Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 November 29

= November 29 =

Chicago history disasters
Was there a type of title wave on lake michigan chicago waterfront in approximately the 1950s that drowned some people that were fishing on the breakwaters, or piers ? GSWW70.232.47.126 (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)GSWW
 * June 26, 1954, according to ezinearticles . com/?The-Day-a-Tidal-Wave-Hit-Chicago&id=172583, which however is a blacklisted site, so I've de-linked it. I'll see what else I can find. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called a seiche, and here's a brief writeup by Chicago weather guru Tom Skilling: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The seiche article mentions the 1954 event and links to this: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, just for the record, it's a "tidal" wave (not "title"), though that is a misnomer since tides have nothing to do with them. See tsunami. Searching for Chicago tidal wave in Google would have given you the story you wanted. Matt Deres (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

MAYDAY SERIES
Can you buy the Mayday Series on DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.38.150 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet all. See for yourself. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Bach
Why is there a naked man under the table of the Bach's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anna_Magdalena_Bach.jpg

--helohe (talk)  17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a satyr, though that doesn't explain much. 81.131.31.109 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you click on the link given on the image page you will get this explanation: "And what is the significance of the satyr sliding out from beneath the table? Might it be a specific and bawdy reference to the Bachs' parental prowess? Most likely it is not; it most likely is a reference to some of the "earthier" songs in the collection." However, this explanation very much depends on whether the interpretation that it is a picture of Bach is true, which to me seems very inconclusive (and speculative). But, the author of that essay has one thing right, namely that there was a love of personifications in the art of the 18th century. They also did love hidden meanings and symbols, but the simple truth may very well be that the satyr represents the rural joy of the citizens having fun in the park. Pastorals, especially with inspiration in the Greek and Hellenistic poems and stories was all the rage at the time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the satyr was "drunk under the table", as the saying goes. Meanwhile, I'm impressed by the resemblance to an "internet cafe", with the lady working on her primitive laptop. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Monarchical Succession Laws
Imagine a scenario wherein Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother had had two daughters, Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth the Second), and Princess Margaret (now deceased). Then imagine that she (the then Queen Mother) was pregnant at the time of her husband's death (George 6th). At the moment of his death, the official proclamation would normally have been "The King is dead, God Save the Queen". But given that her mother was pregnant (in this scenario), and might have been carrying an unborn son, would the declaration of succession in favour of Elizabeth (our present Queen) have been delayed until after the birth of her brother or sister, given that in the case of a brother, he would succeed to the throne instead of Elizabeth II? 92.30.54.5 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe the declaration would have been delayed. If the baby turned out to be a boy, he would have been proclaimed King at birth, but obviously a Regent would have to be appointed until he turned 18.  But if the baby was a third girl, then Elizabeth would be proclaimed Queen retrospective to the moment of her father's death.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth is likely to have been made Queen Regent, especially if her parents were old enough that is was likely that there would be no more children; she would have been groomed to rule. As a follow-up to the OP, what would happen if the Queen Mother (also called Elizabeth, by the way) only realised that she was pregnant after her daughter was proclaimed Queen? How long is there normally between the death of the previous monarch, proclamation of the new monarch, and the actual coronation? I assume the first two happen within a few days, but the coronation takes a few weeks to arrange. CS Miller (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Coronation is irrelevant to this; it's a token ceremony, because nobody ever becomes a British king or queen solely because of a coronation. Coronations can be as late as 16 months after the accession (QEII acceded in February 1952 but was not crowned till June 1953). Proclamation usually happens within a day or so.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you made a small error in your question by saying "she (the then Queen Mother)" which should of course say "the then Queen". Sussexonian (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur may be of interest, particularly the point about Queen Victoria's accession, which was declared with the caveat that if the widowed Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen turned out to be pregnant with an heir to the throne, Victoria's sovereignty would be revoked. They might just as easily have done the same with Elizabeth, allowing an unbroken succession with the caveat that if her unborn sibling turned out to be male her accession would be null and void.   Ka renjc 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This has happened a few times in history (although I don't know if female succession was ever an issue). John I of France and Ladislaus Postumus, for example; others are listed at Posthumous birth. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An excellent article, if I may say so. (**cough**)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A related question. During Queen Victoria's reign, was her mother referred to solely as the Duchess of Kent?  Was she ever referred to as Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld following her marriage to Victoria's father?   Corvus cornix  talk  23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

consumption of imported products
Hi, I have a question and hope to hear your opinions. Consumption of imported products is seen by many as harmful to the domestic economy: like making other nations richer off us or making local people out of job etc. People may choose to consume local products based on morality grounds, supporting their own villages/provinces/nations and such that.

But I'm wondering in what ways can consumption of imported products (which have equivalents produced locally) will not be harmful, or even benefit, the local economy? What do you think about this issue? Thank you! 123.16.155.166 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll want to check out comparative advantage. "Example 2" is something of a counterintuitive kick in the pants. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) While you're welcome to ask for sourced explanations of the benefits of importing products, as the header says, what we think is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With many imported products, particularly those grown in the developing world, only a small proportion of the price goes abroad. A lot will be paid to agents, importers, transport, marketing, and possibly because something's imported there will be a mark-up for a product seen as luxury or exotic which will be added by the retailer (little spending on food actually goes to the farmer).  So you may be contributing money to many people in your own country.
 * Also, from another perspective, you're exporting the risk of environmental damage which has to be paid for - it's cheaper to pollute somebody else's land, which benefits your own. This also applies to using their water. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of some imported products may increase the use of other, domestically produced products. For example, the importing of cheap steel from China may make American cars more economically competitive than if they could rely only on more-expensive American steel. Looking at it more broadly, the availability of cheaper foreign goods frees up more disposable income for the purchase of domestic goods and services. Americans may spend less on TVs, dishwashers, microwaves, etc., than they did in the past thanks to low-cost foreign imports. An RCA color TV in 1960 cost about $500, which is like $3,700 in today's money. People spend less on clothing as a percentage of their income now than they did in the 60s since clothes now come from low-wage places like Guatemala or Indonesia instead of the U.S. With more leftover money to spend, Americans (or Europeans or Australians or whoever) can go out to eat more often, take fancier vacations, go to more sporting events and do other stuff locally. This is just looking at the positives of the rise of foreign imports, not the negatives. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I think you'll need to cite a source when using the color TV example. Advances in electronics manufacturing techniques are what I think are more responsible for the price reductionsince 1960.  I bought an American-made TV around 1991 which was about $500.  (Then we can debate what percentage of the TV's components were "American-made", of course.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See for a list of what TV sets have cost through the ages. It's true that the same technology is a lot cheaper now that it used to be, but also keep in mind there's a lot more technology in electronics now than there used to be. A 1960 21-inch, VHF-only TV with no remote control cost more in constant dollars than a 55-inch HD TV with 3D capability does today. If we asked the Chinese to make a 1960-style TV today, they could probably make it for $20. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The relationships that Mwalcoff notes between cheap imports and improved domestic spending are actually a core value in the capitalist economic system. You'll note that Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, wrote about this topic extensively back in 1776.  He comes to basically the same conclusion as Mwalcoff; that protecting native production of goods which can be produced cheaper elsewhere is ultimately wasteful and actually harms the local economy.  This is in direct contrast to the primary economic theory of the 18th century, known as Mercantilism, which held that it was most important for a country to maintain control of the entire supply chain of whatever goods it was making; thus under mercantilism, if you wanted to make cars, you needed to have and control a domestic supply of steel, rubber, and glass, and then needed to maintain control over manufacture of every component yourself.  This is why colonialism went hand-in-hand with mercantilism; raw materials that the home country could not obtain were obtain from their colonies.  Smith recognized the wastefulness in this system, which led him to propose alternate theories that today are called Capitalism.  -- Jayron  32  03:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)