in similar fashion. And that is exactly what organisations like the WTO are designed to encourage. TastyCakes (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the WTO does much of anything about work safety rules, child labor, slave labor, or environmental rules. You mentioned subsistence farming, but there's also subsistence factory work, meaning that if they lose their jobs and can't find others (as in an economic downturn) they too will be facing starvation in short order. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Except people that work in cities have other work opportunities. Rural peasants, on the other hand, have only one, and if it fails they're hooped. Not to mention that urbanisation has been the dominant reason for reduction in birth rates in pretty much all countries it has taken place in.  To me, bringing birth rates under control seems vital for a sustainable, prosperous future.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are other work opportunities in rural areas, too. People are needed to fix carts, build houses, help others to harvest their crops, dig irrigation ditches, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You mentioned that the US GDP is going up (well, it WAS going up). As I said earlier, free trade is good for rich people in all countries, while not so good for middle class and poor people.  The US distribution of wealth is becoming more uneven as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and this leads to all sorts of negative consequences, potentially leading to class warfare and revolution, as it did in South and Central America.  StuRat (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The statistics do show the gap is increasing in the first world. The rich are indeed getting richer.  But the statistics do not show that the poor are getting poorer.  As for the third world, I think I have given pretty convincing statistics to show that liberal economic policies have indeed been of great benefit to poor and middle class workers.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Those stats were likely taken before the current economic crisis. Once that's taken into account, the poor will indeed be shown to have gotten poorer.  In the third world, as I already explained, moving from a barter economy to a cash economy registers as an increase in wealth, but isn't really.  They can't afford any more bread than they could before. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your statement that insisting on fair trade will result in 90% unemployment in India is quite absurd. Let's do some math.  According to he CIA Factbook  India had estimated 2008 exports of $175.7 billion out of a total GDP of $1.237 trillion.  That's 14.2% of their economy.  However, most of India's trade is with their neighbors, which have comparable wages, so "fair trade" wouldn't require any changes to those sectors of the economy (or to the 85.8% of the Indian economy not based on exports).  The US is only 15% of their export market and the UK is 4.4%.  So, together they are only 19.4% of India's exports.  Thus, if India stopped exporting entirely to both the US and UK, that would only be a 2.8% reduction in the Indian economy.  I'd expect unemployment to rise by about the same amount, in that case.  However, I don't accept your argument that offering comparable wages to the US and UK would completely stop all trade, there would still be trade and many Indians would have higher wages as a result.  StuRat (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are suggesting that any worker that produces a good or service for export should be paid 10 times as much as for that good or service if it's for domestic consumption? Or that workers providing a good or service for export to, say, China will get paid 5 times less than the person providing the same good for export to Britain, for example?  Can you not see that such a system would be utterly unworkable and intrinsically unfair, creating exactly the kind of income disparities(indeed worse because they are totally arbitrary) that you are decrying in America? No one has suggested requiring countries to pay their workers the same as they would in the country they are exporting to because it is ridiculous. TastyCakes (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A 5x or 10x disparity isn't so bad, it's the 1000x and worse disparities that worry me as far as destabilizing nations. And how is this any worse than the differences which currently exists between someone who sews a shirt in China versus the West ?  It would also result on the best workers getting jobs in firms that export to the West, so better products would be produced, and exports would ultimately increase.  StuRat (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed; I will say that on the balance free trade has been a net benefit. The question, largely unanswerable, is whether the "bottom" of this current crisis would not be better than the "top" of what our world would look like without a general commitment to market economics.  Certainly, things need tweaking, but there are babies that need not be thrown out with any bathwater here... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the free trade fair trade movement describes that "tweaking" as insisting on equal pay, health, safety, and environmental standards. StuRat (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the fair trade movement? TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if anyone had been saying that free trade will prevent bank fraud and housing bubbles, they're discredited; otherwise I gotta say, huh? —Tamfang (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly :) TastyCakes (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more "free markets" (as in a lack of government regulations) which has caused the current economic crisis. StuRat (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of course regulation had nothing to do with, say, the unhealthy concentration of banking — pull the other one. The Democrats do seem to have it somewhat right that Republican administrations are lax in their oversight of government-created pseudo-private entities (subsidized deposit insurance in the Eighties, Fannie & Freddie recently) but that's hardly "free markets". —Tamfang (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the problems, like when Bernie Madoff made off with $65 billion, are purely due to lack of oversight, not government-created pseudo-private entities. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, whenever anything bad happens one can conceive of a rule that would (if properly administered) prevent it. Since no amount of regulation can stop all bad events, you'll always have opportunities to blame insufficient oversight. —Tamfang (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In Madoff's case he simply didn't invest any of the $65 billion he claimed to have invested. This is not a subtle deception.  Even the most basic oversight should have uncovered such an obvious fraud.  StuRat (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem with government oversight is that it makes for a single point of failure. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. They could have two or more independent auditors look at each account.  They could even have two government agencies do the audits, say the IRS for tax evasion and the SEC for investment fraud. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that it? We taxpayers are on the hook for a $trillion or so because Madoff stole $65 billion? —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Royal Mail's Red Rubber Bands
I ran across this article on the BBC news site. "The Royal Mail is under pressure to stop its posties from dropping red rubber bands onto the ground." Not being from the UK, I'm slightly baffled. Can anyone explain the Royal Mail/red rubber band thing to me? Why do they seem to be a cultural artifact in Britain - I'm not aware of the rubber band usage of my local post office, and I seriously doubt there would ever be a "on a lighter note" news piece about them. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They appear to be widely used by postmen, who join together bundles of letters with them (e.g. all letters for this road), and who then discard the bands once they've delivered the letters. I can attest to having picked up many of the things, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Royal Mail uses over 800 million rubber bands per year. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't normal anti-littering laws apply to postal carriers ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And why don't they take them back to base to re-use them the next day? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend Stu & BB read the link in Gandalf61's post, which somewhat answers their questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As a former letter carrier (summer job when I was in college) myself, I can confirm that rubber bands are also used in the U.S. as described by Tagishsimon. I put the "used" bands in a pocket of the leather satchel and brought them back to the post office, though. Deor (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It has become such a ubiquitous sight that the BBC website even has a page for '10 things you can do with all those discarded Royal Mail rubber bands'. Tongue in cheek, of course.--KageTora (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * which is, in fact, the same story the OP linked to...--Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Same link as the OP's!--KageTora (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, you linked to BBC1; they linked to BBC2 - totally different. If anyone has the ITV link, maybe we can get Benny Hill's take on this... Matt Deres (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My mail comes wrapped in a rubber band probably once a month or so. I'm not in the UK, I'm in the US.  Basically it's on days that have a sale flyer wrapped around a lot of smaller pieces.                     And this is when I go out to meet the mail lady.  If it's in our mailbox, there generally isn't a rubber band.  Dismas |(talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly, here in Canada I sometimes get mail with a rubber band around it. Presumably it happens when my mail is the last thing in the rubber-banded bundle.  And presumably British postal workers were told not to do that, so they started discarding the rubber bands instead.  --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, April 9, 2009.


 * My parents' mail (in the UK) sometimes has a band round it, but mine never does. They live on a very short "spur" of three houses, so I guess they get the band when there's no post for either of the others. I live on the middle of an urban street, so will never be the last in the bundle. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but so do I! So there! :-) --Anon, 08:37 UTC, April 9.


 * I think it would be a good idea to get the posties to put the rubber band through with the last bunch of letters, as it saves us picking them all up. Having said that, the last house in the street would probably end up with loads of rubber bands!--KageTora (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been helping out with a friend's paper shop recently, delivering papers in the morning for 15 minutes on my mountain bike (starts the day off nicely before spending the rest of it sitting down typing like a maniac!), and it's around the same time that the Postmen are delivering, and I find one of these things on EVERY street, proving Tagishsimon's statement that they are bundled one set for each road.--KageTora (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, all of this background doesn't necessarily prove it's the posties who are dropping the rubber bands. It could be the recipients of the mail, who, in their rush to open their latest batch of unexpected bills, drop the items themselves. Or it could be some of both. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Jack. In the UK, most letters are delivered directly through the front door (a wonderful source of pleasure for kids on Guy Fawkes night!). We don't have outside postboxes like in the US (I don't know about Oz). If they dropped them, they would be in the hallway, not in the street.--KageTora (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in an episode of MI-5, a "safe house" was built with a large mail slot in the front door, suitable for sliding a bomb through. That, combined with the inability of anyone inside to leave without a working key-card, made the house into a death trap. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, in the UK there are plenty of instances where someone who (presumably) doesn't like the occupant of the house has poured petrol through the letter-box (as we call it, even though it's not a box, just a direct opening into the house) then threw a match in. It's really a good idea to have outside postboxes, like everywhere else seems to have!--KageTora (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What, no outside post boxes at all? (Yes, they're the norm in Oz, too).  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should collect the rubber bands they drop and shoot them at them the next time they drop one. This suggestion has been approved by the Ministry of Fitting Punishments. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My dad is a mailman and he always hangs onto his rubber bands, but when he has holidays and someone else covers his walk he usually comes back the next week to find a bunch of rubber bands scattered around the pick-up boxes along his route. He says he's definitely in the minority about not dropping them. (Then again, it was a number of years ago he told me this, so I don't know if the phenomenon is changing as "greenness" is becoming more mainstream.) This also says something about Jack's suggestion that it might be the customers dropping the rubber bands. The pick-up boxes (this is the system in Canada anyway - I don't know if it holds true for other countries; and I should point out that I made up the name "pick-up boxes;" I don't know what they're actually called) are where the mailmen pick up the mail every so often along the route so they don't have to carry it all at once. My dad says this is where the rubber bands accumulate and only the mailmen use these boxes, not the customers, so the posties are definitely the culprits. Needless to say, this is all completely OR. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

'Institute' Definition
Hello I am looking to find out where the first 3-4 sentences for the definition of 'Institute' came from? I am asking because I would like to cite that source or Wikipedia if it is an original Wikipedia definition? Thanks Ted Auch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wauch (talk • contribs) 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'd probably be better off using a decent dictionary for this kind of thing. I'd also add that using dictionary definitions in a paper or speech never strikes me as particularly clever, and is certainly overdone.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence will almost certainly have multiple authors. See Citing Wikipedia for the preferred method of doing this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is land advertised as "x acres, more or less"?
Why is it when you see land for sale the ad says x number of acres m/l which I presume means more or less?64.196.11.97 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It provides the surveryor with a margin of error if the land is difficult to measure up to a certain whole number. For example, the land may be 2.93 acres, or 3.12 acres but they will round it to 3 for an easier listing and easier pricing. Livewireo (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some very old parcels of land in the US are described in land records (deeds and titles) by metes and bounds rather than by reference to geodetic survey markers. I have a farm in Tennessee that is "188 acres, more or less." Its western boundary is "bounded by the center of Kennedy creek, subject the meander" The farm "meets the farm to the east along the top of the ridge" -Arch dude (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read 'Mr Blandings builds his dream house' for the effect of this phrase.--79.71.217.59 (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Blandings movie, based on a book, based on a factual magazine article, the country folks would always cheat the city slickers and the "more or less" would always be "less." Some country properties have never had a proper survey all the way around, with old metes and bounds deed going back to the 1700, with corners being stakes, rock piles or stumps long gone, or referenced to long-gone barns, or creeks which meandered, with bearings based on magnetic compass readings which have varied by 8 degrees since the surveyor read his compass in 1862. The property may have gained or lost parcels by purchase and sale, with perhaps only the dividing line surveyed. It can cost $6000 or more to have a modern surveyor run a survey all the way around, and neighboring property owners may disagree with the survey, resulting in potential litigation. Edison (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the US, such signs are usually written as "+/- 3 acres" or "±3 acres". I'm always tempted to call the agent and say I'm interested in the negative area.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Negative area makes some sense on the hyperbolic plane. —Tamfang (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

street names of detroit
what is the stories behind these Streets of Detroit Michigan and the street names are Laura,Rosa Parks Boulevard, Phillip,Carol,Raymond,and Bewick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.134.30 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good place to start http://www.geocities.com/histmich/streetname.html ny156uk (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have hoped the origin of Rosa Parks Boulevard was easy enough. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that Detroit also has Rosa Parks parks. So, if someone leaves their car at those places, then he "parks at Parks parks". StuRat (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless he's one of 8% of all Koreans - in which case, perhaps: "Park parks at Parks park". But of course that could be one of any number of Parks.  If we're specifically talking about the guy from Park, Texas - then we should probably be completely clear and say that "Park's Park parks at Parks park". SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Plural Parks parks? —Tamfang (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden versions of the German coat of arms?
I know that the public use of some Nazi Germany insignia, in order to commemorate or propagate the Nazi ideology instead of simply mentioning it in historical context, is a criminal offence in Germany. To what extent does this extend to the German coat of arms? Nazi Germany used a highly stylised version of the traditional Reichsadler, which has since been reverted to the traditional one. Nazi Germany had two versions of the eagle, one symbolising the Nazi party, the other symbolising the country, distinguished simply by the way the eagle's head faced. Leaving out the obvious use of the swastika, is either or both of these stylised versions of the Reichsadler forbidden on its own? J I P | Talk 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be versions that are prohibited, but as you can see,  the "Bundesadler" is still in use. Our German page says that they sometimes just chiseled out the swastika from Nazi eagles on buildings. de:Reichsadler 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My friend says there are loads of 'reichsadlers' and similar (seals, crests etc.) in Germany that still have the swastika on which, presumably, no-one got around to chiseling off or whatever. Any idea how true this is? --JoeTalkWork 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)