Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 16

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.

November 16

Business Question

74.76.194.162 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the question? --Tango (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the question. FiggyBee (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have few signed stamps from the third reich (they don't worth much)-don't know this one. You have to find a catelog of German stamps from the 30-40, not too hard to find.--Gilisa (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That stamp goes with the section above, it just overlaps this section because it is big. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So, who put it here? I think that is his/her "question". What a fool, sorry didn't see the discussion above--Gilisa (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins of football

How did football, or soccer originate? Did it find its beginnings in Europe? Are rugby league and union a divergence from an original game?203.122.251.174 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

History of football should help you here. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you meant to link History of association football. —Akrabbim^talk 02:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the history section of the football article, actually. The history of association football starts only in the nineteenth century, but there was football long before that. (Of course, we don't know how far back the question would like us to go.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I understood the OP as asking specifically how soccer or association football originated. Either way, now he has both links :) —Akrabbim^talk 03:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy

I have only recently found out that Diana, Princess of Wales, was illegitimately descended from James II through his mistress Arabella Churchill, and also through his brother Charles II through one of his countless ladies. If she is of an illegitimate line, how can her son William become King ? The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

William would become king as heir of his father, not his mother. That line (the one tracing back to the Electress Sophia) is the one in which legitimacy matters. Everyone, the Prince of Wales as well as the late Princess, has bastard lines: you can't inherit a title through them, but they don't disqualify you for a title you inherit through other lines. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cue William the Bastard, who was involved very early in this story. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Highest paid prostitute

I have recently asked a question about richest prostitute in the world which I found is quite difficult to answer. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Richest_prostitute Just curious, I searched google and did not get any hint about it. But I searched google about who is the highest paid prostitute in the world and got several hints. This reference claims Natalie McLennan was the highest paid prostitute in the world who charged $2000 per hour. This forum also confirms it. But this forum claims the highest paid earns $5500 per hour. If the highest rate of a prostitute is $5500 per hour, how Natalie McLennan can be the highest paid prostitute? Since chacha.com is just a forum, I can't trust it, but NY Post can be trusted as a reliable source. Still I want to know if the rate of a prostitute can exceed $2000 per hour i.e. $5500 per hour? I also want to know in which city the rate of high class prostitutes is highest in the world. --EditorAndrew1990 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Define highest paid... Are we talking all money earned averaged over an arbitrary amount of time (say money per year/hours worked per year) OR are we talking "most ever paid for a single sex act" extrapolated to an hourly wage? Depending on what one is measuring, BOTH numbers could be correct and reliable, since neither source mentions the methodology to arrive at the number. If I pay $500 for a 6-minute blowjob, one could claim a nominal hourly rate of $5000 per hour. However, if that same prostitute worked 20 hours this week and brought in $40,000 that is $2000 per hour. So what method of calculating the rate of pay? Are we talking gross income; are we talking rate charged for service regardless of actual time worked, net income after expenses are taken out? What is the hourly rate actually measuring? --Jayron32 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

$4300 for two hours. Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

google Trophy Wife

With ruthless logic I could see entertainers being called prostitutes, so why not Madonna? Julia Roberts? Vranak (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Libel, perhaps? (He says, to answer a rhetorical question.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Grant, an actor, has called his craft 'emotional prostitution', so it's not entirely unjustified to question the legitimacy of various 'acts', even when the clothes stay on. Vranak (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Fixing Vranak's small tags... Matt Deres (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Demi Moore.--Gilisa (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Meister Eckhart

I am in need of a picture of Meister Eckhart. I have come across this image [1] more than once in my search; I am trying to discover its source. Any help would be appreciated. -Pollinosisss (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no contemporary image of Eckhart in the modern sense of a "portrait".--Wetman (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just recently heard of an Internet site called TinEye that reverse searches images - i.e. it takes an image and looks up the net for similar images. Using it, I got these results for your picture: [2]. Of those hits, the AllPosters site lists the author of the painting, Giovanni Bellini. Only problem is, the painting is apparently of St. Dominic, not Meister Eckhart... TomorrowTime (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Thank you TomorrowTime. That's a helpful tool. Not quite the answer I was hoping for, but that's ok. -Pollinosisss (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

templetax in the present times

A someone I know is joining the Carmelites, and said that he will have to pay templetax. When I googled the word, I could only find references to the term used in the bible and no references to a (catholic) tax that have to be paid in the present day. What is exactly templetax? How much is it? And is it also used outside of the Order of Carmel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.91.24 (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Temple tax is usually two words.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Carmelites have no temple tax. There is nothing like a temple tax in modern Catholicism. The Carmelites take vows of poverty anyway, so your friend would have basically no money to pay the temple tax if there was one. If your friend really does want to join the Carmelites, he ought to learn more clearly what a commitment to the order involves if he does believe that they levy some kind of temple tax. It is a huge commitment, and not one which should be taken lightly - therefore he needs full and accurate information on what living within the order entails. --Joe^Talk_Work 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of commitment that shouldn't be taken lightly, here's a story I heard from a tourist bus driver in Split, Croatia. There is an Order of st. Clare monastery in Split, and the Clarisse are a secluded order - they have no interaction with the outside world. Apparently, the only exception is a potential visit by the pope, in which case they are allowed to leave the monastery for an audience. So when the pope visited Split, six of the sisters went to see him. Only two came back. Mind you, could be a very tall tale :) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't just join a holy order.You have to be interviewed,may have to spend time in the world following the Holy Office then you have to go through several stages to become fully professed which can take 10 years.I used to know some Carmelite nuns and they never mentioned this at all...hotclaws 23:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the average cost of storefront rental at US airports?

I get the tacit assumption that it's expensive, but when I see half a bagel with some cream cheese costing over $3 or a pad of paper at the mini-Staples costing $5, I can't help but think they must have a fat profit margin even after their rent. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I question your assumption. It may be that prices are high because: (1) the shopper has nowhere else to go, so the profit margin can be higher, and (2) labor costs more, because the employees need to pass background checks. See questions 5 and 6 in this article from a small business magazine. --M@rēino 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Prices are determined by what people are willing to pay. Cost is only a factor in determining if the item is profitable to sell or not. --Tango (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But rent is also based on what people are willing to pay. If stores can sell for a big mark up because people have no alternative, there will also be high demand for that space, and the airport can charge high rent. I would guess airport stores do alright, but if the airport is smart, most of the markup will go to them. Rckrone (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I expect most of the premium to pay to get something from an airport shop goes to the airport since the final profit the shop needs to make to be worth having will be the same for an airport shop as for a regular shop. --Tango (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You can see some of this quite explicitly when you rent a car at an airport—there are special "facility fees" tacked on just because it is located on airport property, and they are quite expensive (I don't recall the exact percentage but it was fairly substantial—20% or so). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I found an example myself. https://dc-web.co.dane.wi.us/committees/contracts/7762.pdf page 1. Avis car rental at Dane County Regional Airport paying $271,200 over 5 years. Down on page 17, the "storefront" aspect of their operation costing $1,070.08 due on or before the first of each month. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the very car-rental agency where the manager accidentally took my credit card home, forcing me to miss my flight while he drove back to the airport -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Very challenging geography question

I am looking out for the place which satisfies the following conditions

1. Its economy is underdeveloped 2. But its scenery is very well developed 3. association football or soccer is the most popular sport followed by boxing and rodeo 4. Genetle poetry by one of its natives is almost worshipped

I am thinkg of places whre rodeo os popular and may be thinking of some place in Mexico but not sure

Chile satisfies but am not sure if it is underdeveloped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.90.158 (talk • contribs)

• Couple questions for you: (1) why do you need to know this? Your reason might help people find an answer. (2) what is "Genetle"? Do you mean genteel? Gentile? Genital? Gentle? Anyway, that said, I would't call either Mexico or Chile "underdeveloped." See List of countries by Human Development Index: both Mexico and Chile have fairly high levels of development, and the term underdeveloped usually refers to nations a bit lower down on the list. --M@rēino 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the places listed in our article on rodeo are particularly underdeveloped, so I suspect that the questioner may be thinking of one of the Latin American countries listed there - Mexico, Argentina or Chile. Of those, all could be said to fit condition 2, while 4 could also probably be applied to any of them (pretty much every country has some sort of national poet). Football is the most popular sport in each country, but (and I could be wrong), I'm not aware of boxing being especially popular in Chile, so I'd suggest that the answer which they are looking for is probably either Mexico or Argentina. Warofdreams talk 17:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Boxing is big in Cuba. Not sure on rodeo. Googlemeister (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Depending on your definition of "rodeo", you could include much of central Asia - Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan. Horse-skills contests are huge in that part of the world. These areas also hold poetry in high esteem, traditionally, at least. Mongolia has wrestling as its main sport. though, so that one would be ruled out. If I had to guess, I'd go for either Turkmenistan or Tajikistan. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that football is the most popular sport in central Asia. For the two you name, Turkmenistan is big on weightlifting, and Tajikistan seems quite big on wrestling. Warofdreams talk 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Though wrestling is very popular in central Asia as a whole, both football and boxing are also very popular there. Sport_in_Kazakhstan, one of only two separate "Sport in..." articles we have on central Asia, says "Football is the most popular sport in Kazakhstan." It also devotes its largest section to boxing. And though I'm not sure you['d regard the poetry of Abay Qunanbayuli as either gentle or worshipped, it is certainly held in very high esteem by the Kazakhs. The other similar article is the stub on Sport in Uzbekistan, which says "Over the centuries, Uzbekistan has had a tradition of fostering equestrians and wrestlers (palvans).... Other popular sports in Uzbekistan are football (soccer), boxing and sport wrestling." Grutness...wha? 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

US-PRC trade imbalace

I have pretty much zero understanding of economics beyond simple supply-demand curves, so bear with me. I was reading this article about Obama's visit to China, and as far as I can tell, it seems to me that he is trying to get China to mess with the value of the yuan to even out the trade imbalance. However, as the balance is in China's favor, why should China have to do anything about it? What are they doing wrong? Shouldn't the US change something on their end, since it is the US that is importing more than exporting? How is that China's fault? Let's avoid any talk of Chinese businesses ripping off American copyrights and stuff, as if I'm not mistaken is not being put into play in this specific circumstance. Feel free to ruthlessly correct any glaring misunderstandings I undoubtedly have. Thanks —Akrabbim^talk 15:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The main issue to be raised by Obama and his aides is China's perceived manipulation of its currency, the renminbi. Most major currencies are allowed to float on international currency markets, so that their value (theoretically) reflects the relative value of the countries' traded goods and services. A country such as China, which has a large trade surplus, would be expected to have a currency with a rising value on currency markets, since the demand for renminbi to buy its goods and services should push the value of its currency up. However, China's government does not allow its currency to float freely. Instead, China sets a very limited band within which its currency can fluctuate in value relative to the US dollar. The US dollar, which does float, has been sinking partly in response to its large trade deficit—which floods world markets with dollars used to buy imports and therefore lowers the relative value of the dollar. By keeping the renminbi closely linked to the value of the US dollar rather than let it rise in response to market forces, China keeps its exports cheaper than they otherwise would be. This allows China to capture what some consider an unfair share of global demand for goods and services, at the expense of jobs and profits in other countries. It makes Chinese exports cheaper than they would be if China submitted its currency to market forces as other countries do. The result is that China's policy perpetuates its trade imbalance with the United States. If China floated its currency, the renminbi would rise, Chinese goods would become more expensive in the US, and US demand for them would fall. Meanwhile, US goods would become cheaper in China, and demand for them would rise. This would let market forces correct the trade imbalance. I don't want to saddle China with all of the responsibility for the trade imbalance, however. United States institutions such as the Federal Reserve System are partly to blame by keeping interest rates low in a way that encourages consumption, trade deficits, and a dependence on foreign capital to make up for a lack of domestic saving discouraged by low interest rates. Here is a recent discussion of this complex topic. Marco polo (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the OP's question, though. Why should China care? Why should it let its currency float, if that would lead to a less favourable Chinese position? I'm only pointing this out because, like the OP, I'm a total economics illiterate, and the same question has been on my mind before, as well. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, there are many things that USA can do to change the current balance of power. If I'm not mistaken, it was Reagan who changed the balance with the Japanease. Then, the Japanease actively stoped American exports to Japan. Reagan warned them that if they will not make it easier for American exporters to sell in Japan then he will just raise the taxes on imports from Japan in such way that it would break down the Japanease sells in USA and would lead to recession. This kind of threats are being made only when you don't realy have other choice. Also, there is no such thing as local recession any more. If there is recession in the Chinease markets, then it have great potential to affect other markets as well. The Chinease have the largest reserves of USA$ and yet, even when the $ value dropped rapidly, they abstained from selling large part of these reserves for Euros-because recession in USA certainly mean recession in China (and also, it would only lead the value of these reserves to sharp drop) . So, China understand this simple connection and it have an interest that its biggest competitor economy will stand up on its legs again. Conclusion: I just rambled here-it's all politics, and Obama/Chinease words are one thing and actions another. USA can benefit its manufactures who still produce on American soil, but then what competition it would make in front of the EU and Japan? It's all too complex, and China have the upper hand, indeed.--Gilisa (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Marco polo: The FED lowerd the interest rates to make people use their money insetad of just keeping it in the banks. It then look like an option to revive activity in the markets. What interest could banks with empty strongboxed and debts give? Interest is taken from bank's profits, and to make profits they have to invest the money of their clients (but I don't think they could do it successfully) . The burden of their debts was just too heavy and high rates of interest would only take it for the worse.--Gilisa (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Gilisa: One could question whether it is more important for the Fed to boost banks' profits or to insure the long-range soundness of the US economy. The critical thing here is that the Fed's policy of responding to every economic challenge with low interest rates began long before the recent crisis. Instead, this policy goes back to the 1980s and is known as the Greenspan put. So, regardless whether you think that the Fed now "has" to keep interest rates low, it is clear that the Fed has some responsibility for encouraging the reckless borrowing and low interest rates that contributed to both the trade imbalance and the recent financial crisis. Marco polo (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It goes much behind the interest rated. The roots of the crisis are going back to 1977, continue with the American congress pushing Fanny May and Freddy Mac(ignore the spell mistakes, it's hopeless) to enlarge the size of mortgages and loans given to subprime borrowers in 1992 and the American Ministry of Housing updated it by forcing both FMs to give more than 40% of the mortgages to low income borrowers (may be it could become successfull if economic grow rates were higher enough and if companies like Wal Mart would paid their employees in proportion to their profitablity) few years later. Greenspan warned from this policy few years before the crisis. More, the banks method to calculate securities built real estate bubble (i.e., giving additional loan based on the up to date value of the mortgaged asset). And it's going on and on-not just the low interest rates (actually Bernanke drop the interest rates as he had no other option and as a response to the recession-as I wrote, if you keep the money in the bank-there is no grow, so the banks have no good investment options).--Gilisa (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the Fed had "no other option" and that debt-driven consumption is the only way to have growth (compare China and Brazil), but I'm not interested in continuing the debate. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK--Gilisa (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Eventually the Fed may see "no other option" than to buy all Treasury securities, after more and more debt has been effectively transferred to the government. The value of a currency is determined by the unwillingness of the central bank to extend credit. MMMMM742 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this: Chinese currency is tied to American currency, so no matter what happens to the American dollar, nothing will happen to the trade imbalance, and Obama, in the interests of the US, is trying to convince the Chinese that this is not good for them in the long run? —Akrabbim^talk 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What if the US declared to the world in like-fashion that its currency would now be tied to x% of Chinese currency where 0 < x < 1? What kind of infinite loop chaos would that cause? :) 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If they did that it would be an arbitrage situation. You could make infinite amounts of money by taking a dollar to the US central bank and exchanging it for renminbi at the US peg then taking that renminbi to the Chinese central bank and exchanging it for dollars. You would then have more dollars than you started with due to the difference in the pegs. You then repeat ad infinitum and get infinitely rich. Obviously, this can't actually happen - the US and Chinese governments would run out of their own currency and would have to print more. At first this wouldn't be a problem because that money would go into the other country's reserves rather than going into circulation, but eventually you would decide you were rich enough and would stop. The money supply of whichever country you are holding the currency of when you stop would then massively increase causing hyperinflation. Other people doing the same thing would then realise the dollar, say, was worthless so they would stop the cycle when holding renminbi, which they would spend. That would cause hyperinflation in China. Both economies have then been completely destroyed. Of course, what would actually happen is one country would chicken out and drop the peg (a similar thing happened with the Pound, but rather than fighting another country they were fighting George Soros - see Black Wednesday). This would be very expensive for both countries, though, so they aren't likely to do it. --Tango (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It will eventually be corrected when Chinese wages rise sufficiently. Developing countries have generally lower price levels for non-exportable goods and services (think restaurants). When they become industrialized, these price levels become more similar to what is seen in other industrialized countries. This can be done either by appreciation of the currency or by inflation. The Chinese seem to have decided to do it mainly by inflation. MMMMM742 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in Paul Krugman's latest NY Times column about this too. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html?ref=opinion) 131.191.87.100 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@20.137etc: No such action is imaginable. It would lead to a rapid destruction of the US dollar and a complete financial disaster.

I agree with you and my comment was tongue-in-cheek, but that's what Chicken (game) is all about. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@Akkrabim: For public consumption, to help China keep face while appearing to Americans to push for something, Obama is saying something like what you've described. Behind closed doors, I suspect he is saying something like the following: "I agree with you that free trade is good for both of our economies and we want to avoid imposing any trade penalties on your nation [China]. However, if you [China] do not allow the renminbi to rise against the dollar, I can't promise that I will be able to resist calls in my own [Democratic] party to impose punitive tariffs [on China]. Therefore, if you want to maintain access to the US market, you will have to let your currency rise substantially." @MMMMM742: I agree that this would eventually happen in theory. However, it is not happening now because the recent recession led to increased unemployment in China, which together with a drop in commodity prices has brought a sharp drop in wage and consumer price inflation in China. Meanwhile, the imbalances continue to mount between the US and China in a way that probably imperils both countries' medium to long-term interests. So it isn't clear that either country has time to wait for Chinese productivity-adjusted wages to catch up to even falling US wages. Marco polo (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The China advantage ? It's not that obvious : what the Chinese are basically doing is giving some real goods to the US for paper money. They are financing the credit consumption of the US consumer. If a exchange is at equilibrium, one gives some real goods and gets as a return some other real goods of the exact same value. Here, the Chinese give more to the US than the US give to them. Of course, they keep the dollars they are paid with, but that does not give any utility as such : they are just accumulating loans, that one day the US will have to pay (or not, as there are multiple ways of not paying one's due in international affairs, such as domestic inflation). In the meantime, it's (or was) party time in the US. In the short run, thanks to that, the US consumer can enjoy more goods than what's the US economy is producing, but he's accumulating debts to the Chinese consumer. At the same time, the Chinese consumer is enjoying less goods than the Chinese economy is producing, but he's accumulating loans to the US consumer. So why are the Chinese are doing this, as they are not so sure that one day the US will really pay their debt ? One answer is dynamic : it helps them to increase the level of their production : they produce more. Even though they do not fully enjoy what they are producing by consuming it, it's good to them because that gives them a bigger growth rate and enable them to produce sophisticated products that would not be sold on their domestic market : as a result, they enjoy economies of scale, accumulate know how, etc. It helps them to develop more quickly : it's part of the export oriented development strategy that has made the success of many other Asian economies, such as Taiwan. I would add that it takes two to run a deficit : there is no doubt that the Chinese are manipulating their currency. But at the same time, the Euro zone, that is at bigger disadvantage than the US, as the Euro is even more over evaluated than the dollar, do not have a significant trade deficit with China, as do the US. It's been now 20 years that the US economy has spent more than what it produces : it's started way before the Chinese under evaluation of the renminbi, way before the FED has lower its interest rates. It's much more structural. Gede (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to Gede: Couldn't agree more. It's along time that I'm aware to this paradox-USA is not a big exporter relative to its economy size and to other major palyers in world economy (if I'm not wrong, Germany is the biggest exporter after China). Most people around me have Japanease or European cars, I saw this reality in many places around the globe (in both rich and poor countries), most electrical goods are Asian or European and etc. I asked myself the same question-where does the American currency get its international purchase power from? And more, I get it hard to believe that Obama will convince the Chinease to willingly slow down their economy just few steps before it become the strongest.--Gilisa (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should China care? To improve the prospects for more sustainable and predictable trade relations with US. What are the Chinese doing wrong? Everything the West demanded that they do for the past three decades: releasing controls on the economy, opening to the outside world and letting the Renminbi appreciate 20% (as demanded). What, didn’t that work? Well, how about another 50%, that should do the trick. If not, just ramp it up again until something breaks. Hey, it worked with Japan, didn’t it?

But, let’s not forget that something north of 50 countries fix their exchange rates. And, let’s not discount the huge savings to American consumers that arises from cheaper imports. By some estimates, the typical middle class (or lower) household gets an extra two weeks pay because of the difference between local and imported goods. And, since in September 2009 only 2.68% of the US population actually engaged in manufacturing production work, so it isn’t as if there are a lot of jobs at stake. And don’t even get me started on the massive savings to both the public purse and private companies and individuals that arises from China buying US t-bills and thereby keeping interest rates low.

Should the US change something on its end? Sure, why not? Oh, but you’ll never get elected again if you propose the most obvious (and most effective) solution: reducing US standards of living to levels commensurate with worker productivity. How is it China’s fault? The US politicians said so, that’s how.

Full disclosure: the above constitutes original research, since this issue is a big part of my job. Sorry ‘bout that. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Chinese authorities do it mainly in order to encourage technology transfer, as foreign companies are more ready to invest if the labor costs stay low in USD terms. True, the American consumers have advantages, the Chinese consumers have disadvantages. And when the debt becomes to burdensome, just inflate the currency - it could be argued that for the United States as a net debtor hyperinflation would actually be beneficial. But the Chinese would be left with a more self-sufficient economy, and the United States would have a hard time as they can no longer run a trade deficit. MMMMM742 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Odinga and Moi story in the 80s

In the 1980s, did Raila Odinga and Daniel Arap Moi have a confilict over something. Because he got sentence almost by overthrowing in Daniel Arap Moi's rules. is Daniel Arap Moi one of the worst African dictators? Not all African politician is obnoxious, some Africans have won gold for good works.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an opinion or a request to start a discussion. That isn't really what the ref desks are for. It is hard to make a list of "worst dictators in Africa". What criteria are you using beyone "What I think"? --Jayron32 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the conflict part, see Raila Odinga#Detention. —Akrabbim^talk 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Description of the library in the Doge's Palace, Venice

Can anyone provide the above? - I'm hoping for architectural descriptions as well as anything about the books held there, and especially hoping for 16th/17th Century accounts - but I'll be grateful for anything I get.

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Venetian library, which would presumably have been used by people connected with the Doge's Palace, was the Biblioteca Marciana, constructed from 1537. In 1811, the books were moved into the Hall of the Great Council in the palace, and there's a description of the space and the highlights of the collection in this work of 1844. Is this the library you are thinking of? It was moved out again in 1904. So far as I am aware, there was no library in the Doge's Palace between the mid-16th century and 1811. Warofdreams talk 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Warofdreams - I must admit, I was just assuming the palace had a library - thanks too for the link, excellent for its language, and the word 'ebronological' Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I did enjoy the description, but I'm afraid that word is somewhat less exciting - try "chronological" with a couple of scanning marks. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I googled it, and got a few hits -- but all scanned texts. I wonder if anyone will start using the word anyway, as I almost did, and before long (at least in terms of the ebronology of linguistics), it will end up in dictionaries as a synonym of 'chronological', though with some subtle difference known only to the intelligentsia. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Literacy rate

I was wondering what is the country with the highest literacy rate? The lowest? I am not sure if there is a visible "gap" that proves the highest as there are so many countries. But, is there a country with a "highest" rate?

Thank you. Untitledmind72 (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See our article List of countries by literacy rate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the differences between countries at 99% or higher - the values aren't that precise. --Tango (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthering Tango's remark, it's important to realize that any cut-off point between literate and illiterate is arbitrary. Is someone who can read road signs and the labels in a supermarket "literate"? And between cultures, different types of communication may be more important. Finally, I'd argue that, for English speakers at least, it is more important to be able to understand many dialects of a language than to be skilled with standard English for the simple reason that language is a mode of communication and little more.--Leon (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as you know standard English (whatever that is in your country) then you should be fine, since you can communicate with anyone else that knows standard English, which is most people. Dialects are, by definition (in theory), mutually intelligible anyway. I have difficulty understanding Glaswegians, but other than that I can understand almost any English dialect/accent without having made any effort to learn them. --Tango (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Literacy is a relative matter. The opprobrium attached to illiteracy in the US is such that none of the functionally illiterate I have ever encountered would have admitted to their condition, if asked.--Wetman (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Different (and imprecise) definitions of "illiterate" and inaccurate reporting are, indeed, two of the causes of imprecision in the literacy figures. --Tango (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)