Humanities desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

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.

May 31

Full version of "JANA GANA MANA/INDIA'S NATIONAL ANTMEM"

Is there any way that you can help me find the complete version (all 5 stanzas) of "JANA GANA MANA" written by Shri Robindra Nath Tegore? I do remember reading it during my school days in 1947-48-49. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmsrm01 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Jana Gana Mana. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested about ALL FIVE STANZAS OF THIS PARTICULAR SONG sung in 1911, Please. Thanks. Rkmsrm01 (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmsrm01 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I searched for "Jana Gana Mana" "full text" on Google [1], I got a bilingual Bengali-English version here [2]. Sorry, I can't tell you whether it was the one "sung in 1911," as you requested. Can I ask which language it is you're looking for?

Another thing, it's probably better you avoid writing in capital letters - even if it's only a few words, sometimes it feels like shouting. If you want to emphasize something, you can always highlight it, and then put it in bold or italics using the two buttons on the far left, right above the box where you type in your stuff. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help :-) 89.242.162.196 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic slowdown causes

What were the other causes of the worldwide economic slowdown besides the subprime mortgage crisis in the U.S.? Thanks. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things were more like the gunpowder waiting for a spark. That's why we've had quite a few discussions here about what constitutes a 'cause'. From the UK, two example would be high house prices, overgenerous lending (like the US) and some over-ambitious (i.e. they overvalued the business they were buying) takeovers in the financial sector. I think there were some exchange rate issues as well, I can't remember exactly. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point you to the article on the crisis.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key reason it became a worldwide economic crisis is due to securitization, the way that financial institutions put their debt into packages which they then sold to other investors. Hence when one country's financial institutions came into severe difficulties, it transmitted all over the world. True, there are a lot of other factors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, economies naturally wax and wane. The more globalization there is, the more likely that the waxing and waning will be near-simultaneous across countries. This particular slowdown is less a natural waning than it is a correction of an unnatural waxing. As other editors have pointed out, aggressive lending created a housing bubble and the associated bubble in mortgage backed securities. The formation of the bubbles was encouraged by a combination of loose monetary policy (which made the loanable funds available), government pressure on banks to extend loans to less qualified borrowers, and government facilitation (in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) of lending. Wikiant (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever anyone asks this question (it comes up every week or so here) I always direct them to this podcast: [3] which does an excellent job of explaining the nitty gritty in very accessable terms. Please take a listen. These guys have done followup episodes as well which explain other aspects of the current economic situation, but this one is one of the best explanations of the full background of the crisis. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the US budget surpluses built up by the Clinton Administration were treated as free money by Dubious & Co (yeah, POV: I don’t like ~~him~~ W and his gang of thugs). Spending increased and taxes were cut while interest rates remained low. This led to a rapid increase in the money supply (from 4% growth per annum in the 1990s to 7.7% p.a. in 2001-03) and a $650 ~~trillion~~ billion reversal of the federal budget balance over four years. Double hit: easy money and the most irresponsible fiscal explosion in history, at the same time. Add a regulatory change enacted by the Republican-controlled congress in 1999 that reversed many decades of restrictions on commercial banks, investment banks, stock brokers and insurance companies being under one roof. The net result was a bubble, and with low interest rates banks were scrambling to increase the yield on the “core capital” they had to hold. Since such capital has to be the least risky (AAA rated), highly paid financial engineers ramped up the issuance of securitized financial instruments that paid more interest than Treasury bills but still had the high rating. When the bubble burst, banks' core capital was not only inadequate but also illiquid, which led to panic selling of anything remotely related to securitized paper. Confidence fell and with it consumer (and corporate) demand, leading to the largest and longest drop in US domestic demand in post-WWII history. Oh, and the rest of the world got broadsided, which resulted in the worst global economic contraction since the 1930s. Roughly speaking DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there were no surpluses under Clinton. Check figures (a google search will yield many sources) on the national debt -- it shows national debt increasing in each of the Clinton years. Next, check figures on the budget deficit -- those figures will show a surplus in the Clinton years. Why the difference? Because money the government borrows from the Social Security fund is counted (incredibly) as revenues. Hence, the figures show a "surplus" even though, in fact, total Federal debt rose. Wikiant (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikant, I'll show you my source if you'll show me yours . . . (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls)'! Lo, there were surpluses in 1998-2001, the last four years in which Mr Clinton was responsible for the economy (presidents get the credit or blame for the year following their departure). The national debt may well increase even with a surplus, since the two are not specifically measuring the same thing. Since we had to continue to pay of Ronald Reagan’s worst-in-history-to-that-date budget deficits, and George the Sane’s (41) continuation, there was an increase in the national debt.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your data shows debt held by the public. It does not include intergovernmental debt -- i.e., amounts borrowed by the Federal government from Social Security. The only way to get surpluses in the Clinton years is to ignore the intergovernmental debt. Wikiant (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why did Clinton NOT veto it? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

While the US was almost certainly the trigger for the crisis, I don't think you can blame the whole thing on the US. The rest of world wasn't in a particularly stable state, had they been the US going under wouldn't have snowballed so much. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congress has authorized the creation of a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States. Section 5(c)(1) of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 lists 22 different factors whose role the Commission is specifically directed to examine. This link has FERA's text in bill form; it was signed into law on May 20.

As you might expect, the economic slowdown is a complicated matter and has many causes. In my own work (I've done some presentations on this), I tend to emphasize the regulatory failures, but of course there were many other factors too. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys... I was curious as to whether the whole global slowdown was caused by something that happened only in the US. To conclude from your answers, there were factors related to other countries too. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Holocaust Theology" sources

Could you tell me any sources used for any or all of the text in the article on "Holocaust theology"--books, other encyclopedia? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.78.30 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few are listed in the holocaust theology article's "notes" section (but not really enough). It's not clear which of these, if any, support much of the article. Consequently you'd be well advised either to check those few patchy sources that are given yourself, or ignore the whole article (until it is adequately supported by references) altogether. 87.114.167.162 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]