Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 30

< August 29	Humanities desk archive	August 31 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Pay someone to sue someone else?

What do you call it when you pay someone to sue someone else? thanks. WP 00:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whom you pay. If it's a layperson, it's criminal conspiracy. Otherwise it's called 'hiring a lawyer'. Anchoress 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the public prosecutor, it may be called bribery. --Lambiam ^Talk 04:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy sueing?--Light current 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could fall under barratry. EdC 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "champerty" may be a possibility, too, although I think that would only apply if you actually expect a share of the winnings (rather than, say, encouraging a lawsuit just to cause problems for the target). -- Vardion 07:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, the two terms I'm familiar with are maintenance and champerty. Loomis 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call it a good idea if you do it in calif. where it is chaterlization

Netball Player's wage

Hi!
Hope I've got the right category for this question: What do the top Netball players earn per annum (including any sponsorship deals etc)? I know it's a lot less than male athletes, but I'm just curious. I've heard $4000/year but that sounds absurdly low to me. Would appreciate any help. --Fir0002 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much (I dont like netball)--Light current 02:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing a word in your question. Is it female netball players you're asking about? If not, why the comparison to 'male athletes'? Anchoress 02:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes, I forgot (I typically associate netabll as a female sport:-) --Fir0002 08:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know pretty much nothing about netball, but in general the difference between the salaries of the popular professional sports and the less popular is huge. In many countries it is common to find that even olympic medallists can't earn a living doing their sport, and have to have fund-raisers even to be able to afford training. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fir0002, most Australian netball players earn very little. The best paid is probably Liz Ellis, because of her media profile. Ellis is a full-time professional, and gave up a career as a solicitor to do so, which suggests that through the combination of her media work, endorsements, and playing fees, she makes a decent living. The same probably goes for Sharelle McMahon. But to give you some indication of the pay, you may be interested in this link to Australian politican Andrew Bartlett's blog, which has a discussion of the topic, and this ABC news story on the players threatening to strike if the base payment to players was not raised to $1500 per full season! $4000 sounds about right for match fees.

Another illustration of the fact that there's no money in netball is that Irene Van Dyk, probably the greatest netballer ever, still works as a teacher in New Zealand.

As to why they don't earn much money, a national league game involving the Melbourne Phoenix tends to attract a crowd of maybe 1000 people, and one game a week of the national league is shown on ABC television in a graveyard slot (you can watch the game live on ABC2, but I'll bet money that less than 20,000 people do across Australia). Any Australia-New Zealand game sells out bigger stadiums, but there's only probably three or four Australia- New Zealand matches a year. Nobody's interested in any other international matches, because the nature of netball and the gap in standards makes the games uncompetitive. --Robert Merkel 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detailed response! --Fir0002 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, van Dyk was offered NZD$170, 000 to play for Wellington for two seasons, and turned the offer down, demanding NZ$1.45 million (widely seen as completely unrealistic): http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10395837 Presumably she would also be paid for international appearances, but not a lot: Netball NZ's total income is around $6 million (see the annual report at http://www.netballnz.co.nz)

Buddhism in the Middle East

Does anyone have stats on how many people (%) are Buddhists in Middle Eastern countries? I've heard that historically, there are a lot of Buddhist contacts between China, India, Iran and other such countries. I have heard a large number Persians and Afghans were once Buddhists in the past, but Islam is the dominant faith now. The article Buddhism by country seems to lack stats for many Middle-Eastern countries. Also, where can I get more information on Buddhism in the modern Middle East, assuming a Buddhist culture still survives there in some form.

Also,are there Buddhists in the country of Egypt today?

Quantum bird 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are any Buddhists in Iran especially since new ones will be executed.--06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For Afghanistan, see Buddhas of Bamyan.--Patchouli 11:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real areas which are currently Muslim-majority, but were once significant centers of Buddhism, were what is now the Pakistani Punjab and Afghanistan (which are only marginally part of the "Middle East"). These areas played a strong role in the formulation and spread of Mahayana Buddhism. But Iran and Egypt were never majority-Buddhist. The current westernmost majority-Buddhist ethnic or national group are the Kalmyks (also not really located in the "Middle East"). AnonMoos 11:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My International Buddhist Directory doesn't list any Buddhist groups in Middle Eastern countries.--Shantavira 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume then perhaps none of the original silk road Buddhist's culture survive any more in the Middle East, having been replaced completely with Islam? 64.231.141.217 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Silk Road was never really IN the Middle East in the first place (for most definitions of "middle east"), but yes, there was a Muslim cultural expansion starting in the 8th century, and a limited Buddhist counter-movement in the 16th-17th centuries, the final result of which is that Central Asia and Sinkiang were left majority-Muslim, while Siberia and Mongolia were left non-Muslim. AnonMoos 10:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to believe there is any country that has no Buddhists at all. Maybe not significant numbers in some countries, but surely some. JackofOz 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this article, it might be helpful. CG 07:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Menzies, Australian PM 1939

i need help in finding information on Robert Menzies and his contribution to Australia's WWII development... can anyone help me?Gooding 06:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Robert Menzies, John Curtin. See also Brisbane Line. You might also have a look at Military history of Australia during World War II, but that concentrates mainly on the strictly military and ignores the political manoeuverings surrounding it.

One hint to what Australians thought about his contribution to World War II development was that his first stint as Prime Minister ended in the middle of it...--Robert Merkel 06:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much. GoodingGooding 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Faulkner american literature

   Hello,
   I would be grateful if you could give me information about this author and his book:
   William Faulkner   The Sound and The Fury,
    Thank you very much,Jeny.

See our articles on William Faulkner and The Sound and the Fury. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

popular titles of British authors from 1900

I have been asked to compile a list for a small country library in France of English and American authors: the popular titles, can you help?

See Category:American writers and Category:British writers. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by popular you mean best-selling, you might also want to take a look at List of bestselling novels in the United States. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this College Bound Reading List shows titles that are definitely still current as reading material. How long should your list be, ideally? And should this be more the literary genre, or primarily for entertainment, or a mixture? --Lambiam ^Talk 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Budget Crisis Update ?

I haven't heard anything about this for quite some time now. The issue was that the Western Democracies were going to stop providing funds to the Palestinian Authority, as a result of the Hamas election victory, and their insistence on retaining their goal of the total destruction of Israel. Some Muslim nations (notably Iran) had said they would pick up the difference, but generally have shown no serious desire to help the Palestinians (except for giving them weapons, if you call that "help"). So, just how is the PA making payroll ? If it's not, are their employees working for free ? StuRat 11:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I heard, several weeks ago, the PA is not making payroll. The Western countries are supplying some money direct to workers (using suitcases of cash taken across the border would you believe). Yes the employees are working for free, and no they are not happy about it. DJ Clayworth 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that, DJ ? If true, this would seem to violate the West's pledge to cut off aid until Hamas stops sponsoring terrorism. StuRat 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. hasn't ruled out "humanitarian help".http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/30/world/main1252981.shtml I think DJ confused food and medical aid — if that is what humanitarian aid means — with cash.--Patchouli 20:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "suitcases of cash" was tongue-in-cheek.--20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the latest http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

--Patchouli 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one from today

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2373158&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312.Patchouli

WMD hazard symbols

I've been wanting to re-draw this image as an SVG file, which should be pretty easy. The problem is that I want to check to make sure each of the symbols are up to international specification (on that graphic, the biohazard one is not, for example). But I can't find any image of a "chemical weapons" symbol anywhere else on the internet. What is the international symbol for a chemical weapons hazard? I'm looking for a reliable source on this. --Fastfission 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is an international spec http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/simcenter/chemical_symbol_story.htm MeltBanana 20:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I had picked up the feeling that the third one wasn't internationally used like the other two were, and in the end just decided to go with the skull-and-crossbones because at least it was well understood. Here's what I made out of it: Image:WMD world map.svg. --Fastfission 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine months

Does anyone know how the convention of magazines being released bearing the next month's date on the cover started? (i.e. a magazine out on August 1st will be the September issue). --Alex.dsch 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened is that at some time the magazines started hitting the stands earlier, so the September issues, which used to come out on September 8th or thereabouts, now came out on September 1st, then August 22nd, on so on. My theory is that the publishers of, say, Cake and Cookie Recipes realized that their competitor Baking Cookies and Cakes sold more because they were out a few days earlier. As the Recipes people moved their release dates forward to counter this effect, the Baking publishers got wise to it and in turn brought their dates forward. And so on. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason they do it is to try and give the magazine a longer 'currency' on the news stands. If someone picks up that August issue in the last week of August and sees that it is dated September, they will be more likely to buy it than if it was dated August. At least, that's the theory. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's very similar to the automotive industry. It's actually become rather absurd lately. Hasn't anyone noticed how ridiculous it was when, say, '07 models began appearing in ads and began to be offered for sale last spring? It's gotten to the point where if you're looking to by a used car, and it's, say, a '03 model, it could have very well been purchased and on the road as early as the summer of '02. And the release date keeps on getting pushed earlier and earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if by the fall of 2010 you'll be able to buy a 2012 model car. Quite an irritating and misleading practice I'd say. Loomis 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict...) Note that something similar happens with new car models, they almost always are called next year's model, not this years. Since people want whatever model is the "newest", having a later date on your car just makes it seem more valuable (and it actually is more valuable, since others think the same way, giving it a higher resale value). I don't think anything short of legislation would prevent companies from doing this. I also wonder what forces prevent this type of "inflation" from going further, why can't a model be 2 years ahead, or 10, or even 100 ? I suppose at some point people stop thinking of it being an early model, and instead conclude that the date is just a lie. StuRat 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great minds think alike, and unfortunately, so do ours. :-) StuRat 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology. Yeah 19.99 is a lot cheaper than 20.00 2007 is much later than 2006. Freeze your bills/nothing to pay till 2007 (ie 4 months)--Light current 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it had to do with publishers' paranoia about newsstand employees prematurely tossing magazines. Bill Gaines supposedly worked out a publishing schedule for Mad Magazine according to which the magazine came out eight times a year, and no issue was actually offered for sale during the calendar month listed on the front cover! AnonMoos 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THat makes sense. After all what was the title of the magazine? (BTW you could only get it here on the underground market)--Light current 03:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, Mad magazine? No way. You're in the UK, right? I grew up there and I used to see it on the shelves in WH Smith all the time when I was a kid. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must be older than you. Only some kids could get it and we never found out where they got em. Perhaps it was just that they didnt sell them in the local shop!--Light current 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know that the 8-times-a-year schedule applied to anything except the North American version (foreign editions of Mad were rather independent). AnonMoos 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a listing..

of a published songwriter/composer who is not listed on this site? I can provide the factual information.

First off, you need an account to create a page, and that account has to be (I believe) four days old before you can start an article. Second, I recommend going over the "Help" section in the left nav bar, reading up on the information about how to create and edit articles, format them properly, and so on. Then, I'd definitely read the guidelines for inclusion of people in the music industry to ensure that your considered artist is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Then do a search for the artist's name, and when it comes up with a red link indicating there's nobody there, click on that and add the information - formatted well, avoiding promotional wording and ensuring that reliable sources are included - in the edit box there, add an edit summary, and hit save. There you go! Good luck with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I make a new article, I usually open up a similar article as a model and click edit. I don't actually edit that other article, but I copy a lot of its code and rewrite for the new article. That way it's easier to keep a consistent style across wikipedia, and I don't have to look up things.You could just pick a song article in a similar category and use it as a model. - Rainwarrior 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

Why do women never let men forget their (the mens) mistakes? Is this improvment training or a self defence mechanism?--Light current 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-defence mechanism? I don't see how. Maybe it's some sort of mothering instinct? They see men as children who need to be taught a lesson perhaps? --The Dark Side 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but when they've learnt it and apologised, bought flowers, taken em out etc, why dont the women drop it?--Light current 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to milk it for all it's worth? --The Dark Side 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think so. But they bring past mistakes up in current arguments. THats why I ask if its a self defence mechanism. See?--Light current 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some men do like being spanked. :-) StuRat 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but not with the tongue. That gives me bad earache--Light current 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorists, the lot of you. I beleive it's cultural. I know in my predominantly female family, we don't let anyone forget their mistakes. After the Women's Lib. movement, women were taught to have high standards, to be independant. But let's face it, settling down and having someone you can count on is nice. But there is still that standard. Women still want partners to be as god as or better than themselves. If you don't fix your mistakes, it's hard. Compounded with the apparent whininess, cattiness, and mood swings of women, along with the old tradition of trying to find "a good catch" with the newer idea of having higher standards in the menfolk, women may come off as crazy nags. But there's a method to the madness. Just my POV, though Good luck! -Russia Moore 03:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Women still want partners to be as god as or better than themselves." A bit of a Freudian slip, there, Russia :). —D a niel (‽) 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean theyre all looking for Mr.Perfect? And if they cant find him theyll nag you until you are (or until you get so pissed off that you leave)--Light current 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Faulkner who wrote that we love in spite of, not because of. Basically yes, generally women want Mr. Right, but not Mr. Perfect (esp. not that annoying doll they have now). I think the idea is that you find someone who you like, someone who works for you. When you encounter a problem, rather than give up, you try to help the person you love. Sadly this often becomes nagging, and is accompanied by a lack of care and understanding/ability to compromise. Some women are more reasonable than others. -Russia Moore 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Women looking for Mr Perfect? Men look for Miss Perfect too! We have high standards too. Why pick on women? At least they try to nag a man into Mr Perfect or die trying. Rest assure that as soon as they find (their) Mr Perfect, they will stop nagging you and abandon you. As long as they are nagging you, you know that you are the best piece of shit that they can find so far. Ohanian 03:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well that answered my next question. Thanks.--Light current 03:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we safely assume the same of men, then? -Russia Moore 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold in economies

This is a two parter. Is it true that national banks "hoard" gold because most currencies are valued against gold? If the first part is true, then wouldn't a massive gold strike (or alot of little ones) destabilize the world economy and we would have to go back to bartering since our money is worthless? --The Dark Side 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 1970's every national bank held a large amount of gold and you could exchange your banknotes for gold at the national bank. This policy served mainly as a psicological reassurance of the public. What was your interrest in having gold? You can't eat it, and almost no shop will accept a currency.

It also basicly screwed any country that bought more (imported) than it sold (exported) to the rest of the world. How? Simple, you (the country as a whole) paid with your banknotes for their products and they (their national banks) returned your banknotes and took your gold instead. Your currency lost its value because it had less reassurance and at the same time their national currency gained in value because they had more gold. There were also other big problems. For example the value of the currency of a country who had gold to mine (e.g. South Africa) was very secure unlike other country (e.g. Germany) despite the second's economy being much better.

But with the Vietnam war the US began to import more and more products (warmaterial) from the rest of the world than it was exporting. As the other nations began to exchange the USbanknotes for gold, and the USdollar was in real danger of losing almost all of its value. Therefore president Nixon passed a law (read Nixon Shock) mandating that the USdollar would not be convertable anylonger into gold by the US national treasury. Almost all other countries followed the example of the US, AFAIK. Currently the value of a currency is dependent upon the trust the public puts on it, and little else.

Please notice that I am NOT an economist. I could be mistaken in some minor particular points. Flamarande 21:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC) As always, in case that it turns out that I am wrong: I never claim to know the whole truth. Good luck. This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds. IMF[reply]

Note that unsecured currency means, in another Great Depression, total, not just partial, economic collapse would occur. StuRat 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the article on the Bretton Woods System. I'm sure you'll find it interesting and I'm sure it'll answer a lot of your questions. Take a look at it and once you're done I'll be glad to discuss any remaining confusion. Loomis 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real value in gold is not that you can eat it but you cannot fake it and you cannot duplicate it. So to get gold, you either mine it, buy it or steal it. Ohanian 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Caribou dung Ohanian. Gold actually does have some extremely important technological uses, so it still has a value all to itself. Still it's nowehere near the value attached to it by the market. Loomis 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or transmute it from lead. ColourBurst 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. Before the Nixion law, the more gold a country has in reserve the higher the worth of their currency. But now since you can't exchange money for gold what's the point in having so much? (I'm sorry but i didn't read that article, it's way too long for right now) --The Dark Side 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little point to keeping reserves, and by keeping gold scarce these reserves increase the price of useful things made with gold, such as computers. Some countries are thus eliminating their reserves. Canada, for instance, has sold off pretty much all of its reserves. - SimonP

The gold could at least provide the government some ability to operate in the face of total economic collapse, as they could pay the bills with gold, until that ran out. StuRat 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Bretton Woods system, you will see that currencies were "pegged" to a certain value in terms of gold. In fact, they were pegged to the U.S. dollar, which was valued at $35 to an ounce of gold. This worked only as long as the U.S. dollar remained convertible into gold. (It was convertible into gold only for foreign banks, by the way, and U.S. citizens were forbidden to own gold bullion, but that is another story.) Nixon ended U.S. dollar convertibility and later legalized gold ownership for U.S. citizens.

Under the gold standard, the value of a currency depended mainly on the relation between the quantity of its currency and the quantity of its precious metal reserves (gold and silver, mainly). Long ago, before bank notes became widespread in the 1800s, coins were the only currency, and their value was essentially the value of the metal they contained. Bank notes were accepted at first only because they could be exchanged for a set quantity of precious metal, which was the only thing seen to have real value. In order to support the value of their bank notes, nations created central banks (probably the first of which was the Bank of England). A big part of the job of the central banks was to manage the country's reserves of precious metals and to make sure that the value of the bank notes in circulation remained in proportion to the reserves of precious metals.

If a country increased the quantity of currency in circulation (in the form of bank notes) without increasing its reserves of precious metals, there would be inflation, or a drop in the value of the currency. Deflation would result if the quantity of currency in circulation decreased relative to precious metals reserves. Precious metal reserves fluctuated mainly because of trade. Before the 1930s, international transactions were ultimately settled in gold bullion. For example, if on a given day the United Kingdom sold £1,000 of goods to Germany, with sterling valued at £10 per ounce of gold, Germany owed the United Kingdom 100 ounces of gold. If on the same day, Germany sold the UK RM20,000 of goods, with the Reichsmark valued at RM100 per ounce of gold, however, the UK would owe Germany 200 ounces of gold. These transactions were settled by the Bank of England transferring 100 ounces of gold bullion (the net balance) to the German Reichsbank. In this way, a country with a positive trade balance would accumulate gold reserves, whether or not it possessed gold mines. A country with a negative trade balance would see its reserves diminish until its dwindling gold reserves forced it to curtail its imports and/or increse its exports. A country like South Africa would accumulate gold reserves only if its imports were less in value than its gold production. A country that produced silver could also trade its silver for gold, which would allow it to increase its imports of other goods.

Under Bretton Woods, currencies were pegged to the dollar, and most international trade was settled in dollars, rather than gold. Nations accumulated reserves of dollars, which were convertible into gold in principle, but this principle was not applied so often. The problem came in the 1960s when the US began to expand the number of dollars in circulation and to run a trade deficit (though nowhere near as big as today's deficit), paying for its trade deficit in effect by printing dollars. Because of the principles I have just explained, the increase in the dollar supply decreased the value of each dollar, and some nations began to demand payment in gold rather than dollars. As the gold reserves of the United States began to decline, Nixon ordered the "gold window" shut, and the dollar, and the rest of the world's currencies, were no longer tied to gold.

However, most nations still had gold reserves, which were still seen as an important source of backing for their currency. In fact, most of those reserves are kept at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, so the reserves are largely in US territory, though not legally under US ownership.

The delinking of currencies from gold has caused the value of the world's gold to drop relative to the value of all currency in circulation. On the other hand, the value of a unit of almost every currency has also dropped relative to gold. In almost all countries, the rate of inflation (in terms of prices for goods and assets) since the end of the gold standard has been much higher than it was under the gold standard, as central banks have been free to expand the quantity of currency without any physical constraints.

The argument for selling off gold reserves is that they are no longer relevant, since currencies are not convertible into gold any more, nor is international trade settled in gold bullion. Those who advocate selling off gold argue that the nation would be better off investing the money in ways that generate a return.

The argument against selling off gold reserves is that they function much like foreign-currency reserves. A central bank can sell foreign currencies from its reserves and buy its own currency to support the value of its currency. A central bank could also sell gold in the same way. Thus, gold reserves help to support the value of a currency. Traders are less likely to launch a speculative attack on a currency if they know that the currency is backed by substantial reserves in the form of gold or other currencies. The argument for keeping gold in the reserves, rather than other currencies, is that gold is a hedge against a global financial crisis. In a scenario in which a financial crisis damages the value of all currencies, linked as they now are by a global structure of derivatives, a nation with substantial gold reserves would be better able to support its national currency and financial system than a nation without gold reserves.

Marco polo 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have found someone who is really knowlegable in finacial matters who could explain it in a easy way (allthough I think nothing is really as easy as it sounds :). Don't forget that accumulating wealth (e.g. gold) and only do nothing with it, is contrary to the better economic sense. You should keep some money for emergencies, sure. But you should invest (wisely if possible) the largest amount of wealth you have to make more money (a good anti-example is Uncle Scrooge who keeps all that enormous amount of money in his vault gaining only dust). Therefore most of the national banks are currently selling their gold (never at same time of course, or the price would fall too much). Another reason against for keeping large gold reserves is that you have to expend money and resources to protect it (I guess the goverments pay the USgov for keeping their gold in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). User:Flamarande

Our article on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that "The Federal Reserve Bank does not own the gold but serves as guardian of the precious metal, which it protects at no charge as a gesture of good will to other nations." I suspect that it is a matter not only of "good will" but of U.S. strategic interest. In a global financial and/or geopolitical crisis, the United States could conceivably take advantage of its role as custodian of much of the world's gold reserves. Marco polo 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, by the way, Flamarande! Marco polo 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a list of quantities of gold and silver reserves, by country ? StuRat 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a listing of official gold reserves, though there is some doubt whether the officially reported numbers are accurate. Marco polo 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the US has the most gold, so when the massive trade and budget deficits cause them to default on their foreign debt, and this brings about an international currency collapse, they will still have enough gold to survive. :-) StuRat 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club dancing

I like dancing at clubs, but I'll like to dance something and not just improvise... Where can I learn actual dancing moves (for nightclubs)? Thanks.

How about a school of dance?--Light current 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually pretty simple. Just walk out of your house, turn left, walk to the corner, take another left and keep on walking until you see a bus stop. Take that bus and eventually you'll come upon a dance studio. Ask them what they charge for lessons, and what particular styles they teach, and if it appeals to you, join! Good luck. Loomis 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club dancing requires that you dance as if you had a club foot. :-) StuRat 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit sick StuRat! 8-(--Light current 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

A good start is popping, which is popular mainly for house and hip-hop style clubs, though you can basically pull it off anywhere that everyone isn't head-banging. Like Loomis said, you generally learn that kind of stuff at a dance school, but if you've got funky laser equipment at home (like I do) there's no reason you couldn't practice in your room! There's loads of videos on the internet (check out websites like [1], which was the first google hit I got) that have cool videos and even some video guides on things like popping, liquid, digits, as well as other "skills" such as glow sticking and stringing (Awww no articles? Who's not supporting the Wiki club culture! Anyways glow sticking is obviously spinning around glow sticks, and stringing is basically the same thing except the glow sticks attatched to long strings. Kind of like club-nun-chucks.) freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 13:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tv program names listed by year and network

Could you include tv programes in the US, Canada and Great Britain listed by the year(s) they were shown and the network they were on for research purposes? Thank you for this consideration.

EVERY SINGLE PROGRAMME? We'd love to help you out here, but that seems like a task that would take several thousand manhours. If you want us to direct you to the best source we can think of, that's perfectly fine. I'm afraid though that your request requires a bit more work than what we're here to provide. Loomis 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For American shows, this is a good place to look. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cross-vested jurisdiction

209.53.86.61 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Is there an agreement between Canada and Australia re maintenance/alimony? Is this called cross-vested jurisdiction. What does that mean?[reply]

Yes, there is an agreement (see this website), but the Australian government calls it "reciprocal jurisdiction" or a "reciprocal agreement on child support". I think the term "cross-vested jurisdiction" can be applied in this case, but in Australia it would be more likely to refer to the judicial systems of the Australian states. --Canley 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial spaces?

Hi - a sociology question - in modern life, there are so many places that we go to with the objective of leaving them as quickly as possible - waiting rooms, fast food joints, service centres, lifts, train stations etc etc - and I wonder if there's a technical, generic term for those places? In WP there's a page with the above name, but I'm not sure if it applies. Thanks Adambrowne666 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumps, dives, crap holes etc. What does the page say anyway have you looked?--Light current 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked. No it doesnt apply--Light current 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe best I can come up with is transitory domains. It aint a proper phrase, I just invented it, but you can use it if you like!--Light current 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though it doesn't really light up my socks - I rather suspect the writer of interstitial spaces has invented the phrare himself - original research; what do you think, Light Current? Adambrowne666 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does a peace treaty mean?(For instance Israel)

Hello,

I've been reading the article about the peace treaty in 1994 between Jordan and Israel.[2].

But what exactly changes when one makes peace? Is it not all psychological? (Okay, maybe loosening control on borders, or simply opening them up, can be a change).(Jordan hadn't been in a conflict with Israel since Yom Kippur anyway, if I recall well.)

For instance the USSR had a treaty with Japan in the second World War,which they eventually broke in the last days of the war.

Does it somehow make attacking the other more treacherous, does it imply more sanctions from other nations if one attacks another nation that it has made peace with it?

I know my question may be weird, but I was thinking about that.

Evilbu 23:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a weird question at all. You're right in pointing out that the "Peace Treaties" between Israel and Jordan in '94 and the one between Israel and Egypt in '79 (I believe) have produced rather, what I believe would be called, "cold peaces". The Egyptian and Jordanian government and "media" (if you consider state-run media as any real sort of "media") are still not still not exactly "good buddies" with the Israeli government.

But it's not worth nothing. Implied by such "Peace Treaties" is the open and honest mutual recognition that the "partner" is a legitimate state, and worthy of legitimate dialogue. What this translates into is, in fact, rather important. What this means is that both Egypt and Jordan now have, at the very least, diplomatic ties with Israel, including the existence of Jordanian and Egyptian embassies and official ambassadors in Israel, and corresponding Israeli embassies and ambassadors in both Cairo and Amman.

Contrast this with a state like Lebanon, which, at least technically, has been in a "state of war" with Israel for almost 60 years. In fact Lebanon came extremely close to formalizing a peace treaty with Israel on, I believe, at least two occasions. Unfortunately these negotiations failed, and, also unfortunately, what this means is that Lebanon and Israel have no diplomatic relations. No Israeli embassy and ambassador in Beirut and likewise no Lebanese embassy or ambassador in Jerusalem. (Ok, if they'd prefer to have one in Tel-Aviv that would be fine too.) Similarly, Iran is "in a state of war" with what they call "the Zionist Entity". Again, no diplomatic ties, no embassies and no ambassadors. It would certainly have been helpful, given the recent conflict with the Hezbollah, if Israel and Lebanon had such "diplomatic relations". Perhaps the whole tragic conflict could have been avoided. Similarly, if Iran would recognize Israel and exchange ambassadors, perhaps a dialogue could develop, and Iran would no longer seek to wipe "the Zionist Entity" off the map. Unfortunately any sort of diplomatic relations with Iran are extremely unlikely, and should Iran continue on its open path to destroy "the Zionist Entity" by nuclear means...well...Israel will have no choice but to send the IAF, with or without the US, and with or without the blessing of the UN, to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions for good (not with nukes though, simply with its conventional Air Force). Of course the UN will label the whole thing as a "reprehensible act of aggression" on the part of Israel (and the US if it gets involved). And of course Israel (and, again, possibly the US) will once again be ostracized by the UN. The same thing happened when Israel took out Iraq's osiraq nuclear programme in the '80s. Not just the UN, but even the US, through Reagan's V.P. GHWB expressed its condemnation for such a "deplorable act of unprovoked agression". Oh well, for the sake of humanity and millions of lives, what must be done must be done. Damn the UN if necessary. Loomis 23:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if necessary ? I say we damn the UN whenever we get the opportunity. :-) StuRat 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, for Lebanon to have normal diplomatic relations with Israel, they would actually have to disarm Hezbollah, as not many countries will tolerate having a heavily armed terrorist organization, dedicated to their destruction, right on their border. StuRat 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be a framework for future discussions as well. As for the USSR breaking their treaty with Japan—that was something everyone saw coming from a mile away, even the Japanese. More of a surprise was Germany breaking its non-aggression treaty with the USSR, which caught Stalin off-guard even though he didn't put much faith in Hitler. In any case, I would hazard to guess that this sort of treaty breaking happens more in countries with centralized power—if a politician in a Western-style democracy broke a peace treaty to start a war, they would probably get tossed out at the next election. In a dictatorship, there would most likely be fewer consequences for something like that (but even saying that, not all dictatorships are run by a single man; eventually the Politburo booted Khrushchev out, for example). --Fastfission 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliances and treaties can mean as much or as little as the countries involved want them to - the Triple Entente was the reason Britain entered WW1, to defend France - though Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig noted that the French would "be the people we'll be fighting next". So in 1914, (1) it was strong enough to take the UK to war to (2) defend a county that the political and military elite expected to be fighting before long, and has now survived more than a hundred years. The Treaty of Versailles was the basis for the peace of the 20s, but it was never entirely fulfilled, and Germany breached it when it came to its advantage to do so. Treaties can be CBMs - Confidence building measures - but, like Wikipedia, in order to work, people need to assume good faith - with which, they can work very well, without which they're not worth the paper they're written on. --Mnem e son 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am yet again (in a painful way) discovering how my history teachers tried to make our country look more important than it was....but I was always taught the UK immediately declared war upon Germany because they violated Belgian neutrality, when marching to France through our nation. Neutrality was one of the important demands made by the British when our nation was "made" in 1830.Evilbu 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. Well, that was another thing. Sorry. I forgot the Treaty of London, 1839 that guaranteed Belgian neutrality. But again, it shows how treaties can be treated - Germany tore it up, Britain went to war to defend it (well, partially). Good point. --Mnem e son 00:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that either side can withdraw from a treaty, as long as they notify the other parties, as the US did with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so they could develop antimissile systems. StuRat 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The practical effects of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty included:

The establishment of "normal" diplomatic relations, meaning the countries put embassies in each other's country.
The establishment of trade between the two countries.
Allowing citizens of one country to visit the other.

It's true that the pledges not to invade the other country are only as good as each country's will. But I would hope the reaction of the international community (in the West anyway) to a brazen violation of a peace treaty would be enough to dissuade an attempt to start a war. Note that although most Egyptians still don't like Israel, the peace treaty has held since 1979. -- Mwalcoff 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]