Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 25

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 25

Capital punishment in Venezuela

Did Hugo Chavez reintroduce capital punishment when he took over? --134.10.113.106 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the subject is only a year or so old, So I'd think that it would have noted this if it had happened. Was there any particular reason why you asked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How would Chavez keep power if he couldn't execute dissenters? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea. How did George W. Bush do it? Please use the reference desk for its intended purpose, not as a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to kill people legally to get rid of them. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic than the one you asked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't asked anything. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a nice summary of human rights concerns in Venezuela compiled by Amnesty International. It does not look like Chavez has murdered anyone or had them executed. It is alleged that various governmental bodies have arrested, threatened, and occasionally beaten up dissenters. As far as official repression goes, that's pretty good for Latin America, historically speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

schist disk

I was watching a film entitled "The The Pyramid Code" It mentions the "schist disk" discovered by British Egyptologist Walter Bryan Emery at Saqqara, Egypt in 1936. I have searched to find out more factual information, but only weird websites have some information. I want to know the facts about it and more details of it's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.128.211 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on Saqqara do not mention the artifact, neither does the article on Walter Bryan Emery. However, the Walter Bryan Emery article does contain a bibliography of his writings; if you have access to a good library, you may be able to find these books and be able to see if he wrote about it himself. I tried a search for "schist disk", but really schist is a rather common stone, so I don't know if the term "schist disk" was a formal name for the artifact or just a description of it. Good luck! --Jayron32 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They are called the Hemaka discs; Emery found three of them. Brief description here, photo here (they are each about 10 cm in diameter).--Cam (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are images in a video, purporting to be taken from the 'Egyptian museum of antiquities' posted on you-tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFSBVzKEUg. The object displayed does not resemble Emery's gaming discs of Hemaka. It appears to have been subjected to some serious reconstruction from smaller pieces. There is a serious lack of solid information on either the museum or the illustrated item in electronic format. Wikipedia does not permit republication of screenshots without attribution of copyright. http://ve3ute.ca/query/schist_disc_wwFSBVzKEUg.zip

Why was Anders Breivik exempted from conscription in the Norwegian military

I heard about this guy in the news and came to Wikipedia to read the article on him, and saw reference #21 there, but I don't read Norwegian. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, other sites (e.g. the BBC) are saying he did normal military service, and I'm not convinced by the translation used - I suspect it means he was released form military service, not exempted. We need a Norwegian speaker. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation of article[1] by Oddvin Aune et. al. from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) 23rd July 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
32-åringen skal tilhøre høyreekstremt miljø 32-year old allegedly belongs to extreme right-wing movement (Translation of article[2] by Oddvin Aune et. al. from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) 23rd July 2011) 32 år gamle Anders Behring Breivik, som er siktet både for eksplosjonen i Oslo og skytedramaet på Utøya, skal tilhøre et høyreekstremt miljø og har hatt verv i FpU. Anders Behring Breivik, 32, who is charged with both the explosion in Oslo and the shooting spree at Utøya allegedly belongs to an extreme right-wing group and has held office in FpU (Progress Party of Norway). Dødstallene etter skytemassakren på Utøya har steget voldsomt, sier politiet i natt. Minst 84 mennesker er nå bekreftet drept. I tillegg er sju personer drept i Oslo. Tonight the police announced that the death toll after the shooting spree at Utøya has risen drastically. At least 84 people are confirmed killed. Additionally 7 people were killed in Oslo. Anders Behring Breivik er fra Oslo, og er bosatt på Skøyen. Boligen hans har blitt gjennomsøkt av politi med skuddsikre vester i fredag kveld. Anders Behring Breivik is from Oslo and lives at Skøyen. Police wearing bulletproof vests searched his house this Friday evening. Politiet opplyste lørdag morgen at 32-åringen siktes både for angrepet på regjeringsbygget og skytedramaet på Utøya. The police announced on Saturday morning that the 32-year old is charged with both the attack on the goverment building and the shooting spree on Utøya. Dette anses som en terrorhandling, og er den mest alvorlige straffeparagrafen politiet har til rådighet, sier visepolitimester Roger Andresen. This is regarded as an act of terrorism, and is the most serious legal clause available to the police, stated Vice Police ChiefRoger Andresen. Han skal ha vært iført politiklær og være sett på begge åstedene. Mannen er fraktet til Oslo, og skal avhøres formelt av politiet i løpet av lørdagen. He allegedly wore a police uniform and was seen at both crime scenes. The man was taken to Oslo and will be formally questioned by the police during Saturday. Har bakgrunn i FpU Has background in Progress Party Behring Breivik meldte seg inn i Frp i 1999 og betalte sin siste kontingent for året 2004. Behring Breivik joined the Progress Party in 1999 and last paid his due for 2004. Han var medlem av lokallaget på St. Hanshaugen i Oslo i perioden 2001-2003 og en kort periode i lokallaget på Frogner i Oslo i 2003. I 2006 ble han fjernet fra registrene, skriver Aftenposten. In 2001-2003 he was a member of the local group at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo and for a short time in 2003 of the group at Frogner in Oslo, according to Aftenposten (newspaper). Han var dessuten engasjert i Fremskrittspartiets Ungdom (FpU) fra 1997 til 2007. Han meldte seg aktivt ut i 2007. He was also active in Progress Party Youth (FpU) from 1997 to 2007. He resigned in 2007. I FpU hadde Anders Behring Breivik to verv, det første som formann i Oslo Vest fra januar 2002 til oktober 2002, det andre som styremedlem samme sted fra oktober 2002 til november 2004. The two positions he held in FpU were firstly as leader in West Oslo from January 2002 to October 2002 and secondly as committee member at the same place from October 2002 to November 2004. I et innlegg på Document.no skriver Anders Behring Breivik selv at han «i flere år» har arbeidet for Frp. In Anders Behring Breivik's own words at Document.no he worked "for several years" for the Progress Party. Jeg ble i dag tidlig gjort kjent med at han har vært medlem hos oss. Det er aldeles forferdelig å vite, sier Siv Jensen til Aftenposten.no. I heard early this morning that he had been a member with us. That is utterly awful to know, said Siv Jensen (leader of the Progress Party) to Aftenposten.no. Høyreekstremt miljø Extreme right-wing movement Etter det NRK får opplyst, har ikke den pågrepne noen yrkesmilitær bakgrunn. Han ble fritatt fra verneplikt, og dermed har han ikke spesialutdanning eller utenlandsoppdrag for Forsvaret. NRK has no indication that the arrested person has any professional military background. He was not conscripted and so has had no special training or foreign service for the Defence. Den pågrepne skal tilhøre et høyreekstremt miljø på Østlandet og skal ha registrert to våpen på navnet sitt: Ett automatvåpen og en Glock-pistol. Utover dette er han ukjent for politiet Allegedly the arrested one belongs to an extreme right-wing movement in the East region of the country and has two guns registered to his name. An automatic and a Glock pistol. Other than this he is unknown to the police. Behring Breivik står som medlem i Oslo pistolklubb, og han skal også være medlem av en frimurerloge. Behring Breivik is listed as a member of Oslo Pistol Club and is also said to be a member of a masonic lodge. Anders Behring Breivik skal i en periode ha bodd på Rena, og står registert med å ha drevet et firmaet som bedrev dyrking av «grønnsaker, meloner, rot- og knollvekster» - en bransje hvor man også kan få tilgang til store mengder kunstgjødsel. Dette kan brukes i sprengstoff. Anders Behring Breivik is said to have lived at Rena for a while and is registered as operating a firm that grew "vegetables, melons, root- and bulb crops" - an industry that also gives one access to large amounts of artificial fertilizer. This can be used in explosive. Tungt bevæpnet politi tok seg i natt inn i huset på gården. 10-15 politifolk gikk gjennom gården for å sikre spor etter den antatte gjerningsmannen. Heavily armed police tonight entered the house at the farm.10-15 Police combed the farm to secure traces of the assumed perpetrator, Da vi kom hit natt til lørdag, virket gården øde, forteller NRK's reporter Kurt Sivertsen. The farm seemed deserted when we came here Saturday night, relates NRK's reporter Kurt Sivertsen. Bare et enkelt lys var på inne i bolighuset. Senere kom tungt bevæpnet politi, og vi fikk beskjed om å fjerne oss, forteller han. Only a plain lamp shone in the house. Heavily armed police arrived later and we were told to go away, he reports. Aktiv i nettfora Active in Internet forums Mannen har én twitter-melding fra 17. juli som sier «One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests», et sitat av den britiske filosofen og sosialliberalisten John Stuart Mill. Den pågrepene har allerede fått en hatside på Facebook. His single twitter post from 17th July is "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests" which is a quotation from the British philospher and social liberal John Stuart Mill. The arrested one has already gained a hate page on Facebook. Han skal også ha markert seg som enn flittig debattant på flere islamkritiske nettsteder, blant dem Document.no, der han i flere innlegg ga uttrykk for nasjonalistiske holdninger og framsto som kritisk til et flerkulturelt samfunn. He allegedly also distinguished himself as a regular debater on several anti islam websites, among them Document.no, where he expressed nastionalist views in several posts and was seen to be sceptical of a multicultural society. Document.no valgte lørdag å publisere alle Breiviks innlegg på nettstedet. Der framgår det at Breivik ikke har skrevet noen innlegg siden 29. oktober 2010, men at han i en periode var svært aktiv. On Saturday Document.no chose to publish all of Breivik's posts to the website. It shows that Breivik made no post since 29th October 2010 but was very active for a while. I innleggene han skal ha skrevet kommer han blant annet med grove karakteristikker av tidligere statsminister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Among the posts he wrote he gives crude characterisations of former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Han har også vært aktiv i en debatt på Minerva, hvor han kommenterer et innlegg fra Høyre-nestleder Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. He was also active in a debate in Minerva (Norwegian periodical) in which he commented on a post by Vice-leader of the Right party Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. Nasjonalistisk i debatter Nationalist in debates VG Nett skriver at 32-åringen fremmer svært konservative meninger, som han også kaller nasjonalistiske, i nettdebatter. Her viser han motstand mot at kulturelle forskjeller kan leve sammen i et samfunn. VG Nett write that the 32-year old advocates very conservative views, which he calls nationalist, in Internet debates. In these he expresses denial that cultural differences can exist together in a society. Til sammen er minst 87 mennesker drept etter angrepene mot Regjeringskvartalet i Oslo og på AUF-leiren på Utøya utenfor Oslo. Altogether at least 87 people killed after the attacks on the government quarter in Oslo and on the Labour Youth camp at Utøya outside Oslo. Politiet har funnet en bil som inneholder eksplosiver på Utøya. Bilen tilhører trolig den antatte gjerningsmannen. The police have found a car containing explosives at Utøya. The car probably belongs to the assumed perpetrator. Translated by Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The translated article says Breivik was excused conscription and not why. That could have been for many reasons because Norway allows for conscientous objection (fritaking for militærtjeneste av overbevisningsgrunner) and there are civil duties that are acceptable as a replacement for military service. The relevance of the information is that Breivik is not known to have received military training or experience. His ownership of a Glock pistol is consistent with his membership in a pistol shooting club but I wonder what reasoning lay behind issuing Breivik a license for an automatic weapon (automatvåpen) which is not usual in Norway. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms of Loan Guarantees

Hi, this is a purely theoretical question, with no practical implications for me ATM.

When writing up loan guarantees (private ones, not government or corporate), how do they write the terms to ensure that the guarantor can only be called upon when the debtor can't pay, and not merely because the debtor won't pay? Is there usually some clause stating that the guarantor only becomes liable if and when the primary debtor declares bankruptcy and all his seizable assets have been liquidated by the trustee? Otherwise, what would stop debtors simply deciding not to pay, knowing that the creditor won't bother chasing them (given that the loan is anyways guaranteed)? If I were to be a guarantor, I'd want to ensure that the creditor did the heavy lifting in chasing the debtor, not me. (I'd accept liability if the debtor had been stripped of all his assets, and truly didn't have the money). How would I achieve that? And will those demanding loan guarantees (e.g. banks and other financial institutions) accept such a "limited" loan guarantee as sufficient to extend credit?

(Note: No one is asking me or anyone I know for a loan guarantee. It's just that this question has bugged me for quite some time). Eliyohub (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that very often loan guarantees don't ensure that the guarantor is only called upon when the debtor can't pay. Private guarantees are required as a condition of a loan, and the loan company has an interest in protecting its money. They word the guarantees so that the guarantor is responsible in the event of non payment for any reason. The guarantor and debtor can take it or leave it. I have previously acted as guarantor for my daughter and made sure that she understands that if she misses a payment they will come to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you at least expect her to pledge whatever assets she has as security for the loan, leaving you a reduced (unsecured) amount to "cover" with your guarantee? That will at least reduce the moral hazard of your daughter being tempted to default. If you guarantee the whole loan, I think you're being foolish. Eliyohub (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Becoming the guarantor of an institutional loan requires more faith than it does financial good sense. That's one reason you don't do it for strangers or even for people who do not share your moral values with respect to promises made. One would assume there is some such compatibility between parent and child. I would say that if you cannot afford to lose the money, don't become a guarantor.Bielle (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my feeling. I could have afforded to lose it (with some hardship like missing a holiday and delaying car renewal), but if my daughter had defaulted through just not paying I would be more upset that my daughter would do that than for the financial loss. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The other key thing if that you know your daughter and, presumably, you trust her not to default. My mum is guarantor on my rent. That's not because my landlord has reason to think that I'm a credit risk, but rather because he doesn't have reason to think that I'm not. I don't have enough credit history for anyone to draw conclusions from. However, my mum has much more to go on than my landlord, so was able to reach the conclusion that I'm not likely to default. (And, as you say, she's my mum so she would be willing to take the hit if I needed her to.) --Tango (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If the debtor can pay but doesn't, then the creditor and the guarantor can possibly both sue the debtor. The loan agreement can possibly specify that the creditor would have to try to sue the debtor before charging the guarantor. Ask an attorney in the actual jurisdiction to be sure. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(from the OP). What I alluded to earlier was an arrangement whereby the liability of the guarantor is secondary to the security (real-estate or otherwise) pledged by the debtor as a lien. If the debtor defaults, the creditor must first seize the security, and the guarantor is only liable for amounts outstanding (i.e. any difference between the value of the security, and the amount outstanding on the debt). Would a bank accept such a guarantee as sufficient? It would seem to pose no additional risk to the bank (though it would impose some "bother" on them). Anyone know? Eliyohub (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the original question - how do they write the terms to ensure that the guarantor can only be called upon when the debtor can't pay, and not merely because the debtor won't pay? - the answer is that they never do this. Lenders will not accept or see value in a guarantee that requires them to show that the debtor can't, rather than merely won't, pay. The guarantor generally can proceed against the debtor for any amounts paid under the guaranty, although if the guarantor really is worried that the debtor might deliberately stiff him, then he shouldn't extend the guaranty anyway. I suppose it might be possible for a lender to agree to a limited guarantee that requires the lender to proceed against collateral first, but that would be an unusual and customized arrangement. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the seclusion of women in ancient Greece also include royal women?

Usually, people associate "Ancient, Classical Greece" with the Republic of Athens, but my question is about the ancient Greec kingdoms (excluding Sparta, which I know was a unique case). I know about at least two ancient Greek Kingdoms: Macedonia and Epirus. I have heard about the seclusion of upper class women in ancient Greece. They were not allowed to mix with men outside of the family, and the social life was gender segregated. My question is; did these rules also pertain to royal women in Macedonia and Epirus? My impression is that women were more free in the Greek kingdoms than in the Greek republics, at least the royal women. Was the queens secluded, or did they have official ceremonies to attend to? Were they present at official occasions? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea specifically to answer your question directly, but there is some question about how "purely Greek" even Ancient Macedonia was. Without getting into the whole modern conflict over the use of the term Macedonian, Ancient Macedonians had a strong cultural influence from cultures outside of Greece proper (like Thracians) as would be expected of any polity on the borders between cultures. In the case of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia (and possibly also Epirus), one cannot discount the possibility that standards there are inapplicable to other Greek states simply because such standards may have been influenced by non-Greek culture. That is, the Macedonian Standard may not be anything resembling the idealized "Greek Standard", given non-Greek influences on the Macedonian culture. --Jayron32 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In monarchy, such customs are defined at the whim of the monarch, so this probably varied a lot on a case-by-case basis. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems very wrong to see the phrase "the Republic of Athens" in text. The classical Athenians never described their specific system of government that way; outside of the relatively brief periods of oligarchical rule, it was a direct participation democracy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that has no significance in my question. have you any information about the question? --Aciram (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's information about just three words of your question. Others may be able to help with the rest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Recording and photographing a meeting

I anticipate having a meeting with an aggresive bully which I would like to record for evidence. Where can I find out if openly recording and photographing them is legal in the UK, even if they do not agree to being recorded and photographed? 2.97.216.222 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find out via appropriate professional legal counsel. My understanding is that in the UK system this would be a solicitor (as opposed to a barrister), but I'm open to correction. Perhaps call some offices and ask if they have experience with surveillance law? Note that our article on photography and the law includes a statement that aggressive photography of an individual can constitute harassment. — Lomn 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Another avenue, at least in the States, would be to go to the local "spy shop" (which caters to private investigators and generally suspicious people, selling hidden cameras, audio recording systems, and the like). The staff there could certainly provide advice on what's legal, and they might even be correct. More relevantly, though, I'd expect that they'd know which local lawyers are well-versed in these matters. — Lomn 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The US (not UK) Supreme Court has decided in 1971 that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate US law. Such a transmitter has these advantages over a concealed recorder:

• a remote third person can make the recording and serve as a witness that it was not tampered with, and
• the remote person can if the situation becomes ugly instigate an intervention.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking your local Citizens Advice Bureau or police force? Of course, another issue to consider is whether the recording will actually be useful as evidence (for example, if you plan to use it in a court case). 81.98.38.48 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an FAQ on recording phone or e-mail communications in the UK, which isn't exactly what you asked, but is similar. In the United States, (not sure about the UK), wiretapping laws have sometimes been used even when the conversation is in person, in public (i.e. Christopher Drew was charged with violating wiretapping laws in Illinois, an All-party consent state, when he recorded a video of police arresting him in a public place). In the U.S., there are generally state laws that allow recording in secret when there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" (or similar language). Illinois is, I believe, the only state without such protections. Again though, not applicable to the UK, so take Lomm's advice, and ask the appropriate legal professional. Buddy432 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining a record of the meeting is permitted, although both parties may wish to keep their own records. The other party may reasonably request a copy of any notes taken or written up following the meeting. Asking permission need not be explicit, it can be a reference to "noting down some points". In practice taking notes are encouraged as should the situation go to an industrial tribunal contemporaneous evidence is useful.

Video and audio recordings of the meeting fall under the same legislation. The demand the consent of all parties. There may be points in the company handbook about one or both of those, as the company premises are private property the use of imagery collection devices may be banned.

The applicable legislation would be employment law and the Data Protection Act. As already suggested CAB is probably your best bet with respect to guidance in advance, although a solicitor with particular expertise in employment law.

ALR (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, how about inviting someone else to the meeting to act as a note-taker and witness (and could maybe intervene if it turns nasty)? Astronaut (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an acceptable option however the same provisions apply if the other party wishes to keep their own notes.

ALR (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget legalities. Do you want to have proof after the meeting of being assaulted (one way or another) or would you rather it didn't happen?

By going down this route, you're actually being very passive-aggressive yourself and you're not helping avoid conflict.

A far better option would be to have someone with you in the meeting, which is a far more normal way of going about having a meeting, has no legal implications for you to worry about and happily, not only are they a potential witness, unlike a camera they also have the physical means to prevent or shorten an assault in the worst case.

Strongly advise you to ditch the camera/video idea. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Safe Money

Which denomination of money (Euro, Peso, Yen, etc.) should/could one convert all his or her U.S. Dollars to before it is all worth-less? Realizing the whole world economy is tied in with the U.S. dollar, which would be most stable following a period of hyperinflation of the dollar? Schyler (one language) 22:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For maximum safety, buy some of each. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss Franc has really taken off in the last few months because it is considered a safe haven. Of course that safety is also something of an illusion of the world economy really tanks. Also, of course, markets will, to a high degree, take the relative safety of investments into account, so if you get out of the dollar now, you will pay quite a premium - and if things turn around, you will not recoup your money in full. It probably is safest to invest into something tangible you yourself can use - e.g. a flat to live in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The safest form of currency would be guns, bullets and canned food because those items are inherently useful as opposed to pieces of paper or little metal discs. Googlemeister (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But they are not inherently more valuable in the future than they are now. Just because they are useful does not mean their value will be constant. If you are making a serious investment choice and not just preparing to be an extra in The Road, then that matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Purchasing gold is one option. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The gold market is likely holding nearly as much value as it can handle. It has been seen as a safe haven during the recent financial crisis since 2008, and its value has grown so fast in that time, many are fearing a "gold bubble" (see [3] for one example). Looking at how fast gold's price has gone up: Almost 3 fold in 5 years. Anything that goes up that fast is quite likely to come down that fast as well, and you don't want to get on that ride at the top of the hill; it will hurt when you come crashing down with it. The last two investment classes which had price profiles resembling golds (that is, such a rapid rise in a short time) were dotcom stocks in the late 1990s and housing in the middle 2000s. I'm not sure either of those panned out for people who bought at the peak of the market. If you want to invest in a commodity whose price is likely to rise relative to the dollar, perhaps oil may be a better purchase. It shows no obvious signs of bottoming out anytime soon. --Jayron32 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The OP didn't ask about speculative investments, but about a way of keeping his property safe from hyperinflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Materials commodities are often recommended as inflation hedges. Gold has long been considered an inflation hedge. So recommending gold is not the worst idea, except for the fact that there has been a ton of gold speculation recently, which has probably created a bubble. This article is a nice, recent discussion of inflation hedges. Obviously any inflation hedge is speculative — you're being speculative if you're betting that hyperinflation will happen (pretty unlikely — even in a worst case scenario, hyperinflation is pretty rare) and so picking a proper hedge is necessarily speculative as well. There was a nice article in Harper's by Thomas Frank recently on the relationship between gold speculators ("metal heads") and fears about hyperinflation. Unfortunately it is subscriber-only but the gist of it is that people who are currently investing in gold as a hedge not only are probably building up a bubble on par with the dot com one, but that the entire logic of doing so is ridiculous from an economic and historical point of view. The bottom line is that there's really no good reason to believe that US currency is going to become worthless anytime soon, but the scramble for inflation hedges is making any attempt to buy an inflation hedge very risky. Anything that you think has intrinsic value can be an inflation hedge. You could posit that SUVs will not lose value even if the dollar does, and invest in those, for example — except, of course, there's a great possibility that they could lose value relative to currency, which is the speculative part. If your baseline assumption is an entire, catastrophic collapse of the dollar, I'm not sure you can reliably predict what would be an inflation hedge in that situation. But an economist would probably have a better assessment of this. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

privatization of government

Would a political jurisdiction where public government was replaced by private government default to the will of those with the most money and are there any examples of such transitions? --DeeperQA (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any de jure situation where such an outcome was the intent of a government; that is to allow money in and of itself to be the sole determining factor in political power as a intentional function of government organization. There are governments that have similar outcomes, for example see Oligarchy#Corporate_Oligarchy_.28Corporatocracy.29 or more insidiously see Kleptocracy. An interesting fictional treatment of your exact proposal is the 1975 film Rollerball, which presumes a political future which is pretty much exactly the system you are proposing. --Jayron32 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea of anarcho-capitalism is similar to this, where all state services are eliminated and instead of a state-funded police service and army you can pay a police service and army to protect you. That article contains some discussion, but it has never been tried. Warlordism, where government breaks down entirely as in present-day Somalia or the Civil War-era Russia, can be close (although there is the obvious problem that just because you have money and can hire mercenaries doesn't necessarily mean you can stop people robbing you). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, weren't US coal mining company towns in the 1940s an example for a privitized local govenment? Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cutting the USA debt

Who is proposing what? What are the consequences of each proposal? Why don't they settle it by meeting in the middle? - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The issues are complicated but they come down to a budget surplus versus a budget deficit and the proper way to move from the current budget deficit to a budget that is surplus. As far as a default is concerned it is a question of either making payments on the debt or on entitlements since tax loopholes and tax breaks have deprive the US government of sufficient revenue to make the payments. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Obama admin has offered to meet it in the middle -- he offered a plan to slash a few hundred billion from spending, even from entitlements, so long as pushes for reinstating the Bush era tax cuts are ditched (they are largely what is causing the high deficit in the first place, in terms of lost revenue[4]). The Republicans have refused to settle largely for ideological and political reasons — they want more (despite Obama being willing to compromise to levels that have his own base very angry) and they want Obama to look bad. Anyway the bottom line is that it's a very nasty political situation that has nearly nothing to do with the actual proposals. It's also what makes it rather dangerous — it's a game of chicken at the moment that has very little to do with the actual numbers on the table, but is about scoring political points. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we take the simple simple simple version, the issue is that the U.S. spends more money than it takes in with tax revenue. Such a situation cannot occur indefinitely, but there are differing opinions as to what this means, and what to do about it. Solving the debt problem involves some measure of a) increasing revenue or b) decreasing spending. The deadlock involves deciding which proportion of each of a) and b) the government should do. Democrats in the Senate and House, and Republicans in the Senate all support some level of both revenue increase and spending decrease, while House Republicans (which are heavily influenced by the "Tea Party" movement) refuse to allow any revenue increases in solving the problem. Confounding the issue is that the U.S. has a legal "debt ceiling", that is a prior Congress had enacted a law that set a maximum amount the U.S. could borrow. The only way that that ceiling could be broken is if the current Congress would need to either repeal or modify the earlier law to allow the U.S. to borrow more. Everyone except the House Republicans see this as a major problem, because if the U.S. isn't able to borrow then it will have to default on some of its obligations; either it doesn't pay its entitlement obligations (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) or it doesn't meet payroll, or it defaults on its debt. There is no other options. The House Republicans actually seem to want this to happen, since it would literally force the U.S. to spend less money, which is a major plank in their platform. --Jayron32 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the government spending more than it takes in can continue indefinitely, so long as the economy (and thus, the total amount taken in) continues to grow: essentially, the government is paying off this year's excess spending using next year's income. Hardly ideal, but it works. --Carnildo (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that the debt ceiling law prevents it. --Jayron32 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet the debt ceiling has been raised more than 100 times. So really, it can continue as long as Congress keeps raising it. Livewireo (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual growth of an economy is no more possible then a perpetual motion machine. Googlemeister (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad analogy — the economy is not a closed system. If it wasn't, we'd still be living like medieval times, where there was no capital. You can actually create new value, new wealth, etc., which is the physical equivalent of extra energy coming into the system. Finding new petroleum reserves, for example, is the equivalent of hooking a battery up to your motion machine. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the economy is a closed system if you are dependent of fossil fuels like the current economy. Oil can't last forever. Wealth is created in 3 ways. Mining, manufacturing and agriculture. Mining involves non-renewable resources and is most obviously non-perpetual. Agriculture is renewable but uses non-renewable inputs (mostly in the form of fossil fuels). If you run out of fossil fuels, you can keep farming, but your output will drop dramatically. Manufacturing also uses a large amount of non-renewable resources in terms of metals, and petroleum products like fuel, oil or plastic. In essence, unless we are to discover a magical free energy source, the economy is jstill a closed system, just one that is large enough that we haven't quite found the boundary yet. Googlemeister (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, did your economics class get as far as mercantalism and then just quit? I'd go back to your school and have some angry words with your professors if that were the case. What kind of pre-modern society do you live in where the only sources of wealth are based on physical objects? Information, entertainment, finance, etc. these are all large, sizable sectors of our economy and to claim that wealth is somehow a "closed system" and depends solely on raw materials and turning those raw materials into finished goods is such an outdated view on economy that it boggles the mind. Its like thinking that Copernicus is the last astronomer who had anything important to say on the universe, or that Newton said all that needed to be said on the topic of Physics. This is not to deny that dependence on non-renewable resources is a serious concern for the long-term health of the economy, but besides the complete non-sequitur in comparing a short-term political budget battle towards something as unrelated to the current situation as the problem of fossil fuel exhaustion is the problem that you don't seem to have any grasp of modern ideas about wealth and how it is made and managed... --Jayron32 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some information can improve the efficiency of wealth creation, but information can not create wealth in a vacuum. Entertainment does not create wealth, it moves wealth from the moviegoer to the film producers. Finance can make it easier to create wealth via loans, but also does nothing to create wealth by itself. Making broad statements like "Perpetual growth" is absurd, (note I am not accusing you of making these statements, mostly it is those talking heads in the media). Everything in terms of wealth boils down to resources, services are not a long term solution. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not advocating perpetual growth in the way that you seem to think perpetual growth means. But it is beyond simplistic to view wealth in terms of "resources" unless you mean resources in such a purely metaphorical sense to include things like "human capital", "education", "knowledge", etc. Wealth is itself created by economic activity; it is not solely a sum of the value of raw materials dug from the ground coupled with the value added to them by human labor. There are lots of human activities which create wealth that have nothing to do with that practice. Yes, there are major problems for the economy when raw materials run out. However, to claim that it is the sole source of wealth is like claiming you can drive your car with wheels only: Sure, you cannot drive your car without wheels, but it is not necessarily the wheels that make the car go. If wheels doesn't work for you, replace it with any vital part of the car. The wheel is unimportant to the analogy here, but what is important is realizing that one cannot extrapolate the idea that a vital part to a system is the same thing as the sole vital part to the system, nor is it irreplacable. If wheels become scares, it drives car manufacturers to necessarily come up with alternate modes of propulsion. If we suddenly had no wheels, we may tank tracks becoming more prevalent, or even better yet exotic hover systems. The impending exhaustion of raw material supplies represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Its not as though one magical day the tap will run dry and the entire human race will shrug and say "well that was fun, lets go back to the cave!" When it becomes economically better to transition out of the petroleum economy, humankind will do that, just as it transitioned into the petroleum economy from earlier economies. --Jayron32 19:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there, if you take out the non-material stuff from the economy you have a gasoline engine car with a fuel tank full of diesel fuel. At best, it will barely sputter along. Googlemeister (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if the issue was just accessing material resources, if history is any indication, there are far more material resources available than is evident at any given time. Petroleum doesn't last forever, but eventually you transition to other energy sources, and after applying enough capital and intelligence at exploiting them, you are able to get them just as cheaply. So the oil will run out, and eventually we transition (some many decades down the line) to purely solar/hydro/wind and/or fusion power, and continue from there on, and so on. And yes, the sun eventually burns out, yadda yadda, but the point is that you can have continual (on average) economic growth for many thousands of years without running into any significant material snags, as we've been doing since the fertile crescent. There is technically a fixed amount of wealth in the universe, indeed, but the human race is not going to hit it anytime soon. Comparing the economy to a perpetual motion machine is as silly as saying that the entire universe is a perpetual motion machine, because the energy eventually will run down. It's technically true but totally irrelevant for the current discussion. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a bit naive. You should definitely watch this (despite the funky title). At a moderate growth rate of 3.5%, the economy will double every 20 years - or by a factor of ~30 in 100 years. This is not sustainable for long by scientific and technical advance. We are above sustainable carrying capacity for the planet now, at least with our current model of resource usage. Yes, so far we have found enough new resources for current usage so far. But that's the nature of exponential growth: at the beginning its slow, but if you assume e.g. the constant 3.5%, we will use the same amount of resources in the next 20 years than we have used throughout history up till now. If we now have 90% reserves, we will run out in 60 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a little skeptical on these numbers, I agree that resource limitations are a serious problem, but people have been making these predictions for hundreds of years, and they have universally turned out to grossly underestimate the ability of humanity to adapt. They always presuppose "if nothing changes in the way we consume", and then it turns out that human progress isn't static, and changes much faster and more drasticly than their models predict. If Thomas Malthus were even one iota correct, we'd be eating each other by now. --Jayron32 02:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

austerity programs

United States government employees and pensioners have not receive a cost of living increase in over three years while prices for food and other retail items have increased by an average of 30%. This means that the purchase interval for a box of oatmeal, or a gallon of gasoline has had to be extended by 30%. This means hardship and at a certain point inadequate food and gasoline to conduct normal life so such programs are definitely limited by how long they can last. What might be the longest an austerity program could be extended before government employees and pensioners began to riot in absence of other methods of reducing a deficit? --DeeperQA (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather specific prediction, and I'm not sure that anyone could make any reasonable evidenced answer as to the date when government employees would openly riot over the lack of COLA adjustments. --Jayron32 23:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What methods might be used to restore COLA to include the increases from the time when it was ended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congress would pass a law. --Jayron32 00:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The government could borrow (at the low, low rate of 0% interest these days, I'm not kidding; in fact I think they can charge to keep funds on account) or increase revenue, by, for example, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which would bring in $5.4 trillion over 10 years. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"prices for food and other retail items have increased by an average of 30%" -- citation needed. This page certainly shows no such large increase. --Sean 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not see them list what they are pricing, so we are left to assume they are pricing the same items for each time period. Is there verification that there is not product substitution (chicken for beef for example)? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look further (e.g. by clicking on the June data). It's based on fixed food plans, last nailed down in documents published 2006 (for "thrifty") or 2007 (for the other 4 plans). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

People don't buy less oatmeal when the cost of oatmeal increases. In fact, they buy more. It's luxuries you stop buying (and if those are luxury foods, then you need to replace them with cheap foods, such as oatmeal). While people would get quite upset at not being able to afford as many luxuries, they would need their real-terms income to reduce a lot before they started going hungry. --Tango (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

30%? The government says prices have increased less than 5% since 2008. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, retailers play all sorts of games to hide price increases from price monitoring authorities even if they have real-time access and copies of store inventories with accurate prices available to their computers. ie, citations are meaningless because the data is intentionally deceptive. It is a case where original research is the only way to avoid deception, which reveals techniques like 30% price jumps on individual items to replace more frequent lower percent jumps to fool the monitoring authorities who are looking for high frequency jumps. Furthermore, the wealthy are not effected by a price increase of $1.88 to $2.44 for a bottle of ketchup. They will keep buying at the same interval but those who have been on an austerity program for over three years and who were at subsistence levels to start off with have no choice but to increase the interval between purchases to deal with the problem. Even an idiot can see that at some point the interval will grow so large that an item will not be available when needed, like food and other necessities for the poor while the rich are unaffected. DeeperQA (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Labor Department (which calculates inflation) doesn't just call stores to find out the prices; they have people visit them too. If you think there's a conspiracy to make inflation look tamer than it is, it would have to involve thousands of store managers and small-business owners across the country. Plus, if the government were to fake inflation stats, people would figure it out after a while. Stuff would be seven times as expensive in 20 years as opposed to twice as expensive at current inflation rates. People would be drinking $7 cans of pop and know there's no way inflation was only 3.5 percent a year during that period. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

yada, yada, yada. Just like taxes there are loopholes in the inflation accounting process that do not reflect true inflation for the very poor and it is this group that believe through experience that inflation calculation which includes items like soda pop. I am talking about the price of bread, meat and potatoes and the basic necessities of life. When it costs three times as much to cook food then even if the price of food stays the same the total will be more. It is a gimmick to include items that do not inflate and that are not necessities with basic foodstuffs which have negative or no or very low inflation like certain consumer electronics and soda pop, --DeeperQA (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the BLS website above, the U.S. city average annual CPI of bread in 2007 was 140.094 and 159.759 in 2010, that's a 14.0% increase which is less then half the claimed 30%. The U.S. city average annual CPI for potatoes was 280.432 in 2007 and 301.971 in 2010 which is an increase of 7.7% again far less then the claimed.

The U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs' was 195.616 in 2007 and 207.694 in 2010 an increase of 6.2%. To exclude 'luxury' meats if we look at the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Fresh whole chicken' it was 196.176 in 2007 and 211.065 in 2010 which comes to 7.6%. If fresh whole chicken is still too much of a 'luxury' item for you, we can move on to 'Uncooked ground beef' where we see the U.S. city average annual CPI was 184.280 in 2007 and 203.635 in 2010 meaning an increase of 10.5%.

Okay and moving on to the other 'basic necessities' and the claim it costs 3 times as much to cook, well the U.S. city average annual CPI for electricity was 175.825 in 2007 and 193.095 in 2010 an increase of 9.8%. Meanwhile the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Utility (piped) gas service' was 217.688 in 2007 and 189.678 in 2010 a decrease of 14.8%, whoops. Of course for people who are say, using whiskey as their fuel source for cooking food I haven't considered that, but it's probably not common....

I'll throw in one last 'basic necessity' for good measure, 'Rent of primary residence' for which the U.S. city average annual CPI was 234.679 in 2007 and 249.385 in 2010 an increase of 6.3%.

BTW, the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Carbonated drinks' was 140.138 in 2007 and 154.676 in 2010 which is an increase of 10.4% i.e. greater then the increase for general meats, potatoes, piped gas (which had a negative increase), electricity or rent although I'll give you less then the increase for bread and barely less then the increase for ground beef. I'll also give you that the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'televisions' was 16.938 in 2007 and 7.985 in 2010, a large decrease.

In any case all this talk of 'loop holes' etc sounds like an attempt to avoid lettinng the facts get in the way of a good rant. If this is not the case, please provide some actual evidence backed up by reliable sources for your claim. Note I'm not particularly interested, as I'm sure with most of the RD, on your particular situation, it may very well be that prices have gone up 30% for you in the last 3 years but that doesn't tell us anything useful on what has happened for other people.

P.S. [5] may be of interest before any more spurious claims are made.

P.P.S. I see in the original post, the claim was made about oatmeal and gasoline (i.e. petrol). The BLS doesn't appear to include oatmeal seperately, I presume it comes under 'Cereals and cereal products' and possibly the subcategory of 'Breakfast cereal' although I'm not sure of the later.

It does of course include 'Gasoline, unleaded regular' and I wasn't surprised to find the U.S. city average annual CPI was 238.151 in 2007 and 237.888 in 2010 i.e. a small decrease. Of course the price has gone up since then but it also went up in 2008 (hitting a peak in July 2008 which is higher then the CPI has reached thus far, before it started to fall when the world economies and companies collapsed). It's well known the price of crude oil etc and therefore the price of petrol has had some rather massive changes over the past few years (and had started to be fairly high in 2007) so this shouldn't be a surprise.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone knows gas prices make no sense. I think they spin a roulette wheel to determine the price. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne - 30% refers to the average increase since cost of living increases for pensioners and Federal employees was put on hold. If you use the price of gold in US dollars (although the US is no longer on the gold standard) you see that it takes many more US dollars to buy gold which means the dollar is worth less in countries that supply food and other items to the US. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is of course completely irrelevant since the price of basic food and power clearly has not gone up 30%. In fact while it's true the dollar is worth less compares to some currencies, the connection to gold is only indirect since no other countries currency is tied to gold. People don't buy food or power in gold. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)