Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 November 13

= November 13 =

Weird snippet of text on some licenses
When I was looking for some source code, I read the license from Oracle for Java applications, and there was this weird part of the license. It read:


 * "You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility."

What is this supposed to mean? Is it a joke? Why is it even there?

Longbyte1 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be quite common. I assume it means they won't be held liable in the event of a meltdown because of one little bug in their code.--Shantavira|feed me 15:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC with below) Personally I susect one of their lawyers was concerned if someone did use it in a nuclear facility, the producers of the source code could be considered to have violated some arms control or export control or similar legislation in the US (or perhaps some other country). Similar to the way a lot of software says you can't use it in North Korea, Cuba and other 'evil' countries. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did a few searches but can't find any real useful comments. Some suggest it is a sort of indemnity/disclaimer but I don't see any real evidence other then assumptions. I doubt we'll ever know, the people who added it are probably long gone. A few people have commented on the specificity which I also note, I've read disclaimers before disavowing their use in a variety of mission critical systems like life-support systems, weapon control systems, aircraft navigation etc but Java doesn't have such limitations, only apparently on nuclear facilities. Evidentally MS still considers Java unsuitable for such purposes . Someone suggested (in the second ref) in 1996 Sun's Java did say you can't use it in such mission critical apps not just nuclear facilities. Perhaps over time people began to use Java in life support systems etc and they convinced Sun to remove the limitation? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah looking more I can confirm Sun did impose a wider restriction in the past. seems to confirm that the MS restriction (including direct life-support systems and weapon systems) originated from Sun. I'm not sure when but by this 1.1 release they changed the restriction to only aircraft stuff and nuclear stuff . Sometime between JDK 1.2  (also see ) and 1.3  they decided to only disallow the nuclear related stuff and don't seem to have changed since then. As stated earlier, perhaps they had people wanting to use Java in the earlier restricted activities. So if you do want to use Java in your nuclear facility you could try asking of they can remove it or licence it specifically for you without the restriction. Alternatively their lawyers may have decided there was no real legal risk to them even if people did use Java in weapon systems or direct life-support systems (whether because of a law change or re-evaluation of the legal risk) but there still was for the aircraft stuff and perhaps still is some perceived risk for the nuclear stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looks like they've already changed the nuclear facilities bit (probably Oracle re-evaluated all licences). If you compare the Binary Code Licence for J2SE 6 / and current/7 you can see they've gone back to a broader disclaimer against any 'inherently dangerous application' and makes it clear if you do use it in such a case, your on your own. Also looking more carefully even the J2SE 6 licence doesn't forbid the usage in nuclear facilities, ditto for 5 (1.5)  and 4 (1.4) . Note that as per the earlier ref and, the 1.3 and earlier licences did effectively forbid usage in nuclear facilities since it said it wasn't licenced for such purposes. So it changed sometime between 1.3 and 1.4. Some of the code still forbids you from using it in nuclear facilities (says it's not licenced for such purposes)   but I think that's just that no one updated it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Licenses often have odd clauses like this in them. MS Office used to have some clause against using it to make nuclear weapons or something like that, as well.
 * These clauses aren't jokes, that's for sure. Whether they are added by lawyers to prevent against possible indemnity, or part of export control regulations, or part of some other form of gov't regulations, I don't know. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a theory that a lot of the seemingly unnecessary stuff we see on the Internet is there because lazy web designers just copy code from other web designers, without thinking or even reading it sometimes. It's one of the reasons why, when we're filling in an online form, the field "Title" (whether one is a Mr, Mrs, Sir, Dr, etc) is compulsory far too much of the time, when there is no logical reason for that to be the case. Wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening here. Maybe it was a joke originally, and the code just got copied hundreds of times. HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I really doubt it is or ever was a joke. These licenses are considered (by the companies, anyway) as legally binding. There's boilerplate, to be sure, but none of it is just in there on a lark. Their legal departments are not paid the big bucks to joke around. They might look silly to you or me but they're in there for some reason that their lawyers find compelling. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another amusing one. Among your prohibited activities with regards to iTunes, "You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons." Somebody ought to tell the guy on the right here that he'd better not be using an iPod... --Mr.98 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oracle's new Java licence actually has something similar. Actually I'm pretty sure he shouldn't even have an iPod  even if he doesn't use iTunes since he's in Iran. But they shouldn't be using Windows  or Siemens machines in Iran either but Stuxnet reveals they are. These aren't just terms to make fun of though, I believe you can't activate Windows with an Iranian IP or I'm guessing if you set your location to Iran, nor can you use iTunes  with an Iranian IP. Although it seems you can now download Google Earth, Chrome and Picassa in Iran ). Interesting enough from the first ref I provided, it seems I can work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on a iPad (like if I'm sent one to test the capactive touch screen) here in NZ, at least according to Apple (I'm not sure how the NZ government would feel about that). Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"The break of the leg" in garment measurement
In tailoring or garment measurement, what part of the body is "the break of the leg"? (For clarity, it would be helpful if the answer is phrased in human-anatomical terms.) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.10.12 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From the diagram on this page, it looks as though "break of the leg" refers to the dividing line between the torso and the legs (where a fold appears when one sits down, for instance). Deor (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen that picture, and a few web pages that contain the phrase. One web page says it's the crotch; another web page says it's the hip/leg joint. I don't know if, or which, one of them is the correct answer. That's why I asked the question and asked for an answer in anatomical terms. It seems that you're interpreting it as the hip/leg joint. --173.49.10.12 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When talking about gentlemen's dress trousers, the "break" is the point at which the vertical fall of the cloth "breaks" and turns sharply outward due to the curvature of the top of the foot. The break is thus a few inches above the trouser leg cuff; there is no overt tailoring evident there (there's no seam or permanent crease) but the break is engineered to fall where desired by a good tailor, who understands the geometry of wearer, the characteristics of the cloth, and the desired effect. Depending on the fashion, the break can be deep or shallow, abrupt or gentle. Some fabrics, particularly stiffer or thicker fabrics like denim, may not break at all, or may do so in a rather haphazard manner. Some of the possible types of break are discussed here. I think tailors use the term "break" more generally as well, meaning any crease that forms in this way (due the the articulation of the wearer rather than the seaming of the garment) but it most commonly refers specifically to the one above the trouser cuff. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sump pump installation cost?
How much should I expect to spend to install a sump pump in the basement of a 1913 house with a semi-finished floor in a fairly dry midwestern US locale? In particular, is it safe or reasonable to hire someone with experience digging fenceposts to dig the sump hole? How deep a sump hole is reasonable for less than 1 cm of water discovered over about 2 square meters after the first snowfall?

The basement is impervious to ordinary rain, we think, but there's no evidence of that after the first water was discovered. How do I figure out how the rain drains to storm sewers and clear that path if it needs to be? Do I need the municipality's help looking at the storm sewer path? How much should I expect to pay for that? 208.54.38.207 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * More info is needed here. What type of flooring is under the water ?  A post-hole digger would only know how to dig through dirt.  If this happens infrequently enough, you might want to just mop it up, then use some bleach, to kill any mold.  A sump pump probably only needs to be a few inches deep if you will manually turn the pump on and off.  You may need more room if you want to use a float to turn it on.  Do you have a sewer drain in the basement ?  If so, just put the discharge tube there.  If that drain is clogged, you need a plumber to unclog it.  StuRat (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The wet area currently has plastic and linoleum over dirt. I plan to use a post hole digger to make it look professional as we are prepping the house for inspection, appraisal, and eventual sale. I think I should isolate the water inflow path, but I have a pretty good idea of that. If I use the same path to run a discharge hose to the storm sewer, I wonder if that will make the problem worse. I suppose I should do some more web searches and look at the home improvement and corresponding reference sections in the local public library for hints. I'm also pretty sure I should figure out the municipal official responsible for storm sewer drains and give them a call or a visit with pictures and diagrams. They might have a map of the block. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that we addressed the "workaround", we should discuss the source of the problem. I see two problems:


 * 1) Water is entering the basement. You may need to seal leaks in the walls and/or floor.  This would mean removing the paneling, etc., first, to find the leak.


 * 2) Water doesn't drain out of the basement. The spot where it accumulates must be lower than the drain or have a blockage between it and the drain.  This needs to be fixed.


 * I'd expect to spend thousands of dollars to fix these two issues. Or, just continue to mop up as a workaround, pouring bleach in the area to kill any mold (leave the area after, to avoid the fumes). StuRat (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, good advice; thank you, but it might be as easy as clearing the accumulated dead vegitation and dirt from a nearby basement window hole (pit?) just outside the sill. The basement walls are unfinished with the foundation's concrete exposed, but there is no water damage visible, just slight discoloration under the window. That could be painted, but I'd rather use a sealant first. I will follow up after the above if I am still at a loss, but further advice from others is also most welcome. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Call in your local plumber to check the drain system (some even use video cameras nowdays). If you don't have drains or they have irreversibly failed, you can spend thousands to have new drains installed from the inside (or even more thousands having new drains installed from the outside) I had my basement floor cut up along the walls and new drains laid inside instead of excavating around the walls from the outside as my neighbor did. Adding a sump pump requires somewhere for the water to go to when it is pumped as well as a system to pull the water away from the foundation before it gets into the basement. You can run a hose out your basement window but your neighbors (and the code enforcement people) might not appreciate it. Besides mold, poor water handling can damage the basement walls and floors leading to larger problems. Rmhermen (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The local utilities will come and flag the locations of your underground systems if you warn them you are going to dig. Rmhermen (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good, yes; I'll ask a couple or three local plumbers for a quick appraisal and work quote after I have more information on storm drain locations. Thank you. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, water may be pooling around the house before it drains into the basement. When it rains, check to see if all the water is draining off the roof properly and being carried away from the house.  Where does it currently go ?  If you are planning on selling the house, then you probably either want to "do it right" or not at all.  The "not at all" option would be to just mop it up and not let them know there's a problem (yes, that's a bit unethical).  A sump pump would only give away that there's a problem, without actually fixing it.


 * BTW, why do you need to know where the sewers run ? Are you planning on adding a new drain ?  If so, tapping into the sewer is a major operation which will likely require contractors and permits.  If not, then you only need to know where the current drains are, not where the sewers run.  If it's a fairly dry location, as you say, then a dry well might be a better and cheaper way to dispose of excess water, outside the house, when it rains or the snow melts.  StuRat (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this problem is fully isolated and will take $1 and 25 minutes to fix. The suspect basement window well became full and clogged with debris because its cover became detached and askew. All other window wells are still completely clear and still drain properly into the storm sewers, away from the foundation and sills. Based on the low level of leaf decomposition I am certain this problem arose within the past year. Pics on request. 208.54.38.207 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK then, just fix the window, mop up and use bleach to kill any mold. No sump pump is required as this problem isn't likely to recur. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Exiting the euro
Simon Wolfson has offered a substantial prize for anyone who can figure out a clean, efficient way for a country to drop the euro in case they need/want to. What's the big deal about finding a method for this?


 * "This prize aims to ensure that high quality economic thought is given to how the euro might be restructured into more stable currencies."

If the Euro is able to be exchanged for dollars, shekels or pounds, why is it any different to exchange it for an as of yet unestablished unit currency?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a question of how the members of the Eurozone could leave the Euro as their official currency, minimising any negative impacts on markets, economies, and practicalities. There has been extensive debate about how easily Greece, as probably the most likely example, could both physically and theoretically leave the single European currency. For example, there aren't physically any drachmas (or another Greek currency) to swap for. Also, theoretically, money would flood out of Greece because of a likely devaluation, and the ease of the Euro to move around European markets – it takes no time at all, if you are Greek, to move your money to Germany (this was the point, after all!). I name but a couple of things. Ultimately, there will be many more, some of which have been mentioned in previous RD threads. In any case, the prize is for avoiding the pitfalls of leaving what some consider to be a "doomed" currency. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Think about what will happen if, say, Greece exits the Euro. The Greek people have Euro banknotes in their houses. They have savings accounts in Euros. They've negotiated their wages in Euros. They have contracts denoted in Euros. They have debts to banks and other people denoted in Euros. What happens to all those accounts? Which ones switch over to the New Drachma? If a Greek citizen has a bank account in a French bank, will it be in Euros or Drachmas? What if it's the Athens branch of the bank? What if it's a German company with a contract to a French one to deliver supplies within Crete? - Even after you've determined all that, you're left with the question: given that Greece is effectively bankrupt, who actually wants New Drachmas anyway? (See this NPR/Planet Money story ) As soon a people get word that their accounts will be forcibly switched over to the New Drachma, they'll be transferring as many Euros as they can to German banks to avoid the conversion. People will horde Euro banknotes. Days after the change over there will be massive inflation as you will need to offer many more New Drachmas for their "equivalent" in Euros, as there's no reason anyone would want New Drachmas. - On the other hand, given the current economic climate, having Germany leave the Eurozone would be no problem. I'd wager that the German people would be queuing up around the corner to convert their Euro banknotes into New Marks. The trick in that case would be to keep people from converting Euros to New Marks. The problem is that the healthy economies aren't the ones who would be looking to leave the Euro. It's the failing ones like Greece. -- 71.35.99.151 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It will be a Gresham's law experiment of the worst kind. The fact that, in a modern economy, with electronic banking and all that entails, the government has no way to enforce the introduction of a less-stable currency for a more stable one.  It can work in the reverse direction (see Plano Real for how Brazil dumped its crappy, worthless currency for a better one) but even that has mixed results and is quite complex and messy to pull off.  Trying to replace a good currency with a worthless one is all but impossible.  -- Jayron  32  02:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There would be nothing stopping Greece, Italy or any other country adopting another currency rather than reverting to its old one. I could see Greece maybe having the drachma as its official currency, but having US dollars as the de facto currency of commerce and trade. This is what happens in other countries after all. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do you pay civil servants in dollars as well? If so, how do you get enough dollars? Do you ask the people to pay their taxes in dollars? --Lgriot (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there would be a lot of problems in Greece about going off the Euro. But there are a lot of problems in Greece caused by staying on the Euro. It makes the Eurozone states much less than sovereign countries, more like US states. And ruled by an unelected, undemocratic (and delusional) ECB, rather than an at least formally representative Congress. Many economists predicted that the Euro was unworkable when it was instituted - Wynne Godley, Charles Goodhart, many others. Their predictions proved entirely accurate. Probably the most important reason Greece is failing is because it is on the Euro, which prevents the government from spending to fully employ its resources & people. The Eurocrats - madmen or worse - demand expansionary fiscal austerity. Problem: never happened in the history of humanity. Demand for new drachmas would be driven, as demand for all money is, by payments to the state, in particular taxes, so they will not be worthless. Argentina is a recent example of a somewhat similar situation, with a basically successful default & unpegging from another currency. Germany leaving the Euro would be far better for everyone though. The German abandonment of their mark was again something shoved down their throat by nescient Eurocrats and would probably not have passed a referendum. A weakening Euro & a strengthening new Mark would benefit everyone.John Z (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The ECB is not an analogue to Congress. The European Parliament is the analogue to Congress.  The ECB is the analogue to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve is not an elected institution in America anymore than the ECB is in Europe.  No comment on the veracity of your criticisms of the Eurozone, but if you are going to make criticisms, you could at least base them on something resembling a fact... -- Jayron  32  13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * John Z is also wrong about the Eurcrats forcing Germany to leave the Mark. Germans were mostly the more enthusiastic about the European integration, and a new currency was part of the deal. 88.8.67.30 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the German elites were enthusiastic about adopting the euro, but opinion polls in Germany at the time showed public opinion against it. So, it wasn't the Eurocrats in Brussels who forced Germany to leave the mark, it was the Bonzen in Bonn.  (I can't think of a good English translation for that German derogatory slang word for government officials.) Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonzen in Bonn? Are you sure they were not already in Berlin? 88.8.67.30 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the German decision to join the euro was taken in the mid-1990s. The move to Berlin did not happen until 1999. Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The formal analogue of the ECB is the Fed. But in terms of actual, exercised power, it is more like Congress, which created & ultimately controls the Fed. The ECB is the ultimate source of "ready money" Euros, just as Congressionally authorized spending is the ultimate source of dollars. The ECB in effect rules the Eurozone, in conjunction with local "technocrats" that cycle between European, state & financial bureaucracies. Should this be surprising in a week that saw the replacement of two elected leaders by "technocrats"?John Z (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congress does not "control" the Fed. It is an independent agency.  The Fed's governors and Chairman are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress to long terms (I think ten years, but maybe longer); neither the President nor Congress has any influence beyond that in determining Fed policy.  -- Jayron  32  01:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to the original question, the "big deal" is that one or more countries may in fact have to exit the euro. Exiting the euro would be very complex and expensive, so finding a way to do it that minimizes the expense and economic damage would be very valuable.  Actually, there is a fairly clear way for an individual country to exit the euro.  The country wanting to exit needs to declare a bank holiday (all banks closed), accounts and debts need to be converted at a set rate to a new currency, euro notes would need to be stamped to indicate that they are no longer euros while a new currency is printed, probably banks would need to be nationalized because their external debts would render them insolvent, and the country would need to repudiate its external debt or force investors to accept a restructuring (partial default) of that debt allowing the country to service the debt. The country would need to impose capital controls sharply limiting the exchange of its currency for foreign currencies.  (Residents, for example, would not be able to convert Greek drachmai to euros or would be limited to a purchase of, say, €800 in a given year.)  All taxes would be payable in the new currency, and use of foreign currencies for domestic transactions would be outlawed. At the same time, the country would need to raise revenues and/or cut expenditures to the point where it had a budget surplus before debt service so that it is no longer reliant on external credit. An optional step would be to impose a tax on the sale of foreign currencies to purchase the new currency by residents and/or citizens of the country. (So that Greeks who had moved their euro assets to Germany before the bank holiday, for example, would be forced to share the cost of the devaluation when repatriating their funds.) What I have just described is the easy and obvious part.  The hard part is limiting the harm to other euro-zone countries caused by the exit of any of its members through debt repudiation, asset deflation, and the risk of contagion. That risk could spike borrowing costs for shakier members of the euro zone if investors fear that they will face defaults if other members are forced to exit, perhaps precisely because their borrowing costs have risen to unsustainable levels. I suspect that the prize is meant for someone who can figure out a way for one country to exit with minimal harm to other euro zone members. Marco polo (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, except for "At the same time, the country would need to raise revenues and/or cut expenditures to the point where it had a budget surplus before debt service so that it is no longer reliant on external credit." The reason for taxation, for Greece improving its tax system is to give value to the drachmas that the Greek government would be printing. No reason to have, or real likelihood of, a budget surplus, which would be the effect of an overeffective taxation program, and which would not free Greece from reliance on external credit. Defaulting on unpayable Euro debts & changing to the drachma would have already cut off external credit in the short term. The real problem is that Greece would have to export enough to pay for necessary imports.  Preventing a Greek default from spreading to other countries is the responsibility of the ECB & the Eurocrats. Greece on the Euro, together with the ECB policies making things worse, granting loans only if suicidal austerity programs are undertaken which make these loans less payable, is causing these problems too - like the recent 50% haircut on banks holding Greek debt. The minimal harm to other Euromembers aim could be achieved by the ECB buying some bad debts, by keeping German & French banks afloat, not forcing them to take haircuts, which can just spread the contagion.John Z (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about the need for Greece to be able to fund its imports, though an exit from the euro and devaluation would help immensely with that. Greece's labor costs could suddenly become competitive with those of Poland, for example, and manufacturers would want to set up plants in Greece. Likewise, Greek agricultural products would be able to compete more strongly against those of other Mediterranean nations, and Greece's tourism industry would experience a boom as millions of tourists could suddenly afford a bargain vacation/holiday among Greece's dazzling ruins and beaches.  I completely agree that the eurocrats' prescription of austerity has worsened matters, in the short term anyway, but clearly some kind of restructuring is needed. Greece's problem is that, in a global or even continental economy, it is not competitive. Hence it cannot sustain itself, because its economy, as currently structured, is unable to grow without an ever-increasing supply of credit. Some adjustment is needed.  Median living standards, having been supported by bad credit for years, have to fall to a sustainable level.  An easy way to do this is devaluation, which requires an exit from the euro. The harder way to do it is austerity and a combination of higher taxes on the affluent and lower wages.  This sets up the political struggle that we have seen between European financial backers, who want to limit aid as much as possible, and Greek recipients of financial aid, who will understandably fight for as much aid as possible and as little fall in living standards as possible. So the current arrangement may merely delay the inevitable adjustment.
 * Ultimately, Greece's issues are those of the entire developed world in a global economy. In a global labor market, the developed world's living standards are not competitive. Either the global market needs to be broken back down into tariff-protected national markets that protect higher national living standards in some nations, or median living standards need to move toward a global norm, dropping in the so-called developed world and rising in the so-called developing world. (There would still be some regional wage and cost differences connected to labor productivity and in turn to levels of education and capital investment. But there is no reason why Athenians should enjoy a much higher median standard of living than, say, residents of Shanghai or Bangalore.) Note that I am careful to use the word median because a political issue remains whether the drop in living standards is to be shared by all members of the society or whether the rich get to maintain lives of undisturbed comfort and privilege while people who work for a living are forced to sacrifice. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Marco, I usually agree with you. But the idea that there is some mystical economic force that makes the "developed world's living standards" uncompetitive is complete & utter nonsense. The spread of such ideas is a fond dream of those who want a future of a boot stamping on a human face forever. Funny how they never say things like the rewards for well-shod financiers and executives are uncompetitive, which is much truer. Of course there is no long run reason for Athenians to be richer than Shanghairen, but there is a short run reason. They are already richer - have higher productivity, education, capital investments etc. The developing world's standards should go up, and the developed world's as well, although slower. Absent some natural catastrophe, some real world constraint, there is no reason for anyone's standards to go down. The problem of Greece is that their government is much worse, understands economics much worse than China's. No sane government would have signed on to a weird experiment, a train-wreck waiting to happen like the Euro.


 * You are right that there are policies that nations can adopt to prevent living standards from declining, with the example of tarriffs. But one must realize that if they are declining, it is because policies have been consciously adopted, that governments have intervened to lower living standards for the 99%, to give the 1% of the 1% more power. But there is no reason for tarriffs, which are usually bad because of the classical arguments. What is needed, practically the only thing, is full employment at a decent wage. The core problem of the Euro is that it removes the power of each government to achieve this. Happily, history shows that this is very easy for truly sovereign governments to achieve. No government that has tried has ever failed. Unhappily, many, most of the economics profession for decades has worked hard to obscure this simple fact.John Z (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)