Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 27

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.

March 27

Health care bill opposition

I'm looking for a summary of points made by people that oppose the bill without having to wade through hours of rhetoric and accusations and ideology, simply a declaration of opinions and criticisms. Does such a summary exist? (For the sake of clarity, I'm trying to make an honest assessment of why these people disagree as a "sanity check" on my own support/acceptance of the measures.) SDY (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The conservative criticism is basically that it's too liberal, and the liberal criticism is basically that it's too conservative. There are several relevant articles like Health care reform debate in the United States that say more. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If bill opponents are actually for anything other than the maintenance of health insurance company profits, standing up for the rights of such megacorporations to commit "recision" and refuse to cover "preexisting conditions", and implementing Jim DeMint's cynical ultra-politicized "Waterloo" strategy, then they certainly haven't managed to explain it coherently in terms that I can understand... AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And the debate has begun.... Better that we stick to answering the question (i.e. pointing to a summary of the opposition) rather than weighing in with the very sort of "rhetoric and accusations and ideology" that the questioner is seeking to avoid. —Kevin Myers 11:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism usually focuses around it being too expensive, giving too much power to government and resulting in reduced quality healthcare. Whether you believe any of those claims is up to you. --Tango (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Then there are the criticisms that health care will be more inefficient if run by the government and that private companies won't be able to compete with the government. At first these two claims seem to contradict one another, but, if the government health care is sufficiently subsidized by taxpayer dollars, both could be simultaneously true. StuRat (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the requirement that everyone get insurance goes into effect in 2014. This is designed to subsidize insurance for the sickly with premiums collected from the young and healthy. As such, many of the currently uninsured young and healthy may object. Then there's the tax on "Cadillac plans", also used to subsidize the insurance for the sickly. So, we basically have redistribution of wealth, which is always unpopular with those whose wealth is being redistributed out of their pockets. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

From the liberal side, one objection is that it doesn't create a "single payer system", code for a government run health care system. One objection I surprisingly haven't heard is that it doesn't have price controls. Many other nations mandate price caps for each procedure, medication, etc., and this does indeed keep prices down. In the US this is done for Medicare payments, but the health care providers can still try to make the patients pay for whatever Medicare didn't cover. For those on private health insurance the situation is similar. (Anyone who has gotten a hospital bill for a $20 aspirin tablet knows how far prices can get out of hand.) StuRat (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This Wall Street Journal editorial contains a basic overview of the argument that the Health Bill is bad for corporations. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html?hp is an interesting column discussing some of the hyperbolic (e.g. "tea party") conservative opposition. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to my highly partisan original research, the opposition is summed up as “I got mine, Jack, and you can go . . .” DOR (HK) (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the opposition from the "left", which IMHO is the rational and fact-based one, is that this bill just makes the USA's corrupt and inefficient "system" worse. It is just a giveaway to the health insurance and other corporations that have admirably succeeded in enriching themselves by delivering inferior medical care at outlandish prices. It raids the healthy, rationally designed, efficient parts of healthcare, like Medicare, and imposes an inefficient, predatory system on everyone. Here is an interview with a highly qualified opponent, Marcia Angell.John Z (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For a good summary of the libertarian viewpoint, Cato has a informative website: http://healthcare.cato.org/ . To briefly summarize their take: the health care bill is too intrusive, unfair, unconstitutional, fiscally irresponsible, and undermines privacy and individual freedom. —D. Monack ^talk 22:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rail Spur construction cost

When a factory or other business builds a new plant or needs a rail spur onto their property, who pays for the rail spur? The company or does the railroad pay for the construction in order to get another customer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One expects that it's a business negotiation like anything else. Two suits have a meeting and each argues that the other one has more to gain from the deal, and therefore should be the one paying. Whichever one is the better tap dancer "wins". 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a couple alternative strategies:

1) The company might bear the entire cost initially, then get rebates if other customers use it.

2) The company might choose to operate it's own tiny railroad, the length of the spur. StuRat (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The answer also depends on what nation this property is in. Fundamentally, it's a legal issue. --M@rēino 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of foreign companies

Resolved

I've heard that, in China, the government owns 51% of each (foreign) major record label in China (e.g. Sony Music China). Is that true? If so, is this a condition of operating in China? Is this usually what happens if a (large) foreign company enters the chinese market, i.e. the Chinese government is given partial ownership of the foreign company? 165.228.228.39 (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about China, in particular, but that is a common strategy, in general. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Common where? Widespread state ownership of companies is common only in communist (and some former-communist) countries, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify. Many countries require majority local ownership. In the case of non-communist nations, this means that local companies must have a controlling interest. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of countries with such rules? I know Zimbabwe recently introduced such a law and it was very controversial. I assumed it was unusual. Either way, requiring local companies (or individuals) to have a controlling interest is very different to requiring the state to have a controlling interest. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the reasons are the same, to prevent foreigners from gaining control of your companies, and hence economy. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For an example, the Philippines liberalized their laws in 1991, but still restrict foreign ownership of small, non-export business to 40%: [1]. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

One example doesn't support a claim of "many". --Tango (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(indent for Tango) The Norwegian state owns Statoil by a majority stock. The same is the case with Nammo and Kongsberggruppen, weapon producers, and Den Norske Bank, a/the bank. The practise of securing these domestic interests in a volatile international market is widespread, but not in the manner that China has institutionalized this protection. Strategic interests (energy, weaponry, banking, etc) are more easily protected by the state when it owns these corporations. I've never heard of a music label in that context! Completely misread the OP. 88.90.16.187 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the OP logged in. Thanks for your answers everyone. Maybe my motivation behind the question might help. I just wanted some confirmation that the government has 51% ownership of major record labels in China. From the discussion I've read so far, it seems like a reasonable assertion. I also just wanted a bit of context behind this reason if possible. I'm guessing EMI, Sony Music, Universal Music, etc. handing over ownership follows normal patterns of doing business in China. Would I be right about that?ExitRight (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

China does not and never has practised communism. For Tango's information, Australia also requires majority local ownership in particular companies. Each case is considered by the Foreign Investment Review Board which can, among other things, block the transaction or require a centain percentage of local ownership. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To contribute to the original query: no, there is no general requirement that the government holds a >50% share in any foreign direct investment in China.

The regulations applying to any instance of FDI depends on the industry. "Encouraged industries" are where the foreign investor is required to jump minimal regulatory hoops, and are often permitted to form 100%-owned subsidiaries rather than joint ventures. At the other end of the spectrum, foreign investors are not permitted to enter "prohibited industries" (national secutiry, high pollution industries etc).

My understanding is that record companies are regarded as "restricted" industries since publishing and media are tightly controlled by the government in China. This means any investment requires approval from the government. While there may not be any formal legal requirement that the government holds >50% of shares in the joint venture (I haven't seen any, but I'm not familiar with the industry in question), it could well be that the government has adopted the practice of requiring this as a condition of approving the investment. I know this is also done with some large financial institutions, which form joint ventures with 50% shareholding by a Chinese government owned enterprise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have any specific information about the audio recording industry, but I can state with certain knowledge that a very large share of new foreign investment is 100% foreign-owned. I can also state that the local partner (almost never the government) is never “given” a share of a new investment, but must provide something of value such as cash, land, technology, distribution networks, licenses, etc. StuRat’s information is a couple of decades out of date, at least in East Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Further replies have pretty much answered what I wanted to know. Thanks again to all. ExitRight (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What's worth a pound?

Quick and easy one. My friend is certain the US dollar equalled the British pound in value some time in the last few weeks. My research would indicate otherwise, but maybe she got the currency wrong. Are there any other currencies which have had a 1:1 exchange rate with the pound any time, say, this year? Vimescarrot (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["british pound" exchange rate] and this interesting site came up:[2] It only shows current values, but the closest one currently is not the dollar, but the Euro. So there's another reasonable candidate to investigate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this by Googling, which lists...apparently, every currency, even ones not currently in use. I've checked a few of the more obvious choices (Canadian and Australian dollars, Euros), but none of them come closer than the Euro. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that site I found has a history option, and at some points during 2009 the Pound and the Euro were nearly identical, whereas the Pound and the Dollar were not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The pound and the dollar have never had the same value, this year or any other. However, the dollar and the Canadian "loonie" ("loony"?) reached parity recently. 63.17.63.71 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can say "Canadian loonie", it's "Canadian dollar" or "loonie". --Tango (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Canadian loonie (unless you're referring to me), though it's a bit redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Like "Reference Desk pedantry"? 63.17.79.42 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like that has happened in the last few weeks involving the pound that I know of. The Pound and Euro got close to parity at the end of 2008 (€1=£0.96) and, as 63.17 mentions, the US and Canadian dollars hit 1:1.01 on 17 March 2010 and actually crossed parity in May 2008. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not too long ago the rate was about two dollars to the pound, but there has never been parity. 89.243.43.75 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there was parity. The dollar was worth a lot more than the pound many years ago. I think maybe while we still stuck to the Gold Standard, (under Churchill)? 78.109.180.8 (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got that around the wrong way. When I was a child I remember my father refering to half a crown (a pre-decimalisation coin worth the equivalent of 12.5p now) in slang as half a dollar. I think you got four dollars for the pound around world-war 2. That may have been a fixed rate for a long time. 78.144.250.185 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the mid 80s the dollar got pretty close to parity, 1.05 according to this site [3]. That was, however, fairly short lived. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

78.109, that is simply not true. The dollar has never had a value equal to or greater than the pound -- period. And PARTICULARLY not before the devaluation of the 1960s. 63.17.79.42 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for most of the history of the pound/dollar exchange rate, during the Gold Standard period, £1 was worth around $4 (hence the 2/6 = "half a dollar" coin nickname) ($10 briefly during the American Civil War). After WW2 £1 settled at $2.80 until the 1967 devaluation when it was $2.40. Once we moved to floating exchange rates in the early 1970s things got much more unstable, and I remember one stage in, I think, the late 1980s when £1 was briefly as low as $1.03 before recovering (the SF bookshop I used to frequent in Birmingham complained that because of other costs they had to price the US books they sold at £1=$1 as soon as the rate dropped below $1.08). The £ strengthened to $2 until the economic crash, and has just dropped below $1.50 in the last month or so. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Helpful stuff - it's possible she misinterpreted parity of the dollar and the dollar. Thanks for all the info. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There have hardly ever been any basic currency units anywhere which had parity with, or exceeded the pound sterling. OR: When the original San Serriffe hoax was published, I was glancing over the pages without noticing anything, until I came to an advertisement (the last image in [4]). The first thing that caught my attention was "Universitij do San Serriffe", which puzzled me because it seemed to mix Dutch and Portuguese in the same phrase. Then I read the ad, and it was "C1 — £4.30 sterling" which really caused me to question it, and start looking more carefully. I was pretty sure there wasn't a currency unit that big anywhere. --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Papiamentu language actually does kind of sometimes mix Dutch and Portuguese... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In my 1960s childhood, the British pre-decimal coin called the Half Crown worth 2/6d or 12.5p (ie one-eighth of 1 GPB) was known colloqually as a "half-dollar". Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Both the Maltese Lira and the Irish Pound were I believe worth more than the British Pound at some stage during their (now terminated) lives. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise for Cyprus pounds.--188.222.58.219 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was some Arabian currency that was worth more than a pound? Update: see Highest-valued currency unit 78.146.84.14 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

magic and witchcraft

wHat is the purpose of magic and witchcraft.i am researching on the anthropological relevance,significance and the purpose of magic? why did magic evolve?what function it serves? what is the anthropological significance of it in todays world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.45.48 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone, please suggest me some downloadble ebooks or research material on internet ,which can be downloaded in pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.45.48 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic (in the sense of witchcraft, rather than rabbits out of hats) doesn't exist, so it has no purpose or reason for existing. Do you mean why did people used to believe in magic? It basically boils down to humans wanting to be able to explain and control things. Magic, like religion, lets people do that. --Tango (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/18-10.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/18-11.htm; http://mlbible.com/deuteronomy/18-12.htm; http://mlbible.com/2_corinthians/11-14.htm; http://mlbible.com/2_corinthians/11-15.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maimonides states that these prohibitions derived from a divine desire to steer the Jewish nation from stupidity, asserting that sorcery is nonexistent. Nachmanides states that these prohibitions derived from a divine desire to steer the Jewish nation from sorcery as a tool, when they should rather put their trust and expectations in God -- essentially asserting that sorcery does exist. From Nachmanides perspective, sorcery served the purpose of providing alternatives for one who wanted to deny God's existence/power in the world -- since God performed miracles through his prophets, one would be left with no free will to deny God in the face of such powerful evidence of God. With the departure of prophecy came a similar departure of sorcery. These two perspectives form the basis for dispute regarding all of the magic mentioned in Tanach, such as Laban, Pharaoh and Balaam. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at Magic (paranormal)? The works of Malinowski are somewhat classic... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke. You may also wish to investigate the role of Aleister Crowley in inventing modern-day Wicca. In fact, I'd say you couldn't write your proposed thesis without being fully conversant with his role and activities, if only so you can distinguish modernist Wicca and magickal practice from traditional witchcraft. Or are you really interested in paganism? Not being Wiccan myself, but knowing a fair bit about it as well as quite a few white witches and mages, I would say it represents a desire to establish control over the environment, while celebrating oneness with the environment. If you'd like to establish a discussion without being ridiculed or told "it doesn't exist", then contact me on my talk page. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider the role Christianity played in redefining paganism and witchcraft, at least in the British Isles, as devilish, sinful and punishable by death. It was a case of the new religion wishing to completely obliterate the Old religion. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Matthew 2:1-16, the Star of Bethlehem led the Biblical Magi (astrologers) first to King Herod and later to the child Jesus, and afterward King Herod attempted to kill the child Jesus. (http://mlbible.com/matthew/2-1.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiritism is associated with druggery. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15737568/Drugs-Does-the-Bible-actually-forbid-the-use-of-drugs-for-pleasure)

-- Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC) .......... [See Scribd. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)]

what we call 'magic' and 'witchcraft' is really kind of a neo-Christian interpretation of shamanism, pantheism, and other archaic religious beliefs. In pre-monotheistic times there were assumed to be numerous gods, spirits, forces, elements, and etc, and it was assumed that objects had their own inner essences that could be called out in an almost social way. so, for instance, when a Native American spiritual leader does a rain dance (which is also a fairly common practice in other cultures), he is actually trying to call out the cloud and rain spirits - which would be pleased by the dance and impressed by the dancer's strength of will - so that they give a gift of rain to the community. A Christian watching it, of course, doesn't believe in rain gods who can be pleased that way, and so reinterprets the act as some sort of ritualized sorcery. Or for another: an early European pagan woman might have a tremendous knowledge of plants and their properties, all of which are committed to memory (writing was a rarely learned skill until recent times), and so you might really have seen them hovering over a pot, stirring in herbs, and repeating to themselves the recipe for some poultice, like the three witches in MacBeth. That kind of thing got translated into Alchemy in the Christian world, and eventually lead to ideas about 'Harry Potter' type magic. Magic has been really warped into fantasy in the modern world, of course, bu it has a basis in traditional spiritual and medicinal beliefs. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Researching the topics of the original questions involves carefully separating truth, falsehood, half-truths, and uncertainties. (http://mlbible.com/john/8-44.htm) Although many people may offer to guide (or even misguide) a truthseeker, ultimately each person has an individual responsibility to contribute mental effort to finding out the truth. (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/2-4.htm) Also, if the discovered truth requires one to discard dearly held beliefs or practices, then the figurative heart can play a pivotal role. (http://mlbible.com/proverbs/4-23.htm)

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, define your terms. Dion Fortune is widely quoted: "Magic is the art of changing consciousness at will." Define them temporally and geographically too. Have you read our articles on magic (paranormal) and witchcraft? From the former:

In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN's Indigenous People's Forum that during the Congo Civil War, his people were hunted down and eaten as though they were game animals. Both sides of the war regarded them as "subhuman" and some say their flesh can confer magical powers. On April, 2008, Kinshasa, the police arrested 14 suspected victims (of penis snatching) and sorcerers accused of using black magic or witchcraft to steal (make disappear) or shrink men's penises to extort cash for cure, amid a wave of panic. Arrests were made in an effort to avoid bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 alleged penis snatchers were beaten to death by mobs.

You ask about its significance in the world today. The answer ranges depending on where you are looking, but yes, anthropologically, magic is important. Perhaps you are considering opening a candle shop in Glastonbury, England. Perhaps you live in Tanzania and were born an albino, and fear with good reason that you might be killed for the alleged properties of your body parts. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)