Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 30

Help Before I Lose Everything

My husband and I have spent a tremendous amount of $$ for our son's legal fees and are behind on everything, including the mortgage. Does anyone know of a lender for people with bad credit. We are desperate and have looked all over the internet, but companies will not help us because we are behind on the mortgage. For crying out loud, we wouldn't be behind if someone would refinance our home. Our credit isn't good cause things have fallen behind. Any help would be appreciated ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.150.231.15 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

• Wikipedia doesn't give legal or financial advice, but you may want to read up on the topics Predatory lending and Credit counseling first. Also, check out the links to the Federal Trade Commission and others within those articles. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, subprime lenders (who lend to people with bad credit) are going out of business in the United States, and credit is becoming much harder to obtain than in recent years. Marco polo 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As for finding someone willing to lend to someone in your situation, you could try making your pitch at http://www.prosper.com. It is really for people who are trying to get small loans to finance home businesses, but it looks like there are some folks there looking for loans in order to get current on their debt. Blinkystar 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Prosper lender, I can tell you that if your credit is as bad as you say it is, you're not going to get a good interest rate: expect to be paying around 25%-30%. It's better than going to a loan shark or payday lender, but worse than anything else out there. --Carnildo 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've gotten so far in debt that nobody is willing to loan you money any more, the only remaining options may be to either drastically scale down your lifestyle (smaller house, fewer or smaller cars, no cable TV, vacations, eating out, new clothes or shoes, alcohol, tobacco, or lottery tickets, etc.) or to declare bankruptcy. StuRat 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How much was a gram of gold worth in Europe in May of 1961?

Any time I type in "historic gold prices""historic gold prices" on Google I get a bunch of websites talking about investing in gold. Toko loko 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Toko, it seems to have been about $35 an ounce in the early 1960s. You will find a lot of detail on historic trends here [1]. I will leave you to work out the price in grams! Clio the Muse 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold was in fact exactly $35 a troy ounce in the early 1960s, because the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold at that price. That works out to approximately $1.125 per gram. If you are looking for the price in a currency other than the U.S. dollar, you can look it up on this web site showing historic exchange rates. Marco polo 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One caution: If by chance you were looking for the value of a gram of gold in pounds sterling in 1961, the pound had not yet been decimalized. So, a gram of gold, though worth £0.4016, could not be expressed in those terms. The correct way to express that value would have been 8s 0.38d or 8/0.38 (8 shillings 0.38 penny). Marco polo 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Marco, you never cease to impress me! For an American to have some understanding of pre-decimalised British coinage is really quite remarkable, and I say this without a trace of irony. I know you won't mind one small observation about your calculations. From my understanding (and from asking my mother) the old penny and the new penny have quite different units of value. In the decimal system there are 100 new pennies to the pound, but in the old system there were actually 240 to the pound, or 12 to the shilling (20 shillings to the pound). In 1961 there would also have been half-pennies (480 to the pound). I am not quite sure what the 0.38 refers to in your calculation; but if it is full old pennies, then were are, in fact, talking about 3 shillings and twopence. This would then work out at, taking the existing 8 shillings into account, as eleven shillings and twopence in total, or in LSD terms (yes, it was LSD-pounds, shillings and pence) £0 11s 2d, or 11/2. £0.4016 expressed in pre-decimal terms is, I think, about 8 shillings and 4 pence, or 8/4. I hope this makes sense. Probably not! Clio the Muse 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Clio, thank you for the compliments! As an American and an English speaker, I am of course interested in a historic currency that left such a strong mark on our common language and that also prevailed in the American colonies until they gained independence (and indeed for some decades afterwards). Anyway, I confirm that my calculations were off. You are correct that the price of a gram of gold in sterling in 1961 would have been close to 8s 4d. Marco polo 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Marco, you were right the first time. Assuming that your £0.4016 is correct, that is equal to (20 * .4016) = 8.032s (shillings). The 0.032s is equal to (12 * .032) = 0.384d (pence). Thus the answer is 8s 0.38d as you said: eight shillings and about 2/5 of a penny. --ColinFine 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the penny was already divided into quarters (farthings), so "about 3/8 of a penny" is the way someone would have said it then. Or perhaps "about a farthing and a half". --Anonymous, March 31, 2007, 00:01 (UTC).

Not in 1961! Farthings were withdrawn the previous year. --ColinFine 19:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Still, I bet people would say it. --Anonymous, April 1, 21:10 (UTC).

Note to the original poster: when you say you searched for "historic gold prices", was that a search for three individual words or for the phrase? To search in Google for a phrase, just put quotation marks around it. In some cases this produces much better results. --Anonymous, March 31, 00:01 (UTC).

Wow! Thanks for all the response folks! Now on to write my thesis...Toko loko 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore per curiam

Does anyone know for sure who wrote the per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore? --zenohockey 06:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... Ok - there's 9 Supremes. At the time, they were Rehnquist CJ, Stevens J, O'Connor J, Scalia J, Kennedy J, Souter J, Thomas J, Bader Ginsberg J and Breyer J.

In Bush v Gore, Rehnquist CJ wrote a concurrence to the per curiam. Stevens J, Souter J, Ginsberg J and Breyer J wrote dissenting judgements. That leaves O'Connor J, Scalia J, Kennedy J and Thomas J as the 'court' (meaning in this case, some of the judges) who wrote the 'per curiam'.

A ref here.

--Shirt58 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The opinion was unsigned, and none of the justices or staff on the court at that time has stepped forward to claim or assign responsibility for the opinion. (I will not comment on what this suggests about the moral confidence of the author or authors.) So we cannot know for sure who wrote it. According to this website, the opinion was "apparently" written by Kennedy and O'Connor, but no sources or evidence are adduced for that deduction. Marco polo 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I interpret that lack of comment as a comment. JackofOz 13:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas joined a separate concurring opinion in which they indicated that they agreed with the ultimate result reached by the 5-to-4 majority but would have preferred to decide the case on different grounds. They joined in the "equal protection" reasoning of the per curiam so that there would be an opinion of the Court with a majority. That leaves Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy as the Justices who believed that the case should be resolved on the basis of the per curiam, and pretty clearly supports the conclusion that one or both of them wrote it. The conclusion is supported by an insiders' account based on law-clerk interviews conducted by Vanity Fair magazine, linked here. Newyorkbrad 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting...especially the VF article. A bit alarming, too. Thanks all. --zenohockey 18:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Selling at a loss

If selling a product at a loss is illegal under antitrust laws in many areas (such as California [2]), how are games console manufacturers such as Sony and Microsoft able to sell products at £100-200 below their break even point? Wouldn't they be very vulnerable from a competition/monopoly point of view? Laïka 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think manufacturers sell their produce below break even point. I understand that retailers may, in order to encourage further sales, however, retailors and manufacturers are different. DDB 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. If you follow gaming you will constantly see articles talking about how much XBOX and Playstations lose on the console equipment. See xbox loss and sony playstation loss for example. Also see the article Loss leader. They Sell consoles at a loss in order to make more money on game title licencing. As for why this is not illeagel with respect to anti-trust law, see the following paragraph in you reference article [3]

The Act also bans "sales below cost" by selling or offering to sell products at prices below the seller's cost in the intent to injure the complaining party or destroy competition.

This would indicate that unless someone complained of business injury due to the below cost selling, there would be no case. Since all of the consoles are sold at below cost none of the manufactures wants to bring a suit against another. Czmtzc 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also many other legit reasons to sell at a loss, such as being overstocked on an unpopular item, wanting to sell off stock before you are required to pay inventory taxes on them, going out of business sales, selling an item as a loss leader to get people into the store to buy more profitable items, selling off out-of-season or discontinued items, etc. StuRat 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But other makers of Blu-ray players complained about the PlayStation 3's price. Doesn't that constitute as a complaint about destroying competition, thus making it illegal? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything can be analyzed until the point of being illegal, I suppose. --Proficient 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Native American Saint

Was there ever a Native American saint?

According to this news story, Juan Diego was the first Native American saint recognized by the Catholic Church. Marco polo 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was he who had the vision of Our Lady of Guadalupe. He was canonised in July 2002. The Guadalupe shrine is a site of great importance to the people of Mexico, and a place of pilgrimage of the sort that really vanished in Catholic Europe at the end of the Middle Ages. When in Mexico recently I saw hundreds of people walking from the city of Puebla to Guadalupe. Clio the Muse 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

According to our article, some people call Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha a saint, though she's yet to be canonized. —Kevin 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping up with the Joneses Article

This article may be correct, but it does not go back far enough. The phrase began in reference to Wyndclyffe, the grossly large and ostentatious mansion in New York's Hudson River Valley built in 1853 by Elizabeth Schermerhorn Jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.241.36.32 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

If you can find a reference for that, feel free to edit the article yourself! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, it would be helpful for you to post your remark on that article's Talk (discussion) page for the sake of accessibility by subsequent editors, as this one will soon be archived. By the way, having your own User account is not obligatory, but you might find it worthwhile for tracking your contributions. -- Deborahjay 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many beliefs about common phrases, but without third-party verification from a reliable source most of them fall away. Look at all the stories people assume are absolutely true about "the whole nine yards", "between the devil and the deep blue sea", and a mistake being a "ball-up". --Charlene 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

USA-China relations

Should the United States consider China a friend or enemy? Trems986 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Treating them as an enemy doesn't seem to be an option now, as the US is spread too thin to afford another enemy. China is not at all helpful in the world, however, being quite willing to support the genocidal regime in Sudan in exchange for access to Sudan's resources, for example. They are also nondemocratic, tending to execute their opposition inside China, and also manipulate their currency (keep the juan low), to give them an unfair trade advantage over the rest of the world. They continue to oppress ethnic minorities, such as the Tibetans. Finally, they are huge polluters of the environment. So, the US and most of the world would be better off if the current Chinese government did not exist, but there is no way the US or world can change the current Chinese gov, so it makes little difference. StuRat 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More like rivals who are also major trading partners. (The world would also be better off without the current American government.) Clarityfiend 23:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a question the reference desk cannot answer. You may wish to read our articles on People's Republic of China and Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, then come back with any specific questions.—eric 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Both? · AO ^Talk 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically the link on Sino-American relations would be useful.Sjmcfarland 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'should' implies that there is a definite, correct answer to this very complex question. Also. as days go by, the answer changes. One's very attitude toward China also influences the answer. Showing good faith towards a potential adversary is usually returned in kind. Vranak

Neville Chamberlain thought the same. Didn't work out so well. Clarityfiend 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, China is neither enemy nor friend, but a sovereign state with a scary attitude DDB 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask your question on the Wikiversity Help Desk and people will try to answer it. Please note that Wikiversity still has a much smaller community than Wikipedia, so you may not get a lot of answers. But asking more questions there is good to encourage the project to grow and eventually be able to give complete and proper answers to questions that do not necessarily fit a reference desk. Of course, the Wikipedia reference desks will always be useful for people on the Wikiversity to find references when attempting to tackle difficult questions like this one. Good luck. A.Z. 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

With a GDP that has grown at a rate of over 10% p.a. for the last four years [4] and a increasingly enlightened attitude towards foreign investment (see Economy of the People's Republic of China), it would seem that the most appropriate attitude towards China would be to regard it as a strategic investment opportunity. Gandalf61 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)