Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18

Documentary about textile industry in South East Asia

I'm looking for a documentary which covers the textile industry in south east Asia -- one that particularly focuses on human rights, wages, etc. It would be nice if it were available on DVD, and even better if I could get it on netflix. A search on wikipedia, and elsewhere, so far, turns up nothing notable. Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nearest I can come up with is a report publichsed in 2006 called "Fashion Victims". I believe BBC3 also produced a series about this, but a search of the BBC website has produced nothing. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Fashion Victims" seems to be a report about places like Primark and Marks and Spencer, which would be good, but I'm looking for a documentary movie. Something by BBC 3 would be perfect, but I don't see anything either. I can't believe that there is no documentary about this issue. Llamabr (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the most "Transgendered" (by population) place in Usa \ Canada? and Europe?

thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.19.219 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but for the US, it is almost certainly a large city, not a rural area. The US city with highest per-capita number of transgendered people might be one of the 'gayest' cities mentioned here [1]. Both gay and transgendered people are often attracted to cities with prominent LGBT networks. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a large city. Some highly LGBT places like Provincetown are quite small. Pais (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the OP is looking for stats "by population" and not by percentage or per capita. So, taking New York City for example, even if NYC isn't that high on the transgendered stats list, it still likely has more transgendered people by population than a smaller town/city such as Provincetown. Dismas|^(talk) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law issued this report, which notes two studies, one done in Massachusetts, and one in California. It concluded that 0.1% of Californians are transgendered, which would come out to 37,253, and .5% of people from Massachusetts are transgendered, which would be 32,738. This report of a 2007 Ohio GLBT census concluded 1.5% of Ohioans are transgendered, which would be about 173,047 people. I find it hard to believe that there are more than twice as many transgendered people in Ohio than in California and Massachusetts combined, so data collection and interpretation appears to be a major issue. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is correct that urban areas have a much greater concentration of trans people than rural ones, then a major determinants is how the boundaries are drawn around urban areas. California contains more suburbs and rural areas than Massachusetts, I think. If you compared downtown LA with downtown Boston there might be less difference in the rates. On the other hand Ohio is largely rural and the rate of 1.5% seems very high. You would have to look and see whether the methods and questions are comparable. If a questionnaire has boxes to tick "Male, Female, Neither/prefer not to say", a relatively large number will tick the third option. But if the boxes are "Male, Female, Trans, Other/prefer not to say", then the pattern will be different. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If OH is 'largely rural', then CA is too, perhaps moreso. OH has 257 people/mi^2, while CA only has 227 [2] SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SemanticMantis's link to the "gayest cities" notes right at the top that it's an unscientific list, and this link quotes a demographer as saying that the "gays live in urban enclaves" trope is "something of a myth", though that's about all the detail that particular article gives. I acknowledge this is off-topic because transgender doesn't equal homosexual. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I just thought it was a decent starting point, and others have pointed out above that this is a difficult topic to get good data for. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services: vol. 20, no. 3 (2008) "Transgender Men: A Demographic Snapshot." The authors attempted to get demographic data on female-to-male (FTM) people using Surveymonkey. They got 390 participants in the survey, and 321 valid responses. 299 of those were from the US, and 22 from Canada. The US states with the highest number of responses (21-44) in no particular order were Washington (state), Oregon, California, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts. All the Canadian provinces with any responses got between 1 and 5. Those provinces were British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the number of responses for the three Canadian provinces adds up to less than the total Canadian responses. Not everyone who replied disclosed their state or province, and I could be missing Nova Scotia, but it doesn't look colored in on the distribution map to me. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money as a means of communication

Does some economist see money as a means of communication? If you pay a couple of buck for someone, it means that you have delivered something to someone else, which was worth a couple of bucks. It also means that you have not expended these two bucks of value that you created somewhere else. Quest09 (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that money was a form of speech was one of the assertions in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I have not heard it stated by anyone outside of that case, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody had previously thought about it in that way. It strikes me as a poor method for talking about both money and communication: it obscures the really salient aspects of both in search of a weak analogy. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, decisions by US courts that equate giving money with free speech (which is protected), basically legalized certain forms of bribery. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit of economic theory that says that the flow of money is useful information. Specifically, companies and products in which people invest are (usually correctly) judged to be superior.

Police (and those chasing drug kingpins and terrorists) often "follow the money", in that someone who is being paid large sums of money is presumed to be providing something in return. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money talks. Sometimes it just whispers, other times, it shouts, but its message is nearly always understood. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek thought that one of the most attractive elements of capitalism was the ease with which information was passed through and used by individuals and firms. See information economics and The use of Knowledge in Society Jabberwalkee (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the original poster is asking about, but perhaps there is something in the Gift economy article? Jørgen (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may find our article on consideration of use. It is a legal concept that touches on the meaning of the use of money or other items or promises of value in the formation and communication of contracts. Neutrality^talk 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stories from Nazi Germany

Hello. I was wondering if many fictional books written in Germany during the Nazi era have survived. I find a lot of things about their society interesting (not in the sense of accepting what they did to people). Were Jews and other "enemies" portrayed in their fiction, and what were these portrayals like? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One example we have an article on is Der Giftpilz, a 1938 children's book about how awful the Jews are. You might also find helpful information in the articles Blood and soil and Nazi propaganda#Books. Pais (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anything like detective stories? I'd guess that (as with other countries) enemy spies were commonly used as antagonists. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi propaganda#Books mentions that blood and soil genre novels were popular; "Red Indian" stories by Karl May were permitted and Cinderella rewritten as a racial morality story. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaat Shibir (Bangladesh)

Hi,
I'm looking for a reliable source which answers the following question: is "Jamaat Shibir" a portmanteau word which mixes "Jamaat-e-Islami" and "Islami Chhatra Shibir", or is this a separate party or organization?
Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. To my knowledge the name "Jamaat Shibir" isn't used. Rather "Shibir" is the common name for the Jamaat-e-Islami student wing in Bangladesh. In the press when the wording "Jamaat-Shibir" is used, such as in this http://www.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=166357&cid=2 , it denotes that the journalist in question cannot separate between the two (i.e. for sure know many of the arrested are Jamaat members, how many are Shibir members). --Soman (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it would be an abbreviated dvandva compound... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke on James Mackintosh

1.) In his book Vindiciae Gallicae (1791) James Mackintosh replied to Edmund Burkes Reflections on the French Revolution (1790). To which text from James Mackintosh did Edmund Burke reply in his Reflections on the French Revolution? (It can't be Vindiciae Gallicae)

2.) Since when have both been in correspondence (writing letters)? Thanks for your help. -- (no native speaker) 141.20.195.101 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading our articles on Edmund Burke and Reflections on the Revolution in France? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles don't answer the question. Are you sure that Burke took issue with Mackintosh in Reflections? If so, it would have been with his journalistic writing in a paper called The Oracle. There is a summary of Mackintosh's writing career in an edition printed shortly after his death of History of the Revolution in England in 1688, here in Google Books. It is an interesting summary. I am endeared to Mackintosh hearing that he turned up an hour late for his PhD viva, keeping the whole Senate of the University of Edinburgh waiting. If Burke and Mackintosh were alive now they would be editing Wikipedia and probably slogging it out in an enormous ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Burke took issue with Mackintosh in Reflections? My mistake. The German translator, Friedrich Gentz, wrote the chapter Versuch einer Widerlegung der Apologie des Herrn Mackintosh in addition. It's not from Burke. -- 141.20.195.101 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Snipes & The Sovereign Citizen Movement

Somebody told me they saw on 60 Minutes that Wesley Snipes was a member of the Sovereign Citizen movement, or at least that movement was mentioned on that segment in reference to him and his non-payment of income taxes.

I didn't find any mention of any such connection on the Discussion pages of his Wikipedia article.

Is he indeed a member? If so, maybe the portrayal of the SCM as white and racist may be exaggerated or one-sided. And also, shouldn't any connection he has with the SCM be mentioned in his article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.175.120 (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw parts of that piece, and all I remember being said was that Sovereign-Citizen influenced terminology or arguments appeared among the reasons he gave for not paying taxes. The segment was mainly about the Sovereign Citizens, with only a somewhat passing mention of Wesley Snipes. By the way, our article Sovereign citizen movement seems to omit some of the truly bizarre and wacky pseudo-legal theories associated with it, such as that any legal document where your name is written in ALL CAPS doesn't actually validly refer to you at all, etc. etc... AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the Southern Poverty Law Center says Snipes's "tax filings made clear that he was a sovereign tax protester" and discusses some testimony in that trial about the "movement". (The article is referenced in the sovereign citizen movement article that AnonMoos pointed us to.) If you can find the transcript of the trial there will probably be all the details you'd want. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To actually answer the question, I'm not sure whether he is a member, but our article section Wesley Snipes#Federal tax convictions says the government described him as a tax protester who was using the "861 argument". Here's a letter Snipes wrote to the government explaining he's a sovereign and doesn't have to pay any taxes. He subsequently lucked out and was only convicted of three misdemeanors instead of any felonies. Anyway, back to your last observation, the presence of a single black person in a nearly all-white movement doesn't mean much, and you should go by statistics of some sort instead of anecdotes about individuals. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should be a little cautious of inferring what Wesley Snipes believes, or to what groups be belongs, based on the court proceedings. The New York Times summarised his defence in the felonies as his being "a well-intended victim of bad advice" (ref). That the jury acquitted him on the felonies, but convicted his advisers on related felonies, suggests the jury believed (or at least couldn't reject) that assertion. We can't build on that foundation a claim that he "believed" in the SCM theories or that he was a "member" of anything. It may very well be that Snipes is just the latest, and perhaps most extreme, of a long line of musicians, actors, and sportsmen who've "signed on the dotted line" and found later that the basis on which their adviser told them they were acting wasn't as watertight, or as legal, as they'd been led to believe. That said, his conviction on the lesser charges shows the jury didn't feel that he was an entirely innocent and naive party either. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Law:The Wildlife and Countryside act 1981 with respect to Natrix natrix

How is the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981 interpreted with respect to the grass snake (Natrix natrix)? I (mis)interpret the act, as it applies to Natrix natrix, as meaning you cannot sell or advertise for sale a living or dead grass snake (section 9(5) only). I read the Act, perhaps wrongly, that sections 9(1), 9(2), 9(3), 9(4) and 9(6) in particular do not apply to Natrix natrix. --Senra (Talk) 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try and sell a living or dead grass snake. They are harmless and not worth any money. I found the law difficult to read too. Perhaps it exempts grass snakes because they are common, but there is still no reason to harm them. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No intention of harming them in any way. So sorry if my question is misinterpreted. I am writing an article for a local web site and wanted to check the protected status, that is all. I read somewhere else that

Although they hiss menacingly when cornered, these reptiles are neither venomous nor aggressive, and so killing any of them is quite unjustified; indeed to do so is a criminal offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981.
— First Nature

and wanted to check the accuracy of the statement.

Given what I believe The Act is saying, I will simply write "The grass snake is protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981"--Senra (Talk) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I assumed you might be looking for a loophole and glad your motives are quite otherwise. I'm sure it's worthwhile including the statement you suggest. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)We do not give legal advice, which is what you are asking for. You should see whether your local council has a wildlife officer (many do), or contact your local Wildlife Trust. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Our article says that "In England, grass snakes are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and cannot be harmed or traded without a licence, although they may legally be captured and kept in captivity... In 2007, the grass snake was included on the updated UK Biodiversity Action Plan as a species in need of conservation and greater protection." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Act states that its an offence under s9(1) to intentionally or recklessly kill or injure certain animals including the grass snake (natrix natrix). It also states that its an offence under s9(5) to offer for sale, sell, advertise for sale etc. certain animals (which again includes the grass snake). Unless some amendment has creeped past legislation.gov this is probably how the law stands. (This isn't legal advice, its just some facts of legal nature). Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1099 tax form

If I'm supposed to file a 1099 tax form at the end of the year, but I don't, will the government find out? If so, how? My employer is paying me cash and wants me to file a 1099 at the end of the year, but I'm wondering if its possible to just skip it. Also are H-4 visa holders allowed to even seek 1099 employment? Thanks in advance.--164.107.37.92 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we cannot give you tax advice. I can advise you to research the issue with a tax professional (there may be free university services if you have an affiliation with a university). You can also get information from the IRS here [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tax evasion is illegal. We're not going to give you advice on how to break the law. --Tango (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an H-4 visa, you may wish to read the line in our article: "H-4 holders are not eligible to get a Social Security Number and cannot be employed". Given how limited H1-B visas are (H-4 visas apparently being for immediate family members of H1-Bs) why on earth would you (a) risk getting yourself caught and possibly deported and (b) the same for your spouse? Don't work, and don't think that you can break the rules and hope they don't notice. --Saalstin (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I can't work in this country I dont really care that much about being deported back to Canada. And it's my dad who has the H1-B visa so I don't think my actions can get him deported too. I just want to know more about how the 1099 process works. For example how can the government tell if someone fails to submit a 1099 tax form? It appears to me it's just based on trust only. If that's the case, then I can probably just get by without submitting one--164.107.37.118 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your employer is paying you cash, but still expects you to file a 1099, then the employer is keeping records of the payments to you. In that case, the government will have the employer's records and will be looking for offsetting ones from you. Anecdote: I took a 3-week job in January of one year, and, by the time it came to file my income tax (15 months later), I had forgotten all about it. (Who knows what happened to the paper work?) In September, I received one of those superficially polite notices from the tax department about some income I had overlooked, and would I pay up now and, yes, there is interest and a fine. Bielle (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the rationale for why you (as opposed to your employer) would file a 1099. As far as I'm aware, the 1099 is filed by the person who pays the money, not the person who gets it. Is he asking you to do his paperwork for him? Or is it possible that you've misunderstood, and he is in fact planning to file a 1099, which means the IRS will know about your income whether you do anything or not? --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that 1099s are only filed by employers. It's true that they usually do, but technically speaking, you are supposed to report any supplementary cash income on your own 1099s. Obviously most people don't unless the employer files a 1099. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which 1099 is that? I thought you just put it on your 1040, either under "other income" if it's a small amount, or Schedule C if it's serious consulting. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps you are right. I was wading through some tax pages that implied you would file your own 1099 Misc's even if the employers didn't, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (The pages on 1099s are often quite confusing about who is filing what.) This page seems to indicate that it would go under the 1040 if you don't receive a 1099. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only begin to imagine the fine you'll be liable to if you still owe taxes from 1099. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially legal advice which the OP is asking. He should consult a tax expert, such as H&R Block or one of those, and find out what to do. He should also approach whatever he does with the intent of obeying the law rather than trying to get around it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lead bullets illegal in US

Are lead bullets illegal in the US? Albacore (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The EPA considered regulating lead ammunition in 2010 but backed down after the NRA and etc. went bananas over it. Some states ban using lead ammunition when hunting (e.g. California bans using lead bullets in areas where condors live[4]), but those are pretty specific bans, and they aren't bans on possession or sale. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is, however a restriction on lead shotgun shot. Since it cannot be used in any wetlands and a good amount of bird hunting is done in wetlands (duck, geese, ect.) even if it's not totally banned in your locality it can be very difficult to find lead shot. Most retailers in my area seem to have decided the market is so small that it's not even worth stocking lead and instead offer an array of differently-priced alternatives from steel to tungsten. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shoot the hippopotamus / with bullets made of platinum / because if I use leaden ones / his hide is sure to flatten 'em. Pais (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, lead bullets are not illegal in the US. Most bullets have a copper or brass coating but others can be purchased that are just lead. I've got some .22 bullets that are just lead soft-nose. As an example, look at File:.22 LR.jpg - the left & middle bullets are unprotected lead, while the right-hand one has a copper coating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does money work, exactly?

What I want to know is, if money is just numbers in a computer, who is making sure than when one number goes up, another goes down by an exactly equal amount? Since banking is international, what is to keep banks and governments from flat-out lying that they haven't made some numbers go up without others going down? I mean, let's face it, dollars and cents (and euros and yen, etc., etc.) have about as much reality as points in Giga Wing, so what's to keep someone from using a cheat code?

A related question: when Madoff made off with billions of ~~points~~ dollars of other people's ~~Giga Wing scores~~ assets, why didn't the government just reset the victims' bank balances to make up for the missing dollars as one resets an electromechanical clock after a power outage to make up for the missing hours and minutes? 75.35.96.51 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the US, see Federal_Reserve_System, which oversees how much currency exists and how it is transferred. You may also be interested in bitcoin, which seeks to define a federated (P2P) currency using mathematical/cryptographic notions of trust and security. SemanticMantis (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that money that you or I deposit in the bank is a liability to the bank. That is, it is money that the bank must be able to come up with should you or I ask for it back. Randomly creating money in a person's bank account doesn't help the bank at all. Also, banks really do just create money out of nothing. And in countries without an explicit reserve requirement they can create as much as they like. See money creation Jabberwalkee (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money is not just numbers, it is a form of trust. If you lose faith in its ability to convey value, the entire system collapses. The people who break the system would have only a brief moment of profit before the whole thing collapsed around them, taking any potential future wealth with it. If China started just ignoring its obligations in terms of wealth or just starting "printing" new currency willy-nilly (electronically or on paper) it would be the same sort of hyperinflation that has happened again and again in the history of collapsing economies. When you inflate the value of assets beyond any tangible value, that's the definition of a bubble — eventually it pops because people stop trusting the bank, the state, the stock market, whatever.

Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money gives a concise account of how the various instruments of finance developed. You can't really understand how the numbers in modern computer systems translate into wealth unless you understand how the whole system works; the book is a nice, historical introduction to the basic concepts that underly it. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find out more, this bloke wrote a bit about the subject too. Not an easy read perhaps, but worth a glance at least, for another perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Kazza's writings about money are, to my mind, less than useful here. Marx primarily writes about the value form and its self-expansion, which is a separate issue to the total volume of money in an economy. Marx's writings do have an impact on the historical "value" of money between any two major crises, but his chapters in Capital on the finance system aren't inspiring in the way that his work on production is. At least to me who as someone who interacts with money as wage and work as stolen labour time. If you want Marxists on Money I'd look at later Marxist writers than Kaz. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at an example of someone using a "cheat code." At many times in history, states have owed large amounts of money to people, other states, etc. These are just "numbers on paper" that symbolize a willingness to deliver payment (with interest) over time to the people owed. The "cheat code" is when the state says, "ha, those numbers don't mean anything, I'll never pay you back!" This is a sovereign default and these happen with some regularity even today. The short term effect is that the people owed money are left in the cold, which makes them rather unhappy. The long term effect is that future investors are probably not going to loan the state money in the future without very large, compensatory interest rates attached to it — so the state is, in effect, making any future loans more expensive for itself. These kinds of defaults can have major effects on international finance and severely impact economies of other states. It doesn't mean the end of the world, though — the finance system is robust enough that it can absorb things like this periodically (and they do occur, even today). They are not a new thing; some countries (cough cough, Spain) have been doing them again and again for a long time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bank to bank transfers

The above question got me thinking - Lets say I open a bank. I have one customer who comes in and deposits 1 million dollars, cash. I put it in the bank vault. The same customer later goes online to AvicsAwesomeBank.com and transfers his million dollars to another account in a different bank. This is done electronically, right? (ACH?) So... What happens to the million dollars in my bank vault?

I can't imagine that for every electronic transfer I make, an armored car is dispatched to move physical money between banks. So, I guess my question is, do banks ever move physical money between them, and why or why not? ^Avic _ennasis @ 05:38, 15 Iyar 5771 / 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You might find the article Clearing (finance) useful. As a sweeping generalisation, banks keep track of what they owe to each other as totals of all their (thousands to millions of daily) individual transactions, which often nearly balance out, or show a consistent pattern allowing predictive payments and investments. They then only have to transfer the remaining relatively small imbalances rather than the full amounts of each transaction. Historically in the UK this was done at the end of each working day by the banks' head offices in London exchanging the actual cash necessary in a "clearing system" (which is why major banks in the UK were called "clearing banks" - smaller "non-clearing banks" would typically take longer to carry out transactions because they had to use more cumbersome methods); nowadays it's doubtless done mostly electronically.

The same predictable patterns were and (probably) are used (again, in the UK) to calculate how much customers' money in total each UK bank theoretically has in the window - traditionally 3 days - between money leaving payers' accounts and going into payees' accounts, which they invest on the overnight money market to earn themselves interest. This is a major reason why that window has been much slower to reduce than the introduction of effectively instantaneous electronic transactions would allow. By contrast, UK solicitors temporarily holding substantial sums of clients' money (as they may do when involved in property or other business deals) are (or at least were) legally obliged to invest that money on the money markets and pay the interest earned to those clients. [Disclaimer: much of the foregoing derives from family involvement in relevant professions, hence the lack of reference links and the caveats re currency of practice.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.34 (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you deposit money in your bank account, it goes onto the books of the bank. The bank now has an asset - cash - and a equal and opposite liability, which it records as a credit on your account. The bank's obligation to you is to repay you on demand and in the meantime pay you whatever rate of interest it has agreed with you - say 1%. It can do whatever it likes with its new cash asset, as long as it retains enough liquid assets to be able to meet any reasonable level of repayment demands (which is enforced by banking regulations). So it might lend its cash to other banks, perhaps earning 2% interest - or lend it to another customer, perhaps earning 5% interest. Whatever is left over after paying you your 1% interest is profit for the bank. Of course, if the other bank or customer fails to repay the loan, then your bank makes a loss - so higher interest rates are (generally speaking) associated with higher credit risk. And if all of the other banks or customers fail to repay their loans, then your bank goes into liquidation and cannot repay you (although you may be able to recover some of the money that was in your account if it was protected by a government guarantee scheme).

A solicitor, on the other hand, is not a bank, and if it holds money on behalf of a client, this money does not go onto its books and it cannot use that money - it has to hold that money in a segregated client money account. If the solicitor goes into liquidation, the money it is holding on behalf of its clients is still safe. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]