Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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.

October 22

Incognito

I remember reading of royalty making a pretense of being of lower rank to avoid the strictures and formality of their lofty position. Was this ever done (and if so, is there an article) or did I just pick this up from fiction? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/200910162224/queen/elizabeth/theatre/1/.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all the time. Famously, Peter the Great of Russia did most of his traveling incognito (at least in theory; he was over 6 1/2 feet tall, it was kind of hard) posing as a Dutch shipyard worker. It was quite common for royalty to do this when they didn't want to deal with everything that went along with being royal; I wish I had that problem in my life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan's late King Hussein used to go around Amman in disguises. His son, the current king, supposedly does the same thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't surprise me; King Hussein was known as the PLK (Plucky Little King) to the Western media there for a reason, and I can only imagine that his son would take after him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you got it from fiction you may be thinking of Henry V (play). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The future Paul I of Russia and his wife travelled to Paris in the 1780s as the "comte du Nord" and his comtesse, to simplify protocol on a trip that was mainly for pleasure.--Wetman (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our present Queen's heir has used several aliases, including Charles Renfrew, Charlie Chester and Mr Perkins. I don't know where the last of those comes from, if anywhere. And, of course, he bestowed another of his collection of names on his second wife. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the most famous example of this fictional? phenomenon is Haroun_al-Raschid - where one can learn that Teddy Roosevelt was nicknamed "Haroun-al-Roosevelt" for going incognito as NYC police commissioner.John Z (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouellette → Willard surname change in Ontario (1850s–1940s)?

We noticed a strange phenomenon as Shanel and I researched my genealogy. My French Ouellette ancestors began appearing in records as Willard in the 1850s; by the 1950s the Ouellette name had disappeared entirely from my ancestry. This occurred in Glengarry, which at the time was dominantly populated by Loyalist settlers and Gaelic-speaking Scots. The Ouellette ancestors settled there as early as the 1830s, but the French population remained a minority until the 1860s. One source notes that Gaelic speakers and Francophones used English as a lingua franca for business.

We know the names are similar now; Willard is only a flattened i and an -rd→-tte substitution away from Ouellette. There is nonetheless a definite difference today, but we don't know anything about Canadian English or Gaelic pronunciation of the 1850s–1950s. Were Ouellette and Willard pronounced very similarly in Canadian English or Gaelic at the time? —Pathoschild 01:44:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed my answer that wend to the wrong place, somehow Steewi (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have a proper answer for you, but I can tell you from my family tree that the shift from French to English surnames was a times a very haphazard thing. Part of my family tree includes folks with the surname of Lumière, who came from an unspecified area of Quebec. During the first quarter of the 20th century, bits and pieces of that group decided to change their name to Light. Others kept the original and others appear to have gone a bit the other way and gone by "La Lumière", "Lumiere" (note: no accent), and others. Among those that kept the French spelling, some attempted to Anglicize the pronunciation, making it something that sounded more like Lameer. So, I can't comment directly on the proposed Ouellette -> Willard shift, but it doesn't strike me as unlikely at all. Matt Deres (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering specifically why they didn't transition to the Willet or Willette, which definitely are much closer in pronunciation. But it also occurred to me "Willard" as the locals pronounced it back then, might have also been pretty close in pronunciation. If you say it without the r I can sort of see it. §hanel 23:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Was Jesus celibate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaif100 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing in the New Testament about him being married, so the default assumption would have to be that he never married... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the ongoing question about him and Mary Magdalene; depends on who you ask. Most (whether religious or secular) will say that their relationship was strictly platonic, but there are those who believe otherwise, and there are a few people on the fringes who say that Mary had a child by Jesus. There's no real way to argue it without using argumentum ad ignorantium, but if the contemporary accounts are correct, then most likely Jesus was celibate. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on this topic: Sexuality of Jesus. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to take the following for granted:

There is nothing in Hebrew traditions that would have prevented Jesus from marrying, even as the messiah. In fact, religious leaders in the Jewish community are often encouraged to marry and raise families. Celibacy was a much later Christian addition to the tradition.
One can assume from his teachings that Jesus would not have approved of unmarried sex. He may have defended prostitutes, and would certainly have been forgiving of sins of that sort, but he did respect Mosaic law and was interested in a revival of Hebrew faith against what he saw as political and religious corruption. religious leaders are not always true to their own beliefs, of course, but there is little doubt that the Pharisees would have used sexual impropriety against him if they'd had any credible information to that effect.

That being said, it's most likely either that Jesus was married but the fact was ignored by his followers (entirely plausible given the highly androcentric viewpoint of both Jewish and Roman societies of the day), or or that Jesus was unmarried and celibate (or at least discrete about liaisons) during the years he was teaching. --Ludwigs2 06:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete, eh? You mean he only had one at a time? :-) --Anon, 18:14 UTC, October 23, 2010.

DPRK succession

With the declining health of North Korea's Kim Jong-Il and naming of an heir-apparent Kim Jong-Un, will we see any warming of international relations or backing off from totalitarianism? -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 03:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, since someone is going to point it out sooner or later, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As for my personal opinion about your hypothesis: no, I don't think it remotely likely. Since Kim Jong-Un is supposed to be a carbon copy of his father, it seems unlikely that he would desire any sort of thaw. There's even a rumor that he was personally behind the ROKS Cheonan sinking. It's more probable that he would assume power in a mood of suspicion and paranoia, spoiling for a fight, and with a massive chip on his shoulder. Rather than a thaw, I'd expect a meltdown, or at least a doubling-down. Of course, he might overplay his hand and wind up losing power, which could potentially offer an opportunity, albeit a slim and perilous opportunity, to the forces of moderation. But all this is idle speculation. LANTZY ^TALK 04:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind also that it is apparently envisaged that his aunt and uncle will be part of a triumvirate, at least at the star of his reign, and they don't seem like terribly warm and fuzzy people.

He also apparently feels threatened by his older brother, the "rightful heir" denied the throne by an imprudent desire to visit Disneyland.

I say apparently because all of this is based on Western press speculation. No one really knows what goes on in there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we might get someone like Cuba did with Raúl Castro; not that it's likely, but it could happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian wowserism

Why is Australia (or the Australian state, to be fair) so given to banning and censoring things? Some examples of this, for which I can find sources if necessary: Banning video games, movies, and books; attempts to censor the Internet; very broad and paranoid definitions of pornography; and even politicians who predicate themselves on their opposition to gambling. It doesn't seem likely that Australians are any more prudish or moralistic than, say, Americans, but they seem to have a much greater appetite for legislation of a sumptuary nature. Or am I being unfair? I'm curious to hear the opinion of Australians on this. LANTZY ^TALK 04:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in USA our First Amendment keeps the prudish politicians mostly at bay. Even so, it's a constant fight. Schwarzenegger v. EMA is a good example for both sides. On the one hand, It's honestly a small amount of censorship, but it's uncertain if the courts will allow it. On the other hand, it's politicians trying to censor something for purely political reasons. There have been similar laws that have been shot down by the courts. It costs the state a good deal of money enact, defend, and ultimately rescind laws, but the publicity get's the politician through reelection season. APL (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a complex topic. I've seen some pretty harsh critiques of the way the 'freedom of speech' provisions have played out in the US. They were originally intended to allow the free expression of political ideas (in order to keep administrations from, say, banning or outlawing publications, rallies, discussion or other forms of expression begun by their political opponents, as has happened frequently in other nations). However, they have been expanded over the years to protect basically anything that someone might want to say or do, no matter how painfully stupid that might be. I'm not sure I agree with that: pornography, ultra-violent video games, hate-speech, and the like may or may not deserved to be protected, but protecting them as a form of political speech strikes me as inherently wrong. --Ludwigs2 07:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to prove to me that the First Amendment was intended to protect only political speech. Especially given that it comes right next to "freedom of religion". I think the correct generalization is that the State is not permitted to place limits on thought in general or its expression, provided that expression is not harmful in itself (as distinct from its content &mdash for example, you can burn a flag as expression, provided you own it, but you can't burn someone else's flag).

There are tricky boundaries when it comes to the question of what constitutes incitement to violence. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might actually try reading reading the discussions that the founders had on the issue, rather than just modern interpretations of the clause. They were solely concerned with issues of political suppression, with respect to both speech and religion. For the founders, the point was not that people should be allowed to do or say any d@mned thing they feel like, but rather that government should be largely restricted in what it can tell people not to do to keep it from developing an implicit 'tyranny of the majority'. The concern that is always voiced in their discussions is the suppression of the political voice of small groups. Now I know that it has been expanded beyond that (usually through a 'better to err on the side of caution' approach), I just find the reasoning behind it suspect, and not particularly true to the spirit of the document. --Ludwigs2 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I wouldn't want this to become a discussion of the United States. It seems to me that the Australian tendency to censorship is noteworthy, not merely from an American standpoint but from a generic Anglosphere standpoint. I would think that people from Britain, Ireland, Canada, etc. would find Australia's censoriousness peculiar. I'm also well aware that the United States is peculiar in its own way, for instance in its coddling of Quran-burners and funeral-picketers, but let's just ignore the existence of the United States and focus on Australia. Not to put too fine a point on it, I'm chiefly interested in the opinion of non-Americans here. I'm interested in whether Australia is peculiarly censorious by the standards of anglophone nations, not by the standards of American constitutional buffs. LANTZY ^TALK 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the USA because you made the comparison in your question. I pointed out that if not for that particular bit of our constitution many states, perhaps even the feds, would probably have developed laws similar to, or even much harsher than Australia's. APL (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a legal and legislative point of view, my view (OR) is that it is because Australia's national ethos is somewhere in between the more conservative British and the more adventurous American. This is why Australia adopted a more-or-less Westminster approach to regulation of rights and freedoms - that is, implied rather than explicitly recorded as is the norm in the US. Yet, as the country as evolved, there has been more temptation for the government to regulate the limits of its people's freedoms. In the US, such temptations are, as the above posts have mentioned, checked by explicit words in the Constitution. In Australia, there is no such impediment to the government pursuing such agendas. For one thing, but for the grace of resentment of the coup d'etat shortly before the recent election, Australia would have a censored internet now, despite overwhelming public opposition to the idea.

That said, I'm not sure Australia's moves towards censorship are extreme by Anglophone standards. I understand that the internet is already censored in a number of other countries, including the UK, which censors it at the ISP level. There also seems to be much more extreme monitoring of its citizens in the UK compared to Australia, with the proliferation of CCTVs and suchlike. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my view, please don't be offended by it. Australia was founded as a penal colony, so how I think of it is like a prison -- I wouldn't expect to be able to buy any video game I want no matter how violent, etc, while I'm in prison, and so on, nor to have any book on sale in the prison bookstore, just as though it were outside. That is just how I personally think of Australian censorship, please don't be offended if you disagree with it, it's just my view. 84.153.179.167 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia stopped getting prisoners shipped there about 150 years ago, so your view is somewhat outdated. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to convince anyone, but of course I knew that: however 1776 happened a lot longer than 150 years ago, and still profoundly affects America, so in my own estimation, the view is not outdated at all. Reflecting on the origins of America helps me understand American mentality, and reflecting on the origins of Australia helps me understand Australian mentality. Very simply (and I could be wrong, and I'm not trying to convince anyone or start a debate) I would not -- this is a simple point of fact -- be surprised if Australians had their shoelaces taken institutionally. This is just my perspective, and I hope it does not offend anyone, which is not my intention. 84.153.179.167 (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference I think is that the vast majority of Australians do not descend culturally (or even biologically) from the "penal stock" of 200 years ago. They are free immigrants who predominently came to Australia for an improvement in their quality of life, whether they be from Britain, Vietnam or Somalia. To these people, Australia is a place that has better weather, better pay, and no genocide; it isn't a big prison that they've been transported to. So the position of the penal colony in Australia's identity seems very different to the position of the revolution in the identity of the US which, like other countries born through war, holds the birth of the nation as central to their identity. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners were also transported to the American colonies before 1776. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least my understanding has explanatory power and makes predictions which are correct. How do you explain prison steps such as those outlined earlier? 84.153.222.131 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously the sun goes around the earth, because you see it rise and set everyday. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have already pointed out a major flaw in your thesis is that there's no real evidence Australia is extreme in terms of banning and censorship when it comes to anglosphere standards, bar perhaps when it comes to Indigenous Australians. And of course in worldwide terms, Australian standards are rather lax in general. BTW it's somewhat ironic IMHO that gambling came up, considering the US laws on Online gambling in particular pursuing people running online gambling sites in other countries (and the sites themselves) notably the US SAFE Port Act which while Australia has some similar laws, they aren't as extreme nor have they so vigirously pursued people and the sites in other countries AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lantzy, I'll see your Nick Xenopohon and raise you a Fiona Patten. Also a Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, the largest such event in the world, and probably one of the very earliest. Wowsers? I don't think so. The Fred Niles etc have their following, of course. But that's what being a pluralistic society is all about. It's easy to take a particular slice of our culture and come to the view that we're a bunch of wowsers. I could do that with American society with consummate ease, but I'd be fooling nobody but myself. It's equally easy to look at selected evidence and conclude we're all Indian student-bashing, violent, out-of-control, drug-taking thugs and hoons. That would be equally wrong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a holiday to the ACT or NT. Adults can still buy adult books there. Zoonoses (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do that. Quote from Pornography by region#Australia:

Technically it is illegal to sell or rent X-rated material in all states of Australia, but it is not illegal to possess X-rated material, and the sale or rental of X-rated material is legal in the Northern Territory and ACT. As the Australian constitution prohibits states from regulating interstate commerce, it is legal to purchase pornography from stores in either territory and bring it interstate. This law means the majority of Australian mail order operations for adult material operate from the ACT. Despite the illegality, stores selling X-rated material are abundant in major cities, advertising openly and rarely are the laws enforced in this case. (my emphasis)

And it's not just major cities. X-rated adult shops operate in many hundreds of smaller cities and towns throughout Australia. Essentially, there is free access to such material no matter where you live in Australia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

expiration of order

If a court order is based on an error made by the court and the order is appealed for this reason does it matter whether or not the order expires before the appeal is heard? In other words isn't the appeal of the order to obtain acknowledgment and correction of the error for the accuracy of the record for future reference to it than just to terminate enforcement of the order prior to its expiration? --96.252.213.127 (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this depends on what country you are asking about. In the US, as stated in Roe v. Wade, "The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate ... review, and not simply at the date the action is initated." If the controversy no longer exists, the case is normally considered moot and the appeal fails. (In that particular case, the court ruled that "Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness", as it's about 266 days long and a court case and appeal last longer than that. They went ahead and allowed the whole appeal process.) By the way, in the US, all appeals are supposed to be based on lower-court errors. The parties can't appeal just because they didn't like the verdict; they have to point out specific errors made in the lower-court trial. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many Indian millionaires are there in India?

How many Indian millionaires are there in India today? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd googled "indian millionaires" you'd have found this pretty straightforward article from the Wall Street Journal. It says 126,700 (approximately 1/10,000th of the population). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

safety issues among motorists

I'm well aware that hanging objects from rearview mirrors is prohibited within the State of Minnesota. But does the same law apply to mounting novelties on dashboards?24.90.204.234 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that you contact the Minnesota DPS State Patrol to get an accurate answer: [1]. 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangereuse L'Isle Bouchard

Would anyone have any information on this woman who was the maternal grandmother of Eleanor of Aquitaine? All that is known of her is that she married her daughter to the son of her lover. Thank you. A fellow editor and myself are interested in creating an article on her, but we require solid information, not facts garnered from online genealogy sites.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you start from her entry in Jennifer Lawler, Encyclopedia of Women in the Middle Ages, 2001? And don't go with the spelling at Wikipedia's Eleanor of Aquitaine: it's Châtellerault, whether he's Aimery or Almeric. Are Douglas Owen, Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen and Legend (Oxford: Basil Blackwell) 1993, or Marion Meade, Eleanor of Aquitaine: a Biography, 1977 (esp. pp 15-17) helpful? She was also known as "La Maubergeonne", perhaps a useful search term; it helped me locate at JSTOR a reference to Albert Richard, Histoires des comtes de Poitou, (Paris 1903), vol. I, p. 472, which apparently refers to the famous scandal, remarked on by Orderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury. --Wetman (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you this is fantastic!--David (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish refugee appeals tribunal case law

The case law database of the refugee appeals tribunal is available only through a restricted access on their website. Are RAT decisions available somewhere else in electronic form? (I found nothing on BAILII and Refworld, only higher courts's cases). Apokrif (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kasakhs, azerbaijanis, turkmen...

why are some of this countries described as being a turkic ethnic group? kasakhs for example looking more asian than turkic, but they are considered to be a turkic ethnic. can you help me, it might be the wrong place to write something like that, but i don't know where to write this. thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. Ethnicity is about culture and self-identification. Race is about physical appearance and classification by outsiders. These groups are all Turkic peoples because they all speak Turkic languages and share a cultural heritage. They may have different appearances because this cultural heritage is shared by groups or individuals with different genetic backgrounds. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK council house tenants - do they pay full council tax?

Or is it subsidised or free? If it is one of the latter two options, then how does the average council house total bill of rent and any council tax compare with that of other tenants? 92.15.16.19 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Council tenants have the same liability, and eligibility for discounts/exemptions, for council tax as anyone else. Dalliance (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything on the internet about that please? 92.15.10.108 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a poke around this site: I have and I can't find any reference to council tenants, which tends to suggest they have no special treatment unless they fall into certain categories (e.g. disabled). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR but I've been a council tenant for 30 + years and we have always been liable for council tax/rates/poll tax whatever .Of course some of this may be covered by benefits but that would be true of homeowners in the same circumstances too.It is exactly the same as any comparable private property.Hotclaws (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all council tenants have the same liability to council tax as if their house was their own. Only the rent is subsidised. Anyone on low income and with low savings can claim a rebate on council tax, regardless of the ownership of their house. This government website might help. Dbfirs 15:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballet drawings, sketches, paintings during the 1400's

I'm working on a ballet documentary. I need some images (drawings, sketches, paintings, etc...) any kind of image I can use. The first Dance Master during the Italian Renaissance period is Domenico da Piacenza. He is listed on this site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenico_da_Piacenza Any images of him would also be helpful. I'm a new member and have tried to find early 1400's ballet images with no success. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank You, John M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murph8857 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article history of ballet may be misleading. Though ballet's distant origins are to be found in courtly dance (and masque, the article should add), as a spectacle that developed into what we recognize as ballet it was invented at the court of Louis XIV. You'll find illuminated mss illustrations of promenading couples that might represent the court basse danse; but that's not ballet. --Wetman (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does State v. Federal criminal law enforcement work?

When criminal laws are violated, are there any restrictions on whether the investigations and/or prosecutions will be conducted by federal, state, or local agencies?

RE Investigation ... Can the FBI investigate people for violating state crimes? Are city police instructed look for violations of federal laws?
RE Prosecution ... Can district attorneys prosecute people who have violated federal but not state laws? Can US attorneys prosecute state-law offenders who have violated no federal laws? Can they do so in state courts?
What body of law provides the source of authority for the answers?

Thanks. 128.59.181.20 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The federal/local systems of police and courts in the U.S. are mostly separate. There are some interagency task forces but that is more about having the right person on hand to do the right job. Rmhermen (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Internet making what I learned in Econ 101 obsolete?

Has the validity or importance of economic theory has been challenged by our experience with the Internet?

I would enjoy hearing your answers. I would, however, also enjoy referrals to *recent*, *academic* discussions on the matter. Thanks. 128.59.181.20 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Why would the internet have any impact on the validity of economic theory? You might as well ask whether the validity of cooking has been challenged by the internet, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could claim that the dot-com bubble was evidence that some investors thought this. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. And any answers beyond that are forum fodder. Shadowjams (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was some phrase which I cannot quite remember, that was used to describe how the internet was momentumless capitalism, as it did not require start-up capital or time to create business. Or so it seemed at the time. Facebook could be an example. 92.24.178.5 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. See for example http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b1281be-c06b-11df-8a81-00144feab49a.html 92.24.178.5 (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care about breaking copyright law, then the Internet gives unlimited supply of music and movies at zero cost, thus ruining those industries. However, that does not make microeconomic theory obsolete, because we can predict their demise using microeconomic theory. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't zero cost. A proper analysis always has to take opportunity cost into account. That's why ITunes works, for example. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I follow your argument. Getting a song illegally and getting it off of iTunes takes about the same amount of effort. The only difference is that one costs 99¢ and the other costs the integrity of obeying the law. Is your point that the emotional costs of stealing is greater than 99¢? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not take about the same amount of effort, and what you get from iTunes is far less useful than what you get if you use less legal means. It takes more effort: For example, to get a song from iTunes you need to install that piece of software on you computer, and you'll have to fight hard to not have it rename and reorganize all your music files. It also - unless you are careful - installs QuickTime which will likely take over as the default media player for videos, even those it can't actually play. Once you've done that, and paid your 99¢, you get your file within iTunes. Suppose you want to listen to it on your Nokia phone (or a phone of any other brand than iPhone), or your cheap no-name mp3 player? Can't be done! Suppose you want your friend to hear it? Not possible without them also going through the hoops of installing iTunes, and paying the 99¢. Suppose you have a Linux system? With an illegally downloaded mp3 version of a song you can do anything with it. Use it on any player, give it to your friends, sample it in your favourite software, place it anywhere you want on your hard drive etc. The problem isn't the 99¢, it is that the product you get is far inferior to what you could get if you choose to pay nothing, but probably break a law. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP: One of the areas where the internet has had an economic impact is to reduce the asymmetrical availability of information between buyer and seller. Customers, particularly for big-ticket (high priced) items, are much more likely to have a greater amount of information on products and prices than in the past. They also are likely to have more information from other users, and to be able to purchase goods or services from a much greater distance. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]