Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 31

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.

January 31

Biblical calendar

I have unsuccessfully tried to find information about the time reckoning at the time of Genesis 1 Did Adam have a calendar or who determined the years of the life span of the time from Adam to Noah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.191.190 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Longevity_myths#Hebrew_Bible and Patriarchs (Bible) each have a little bit, but it basically boils down to the idea that we are uncertain about why such long ages are given. Common explanations include

• Mistranslation (usually of month for year)
• Miscopying of an early, now lost, source, possibly even down to changes during the years of oral tradition
• Deliberate exaggeration to give greater "importance" to semi-mythic figures

Speaking as someone interested in factual history and evidence, there isn't really any hard evidence for any of these, or indeed, any other speculative explanation. Speaking as a Christian, I have faith that the Bible is true, but I also don't necessarily understand how it is true, and from a theological perspective I am OK with not knowing everything God knows, when I'm dead I can figure that out. But speaking purely from a historical perspective, there isn't a good explanation at all, so I'm not sure you're going to be able to get one definitively. Since the ancient Levant was mostly contested back-and-forth by Fertile Crescent empires and Egypt for most of the time period covering the Patriarchs, the specific calendars in use by the Writers may have been either the Babylonian calendar or the Egyptian calendar. --Jayron32 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is liable to sound very vague, but a religious friend once said to me that the specific ages given for those Biblical figures somehow connect with numerology, i.e. with the "numerical value" of their names. I don't know if there's any truth to that or not, even necessarily a mustard seed's grain of truth; it's just something I have sometimes puzzled over (though not enough to have looked into it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical numerology is a fairly "out there" fringe belief that not a lot of theologians of any mainstream Biblical religion seriously ascribes to. The reality is likely a lot more mundane, as I cited above. --Jayron32 03:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It gets a certain play among some religious Jews, as Chaim Potok displayed well in The Chosen.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It gets play mainly from the Kabbalah tradition, which the Wikipedia article accurately describes as "esoteric". Kabbalah gets a lot of press because it became trendy for Hollywood types to study it a few years back, but it has never represented a serious, mainstream, common tradition withing Judaism; it's always been a fringe belief system. --Jayron32 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not even Genesis itself claims that Adam was the one who determined all those lifespans. Instead, the author himself, likely writing during or shortly after the Babylonian exile (and during Persian rule), is the one claiming that people lived for X, Y, or Z years. The long ages can't be explained by mistranslation of "month" for "year" because as Genesis progresses, lifespans gradually decline to the actual human lifespan. This fits in very well with the book's theme of a "good" creation that gradually got corrupted, eventually leaving God to purge almost all life in Noah's flood. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely if you assume Adam was a historical person, you have a fair amount of faith, so why can't God just tell Moses/whoever all the details? I mean, if you believe in Adam, you believe in God, right? Or if you take it as a culturally significant myth, conversely, then surely there is no literal significance to the lifespans. Just a thought. 130.95.106.139 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The key of a piece of music

Hello. I have perfect pitch - you can play a note and I can tell what it is without any external reference. I also have training as an amateur musician so I can read and play music (piano). However, how do you tell what key a piece of music is in solely by listening? I have been told (by someone without pp) that those of us with perfect pitch should be able to do this "naturally" but apparently not. When I read music I can look at the key signature and accidentals but when I just listen there is no distinction made between the key's natural sharps and flats and accidentals; moreover I might forget what sharps/flats i already heard. I suppose I could get around this by transcribing the music as I hear it but this seems like an awful lot of effort; isn't there any other way? 123.84.14.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

Being as how I like music but the technical side is pretty much alien to me, I'd also be interested if someone can answer that. There must be something technical going on that defines what "letter key" a composition is in, beyond where the sharps and flats go - because "Do-Re-Mi" sounds the same no matter which particular letter note you start with, as long as you keep the full and half pitch "steps" consistent in the scale. The only difference to my ears is that it's fairly obvious when something is in a minor key, as it has a distinctively different sound than something in a major key does (i.e. "Do-Re-Mi" will sound different in a minor key than a major key, as the half-steps occur in different places than in a major key). One of the more amusing examples of that was on a Billy Joel special once, in which he demonstrated that his song "Pressure", which is in a minor key, will sound like a polka if you play it in a major key instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say there is no reason to think people with perfect pitch should "naturally" be able to determine the key of a piece of music. Two articles of relevance here are Key (music) and Tonic (music). There are many different kinds of music, and some pieces are more obviously in a given key than others. A lot of music shifts from key to key so frequently it is hard to say what the key is. On the other hand, some music is "too simple" and could be said to be in several keys. If we limit ourselves to so-called Common practice period music, especially earlier stuff like Bach or Beethoven, most pieces at least begin and end in the key they are said to be in as a whole, even if they usually modulate to other, often remote keys in between. In these cases the question might boil down to whether you can tell what pitch of a regular triad chord is the tonic. I'm thinking of something like Beethoven's Third Symphony, which begins with two big E flat major chords, followed by arpeggiated E flat major chords. Of course, not all music by Beethoven or Bach begins so clearly. Also, Beethoven modulates away from E flat major fairly quickly, and spends a lot of time in various distant keys. If you're listening to a bit from the middle of the work there's no particular reason why you'd be able to tell the whole work was "in E flat major". (I'd say more, but have to go!) Pfly (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In a lot of western music such as classical, folk tunes and pop songs in major keys, you can often determine the key of the piece by the last note (or chord.) For example, if a major piece of music resolved on an F chord or the note F, it would most likely be in the key of F - meaning it had one flat (B-flat.) So you could listen for the end of the piece, and by knowing what key it is in, you would know the sharps or flats in that key signature. In most pieces, the accidentals are there for the melody (or harmony, if the piece has more than one part), and you shouldn't use them to determine the actual key of the piece. As usual with music, there are many pieces where this isn't true, but you might try some familiar folk songs, holiday carols or classic pop songs in major keys and see if you can work out the key of the piece when it is being played.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When we read that so-and-so piece is in "A major", say, we have to regard that as no more than a general guide to the overall musical flavour of the work. In Bach's time, a suite usually consisted of half a dozen movements all in the same key, and so it was very obvious what the key of the work was; but composers soon abandoned that approach. A classical/romantic symphony, concerto or sonata has 3 or 4 movements. The first movement probably starts in the named key (but not always), and usually ends in the named key (but not always). In between, it might meander through a range of keys, major or minor, related or unrelated, and if you picked a section at random, you might happen to find yourself in E-flat minor rather than A major. That's just the first movement. The remaining movements might have little or no connection to the official "A major" of the symphony as a whole (some works in the "tragic" key of C minor end up in a triumphal D major). So, if you were given an unfamiliar score and were asked to examine it and state what key it was in (or for those with perfect pitch, asked to listen to it and then state what key it's in - your issue), there could be more than one valid answer. One well-known example is Mahler's 7th Symphony; depending on which reference work you believe, it could be in about 5 different keys. Are any of them right? More to the point, are any of them wrong? Spending any time arguing the toss is to miss the point of the music - in the worst way possible. Don't try to read these key labels too literally, because they cease to have any meaning when treated that way. It's like drama - a play might be tragic in its overall import, but can still have various comic moments. Do those moments fail to produce smiles on the faces of the audience just because the play is classified as a tragedy? I don't think so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My personal method for determining what key a piece is in is only applicable if someone is playing rhythm guitar in it: I've memorised the particular sounds made by playing the chords and see if they occur in the piece. Once I've identified a chord, I then see if I can hear the IV and V chords (where I is the key the song is in), and identify the key that way. It's probably completely unique to me but it works... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why can't the EU just abuse their fiat currency?

Why can't the EU just print their way out of their current crisis by say setting an upper bound for interest rates for Eurozone government bonds? (Through the ECB simply buying limitless bonds at that rate.) At that point they'd no longer be asking China to bail them out, but demanding massive Chinese investments, as the cost of retaining access to the Eurozone market. If the rest of the world doesn't soak up the excess EU debt at that point then the Euro would fall until Europe's balance of payments got back into balance.

They don't have quite the free ride the United States has, as Oil is priced in US dollars, but they can do quite a bit to get out of their current trap without gnawing their own leg off. Hcobb (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the thing about "oil priced in U.S. dollars" is overrated. It's just the number, not the cost. Some of these stories seem to match my impression that the dollar price changes with the value of the dollar. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not the first person to argue along these lines, Hcobb, but the ECB says its mandate doesn't allow it to buy government bonds directly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hcobb -- Part of the problem is that a large segment of the German public was somewhat strongly opposed to getting rid of the Deutschmark in the first place, and the Euro was imposed on them by German political elites accompanied by solemn assurances that the Germany would never be called upon to bail out other countries, and that the only interventionist role of the European Central bank would be to fight inflation, etc. Now those people feel that the terms of the basic bargain according to which they grudgingly tolerated the Euro have been flagrantly violated. An inflationary policy would be good for southern Eurozone economies, but would be against the immediate short-term interests of the German economy, and would enrage German public opinion. AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AS per our article "The primary objective of the European Central Bank is to maintain price stability within the Eurozone, which is the same as keeping inflation low. The Governing Council defined price stability as inflation (Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices) of around 2%. Unlike, for example, the United States Federal Reserve Bank, the ECB has only one primary objective with other objectives subordinate to it." The ECB does nothing but target inflation.124.171.93.137 (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That being said, they've been doing a lot of "printing money" over the last few months. One problem with Eurobond bonds is that they become for all intents and purposes German bonds, and Germany is understandably peeved about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The massive differences in yields between government bonds of different eurozone countries makes it clear that they aren't "for all intents and purposes German bonds". If the market felt that Germany was essentially guaranteeing the bonds of other Eurozone countries, the yields would all be at most equal to the German yields. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That argument is based on a faulty assumption (misunderstanding?), since "Eurobonds" don't exist currently. Germany doesn't yet guarantee the bonds of other Eurozone countries, they're only pressured by some to do so in the future. If they did, the yields would certainly be much closer to those of Germany (and the other AAA's) than they are currently.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How would that look?! It would be far, far worse for the reputation of the ECB and Europe that simply letting countries (part) default - though that is still a fairly drastic action itself. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Old comic strip

I got this image from the book "The Comics" by Brian Walker. Unfortunately he says almost nothing about it in the book beyond reprinting it. My question is: why does this American advertising comic strip for Grape-Nuts Flakes seem to have a Nazi stewardess in it? And thank you for not informing me that in 1934 the Nazis hadn't yet passed the Nuremburg laws, or that other organizations in history wore red arm bands with a white logo. I'm aware. But her uniform looks pretty damn ss-ish beyond just her arm band.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21762720@N04/6794229053/lightbox/

Thedoorhinge (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/history-of-flight-attendant_n_813373.html#s227918&title=19331936 Nanonic (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, they probably didn't want to plug a particular airline, so they just alluded to it by drawing that kind of nondescript armband. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting cartoon strip. I wasn't aware that Nazis wore berets and yellow coats. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks nanonic. I didn't mention the berets or the color of the coats. Thedoorhinge (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You did mention the color of the armband, and it's not red. It's more of an orange-ish color. It's a different color from the red letters used in the ad in the lower right, and more like the airline seat, which is also that kind of darkish orange. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This clip doesn't show armbands that I can see,[1] but it does mention that stews were also registered nurses, so maybe that was a hint at a Red Cross band. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A beret and a yellow coat was the uniform of Deutsche Luft Hansa (the predecessor of modern Lufthansa) until fairly recently, so it may well be intended to be a swastika armband. (The 1960s version of the uniform is particularly unappealing.) As you say, at this point the Nazis weren't considered "the bad guys"; a recognizably German uniform was probably used to make it clear it was a long-haul (and therefore glamorous and expensive) flight. 78.149.240.205 (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

it's worth remembering that from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century (the end of the Franco-Prussian war to the end of WW II), Germany was arguably the most culturally and technologically advanced nation on the planet. The old-school German military (the Reichswehr, predecessor to the Wehrmacht) would have been seen as a powerful and respectable force, and commercial entities that wanted to inspire confidence would have copied their style (much the way that modern airlines and modern cruise ships use uniforms that are variations on American Air Force and Navy uniforms). Add that the first commercial airline was German (flying Zeppelins, of all things), and it doesn't surprise me at all that early American airlines copied copied German-style uniforms.

Also, note that Nazi uniforms were merely variations on regular army uniforms which had been around since before the rise of the Nazi party - in fact, the brownshirts of the early Nazi party got their name because they adopted the brown summer uniforms of the army to display their political affiliation. The SS went with black rather than lighter regular army shades, and they liked bling, but the style of uniform wasn't much different, so calling it 'Nazi' is incorrect. They were merely German-style. --Ludwigs2 09:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1934, Hitler and the Nazis were controversial. Their anti-Jewish stance was winning them few friends, but they hadn't actually done much yet in that department. They were getting a lot of attention on how they were dealing with the Depression, and were getting some praise for that. In other words, a political cartoonist would not put a Nazi in a cartoon to evoke evil because they were not yet clearly associated in the public eye with that. Also keep in mind that casual anti-Semitism was far more acceptable in 1934 than today.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens time and time again - the 'good guys' turning out to be bad guys all along and ex-enemies becoming best buds. Here is a cartoon of the early 80s showing the courageous Taliban fighting those horrible Ruskies - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not an analogous situation. Plenty of people outside of Germany — even inside of Germany — recognized that Hitler was a nut and a warmonger in the early 1930s, when he had just consolidated power, effectively made a dictatorship, and so on. He was virulently anti-Semitic even then, he was virulently expansionist even then. He was a minority candidate who had electioneered his way into power with the help of violent thugs. Don't overestimate the "everyone thought Hitler was great" angle. Around 30% of the Germans thought Hitler was great and the rest of them were far more neutral on the subject if not oppositional. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the situations are completely the same, but I would argue that they are analogous in some ways. Whilst it's true that Hitler was fairly obviously a nasty piece of work from the start, many in Western Europe felt that he was 'someone they could do business with', and a better alternative than Communism. There was a great fear of Marxism, Bolshevism, Communism and Socialism throughout the upper classes for most of the early (and, indeed later) 20th Century. The Nazis were, to some, potentially better than the alternative. The same thing applied to the US support of the Taliban against the Russians. Neither case was explicit support of the particular views of Nazism or the Taliban, but there was certainly a feeling of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see it. Support for mujahadeen was classic case of "the enemy of my enemy is a friend." Hitler is more complicated on all fronts than that. Reducing it to that obscures more than it enlightens. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The common thread between the Nazis and the Mujahadeen was indeed their opposition to Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular. America-firsters such as Charles Lindbergh thought that Hitler was the lesser of two evils compared with Stalin - and considering how things went post-War, he had a point. His stance cost Lindbergh a lot of public good will, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to tell us how things would have gone post-war if Hitler had won? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are excellent books of science fiction that do. But I concur with Bugs--Hitler was seen as disagreeable and his followers worse. That being said, there were foreign hopes that he would "smarten up" Germany and get their economy cracking and their government stable. Which he did, kinda. At the time, no one could solve the Depression and what the major nations were doing to try was something of intense and personal interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd just point out that fashions that we now associate with Nazis were very much of their times. The long trench coat and organization armband were not uniquely Nazi during the 1930s. Marco polo (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This story notes that until the post-war era, almost all stewardess' uniforms resembled a military style.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

David Stuart (Michigan politician) : cause of military career brutal end in 1863 ?

Hello Learned Humanitarians ! "I don't believe my eyes" (as we say here ) : no answer to my 25/01/2012 question ! Allow me to ask it again...

It seems that before and during the Vicksburg Campaign D. Stuart has been faithfull to Sherman and Grant rather to John A. McClernand. He resigned from the Union Army in April, 1863.

Are there any proofs that D. Stuart's nomination as brig.gen. was refused by the US Senate because McClernand's friends vetoed against it ?

Thanks ++++ beforehand for your answers (maybe a book : "Meyers, Christopher C. « The Meanest Man in the West: John A. McClernand and the Civil War Era. » Ph. D. Diss., The Florida State University, 1996. can help; it is perfectly unavailable here...) Arapaima (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the wikipedians who works most on political history, and I have no idea. This is the sort of thing that either someone knows, or that is going to take exacting research into no-doubt-incomplete records. Regarding the dissertation, I would suggest you ask here, the WikiProject for Florida State University, you are very likely to find an eager Seminole there willing to help you out.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)::Thanks a lot Wehwalt Arapaima (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Analogue to sadism

Since sadism means gaining sexual pleasure from inflicting pain, I'm wondering about its natural analogue, gaining sexual pleasure from watching others suffer. Such a person would presumably seek out photos of war, torture, genocide, or other brutalities and view them as pornography. Is there a term for such a sexual preference? How common is it, compared to S&M? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not purely sexual, but there is schadenfreude.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Schadenfreude is very common. It is the reason why people with low income feel happy to see a billionaire getting arrested (for any reason) or a large corporation going bankrupt. The psychology of the London rioters was also related to it. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suppose that gaining sexual pleasure from inflicting pain and gaining sexual pleasure from watching others being inflicted pain is just various degrees of sadism. Just av guess, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(to OP) Sadism is not always gaining sexual pleasure from inflicting pain, it means gaining pleasure (not necessarily sexual in nature) by inflicting pain. What you are saying is called sadomasochism. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It always made me curious whether human beings are instinctively sadist. Why children gain pleasure from bullying other children or torturing pet/animals? Why adult humans gain pleasure from bullying and torturing others? Why police gain pleasure by humiliating civilians? Is sadism a human instinct? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadism, no. However, humans are social animals which involves complex heirarchies of dominance and obedience. Our instinct is to define our social group and then defend those individuals from other social groups. This often entails violence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What you're talking about would probably be categorized as sadism too, just with voyeuristic overtones. It's the enjoyment of suffering that defines a sadist; the infliction of it is merely a gratification method. --Ludwigs2 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. Every article about sadism I've read focuses almost solely on the infliction of pain, whereas I'd expect watching people in pain is much more common (because you don't need to find a willing partner, or restrain an unwilling partner against her will).

Well, with sexuality in general, voyeurism lacks the immediacy and immersion of participation. Some people are drawn to voyeurism as a form of neurosis, others turn to it because they lack other sexual outlets, but as a rule it would be less satisfying. I don't see why sadism would be any different. And with matters of sexuality people are not well-construed as rational actors; if someone chooses to use voyeuristic media rather than seek out a partner it's much more likely to be the result of some emotional inhibition than of cost/benefit reasoning.

as to why the articles you've read focus on the infliction of pain… what kind of articles are you reading? Popular press articles tend to focus on the overt act because causing someone pain breaks a lot of social taboos. Sexuality studies, however, tend to focus on the emotional component: Sadism aims for an emotional release just like any other form of sexuality, they are just jumping through some odd and different hoops to get there. Popular press also tends to confuse deviant and sociopathic forms of the behavior (deviant SM is a form of mutual relationship, while sociopathic sadism involves victimization). --Ludwigs2 01:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Schadenfreude is not exactly what I'm looking for. As I understand it, the person with schadenfreude usually views the victim as "bad", or somehow deserving of his pain. That wouldn't make someone get pleasure out of watching a random stranger being worked to death in a concentration camp (assuming she's not clearly Jewish, or of any other ethnicity that the person doesn't approve of). Also, sadists and masochists usually don't view their victims as bad. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would believe this to be a form of Voyeurism, after all, if you are not taking part in it, but just watching it, then that's what it is. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So voyeuristic sadism or sadistic voyeurism. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Central bank money printing

The EU currency question got me to think: When a modern central bank like the ECB, the Fed or the Bank of England is printing new money (within its own regulatory limits, and I am not talking about replacing old bank notes, I am talking about the real "new money" creation which sometimes happen), I assume it first goes into the central bank currency reserve to start with, but then how are they allowed to use it? I know they are sometimes allowed to lend it, but lending means that the money comes back at some point in the future, so does the reserve keeps growing for ever? In Zimbabwe some of it was going into Mugabe's private accounts, some to the government, but what about modern countries with proper rules about this? Are they allowed to hand it over to the governements' treasury (with no requirement to pay back) to help with spending on a new project, or to help with paying back some debt? I am quite confused, they seem to have their hands very tied up and cannot do the above, from what I read, but then why would they ever print "new" money if they can't use it in one of the above ways? Apparently they are allowed to use it to buy foreign currency as well, but I don't how that foreign currency gets spent either. Thanks a lot in advance for your help. --Lgriot (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the articles on Monetary policy, Money supply and Quantitative easing will answer some of your questions? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The first 2 don't answer the simple question "what do they do do with the newly created money?". The 3rd one does, hoevever, basically there is no money printing anymore, only QE: "A central bank buys financial assets to inject a pre-determined quantity of money into the economy."

That I understand, and it explains further down that the central does not remain a shareholder, it does instead sell back those bonds and shares. The question that I cannot find and answer for is the following: do they destroy the money that was originally created for the QE, or does it remain in the central bank reserves? Or, since it is all electronic now, it actually doesn't matter? --Lgriot (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

For the UK and other developed economies, "printing new money" is a metaphor. Almost all of the money supply is in the form of bank loans and deposits; only about 2-3% is in the form of coins and bank notes (think of the value of the cash in your wallet versus the total value of the savings and loans that make up the rest of your financial assets). When the Bank of England wants to increase or decrease the money supply, it doesn't literally print or destroy bank notes - instead, it electronically credits or debits banks' central reserve accounts. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Central bank#Open market operations. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation in Zimbabwe was that the government and central bank were increasing the money supply much faster than the economy was growing. This inevitably results in price inflation, as the value of money drops. In the case of western central banks at present, they are buying financial assets from financial institutions in an effort to bolster those institution's reserves in order to spur them to lend money, thereby increasing the money supply. The problem is that western developed-world financial institutions are writing off existing debts as fast as, or faster than, they are making new loans, with the result that the money supply is stable or declining. This creates deflationary pressures (which however are being counteracted somewhat by inflationary pressures in the developing world). Marco polo (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks gandalf I think we are nearly there: so when it buys on he markets and later on sells back whatever financial instrument it bought, there is no formal process of creating or destroying money, since it's is electronic and they are the central bank, everyone assumes that they ar have an infinite amount of cash to spend anyway, so there is no decision to create or destroy the money, even simply through the signature of a paper from the head of the central bank? The money is already "assumed to exist"? --Lgriot (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is all done electronically, but there is still a formal process behind it. A price is agreed, the ownership of the securities is transferred, and the counterparty's reserve account is credited or debited with the agreed proceeds or cost. Each of these central bank transactions adds money to the money supply or removes money from it - just because it is not physcial notes and coins does not mean that it is not money. And the trading department of a central bank will have been given very clear policy targets for the net amount of money that they should aim to add to or remove from the money supply - this is very carefully controlled by the policy making functions within the central bank, and the trading department definitely does not have an "infinite amount of cash to spend". Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Different central banks function in different ways, but the Reserve Bank of New Zealand controls money supply in a relatively simple way. The gist of it is that the Reserve Bank sets the Official Cash Rate. Any bank can borrow unlimited finds at a quarter of a point above the OCR, or deposit unlimited funds at a quarter of a point below the OCR. When the OCR is low, that means that borrowing is cheap, and banks will therefore borrow a lot of money and do things with it, so the money supply will increase quickly. When the OCR is high, borrowing is expensive, so it will not happen as much, and so the money supply will increase slowly. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand does effectively have an "infinite amount of cash". --superioridad ^(discusión) 02:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much all national central banks operate the same way, like New Zealand's. Central banks have effectively an infinite amount of "ready money" cash, but they are in theory only allowed to buy certain things with it, like government bonds, which have roughly the same cash value & security. Otherwise they are engaging in fiscal operations (or corruption at worst), not monetary operations. So they can control short term (and even long-term) rates as superiority said, which is their primary task. But what they can't do is control the money supply. There was a short period in the 80s when under the influence of Monetarism, the Fed did try to directly control the "money supply" but it was given up as unworkable, and now it doesn't even publish some money supply stats like M3. The theory that there will be more borrowing & "loose money" & a growing money supply when rates are low does have some validity, but much less than assumed by those who take it as an unquestionable axiom. Every few generations, after the basically sound economics textbooks produced by the prior great crisis have been replaced with recycled, dressed-up ancient garbage, central bankers indoctrinated by the garbage rediscover they can't push on a string.

Thinking in terms of printing & shredding money, notes & bonds etc is a good idea. Going electronic doesn't change anything, but can make it easier to confuse yourself, IMHO. Zimbabwe, like all other cases of hyperinflation, e.g. Weimar, was primarily caused by decreasing supply - money chasing fewer goods - rather than the government getting up one day & deciding to hyperinflate. To answer your third question for the USA, Fed "profits" are remitted to the Treasury Department, which is the sensible thing to do. John Z (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Scotland

Has Scotland lost or gained any territory after the Acts of Union 1707?
Sleigh (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the only disputed territory was Berwick-upon-Tweed, which was confirmed as being under English juristriction by the 1707 act, although apparently not technically part of either England or Scotland until 1972. See Berwick-upon-Tweed#Support for Reunification with Scotland. The whole thing has been the subject of much silly disputation, including whether Berwick has been at war with Russia since 1853 - see Berwick-upon-Tweed#Culture. Since then, the barren outcrop of Rockall (31 metres x 25 metres) in the middle of the North Atlantic has been annexed by HMS Vidal in 1955 in the name of the Queen. The Island of Rockall Act 1972 declared it a part of Inverness-shire. However, this is all disputed by Denmark, Iceland and the Republic of Ireland who would all like it for themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish border says the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 adjusted the marine border with England, though the land border has remained unchanged since 1482. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Coastal geomorphological processes of erosion and deposition, together with processes of subsidence and uplift have resulted in losses and gains, respectively, to Scotland's territory since 1707. This map shows that much of Scotland's coast has been rising at a rate of around 1 mm per year, or about one foot since 1707. More significant are the processes of erosion and deposition, whose general trend is shown by the map on page 13 of to british geomorphology.pdf this publication. As a result of these processes, Scotland has been losing land at sites such as Fife Ness, St Abb's Head, and Duncansby Head, while it has been gaining land at places such as Cramond, Mugdrum Island, Findhorn Bay, and Auchencairn. Marco polo (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Scottish colonization of the Americas mentions Darien, Georgia, which was settled by Scots in 1736. I don't know whether that would have been considered Scottish territory (or if such a distinction was made)? 130.88.99.231 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1707, Scotland ceased to be a sovereign state, and instead became a constituent nation as part of the United Kingdom. Thus, the colony would have been British territory rather than strictly Scottish territory. --Jayron32 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Run by a Scottish King and a number of Scottish monarchs afterwards, so strictly speaking, they gained territory, then lost it, gained it again, a few times. Two Scottish Prime Ministers in recent years, even. Then their recent move to independence (which I am not against in any way whatsoever - they'll do a decent job of it) will gain back their lands, albeit tilting as it it (gain a bit, you lose some). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 04:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In 1707? Anne would have been quite surprised to learn she was a King, and considering she, her father and mother were all born in England, I'm not sure she considered herself very Scottish, excepting in the "Oh yeah, my ancestors were Scottish" (technically, one Grandparent, her grandfather was born there). Anne was raised partly in the Court of England and partly in France; I'm not sure she ever spent any significant time in Scotland at all prior to becoming Queen. Since the Act of Union, noting that a Prime Minister of the UK is Scottish is not terribly interesting; it certainly isn't any moreso than noting that a President of the U.S. is from Texas. Also, the borders of Scotland have been fixed for over 500 years or so (excepting the odd dispute), so it hasn't gained territory or lost it in half a millenium. --Jayron32 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that King James I didn't go by the name of Anne, and that he went by the name of King James I of the United Kingdom, rather than King James VI of Scotland. Anyway, it would seem we are talking after 1707. Strike that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

He was King of Scots as James VI from 1567, and King of England and Ireland as James I from 1603. The United Kingdom didn't come into existence till 1707. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There was still a legal distinction between Scottish and English territory after the Acts of Union (they are still separate legal jurisdictions) - but I have no idea how that applied to the colonies, if at all. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Though the U.K. is technically a unitary state, it is somewhat "pseudo-federalist" in the sense that there are devolved powers which allow the Scottish to have thier own legal system and laws distinct, in some ways, from England and Wales, and likewise from Northern Ireland. In the case of Scotland, some of those "devolved powers" technically predate the Acts of Union, but in terms of legal supremacy, they are still "devolved" in the sense that only the Parliament of the United Kingdom is supreme, and Scotland enjoys its limited autonomy at the pleasure of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. British Colonies were given a legal status somewhat akin to Territories of the United States in modern times, or to someplace like the Reichsland of Alsace-Lorraine during the German Empire. They exist outside of any of the other subnational territories, and are administered directly by the national government. That a colony, settled after 1707, had settlers which came from Scotland doesn't mean that they were administerred by Scotland itself in any sense. They were administerred by Great Britain as British colonies. --Jayron32 18:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scottish politicians appear to consider that Scotland has gained much territory since this act. The extension of Territorial waters means that all that black stuff out there is Scotland's oil. Yet that might not be what the OP meant.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Most extreme outlier case of patent success in recent history

Only considering cases in the past 50 years, if the metric is [dollars earned in license fees or dollars in profit from sales of the invention] / [net worth prior to patent] for a US patent issued to an individual inventor and not assigned to any company for which the inventor worked (i.e., it (the IP) was all his/hers), who is the person with the highest verifiable value of this metric? In other less-precise words, who increased their wealth by the highest percentage with a patent? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally a patent exists to grant you a monopoly. In exchange, you are incentivized in various ways 1) to perform work (R&D) that might only result in a commodity, however useful. But if no one does it, it doesn't exist. 2) in order to share your findings, instead of keeping it a trade secret. So, this is why patents exist (in theory), the second point is relevant when you consider the short (20 year or so) patent lifespan.

Now, if we want to get to what is really behind your question, which is about dollars earned, do you really care if it was indeed the patent which acted as the reason for the monopoly? There are many other reasons: both natural monopolies; state-granted monopolies; and anti-competitive behavior. I would say, look at Microsoft for the most successful use of a monopoly. Close second are monopolies like latin american telephone networks and things like Russian state-granted oil monopolies. If what is really behind the question whether you could easily personally produce a patent that you could then go on to massively exploit, I think you will find that your personal leverage is very great as a software engineer, and that copyright protection will be sufficient. Indeed, why do you require a patent as opposed to asking the same question of copyrights, which are also state-granted monopolies, however not on a method? If you told us more for the reasons behind the question we could help you either learn more, or dominate the world faster/better/cheaper/more easily/more surely. 78.92.81.13 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

All of 78's lecturing and editorializing is inappropriate. The querent's question is straightforward and simple. I nominate Chester Carlson, who was lifted from poverty to wealth, eventually. His article states that he personally earned about 1/60th of a cent for every Xerox copy ever made, and as the article makes clear, he only scraped by, financially, for many years. (I don't know what portion of his income was earned in the past 50 years, though.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP's restriction to "the last 50 years" is disappointing, since the second half of the 19th century is when so many interesting things were invented and patented. Chester Carlson, noted by Comet Tuttle, did not patent the basic Xerox process in the last 50 years, since the article on him implies a 1948 patent, about 64 years ago. Life now versus life in 1962? Some areas of technological innovation wherein lucrative patent successes might be found, for the OP's specified time interval: Phones now have Touch-tone instead of rotary dial, and cellular instead of a land line. Calculators are digital push-button versus Marchant rotary mechanical calculators, electromechanical adding machines or sliderules . PCs and keyboards have replaced punchcard stations or punched papertape consoles used in 1962 to input commands and data to computers, Word processing software on PCs has replaced manual, electric, or Selectric typewriters. Emails have replaced Telegrams and cables messages. LED flashlights are better than flashlights with 2 D cells and a PR2 bulb. Alkaline batteries have largely replaced carbon-zinc batteries. Nailguns have largely replaced hammers and nails for house construction. Fuel injection controlled by a computer and electronic ignition has replaced the carburetor, vacuum advance, and distributor in autos. In industrial control systems, SCADA (Supervisory control and data acquisition) has replaced vacuum-tube or reed relay supervisory control and telemetry. Digital photography has replaced film cameras and photofinishing. Video on solid-state camcorders or camera phones has replaced videotape recorders, which replaced the 8mm home movies or 16 mm industrial filming of 1962. Digital typesetting has replaced Linotype for creating newspapers. TV arrives via cable rather than broadcast, in high definition rather than the 1941 US standard and its color addition, NTSC (never twice same color). The picture from the TV or computer monitor is a flat panel solid state display rather than a glass CRT. Integrated circuits have largely replaced discrete components in electronics, and solid state electronics has replaced the vacuum tubes still common in TVs and radios of 1962. 90% efficient furnaces have replaced lower efficiency furnaces of 1962. Incandescent lights are being replaced by compact fluorescents and LED bulbs. Digital downloads of music replace CDs which replaced 1962's vinyl 33 1/3 RPM discs or cassettes or reel-to-reel, The end result is largely the same, but it is achieved more cleanly and efficiently. The companies made a gazillion dollars selling all these new gadgets to individuals, government and business. Perhaps the inventors sometimes shared in the profits. Offhand I do not know in how many cases the innovations were by paid employees in the labs of giant industrial firms rather than independent inventors, who mortgaged their houses and borrowed from friends and relatives to perfect and patent the gizmo, then licensed it to industry or marketed it themselves. It would be unlikely for a basement tinkerer to develop something like a better form of insulin, or some improved form of integrated circuit technology. Even in the glory days of solitary inventors in the 19th century, Thomas Edison had quite the little invention factory going when he invented the practical lightbulb and the phonograph, and they did not hike his personal wealth all that much, because of the cost of perfecting the invention and getting it into production, along with patent infringement by competitors and litigation expenses. Edison (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A somewhat famous case is Joe Hrudka, who invented a better gasket while tinkering on his car in the early 1970s and turned his simple invention into an auto parts empire (Mr. Gasket). I see both are red links, but they're worthy of an article. --Xuxl (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And Xuxl is worthy of a user page.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Ernő Rubik - I have really no idea how welathy he was before (looks quite middle class from the scant details provided) nor how much he earnt from the Rubik's cube - but he has potential. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While I hate to rain on the parade, I feel it necessary to acknowledge that the OP's metric breaks down for inventors with small, zero, or negative personal net worths; it's also going to be quite 'noisy' for individuals with small net worth. Let's say that Alice, Bob, and Carol each create an invention that makes a million dollars. Further, Alice's net worth started out at $1000, Bob's was just $100, and Carol's just $50. All three started and finished in what are, honestly, nearly indistinguishable financial positions, but Alice's 'score' using the OP's ratio method is 1000, Bob's is 10,000, and Carol's is 20,000.

Was Bob really ten times more 'successful' as an inventor than Alice? If Alice paid her $900 rent the day after getting the patent instead of the day before, would she then have been just as successful as Bob? Later, Bob discovers that Carol owned a television which she could have sold for $50—should we cut Carol's score in half? Finally, Bob and Carol calculated their respective net worths after obtaining their patents. Alice, on the other hand, had just a thousand dollars to her name before patenting her invention. After filing fees and intellectual property lawyers and so forth all got their cuts, she was actually $4000 in the red on her line of credit; her score is now -2,500. Should we count the score before or after patenting? Is a negative score good or bad? And how does one rank a small negative score—it could be the result of limited revenue (bad) or massive personal debt ('good' for the purposes of this discussion).

The garage tinkerer who mortgages his house, sells his personal items, and maxes out his credit cards is a staple of the independent inventor myth. While the dramatized movie version tends to exaggerate, I would be shocked if there weren't more than a few inventors who had negative personal net worths when they acquired their patents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

20th century inventors a bit before the OPs time frame who independently advanced technology and patented something important, then got screwed over by by big companies, would include Philo Farnsworth, who developed the first practical all electronic TV system. RCA offered him $100,000 for the invention in 1931 if he would become their employee, but he refused. In 1939, RCA agreed to pay a $1 million license fee. Like many inventors, Farnsworth did not get rich from this because he always spent every penny on experimentation. Edison (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One huge patent success story within the last 50 years is Robert Kearns, who patented an (obvious) invention, the intermittent windshield wiper activator. The big car companies refused to license the invention and installed it on cars anyway. He sued and won $30 million from Chrysler. Ford gave him a $10.1 million settlement. A similar case in the last 50 years is Peter Roberts (inventor), who at age 18 invented a pushbutton quick release feature for socket wrenches. He sold rights to the invention to Sears for $10,000. Later he sued to get more money and there was interminable litigation, which enriched some lawyers. At one point he was awarded all profits from all socket wrenches sold by Sears, even though they were selling many wrenches even before the feature was added. In the end, he wound up with a judgement for $1 million. It looks like big companies prefer to spend millions on litigation rather than paying inventors a reasonable licensing fee for their invention. One tactic is to claim they are not interested in the invention, then start using it, and claim that it was obvious or that similar devices had previously been patented, and purchase those patents for similar but useless devices. Edison (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you think these stories only make big companies look bad. You admit yourself that Kearns's windshield wiper was arguably obvious (which would make it non-patentable), and that Roberts sued for more money (including a cut of socket wrenches he had no role in) after he already had a paid settlement with Sears. Admittedly, he argued that Sears was deceptive. If anything, your examples make the whole patent system seem flawed. Superm401 - Talk 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I (the OP) was thinking of Larry Page and his patent for "Method for node ranking in a linked database" #6285999. On the actual patent, it says the assignee is The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. I wonder how he got them to let go of their rights and let the company Google reap the financial rewards, or does Stanford get money from Google (which is obviously using the patent that has not yet expired by a long shot) because of their being the assignee on this patent? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Google article mentions that the patent rights are Stanford's, but, surprisingly, does not mention that Stanford got 1.8 million shares of Google stock in exchange for what is presumably an exclusive on the rights you mention, gaining Stanford about $336 million as of 2005. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Some timeline of inventions year by year in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are at [2] . Many well known inventions were in the labs of big industry in that period, so outside the OPs criteria. The computer mouse, patented by Douglas Englebart (US #3,541,541) in 1970 looks like a possibility, since he had his own company at the time. The ATM in 1969 looks like a possibility, since some individual inventors are named. I question the OPs implication that an inventor who worked for a big company would not increase his net worth as much in the rewards he got as a valued employee, as if he had invented something in his parents' garage and then got rich from license fees or profits from his direct sales, since startup costs are a killer (build a factory, set up a marketing organization) while big companies infringe the patent and you are in litigation for years, paying your sole-practitioner attorney to fight the big company's army of lawyers, who bury you in a trainload of documents purporting to show that your invention was obvious, or that prior patents covered the same ground. Edison (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki article Douglas Engelbart says he did not get rich from the mouse patent. Edison (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As Edison says above, a third way to make money is by court settlements and a fourth way is by selling the patent to a business.
Sleigh (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)