Humanities desk
< April 19	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 20

Economical side of friendship

Have any economist (or the like) already calculate the cost/benefit ratio of having friends? Indeed, you spend money going out, calling people, gifts, ... but you also obtain thing: people who listen, help moving homes, ... . So, is there any study out there that comes to the conclusion that people with +10 or +5 earn 10,000 more or things like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.181.129 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subdicipline of happiness economics, if you page down to the section titled "Relationships and children" there is a small amount there, but if you work through the works of people who deal with the field of happiness economics, you'll likely find exactly the sort of studies and data you are looking for. --Jayron32 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the Torah

I read the article about the Torah and Moses, but its difficult to understand. Did Moses write the Torah? Or is that what we think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many scholars have the view that many of the traditions in the Pentateuch go back to the pre-monarchy period (before 1000 B.C.), but that the books were not really assembled in more or less the form we have them today until around the 6th or 7th centuries B.C. (not before the reign of Josiah in the case of Deuteronomy). So no, Moses did not write the books we have now. AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Jewish tradition the Torah was dictated to Moses by God, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy which describe his death.[19] Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Pentateuch does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.[20] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[21]" Torah#Composition
- There is a widespread cultural belief, which is of significance to the people who hold it, that Moses wrote the Torah. Mosaic authorship
- This cultural belief (which is important to people), is not the accepted scholarly view.
- For a long period of time the scholarly view was that four separate oral/written traditions were redacted (ie: edited) into one single literary tradition at a much later date. Eventually some people came to believe that this hypothesis meant material composed or orally transmitted by Moses was genuinely found in the text, even if in a fragmented and mistransmitted form. Documentary hypothesis
- Currently, this belief is not the scholarly opinion; scholarly opinion is divided and research continues. Documentary hypothesis#After Wellhausen Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody once told me the following story (most likely taking place in the 1980s): At the MF Norwegian School of Theology, educating the ministers of the Church of Norway, a lot of students from rural areas with a tradition of relatively literal Bible interpretation attend. At one of the very first lectures at the start of the first term, they were taught that Moses did not write Genesis (known as "the first book of Moses" in most Norwegian translations). That afternoon, there were long lines outside the prayer room. Jørgen (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Cameron vetoing British prestige appointments?

1) Was David Cameron really responsible for Britain missing out on the prestige and honour of a British person being the first president of Europe? Or was he just trying to seem to do so? He was against the former Labour prime minister being considered for the role, which seems mean and petty - putting party political backbiting before national interests. I note that support for the Conservatives took a dip in polls afterwards, so many people may have had the same opinion as myself.

2) Does David Cameron have the power to veto the appointment of Gordon Brown as head of the IMF? It is said that GB was responsible for avoiding another 30s style depression by containing the banking crisis, so if that is true then he seems suited to the job. BTW I did vote Tory for the first time at the last election. 92.29.124.83 (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1), I'm sure he, as well as many people, honestly believed that Tony Blair becoming "president of Europe" would be a bad idea. Much of the Conservative Party, as you probably know, are euroskeptic, and so this isn't particularly surprising. On point 2) according to this: "The IMF's executive board picks the body's managing director, with the world's larger economies having the most votes. In practice a candidate, who needs a majority of the vote to succeed, can effectively be vetoed by countries like the US, France and the UK." I'm not entirely sure how that works - no single nation can have more than 50% of the vote - but I'm sure the BBC (and all other media outlets) know how the system works. The BBC's summary of the press mentions a few viewpoints "The Daily Telegraph is in no doubt the prime minister's remarks have shattered Mr Brown's hopes. The Daily Express says Mr Cameron spoke with commendable vehemence. But the Daily Mirror says outside the UK, Mr Brown's swift action to shore up the banks is credited with helping to avoid global economic meltdown." Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing. David Cameron was only leader of the opposition at the time, and ultimately didn't get much say. As you can see from this article, there were machinations that ultiumately meant the Labour government dropped its support for Blair's presidency, in order to secure Baroness Ashton's place as High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOE "asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves"

In the minutes ( http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/minutes/mpc/pdf/2011/mpc1104.pdf ) to the latest Bank Of England voting session regarding interest rates, it said that as well as voting to keep interest rates the same, they also voted that "The Bank Of England should maintain the stock of asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves at £200 billion."

What does that mean? Is it quantitative easing, or the opposite? If the former, why did the interest rate hawk Andrew Sentance vote for it? Thanks 92.29.124.83 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the decision was to "maintain the stock" at £200 billion (emphasis added). In other words, they decided not to increase the stock of asset purchases any further. This is in effect a decision to end quantitative easing. Marco polo (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Other Articles?

[1]

In one comment JN466 says @ 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) "I find it equally amazing that you would "educate" readers about the Iraqi murder victims by including the videos of their killings in their biographies, without considering readers' feelings, or indeed the feelings of these people's families. (Present consensus at these articles does not even support linking to the videos."

I've searched and found Mahmudiyah killings. Is this the only "article" that we have of these murders?Curb Chain (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture of picaaso

what is the name of this picture: File:Photo(6).JPGJobnikon (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's "La Joie de Vivre". However, your upload is against copyright, and will soon be deleted. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cool, thanks, I just wanted to know the name of the picture. Jobnikon (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my truth, tell me yours

This title of a Manic Street Preachers album is widely attributed to a speech made by Aneurin Bevan, however I've not been able to find more. Which speech it is taken from, what is the context it was spoken in? Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the results from Google books, we was fond of the quotation, and used it at least fairly frequently, seemingly in the form "This is my truth, now tell me yours", called a "favourite quotation" in a couple of biographies that come up (and introductions to his autobiography). One I did see said a Welsh Labour Party conference, though. No sign of any context. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. If he used it that often then it could be in many contexts. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru electoral system

I'm looking for a copy/title of the piece of Nauru legislation setting out their electoral system. It was apparently determined by their parliament rather than by constitution so this should exist...? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No death duties for a very wealthy UK family?

A while ago someone commented here that the Windsors will not have to pay any death duties when our dear queen pops her cloggs. Is that true? Is it fair? How much will they avoid, roughly? Thanks 92.15.24.113 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Since 1993 the Queen's personal estate (e.g. shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, though bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt". There seem to be conflicting other sources. I add that this reference desk is unlikely to pass comment on the fairness of the action. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who made the assertion. What about cash? What about investment properties in London? Is the Duchy of Cornwall exempt if the Prince of Wales predeceases the queen?
Sleigh (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Grandiose notes the family will have to pay death duties when Elizabeth dies, just like everyone else. However, it is important to understand the difference between her personal assets (which are taxed) and crown assets (which are not). The family will have to pay death duties on the personal assets of Elizabeth Windsor (her privately owned houses, the money in her investment portfolio, etc... all of which amounts to a hefty sum). They will not owe death duties on the Crown properties that are associated with the monarchy (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, The Crown Jewels, etc.) as Elizabeth Windsor does not actually own these assets (they are owned by the state and not by Elizabeth Windsor as a private individual... she merely gets to use them in her role as Queen. (and the state does not tax itself... nor does the Crown die when the current monarch does, so no death duty would be due even if it did tax itself). Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate obfustication so that the British public cannot tell where our money comes from or goes to! Having free use of a selection of palaces for life (and similarly for your children, grandchildren and so on in perpituity) with lots of flunkies thrown in is even better than "owning" them! Its a royal fiddle! Rip off! 92.24.177.153 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the Windsors, Britain must seem like an enormous luxury hotel where they never ever have to pay the bill. Not only that, but they get stuffed with free money too. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, as an Australian, I thank you British folk for maintaining our monarch in that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you add on all the free stuff, then the Windsors must be the wealthiest family on earth, and the dear queen the wealthiest person too. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Windsor is best seen as a public housing tenant with a fixed social income. Public housing tenants don't pay death duties or heritance taxes on public housing. In many instances public housing tenants are lucky if the Government doesn't kick their children out of the house they've grown up with and become accustomed to. The constitutional reasons are those that Blueboar indicates; however, constitutions are malleable. In relation to the question of "Fairness" you're asking about the control of social production, distribution and exchange in UKGBNI. This is a matter of politics, ideology, ethics, and political economy—views will vary. For example, I disagree with HiLo48: I have no thanks to the people and parliament of UKGBNI for maintaining the Royals. If Britain was a true Commonwealth without gentlemen* then Australia probably would follow. Also, the family Windsor is liable—in my mind, along with the government of the UKGBNI, Australia and the Australian states—for reparations towards the indigenous people of Australia. But in Commonwealth countries these matters are normally a matter for personal or party political opinion. AFAIK, the data on the public and private finances of the House of Windsor is not particularly good and is publicly contested. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) What is a "gentleman*" and how does that differ from a "gentleman"? (ii) Australia is already a Commonwealth. Do you mean Republic? Or a Commonwealth in a Cromwellian sense? (iii) What's wrong with the data? Is it corrupted? (iv) Who uses "UKGBNI"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who Was Then A Gentleman?"—I forgot to append the end note ; (ii) I mean a commonwealth in the digger and leveller and chartist sense ; (iii) AFAIK the Windsors don't render complete accounts, the sums involved are large enough and spread across sufficient family members that it makes it a serious higher accounting problem, that state aid to the Windsors is quantifiable in multiple forms, some wish to take all state aid even that not given expressly, other expressly only, others to separate their crown and personal functions as a result of state aid—what data is valid is under debate, and the openness and completeness of the data is politically disputed ; (iv) people who've got sick of naming dispute for the states, countries, nationalities and islands off the West Coast of France and wish to name the UKGBNI state run out of Westminster and its unique relationship to the house of Windsor as the object of discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When Adam Delved and Eve Span, Who Was Then A Gentleman?" - the correct answer is, of course, Adam... Eve was A Lady Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adam wasn't a Gentleman, he was just a man. And Eve wasn't a Lady, she was a woman. The terms Gentleman and Lady were reserved for members of "gentile society", i.e. the upper classes, i.e. people who didn't have to work. The arguement of the day was that the social order in England was divinely ordained, that there should be upper classes and working classes, and to argue against such a divinely ordained social order was to argue against God himself. The contrary arguement is that when God created Man and Woman, there was no social classes, Adam and Eve were working class (they delved and span; that is he dug holes and she spun yarn, both activities only done by the working classes in England, and never by the aristocracy) and there was no upper class; so the social order was, of course, not divinely ordained, quite the contrary God's divinely ordained social order was egalitarianism; that all people before God are equal, so any social system which perpetuates unequalness is the abomination. The problem is that this 600-year-old couplet is filled with words whose meaning is either obscure (delved? span? Who talks like that anymore) or whose meaning has drifted (Gentleman is now applied to any man; though at the time the couplet was written, that was NOT The case). --Jayron32 15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, yet another Australian who refuses to accept Australia's own responsibility for its own form of government, and wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for the chip on his shoulder. It's the one thing that really puts me off Australians, they are the undisputed whinging champions of the Commonwealth - the Scousers of the South Pacific. You want a republic in Australia? Go persuade Australians of it, don't blame us in Britain for the choices your compatriots have made. DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it, Duncan, if you kept your criticisms focussed on the individuals who raise your hackles, and not extend it to the entire nation to which those individuals belong. Is the UK to be considered a nation of murderers because of Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, John Christie, Harold Shipman and various other rotten apples? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point by HiLo48. Why should only the UK bear the burden of keeping the Windsors in fabulous wealth and luxury? Lets demand that Australia, Canada, Fiji, and all the rest, pay their contributions to our heriditary masters on a per-capita basis. With the money freed up in the UK, we can build our dear queen her own pyramid, instead of wasting it on public services. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without the Windsors, the UK economy would not have all that tourist money coming in from Australians, Canadians, Jiji Islanders (not to mention Americans, French, Japanese, and other non-Commonwealth folk) who come to England to gawp at the Windsors. That tourist money adds more to the economy than keeping the Windsors in place removes. Seems like a fair trade off to me. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see.....so that's why no tourist every visits France or Paris? There's obviously been a very serious error made here Tourism#Most_visited_countries_by_international_tourist_arrivals, but I suppose when you make the usual Royal Accounts adjustment for the Crown Estate and Duchy Of Cornwall, then France is in fact at the bottom of the list, not the top. 92.29.123.26 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there would be no tourist money... but it would be a lot less. Your are really comparing apples and oranges. Different cities and nations have different attractions for tourists. France has, for example, French cuisine (and let's be honest... tourists don't come to the UK for the food). Florida has Disney World. In the case of the UK, Royal watching is one of the major draws. With no Royals to watch, the UK loses that draw. A lot of tourists would go and spend their vacation money somewhere else (they might go and visit France instead).Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen a dear Windsor in the flesh? A lack of current royalty does not put people off from going to France. One of the reasons for coming here is that there isnt any "Disney". Our food is far better than US food and judging by the prestigeous international awards that british chefs get, must be pretty good. Stop trotting out stereotypes. People would also go to gorp at Stalin or Hitler if it were possible to do so. Even when the Windsors no longer have such an excess of taxpayers money poured into them, the palaces, Beefeaters, and changing of the gaurd will still be there. The Tower of London is jam-packed with tourists all the time, yet the Windsors never go there. 92.29.123.26 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the case of Hitler they do... Hitler's bunker is a tourist draw for Berlin. Germany has successfully turned the horrors of the Nazis into a tourist attraction. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble about the royalists is that they are like the Flat Earth Society in having a counter-arguement for every possible suggestion that they are mistaken in their beliefs. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! So Hilter didnt shoot himself in the bunker, he and Eva had kids who now grown up wave at tourists on state ocassions? I was tempted to say that tourists visit Auschwitz, so tourism isnt a recommendation of the system they observe nor does it require current personnel, but that is too disrespectful of the suffering there. 92.28.253.51 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - DucanHill: The Windsors have a continuing responsibility for reparations, as do the state prior to 1901, as does the UKGBNI prior to responsible government. You might have noticed the multiplicity of assignment of responsibility in my post. JackofOz, despite my apparent incompatibility of my and his politics raises a real point. IP92 also raises a point regarding economic responsibility for maintaining a family of UK welfare bludgers. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I watched this about a mafia clan, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13167363 , it occurred to me that the two traits of 1) secretive accounting, and 2) trying to gain popular support, are just what our dear Windsor clan, gawd bless 'em, do as well. 92.28.253.8 (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various UK relevant financial amounts graphically displayed

In a video fairly recently I saw mention of a graphical display of things like the national debt and various other things. They were shown as squares or oblongs with size proprtional to the amounts so that they could be easily seen and compared. Does anyone know where I can see this? Thanks 92.15.24.113 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this kind of thing you're referring to? Or perhaps this? Gabbe (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The second one, the Billion Pound-O-Gram, is what I was looking for. Its a simple but great idea - I wish we had more diagrams like that in various national and local public accounts to make it easier to appreciate the relative amounts of money involved. Thanks. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would also be interesting to see would be discretionary public expenditure counted in terms of public employee units - ie how many nurses, teachers, or police(wo)men the same money would pay for. 92.24.189.51 (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]