Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< July 10 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 12 >
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.


July 11

[edit]

Contemporary application of McCulloch v. Maryland

[edit]

Today, I visited the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park and purchased a small book (the plates from Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley) at the visitor center; besides the purchase price, I paid 70¢ of state and local sales tax. How is this consistent with McCulloch v. Maryland? Is it simply that the tax is paid by me, rather than by the National Park Service, or is there some other reason? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your question. What is your reasoning or presumption/assumption? Why do you think that paying state/local sales tax is inconsistent with McCulloch v. Maryland? If you offer that insight, it will be easier for editors here to answer your question. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Nyttend is asking why states may require sales tax be paid on goods sold by the federal government in a national park, even though in McCulloch, the Supreme Court disallowed Maryland from taxing a federal bank, on the grounds that if a state is allowed to tax the operations of the federal government, the state is effectively allowed to destroy such operations within state boundaries (by taxing at a rate of a billion dollars per day). In the opinion, the Court noted that states' right to tax is definitely limited by implication in the Constitution, else they could unilaterally eject any federal government function from their borders. I would very hesitantly venture that Nyttend's sales tax may be allowed because (a) the federal government is not necessarily running that store, or (b) the sales from that store are treated the same as sales from some local private vendor; but I really don't know the answer to this interesting question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I am totally confused. Isn't taxing the federal government itself (i.e., the McCulloch bank) a wholly separate issue from taxing an individual citizen (i.e., the consumer of a book at the federal park)? I don't see what one has to do with the other, to be honest. What am I missing? In the first scenario, the State is "forcing" (requiring) the feds to pay a tax. In the second, the State is "forcing" (requiring) an individual (who is not the federal government) to pay a tax. I guess I just don't see the conflict with that Supreme Court case at all. It's comparing apples with oranges, no? The "apples" are the feds ... the "oranges" are just citizens/consumers who happen to live in the USA. And, I am missing what makes this an "interesting" question. Please help! Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Also, I would think that the State in question can impose on federal goods sold the same tax as applies to any other goods sold in that State. The State cannot arbitrarily tax federal goods at "a billion dollars a day" (per Comet Tuttle's example), while taxing all other goods at, say, five percent. Even if there were some conflict with the federal government – which I don't see – as Comet Tuttle points out, the gift shop may be a private vendor operating at the national park (as opposed to being operated by the feds proper). Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
CometTuttle understands me correctly. It's definitely not a private vendor — both of the workers behind the counter were wearing official National Park Service uniforms, and one of them went into the building just before I did, immediately after exiting an official NPS vehicle; as well, they answered my questions by looking at official NPS databases. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's question misinterprets the court's holding on the tax issue (which is independent of another important holding, i.e. the feds had a right to establish the bank even though there's nothing about "banks" in the Constitution -- this involved the "necessary and proper clause"). The holding on the tax issue was NOT that "states can't tax anything done by the feds." It was THIS (based mostly upon the Supremacy Clause): "The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government." In other words, this was a STAMP tax applicable to the defining "banking" activities of the bank (as opposed to, say, a sales tax) -- a tax that imposed on the very justification for the bank's existence: "this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional." However, "This opinion does not ... extend to a tax ... imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state" -- explicitly, the opinion does NOT forbid any and all state taxes on federal operations. A tourist shop in a national park can pay state taxes without destroying the purpose for the national park's existence. (Presumably, an exorbitant tax on the shop would be struck down following a suit brought by the feds against the state.) 63.17.80.31 (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The above discussion made me think of this related question. If the federal government owns a building within a State, do the feds pay property tax just as any private landowner would? I never thought of this before. Let's say that there is a federal office building located in New York City. Do the feds pay property taxes on that building to the State of New York or to the City of New York, etc.? I am guessing not ... but I am curious about this now. If not, why not? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In Canada, the Federal government will often make payments in lieu of taxes in such a situation (see here [1]). This practice preserves the principle that the Federal governement is not liable for local taxes, but compensates the local authority for the loss of property taxes simply because the building's owner is the federal government. Such grants are often limited in duration and serve to ease the transition when the the Federal government acquires a piece of property that used to generate significant tax income for the local authority. And, jeez, we have an article !: PILOT_(finance) --Xuxl (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DC's a bad example because it's already federal, but no, the federal government, constitutionally, does not have to pay taxes to the states. That said, it's possible that there may be some arrangement for them to do so.
I'm not sure about the OP's question and the IP's suggestion that the distinction is because the tax is on a citizen and not the government. That doesn't seem right (think of the post office as an analogy). There's probably something else at play here, either state involvement in the store, or perhaps a federal deal to allow state sales tax or something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The McCulloch holding on the tax issue was NOT that "states can't tax anything done by the feds." McCulloch states: "This opinion does not ... extend to a tax ... imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state" -- explicitly, the opinion does NOT forbid any and all state taxes on federal operations. See fuller answer above, under the first question. 63.17.93.127 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China and USA. Controlling the exchange rate.

[edit]

Can someone explain to me how China can control the exchange rate between US dollar and the Yuan. While USA cannot control the exchange rate between US dollar and the Yuan.

From a symmetry point of view,considering country A and country B. Neither country should have an advantage in controlling the exchange rate between the two countries. Because no matter what trick country A uses, country B can counter with the same trick. 122.107.192.187 (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banks under effective Chinese government control are willing to exchange Renminbi for dollars at a government-approved exchange rate, even if by doing so the Chinese banks pay more than they would under a hypothetical free-market floating exchange rate. By contrast, the U.S. is not willing to allocate government funds to engage in an effort to drive down the value of the Renminbi -- something which would be interpreted as a hostile act by China. AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An effort to drive down the value of the Renminbi??? Can you please explain me that reasoning? Flamarande (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess most speculative currency manipulations are attempts by outsiders to drive down the value of another country's currency, and I echoed that in the phrasing of my comment, although in this particular case the U.S. would be hypothetically trying to drive down the value of its own currency. AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article Renminbi. You can only exchange certain quantities. Basicly the goverment of China was selling its own currency lower than its real value. Let us only use round numbers and a bit of imagination: the Chinese banks were exchanging 1 US dollar for 5 yuan while one US dollar was truly worth 3 yuan.
By fixing this exchange rate (1 US = 5 yuan) the Chinese gov is making sure that a product from China whose price was 100 yuan was sold abroad for 20 US dollars (instead of its true value of 33.33 US dollars). This way Chinese products were simply cheaper and sold in large quantities.
If the US goverment had followed your (frankly naive) proposal it would had fixed its own exchange rate at 1 US dollar to 3 Yuan, right?
But if the US gov had done that utter folly lots of speculators would have bought Chinese currency from the US banks and exchanged in Chinese banks only to later exchange it again in US banks, and so forth...
Example: I would have bought 1000 US dollars and exchanged it in a Chinese bank getting 5000 yuan (1 US dollars to 5 yuan). Then I would go to a US bank and exchanged my 5000 yuan for US dollars getting 1666 US dollars (1 US dollar to 3 yuan). Then I would go to a Chinese bank and exchanged my 1666 US dollars getting 8330 yuan (1 to 5). Then I would go to a US bank... and so forth and so forth.
In the end I would be stinking rich and the Chinese and US treasury would be bankrupt. Remember that with modern global communications there is not even a need to travel from country to country anymore. It's all done with the pressing of a couple of buttons.
The Chinese trick (lowering the value of one's own currency) only works if your country sells large quantities to other countries (other ppl have to really buy large quantities of your stuff). It doesn't work if your country buys more than it sells (or even if it buys as much it sells). AFAIK the USA buys more than it sells.
Don't ask me about good counter-measures against China or about negative side-effects for the Chinese economy (probably lots of inflation?). Flamarande (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It must be added that the Renminbi is not a fully convertible currency. As such trading the currency is not as simple as walking to Barclays with your piggy bank. See also foreign exchange market. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the technical arguments are sound –- Chinese banks’ ability to set the rate; lack of free convertibility; etc -– the underlying principles are being ignored. It is politicians, and really only politicians (and the economists they get to back them up), who argue that the Renminbi is undervalued. In fact, many independent observers consider the Rmb to be quite fairly valued, even after the recent 20% appreciation..

Among other things usually ignored, about 55-60% of China’s foreign trade is conducted by foreign-invested enterprises, who not only have no interest in making “China” rich, but also are not likely to be enthusiastic about enforcing a trade policy from Beijing. Further, the closed capital account leaks like a sieve (if you can’t get money out of China, you aren’t really trying). Finally, even if Congress got everything it is asking for (40% appreciation), the net effect would be to drive up the prices at Wal-Mart without any benefit at all to the US economy. Indeed, there would very likely be a net loss of jobs under such a scenario. Full disclosure: this kind of policy analysis is my job, and so the above should be considered original research. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, even if Congress got everything it is asking for (40% appreciation), the net effect would be to drive up the prices at Wal-Mart without any benefit at all to the US economy." Sure in the short term, but longer term the higher prices would encourage either more production of the items in the US, or else the importation of these items from another country. In either case, the price increase at Wal-Mart might be high in the short term, but would not endure at more then a small increase. Googlemeister (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Googlemeister, what part of "importation of these items from another country" -- at a worse price / quality ratio (if it wasn't worse, importers wouldn't buy products made in China) -- benefits anyone in the US? As for the generosity of alternative suppliers reducing their prices, that hasn't happened in the history I've read, so I'll be a bit cautious in assuming it would happen under this scenario. Finally, the notion that the plastic kitchen utensils and cotton socks bought from China are going to be made in the US strikes me as an alternative reality scenario.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
China is not undercutting prices on socks or kitchenware from Thailand or Indonesia by huge margins, but only by a small amount. If China's currency appreciated 40%, then with even moderately efficient markets, Thailand or Indonesia or wherever would be competitively priced. Now in the short term, this will cause an increase in prices both because those countries would not be able to instantly supply the volume of goods, but while demand holds and China has priced itself out of the market, these other factories would expand increasing the amount of goods they can deliver. This will help bring the price down to the 10% above China's original price was. Because of the new expansions they have completed, these new factories are going to get more economy of scale, and the end result, while higher then China, will be only marginally higher. Googlemeister (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, you reinforce my point: higher prices and zero benefits to the US economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet's marriage in Romeo and Juliet

[edit]

In Romeo and Juliet, is there some reason for which Capulet advances Juliet's wedding (to Count Paris) by one day? It is originally scheduled for Thursday, but then Capulet makes a big deal about moving it up one day to Wednesday. Is there any reason for this? I did not exactly follow why he did this. I do know that he wanted to help console Juliet in her (supposed) grief over the death of Tybalt. But would one day really make any difference? That line of reasoning did not seem to make sense. Also, I was wondering if this one-day advancement of the wedding somehow tied into "ruining" (or, at least, impacting) the scheme of the Friar by which Juliet drank the sleeping potion? Thanks for any insights! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Just to clarify ... if I remember the details correctly: Capulet proposed the wedding date for Wednesday; then said "no, that's too soon, let's make it Thursday instead". Then, later on in the play in another scene, he again shifted it from Thursday back to Wednesday. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It's been a while since I read the play, but my brain is whispering to me that Juliet's father hoped that the wedding would distract and cheer Juliet after the death of her cousin Tybalt. Bear in mind, my brain doesn't always give me good information, so we'll see if someone else comes along with a better answer in a bit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might help to keep in mind that R&J was Shakespeare's version of an earlier story. One of the changes he made was to shorten the time frame of everything. There are a number of items which don't quite make sense in the shortened time, but are perfectly reasonable for a story taking place over a longer period of time. I'm not intimately familiar with all the preceding works, so I can't say for certain, but the movement of the wedding date may have been one of those items which was time compressed. Shakespeare was a populist playwright (as opposed to a literary/scholarly one), so probably wouldn't have been too concerned with such minor inconsistencies. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have anything to do with banns being published? Maybe he thought the banns wouldn't be done by Wednesday so he proposed Thursday, then realized Wednesday would be ok? Just speculating. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize this part of the play: Paris wants to marry Juliet, and seeks Capulet's permission. Capulet thinks she is too young, but says that if Paris gains her consent, then he has Capulet's as well. No date is set (Act 1, scene 2). When Tybalt is killed, Capulet sets the date for Thursday (Wednesday being too early) to console her, thinking that Juliet will obey him. He decides to keep the wedding small, in light of Tybalt's death (Act 3, scene 4). Juliet is told of the wedding, but refuses to marry Paris, to Capulet's anger (Act 3, scene 5). Juliet goes to Friar Lawrence to ask for help, where he gives her the potion (Act 4, scene 1). Juliet returns to her father and consents to the marriage, at which point Capulet moves the wedding to Wednesday (Act 4, scene 2). So for the moving of the wedding, it seems to me that Capulet was glad that Juliet consented, and wanted the wedding sooner, before Juliet could change her mind.
As for their plan, Romeo and Juliet were married at the end of Act 2, but Romeo's killing Tybalt at the beginning of Act 3 was what threw their plan off, since that caused Capulet to set a date in the first place. At Juliet's request for help, the Friar gave her the potion, and sent a letter to Romeo, who never received it. Romeo then heard of Juliet's "death", and returned, killing himself at her tomb. – Psyche825 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, Psyche825, you are saying that the move from Thursday to Wednesday was to foreclose Juliet changing her mind? Is that what you think motivated Capulet? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
That's what it looks like to me, yes – Psyche825 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy of haste. Whatever motivation can be noted for Capulet, tragic misunderstandings ensue from his decision. That's the major structural purpose. --Wetman (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all! Much appreciated! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ninjas

[edit]

Did ninjas always wear all black when doing missions, or did they wear normal clothes for missions during the day? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did not always wear black. "They" are a very much larger and more diverse bunch of people than their film stereotype. See also Ninja. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has public domain pictures of everything.

*Ninjas could wear whatever got the job done. The first ninja ever dressed like a housemaid to kill his rivals. --M@rēino 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do fictional ninjas (almost) always wear all black? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that fiction dresses vampires, witches, Lord Voldemort, Nazis, John Travolta and James Dean characters, and the bad guys of old westerns in black: it's de rigueur for the sophisticated, stylish villain. I mean, come on: would you be terrified by a vampire who dressed like Tom Selleck? --Ludwigs2 00:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An urban legend for which I have no source says that the modern look of ninjas in fiction came from a play where the ninjas were dressed as stagehands. People were use to ignoring the stagehands dressed in all black as they changed the set, so when one of them walked up to a character in the play and killed him, the audience was like "WTF!?". 142.104.215.119 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable source for that. It links to its own sources, which I haven't checked. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_July_11&oldid=1138603335"