Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 21

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

November 21

Security Council votes

According to the news story on our Main Page, the Security Council has voted unanimously to enlarge the peacekeeping force in the Congo.

This started me wondering, how often does the Securrity Council agree unanimously on a motion?

Is this uncommon? Is there a place to look at a record of Security Council votes?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

They have a website here. It includes the text of all resolutions, and records of all meetings. Looking at those meetings, the vast majority of resolutions are passed unanimously (I think they tend to continue discussing them until they have everyone's support wherever possible). --Tango (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Remember that if any of the permanent members vote no, that's a veto. So they at the very least need to work out something which the permanent members are willing to abstain on at worst. And it's probably going to be rare that all 5 permanent members agree on something but one of the others doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that would be fairly common, except that it's known in advance that one will veto, so the vote is never called. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what Nil said. Nil said that, given that the permanent members agree on something, it would be odd for a non-permanent member to vote against. I haven't checked, but I expect he's right: each non-permanent member is probably closely enough aligned to at least one permanent member not to want to uselessly vote against them. Algebraist 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for any confusion I didn't phrase my response very well. Note that this doesn't mean they don't contribute to the outcome and discussions, or that their views are completely ignored, it just means it's rare you're going to have the 5 permanent members who are diametrically opposed in many of areas agreeing on something while someone else on the council doesn't. World geo-politics suggests that. In other words while an important part of the process ultimately the permanent members have a lot more power and it makes sense to consider them in that light. (Of course when it does happen that a non-permanent member or even multiple members disagree, they'll likely usually try and resolve it unless it's always happening with the same member.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the veto, a United Nations Security Council resolution still needs a supermajority of nine to pass. Though I can't recall one at the moment, there have been rare cases where the permanent members have been in agreement but were blocked by a minority of non-permanent members.John Z (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

solution to the financial crisis

What would happen if the US government told China and Russia that the US will cancel hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt they hold in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae securities but as a friendly gesture they give both countries proportional shares in an entity that has exclusive rights to drill oil in Alaska for 30 years? And for the sake of the scenario we assume that China and Russia are content. Would that solve the problem? If not would it at least help solve the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmerempire (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, your assumption seems a bit far fetched. According to Arctic Refuge drilling controversy "The United States Department of Energy estimates that ANWR oil production between 2018 and 2030 would reduce the cumulative net expenditures on imported crude oil and liquid fuels by an estimated $135 to $327 billion (2006 dollars),reducing the foreign trade deficit". It seems likely China and Russia would have to be dumb to accept even all Alaskan oil in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just realised my assumption here is also a little simplistic. That isn't the worth of the oil but how much it will reduce the trade deficit of the US. I presume US DOE recognises some of the money is going to flow out of the country. However I still think it's highly unlikely that Russia or China will be that interested in the oil (particularly given the fact the US is probably more likely to renege on the deal and that no one really knows how much is there) for hundreds of billions of dollars of debts Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would help at all. Couldn't the US government just take the drilling rights themselves and use the profit to service the debt? That would have exactly the same effect. --Tango (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The US already has drilling rights to most US oil wells (including off shore), and theoretically leases them to oil companies to do the drilling. The only prob is that the Bush administration failed to collect those revenues, intentionally, to help out their buddies in the industry (which is quite illegal, BTW). StuRat (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's one thing that this crisis has shown us, it's that the US is still the 'flight to safety' beacon that it has been since WWII. The appreciation of the USD, the low-low treasury rates, they all suggest a global faith in the continuing productivity and safety of the US economy. As long as the US is able to keep this view alive, outpace the other major western economies in terms of absolute growth and technological innovation (over sufficiently long periods of time; I get the feeling the upcoming recession may change around the world order a bit in that regard in the near term) and protect it all with a military budget larger than the next 16 countries combined (and a political system that, even in the worst of times, almost guarantees continuity and stability), this view will persist. As long as this view persists, capital will flow to the US, holding down interest rates, cheap goods will flow from the developing world, holding back inflation and the US will be able to support a continued large trade deficit and foreign debt. It's only when this view changes that the massive foreign debt will - both literally and figuratively - become a massive liability.NByz (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise put: The US would be in big trouble if the large amount of wealth that China has accumulated via its' trade deficit WASN'T being invested in US-denominated debt!NByz (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What, me worry? Who was it who said, if you owe the bank $1000, it's your problem, but if you owe it $1,000,000 (or whatever), it's the bank's problem? China can't apply too much pressure, lest it lose both its investment and its best customer. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

However, Chinese officials have let on that they recognize that this arrangement is unsustainable, and that they must find a way to break free of it, since it will lead inevitably to a loss of their investment through either an open default or a de facto default through monetization of the debt (i.e. printing money). A customer who keeps adding to his tab without ever paying up and whose livelihood is based on continually expanding debt is not really a merchant's best customer. The merchant has a strong incentive to attract customers who pay up, and the Chinese are finding such customers in the form of Chinese consumers and other export markets. The time will come when the Chinese write off the money the United States owes but cannot really pay. At that point, China will stop lending to the United States. Marco polo (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a concept in development economics about the cycle of indebtedness that countries tend to go through. They tend to start off as net debtors, then as they industrialize, become net lenders, then, as they develop a highly demanding middle class, become net debtors again, forcing them back to the beginning of the cycle. I'm sure we have an article on it, but I can't find it...NByz (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure China would write the debt off, they just wouldn't renew it as it matures. The US does pay its debt, it just does so by taking out new debt. If China stopped renewing the debt the US would have to borrow from elsewhere (probably at a higher interest rate - simple supply and demand). What effect that would have on the US economy and public finances, I don't know (it depends on how keen others are to buy the debt China isn't buying), it might just be a minor inconvenience (especially if China does so gradually) or it might cause the entire US economy to crash taking the rest of the world with it (China is likely to try and avoid that, although since it's happening at the moment anyway, all bets are off!). --Tango (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

They have a very nice symbiotic relationship. When a country has a trade surplus, it's by definition a net lender in the world. A country with a trade deficit is a net borrower. (It may save in terms of the 'capital account' or the 'financial account' though). As I mention above, as long as the US economy remains the best place for China to choose to save, the relationship will work just fine, making both partners better off. US policymakers just need to remember that they can't do anything (especially in terms of foreign policy) that will risk any of the things that make it such a great place to save. If the Chinese government were, despite knowing that the US was the best place to save, choose to save elsewhere (not 'renew the debt' or 'contribute to demand for US debt') as a punitive measure, there is a clear argument that it would make the people of China worse off than the people of the United States (although it would unambiguously make them both worse off!). Considering the political situation in China, and the high poverty rate, multiplying that 'worse off' factor through China's "utility function" (sorry, econ term again... sigh) would make that "worse off" factor relatively more severe (than in the US).NByz (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Land is more important than some mere cash. The USA's Federal Reserve can print all the money it wants, but it would just cause inflation, though not that much inflation since the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. The solution to the financial crisis can be found at: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ --Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The US dollar's position as a reserve currency means it can print more than it otherwise could, but I think it is already printing that extra money (if it weren't, there would be deflation since there would be a higher demand for US dollars than there were a supply for them), so it doesn't really help then deal with future problems (it does, however, give the US a significant form of income from seigniorage). --Tango (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Seigniorage is a tax too. It reduces the purchasing power of existing money. It's a tax on people who hold money as savings (rather than capital). The bank de-leveraging has, in fact, been acting to reduce the effective money supply (the banking money multiplier effect), and the last FOMC minutes actually mentioned the possibility of deflation is on the Fed's mind. But you're right, of course. By buying back government securities with 'shelf money', the fed has been increasing the actual M1 money supply throughout the recent financial crisis.NByz (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So is this a workable idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khmerempire (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, to sum up what we discussed above, Tango and I pointed out that this would be just like a tax; a targeted tax, but a tax nonetheless (because of the opportunity cost). There isn't really a reason why this particular tax would be any better of a choice than any other: Say a portion of direct income taxes (across all industries). So the real question is whether or not it would be helpful to increase total taxation to pay off debt right now. We continued into a discussion of how the international financial system works, particularly the balance of payments identity which requires that a country with a trade surplus, like China, be a net accumulator of savings, like US T-Bills, and a country like the US, with a trade deficit be a net borrower. This suggests that, in order to finance a continued trade deficit, the US has to accumulate a large foreign debt in one way or another. It only makes sense that those that are willing to pay the most for it (offer the lowest rate) accumulate it.

So, in short, if the US wants to reduce foreign debt, they have to implement policies to increase domestic savings (including reducing the budget deficit) and thereby reduce consumption and narrow the trade deficit.NByz (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And also encourage policies in China that are designed to help create a highly-consuming middle class. The more domestic demand in China, the smaller the surplus.NByz (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original post: The assumption seems to be that the US Federal Government’s debt is the main problem; it isn’t. Sure, the current malAdministration has doubled the national debt in just 8 years, breaking the records set by Ronald Reagan and George the Sane in 1981-92, but that’s not why Citibank is getting $331 billion, AIG $144 billion, etc, etc. Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized, but if the subprime mortgages they held were the key problem, the past 18 months would be a mere footnote, rather than the first global financial crisis in history.

Drilling a bit of oil isn’t going to help much (the high estimates of ANWAR reserves would barely cover two years worth of US consumption, the lowball figure about six months). Yes, the US has a trade defect problem, but up until August 2007, that was just another footnote.

The long-term solution is to lower the unsustainable US standard of living, to a level that is in line with productivity. Sorry ‘bout that, my fellow Americans! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Trying to figure out the name of a classical music song

It's very simple - three ascending bars, repeated. Well a bit more complicated than that, but I don't know much about music, and that's the gist of it. Channel 10 (Australia) used it as the music for advertising the movie Flight 93 about a month ago. 58.161.194.134 (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pachelbel (spelling)'s Canon in d? Bit of a stab in the dark but it's a widely used piece that repeats (or canonizes?) itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean three ascending notes, maybe the Moonlight Sonata or Barber's Adagio for Strings? -- BenRG (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep - it's Moonlight Sonata. Thanks. 58.161.194.134 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I did see that movie, although I can't remember what music was played. If it had been the Moonlight, it would have stuck in my memory. Barber's Adagio sounds much closer to home; in the days after 9/11, it was played at symphony concerts around the world before their advertised programs. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain welfare

Is it possible to say that GB has a high level of social welfare provisions and a low level of contribution to these prov. by the citizens? My understanding is that the welfare system there is paid by taxes and that this is usually not considered (direct) contributions, right? Is that the intended meaning? That aside, is it true? High benefits, low cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.72.137 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Great Britain ? At first I thought you meant George Bush, who is probably responsible for putting more people on welfare than anyone else. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How else would a welfare system be funded? You can call the taxes different things (eg. the UK has national insurance contributions which are basically just another tax which goes towards state pension, etc.), but it's still just tax. --Tango (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way to get a free lunch in a welfare system would be to increase the efficiency of the system by 1) reducing administrative overhead or 2) (Properly) allocating benefits to people who are in the most need first, then continuing out along the "marginal need" curve (sorry for the econ term...) by correctly identifying and re-ordering people who have an incentive to 'cheat' the system and hide their true preferences/abilities. Even maintaining large government savings (or, at least, low-cost borrowing room) to sufficiently fund a welfare system, like the national insurance you mentioned (or CPP or EI in canada and very much unlike, for example, underfunded social security in the US) crowds out private investment, imposing an extra cost (tax) on society. Tango is right. It's all just tax redistribution. NByz (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is the possibility of a government that has a significant income source of it's own, such as the oil wells in Kuwait. StuRat (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is equivalent to those wells being run by private companies with 100% corporation tax. I think pretty much all (if not absolutely all) government income can be viewed as a form of taxation. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No private company would operate oil wells (or anything else) under a 100% tax rate. This is an important distinction: taxes discourage whatever is taxed (with a 100% tax stopping it altogether), while other governmental sources of income do not. StuRat (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When you nationalize an industry, you take the production decision away from a market. I think the point that Tango and I are trying to make is that even if a government 'owns' something like a direct investment in capital (like the oil wells) or a portfolio investment in securities, and uses the revenues to fund government expenditure, they're taking away or 'crowding out' an otherwise profitable free-market investment. This is a form of tax. Government could also choose to print more money to cover the program(s) but this ends up being a tax on holders of money.NByz (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about nationalizing an industry either, as that means you don't allow private companies to operate in those industries. In the case of oil production, it's quite possible to have government production and private production simultaneously. I suppose that any form of production competes with other forms of production, but in a large world market like the petroleum industry, the effect of Kuwait's government production on world markets (and hence private oil production) is minimal. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While taxes do divert resources from market-driven allocation, market-driven allocation does not always maximize social utility, as recent financial debacles demonstrate. Marco polo (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the free market does just fine. It's the politicians who screw it up:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, government expenditure can often create value or increase utility be internalizing externalities, providing public goods or coordinating the private sector. Providing welfare services an example of the first two. People aren't going to quit their current job and move to one that better fits their because of changing skills, technology or economic structure if they are worried about their basic needs (just one example of a public good created by welfare systems).NByz (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why we don't live in a state of anarchy - there are significant benefits to having certain things run centrally and that requires paying taxes. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Only one company can drill a given oil well at a time, if that company is owned by the state then that's exactly equivalent to it being owned by a private company and taxed at 100% (with some law passed to force the company to stay in business). If it was a regular private company taxed at a reasonable rate then there would be profit entering the free market. Money going to the state instead of the free market is the very definition of tax. --Tango (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some law passed to force the company to stay in business" at a 100% tax rate ? Sounds like communism to me. You would also need to seal the borders to prevent the owners of the company from escaping to a country where profits are allowed. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about the owners? It's the management that actually run the company and they still get paid whatever the tax rate. Anyway, I'm not suggesting it as anything that would actually happen, it's just an equivalent situation financially to help people understand what's going on. --Tango (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's useful to compare something which does exist with something which can't exist (at least under capitalism). StuRat (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are actually many examples of this in most western countries. Industries that would otherwise be a natural monopoly are often allowed to operate as a monopoly, but with the government making both the production and pricing decisions. No profit incentive keeps the organization going, only legal mandate. Some utilities are still like this is the US, and many used to be. Crown corporations in Canada provide many examples of these. I am about to head over to Vancouver pretty soon actually, and I'll be taking a "BC Ferry" - the only ferry operator. The volume of ferry traffic wouldn't support two ferry operators, so a crown corpoation (technically a public-private partnership now...) exists. Another great example of this in almost every country is water distribution. Water is very important to us, and there tends to be a lot of fear around its cleanliness and continued distribution. For that reason, most city governments have an implicit monopoly on water distribution. They set the price, the quantity and take the proceeds into general revenue. If a government monopoly didn't provide the service, the private sector almost certainly would. All of the people, equipment and resources that the 'water distribution' department of the city use may as well be thought of as a private corporation with the legal requirement to keep operating. There is no profit incentive to produce more or less, and management just keeps working hard because, if they didn't, the mayor would replace them.NByz (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I always found it funny that water was provided like this, but we rely on the scary private sector to provide us with food distribution. What if, one day, it became no longer profitable to distribute food, for some reason? Would people flee the cities? Anyway, my point is that various levels of government provide many services (transportation, healthcare etc. etc.) that the private sector would, no doubt, provide.NByz (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, [1] here are some examples of some explicit "state controlled companies" in the US. I would argue that any service, provided by the government, but that would also be provided to some degree by the private sector, can be thought of in this way. Even something as extreme as defense. If no national government provided military services, the free market would certainly organize a 'company' (what we normally think of as a for-profit organization; doesn't have to be a corporation) that provided defense services. Mafia organizations are examples of this. All of the customers pool their resources to provide something that no individual could adequately provide themselves. This is all any company does.NByz (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Distributing food and water will pretty much always be profitable. The demand is pretty much independent of price (at least, there is a lower limit to demand that is independent of price - there are non-essential uses of food and water that are price-dependant) until you get to the point where people have no choice but to starve, and that's a very extreme situation. In the UK, water is distributed privately (although in a heavily regulated market) and there's plenty of profit in it. The government sometimes intervenes in these markets to improve reliability (yeah, right!) or keep prices down (particularly for the most vulnerable). Also, farm subsidies make it profitable to grow food in the local country rather than importing it. There is no real financial benefit to that (if there was, the free market would do it anyway), but it does improve the country's position in non-financial terms (you don't want to be too dependant on other countries for your food or they end up with too much power over you). There are also environmental benefits. In short, the free market is very good at maximising profit. That often correlates with the needs of a society, so capitalism works pretty well, but there are needs which don't correlate with profit and that's where governments come into their own. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, those latter things that you mention are the public goods and externalities. The free market will always produce any good up to the point where marginal private benefit equals marginal private cost (this is an extension of the normal marginal benefit = marginal cost criterion for calculating economic optimality.) The value externality is the difference between the private cost and the social cost or the private benefit and the social benefit. It's external to markets. Governments intervene in various ways to try ensure that the 'decision maker bears the external cost'. It can do this by publicly provisioning the good (making the quantity decision through permits or licenses etc.), publicly producing the good itself, or introducing a market-related incentive: a tax or subsidy. So, in the case of health care or welfare the government need not necessarily provide or provision the good, as long as it, in some way, intervenes in the market to ensure the production decision is as close to that which the MPB = MPC criterion would suggest. For example: two identical societies could achieve the same total amount of healthcare or welfare payments/services (welfare is just 'social insurance' and very much could be provided by the private sector) by 1) publicly provisioning and producing the good or 2) subsidizing the industry that provides the good an amount exactly equal to the externality. Usually, the deciding factor between these two interventions are 'transaction costs'. Are the costs of monitoring and enforcing the latter system greater than the productivity gain? What about the cost of incorrectly calculating the true value of the externality? It's for these cost-related reasons that many developed countries choose the former rather than the latter.NByz (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the way you describe water, you're describing what an economist would call 'demand price inelasticity'. It refers to the rate at which quantity changes with a change in price (because it's a necessity in this case). See elasticity for whole bunch of them. There may be an argument that intervening in a more demand price inelastic market might be easier or more effective because you can estimate quantity demanded more easily. I haven't encountered that argument in my economic studies though. I know that demand price inelastic goods tend to be taxed more frequently, because they don't tend to exhibit the effects of the Laffer Curve (a measure by which the rate of a tax increase actually decreases the tax base by discouraging the activity) Some examples of these are the "Sin Taxes" on cigarettes and liquor that most western countries use often.NByz (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic, I understand that Britain's health system is very much more efficient than that in the US. I cannot remember the exact amount but its something like multiple times. Since health care is free to everyone (pedants may point out that there are sometimes charges of a few pounds, mostly in England only), that is a big contribution to welfare, and peace of mind too. 78.151.147.26 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure "efficiency" is really the right word, since one of the major factors is that doctors earn less there. I suppose, from a management point of view, high salaries are "inefficient", but it's not like the money is just wasted. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. Although there are public good aspects to having a generally healthy population, public provision encourages people to hide their true preferences. Where a person seeking a costly service will only consume that service if their personal benefit exceeds their personal cost, in a free system, this criterion doesn't apply quite so strongly. Just like in the welfare system mentioned above, when the service is provided for free, the people in the most need won't consume the service first. This is inefficient. Speaking from the Canadian point of view, I know our free health care system produces long lines and surgery wait lists. Usually people consider public provision and production of a good or service that fills a basic need as an example of more 'equity' or 'equality' rather than more 'efficiency'. A well-managed society ought to consider both of those things.NByz (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that when doctors get a lot of money, some of it's wasted from the viewpoint of benefit to the patient -- e.g., when doctors with financial interests in labs and radiology clinics refer patients there, ordering more tests than are ordered for similar patients when there isn't the same incentive to do so. The U.S. health care system resembles the Holy Roman Empire (providing little in the way of health, care, or system) while delivering results like an infant mortality rate worse than Slovenia's or Cuba's. OF course, if you need high-quality cosmetic surgery or laser vision correction, we've got you covered. And no commies, either. --- OtherDave (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth remembeing that while public health care systems may produce long waiting lists, the alternative that is common in the US is short waiting lists for those who can afford it, no waiting list for those who can't. While equity and equality are generally considered the most important aspects for public provision, greater efficiency is often also considered a factor in many areas (health care and beyond). Of course free market supporters will dispute that public provision is often more efficient in a variety of areas but that doesn't change the fact it's a common claim or belief. Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The efficiency argument I was trying to make is around the idea that a free system encourages people to both 1) hide their true preferences (or willingness to pay) and 2) over-consume the service (by 'over-consume' I mean, consume such that marginal social cost is greater than marginal social benefit). Naturally the private cost will always be near zero in a free system.NByz (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, what I meant was that the total cost for the same treatment is far less in the UK than in the US, as the US has a large superstructure (or iceberg if you like) of administraton costs, from the costs of processing and challenging insurance claims. And personally, I'm not sure if US doctors do get paid more in the US than the UK - in any case they get paid many times the average salary. I'm not sure if someone was seriously arguing above that all healthcare should be paid for by individuals without any state provision, but if so would you have the same views if you had no money and were dying and in pain from a curable medical condition? Even if you believe only the feckless have no money, then that is a very severe punishment for fecklessness. 78.146.5.17 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

李印泉 (Li Yinquan)

李印泉. Li Yinquan. Does anyone know who this individual is, and is there a source for that than can be cited in a term paper? (It's just a passing reference to him because he's in a piece of art that is discussed in the term paper). I've managed to figure out that he is an art collector, a contemporary of Xu Beihong, and that's about it. Any help? Thanks!

Duomillia (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As best I can figure out he is merely the subject of the painting. Perhaps he commissioned it? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)