Humanities desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 22 >

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.

June 21

Why are the concepts of Elasticity Supply are so Important to Government ?

I am bit confused of this term as the concepts of Elasticity of Demand helps the government in other way (i.e. imposing tax on a commodity). But what about the above mentioned topic? Can anyone explain a bit. I shall highly appreciate that. Thanks in advance--180.234.123.78 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elasticity can be seen as a very simple (though not simple to calculate) way for a Government to measure the effectiveness and impact of a given tax. Please see our article tax incidence. --Abracus (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems saturated with vast information on tax. I don't understand which are the materials I should add to this concept regarding on government issues. I googled it but no exact information available on above mentioned topic. Can you please explain a bit more so that i can get proper idea on it. Thank you--180.234.195.117 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elasticity of supply is the extent to which a reduction in profits causes a reduction in the amount of goods that are produced. A good example of low elasticity is small farms: farmers (to oversimplify a bit) usually try to produce as much as they can regardless of how much they get paid for it. When demand is high they make money, when demand is low they lose money, but they produce roughly the same amount of crops regardless. When elasticity is low, government policies don't have much impact on how much is produced; when elasticity is high, a tax can cause a substantial decrease in production. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living conditions and number of cars in Iraq

An image circulating through Facebook suggests that living conditions and the number of cars in Iraq have decreased a lot since the American intervention. I'd like to research that, which seems not to be easy, especially for the cars - does anybody have info on that? --KnightMove (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are actually more cars in Baghdad now (according to this USA Today story from 2007. And of course obvious propaganda is obvious...it seems that there is a sandstorm in the second picture, and presumably it's not a good idea to drive during a sandstorm. Also, that is Firdos Square, so where in Baghdad is that exactly? Maybe cars aren't allowed there anymore, for fear of car bombings (although it seems not to be in the former Green Zone, at least). This is just random speculation, there could be dozens of other reasons the second picture looks like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That USA Today story is nearly five and a half years old. It may have been overtaken by events. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True although my impression is that things in Baghdad have 'improved' since 2007 although the reasons for that have been disputed [1] Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also true but we don't know when that picture was taken either. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No 65-MPG Passat here? But why do the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf slip through the cracks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk&feature=player_embedded

So we can't have 65-MPG Volkswagen Passats here in the US because the US DOT wouldn't like that to reduce fuel tax for road maintenance.

And they're common in Europe, OTOH.

So how do we still have the Toyota Prii, Chevy Volts and Nissan Leaves? How do they slip through the cracks while the 65-MPG Volkswagen Passat doesn't?

So if the reasons for the 65-MPG Passat not being driven in the US has nothing to do with fuel taxes, then why, pray tell, do we not have them already? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the information in the video is incorrect. Due to the way fuel consumption (gas mileage) is calculated in the States, as well as the difference between US and UK gallons, the stated fuel consumption for the same vehicle is not the same in the US as in the EU. This story explains the situation: http://pesn.com/2012/05/01/9602085_VW_not_allowed_by_US_government_to_sell_high_mileage_cars_to_US_consumers/ - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have't watched the video and have no idea if it is truly because of the government, but the idea that efficient models of the same car are unavailable in the US is by no means debunked. It's true, sadly. --John (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be rather thoroughly debunked by the source listed right above your post. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are cases where an efficient model of a car is unavailable in the United States: it happens when the efficiency is created by omitting emissions-control or safety hardware that's mandatory in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the most fuel-efficient cars are unsafe microcars, probably not allowed in the US for that reason. They are basically just motorcycles with extra wheels. Although motorcycles are legal, probably because they are at least cool. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read the source carefully. The claim isn't debunked. In fact it's supported by the source which says the more efficient model was once sold but no longer is because it's unpopular as Americans don't like small cars and don't care so much about efficiency. It's true it has nothing to do with the government (at least not directly) and the efficiency difference isn't as great as the numbers may suggest but John didn't seem to suggest otherwise even if he? wasn't aware the source provided an explaination. (There are some claims the most efficient/lowest power model was never sold in the US in the comments, I can't vouch for them.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are amendments to the US Constitution given so much importance?

I've always wondered – why does the US seem to take pride in amendments to their constitution? Of course many of these amendments, perhaps most famously the First Amendment were great contributions to government that were later copied by other countries, but why were they given names (like First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment etc.) and given such importance? I'm unaware of any other country which seems to take pride in amendments to their constitution to the point of even naming them. For example, if the Philippines' constitution was amended so that the President would be elected in a run-off system rather than the plurality system currently used, the amendments in question would be referred to simply as "Amendments to the Constitution..." rather than "The nth Amendment to the Philippine Constitution...". Why is this the case in the United States? What is the historical reason, and why doesn't seem to be the practice in other countries? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is hard to do, is not done trivially, and for the most part represents an advancement of the system, to bring greater equality or rights. It probably has to do with American pride in the system and subjective belief that it is a world model, so any improvement in the system, given the high degree of consensus needed to pass an amendment, is taken pride in.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australians are highly adverse to electoral amendments to the Australian constitution (as opposed to High Court or defacto ones). Yet Australian amendments are not referred to worshipfully. There is a worshipfulness to the process of United States law, that I would suggest inheres in the state's origins in a partial bourgeois revolution, a partially completed transition from moral to political economy, which is reflected in a latent form in the customs and practice of your law. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a much more trivial reason is that the US Constitution, as one of the first written modern constitutions, itself specifies explicit amendments as the change mechanism. Most more modern constitutions have a change mechanism that changes the text of the constitution itself, i.e. a replacement, not just an amendment. As an example, the original Article 23 of the German Grundgesetz (extending its coverage to new regions that joined the FRG) was removed in 1990 with the German reunification, and later, in 1992, replaced by a new Article 23 covering the integration of Germany in the EU. In computer speak, the US constitution is represented as the original document with a set of patches, while the German constitution is represented as the result of applying the patches to the original. The first is better for maintaining the history, the second is better for direct application. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say all the amendments are revered like that. Maybe just the first ten since that was the original Bill of Rights, but even then I doubt many Americans could name more than two or three. The Constitution also seems to be treated as a religious text, unchanged and unchanging, despite the amendments that can be added (and that can change previous amendments), whereas in other countries if the constitution doesn't work it can be scrapped for a new one. I suppose American civil religion might be helpful here. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reverence (for the content or the procedures) is overstated. There are a few amendments that are invoked fairly often in individual or national discourse. They are revered — not because they are modifications, per se, but because of what they mean (or what people think they mean). If freedom of the press, or the right to avoid self-incrimination, or avoiding unreasonable search and seizure were all articles in the Constitution (as opposed to amendments), we'd speak of them just as reverently. If the District of Columbia's right to an electoral college vote were in the body of the Constitution itself, it'd still be trivia to most people. If the commerce clause were an amendment, it'd still be invoked all the time, either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is referring to an amendment by a number really worshipping, or even lending significance? That seems to be the most boring and obvious way possible of referring to an amendment. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the amendments are revered or worshipped. The first ten are an exception, being the Bill of Rights and almost part of the original constitution really. I doubt most Americans could name the rest, at least by number. The one abolishing slavery is probably thought of as important. Some are definitely not "revered" or "worshipped", such as the income tax one or the two regarding prohibition. Pfly (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I suspect the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are revered more than most of the specific rules of the constitution itself, being about the rights of ordinary people rather than the rules about how the government operates. For example, a lot of people care deeply about the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms). Recently I saw a cafe/coffeehouse called "The Second Amendment Cafe". You'd never see "Senators Must Be At Least 35 Years Old Cafe". Pfly (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in a recent New Yorker about the Constitution (and its amendments), The Commandments: The Constitution and its worshippers. It points out that despite being one of the shortest in the world few Americans have read it. People refer to it a lot, and cherish it, and 86% say it has "an impact on their daily lives" according to a recent poll. The article also points out how even if people did read it they would find much of the Constitution difficult to understand. An example given is Article III, Section 3: "“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." Anyway, it's an interesting article about popular opinion, understanding and misunderstanding of the US Constitution. Pfly (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that amendments to the US Constitution are numbered is just one more problem the foreign left has with us uppity Americans? What's the next question? "Why do Americans think they are so great because their country is all spread out over the map?" "Do Americans drive on the right because they are conservative?" "Why do Americans foist their Happy Birthday celebration on world culture?" Questions like this and "Why are the Prussians called the greenies of Hyperborea?" seem a heck of a lot closer to the troll than the reference end of the spectrum. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Your ref doesn't refer to the US at all. It refers to the West. Which of course means, speaking of trolling... Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that "Happy Birthday to You" was written in the US. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevent. Did you actually read the ref? It's clear the concern is much more widespread then the song, and it wouldn't matter much to the person complaining whether the song was written by Americans, Dutch or Germans (or for that matter if the song didn't exist). It's not even clear the person complaining is aware of the history of the song (it wouldn't surprise me if the song had actually came from the Ottoman Empire the person would still be making the same complaint). And BTW in case you're wondering, I was aware of the history having read about the copyright issues a long while before as evidence by my talk page contribs. And no, making an issue about Americans (or whatever) when it isn't, isn't something that's a universal problem for Americans, simply something some people seem to suffer from. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your impassioned defense of trying to understand what Mahmoud Ahmedinejad "really" meant above, I think your insistence that I provide an accurate "reference" for a rhetorical question is just about the unintentionally funniest thing I've heard since Jerry Sandusky said he helped a lot of boys he didn't take advantage of. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't defend Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, I simply pointed out it wasn't clear he was actually saying what people claimed he said, with references including to RS (indirectly). Whether or not you're aware of this, it's actually possible to be interested in understanding people even if you disagree with them in many areas, or at the very least being interested in making fun of the truth rather then making fun of something which never actually happebned. The fact you're more interested in putting your own spin in to what people say, rather then actually try to understand them shouldn't be surprising from your response here, or for that matter many of your previous responses but doesn't bode well for someone wanting to contrib to the reference. (Since contributing references often means you should have some idea of what they actually say, particularly when you're going to make claims on the desk. As is stands, I think you've definitely demonstrated the validity of the last sentence of my original comment to this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason the amendments are so important is that the first set of them, known as the Bill of Rights, set forth a number of fundamental liberties. The Constitution was only approved because of an agreement that those amendments would immediately be added to it. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others have mentioned this, but most of the "reverence" comes specifically toward those amendments that guarantee things the government can never touch you for doing (but may want to). Whatever else happens, a person might say to himself, nobody can take away these rights. This is mostly true of the Bill of Rights, but where courts specifically incorporate amendment clauses to decide cases (the 14th Amendment is one of the most-often cited, or the result of a case may rest on a particular interpretation of the Establishment Clause), these also become shorthand for celebratory mention of individual rights. The naming of a bar or pub The 21st Amendment is probably on a numerical level with something like the White Horse - as of course there's probably no better, shorter, easier signifier of "Hey history buffs - come on down here and drink drink drink!" in American English. But of course nobody thinks they're in any danger of having troops quartered in their homes these days, and so very little case law cites the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I'll note also it's not just constitutional amendments: Title IX is similarly celebrated for its vast expansion of women's athletics across the country (and of course excoriated for its alleged responsibility for cuts in men's programs), for example. I'm guessing that the answer to the original question is more of a naming of laws issue, where American laws (or amendments, etc.) seen as good are celebrated by name, and laws seen as bad (e.g. that epitome of Orwellian naming conventions, the USA PATRIOT Act) are castigated, also by name. Each law is a particular event or campaign, a banner raised as part of a living history, rather than mere text being seamlessly incorporated into an amorphous blob of impersonal rules. And so (as ~~Bugs~~ someone mentioned) good laws are episodes in which we the people have made a decision that we still take pride in, and bad laws are episodes in which some group of assholes (also we the people, if we're keeping score honestly) has foisted evil constraints upon us. I know plenty of other countries' legislatures name their laws too, but I'm not aware of the same public vehemence directed at them as opposed to the actual MPs. Also, I don't know to what extent the notion of a nation of laws, not of men is responsible for this phenomenon per se vs. being a popular concept that is merely concurrent with it. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP also asked why they were named. I suspect it is simply because people like giving names to things. It makes life easier if you have a name to refer to rather than saying the section in the US Constitution that doesn't allow unreasonable searches and seizures. As 140.180.5.169 pointed out numbering them is an obvious way to go. Of course if they hadn't got names then over time they would have acquired them. So instead of saying the 4th Amendment you would say the Amendment to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The US isn't the only country to give amendments names, see Amendments to the Constitution of Canada#Post-1982 amendments to the Constitution. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two previous comments are right: The amendments have to be called something, and given that the first 10 amendments were added en masse and dealt with something that the original Constitution didn't already include, it seems logical that they were just placed at the end as the ten amendments. It's impossible to guess how the founders imagined amendments to the Constitution being incorporated, but if the first amendment had merely been a change to one of the already existing articles, it might be the case that the American Constitution would have its actual text changed (as is the case with other Constitutions) rather than all new amendments added at the end (which does result in oddities such as one amendment specifically cancelling out another one).

The naming of the amendments (and, I have to agree - numbering the amendments doesn't seem very original) is a separate issue from how Americans regard their Constitution. As others have said, I think this is due to the fact that the US is a country born of a revolution against an oppressor, with the Constitution being a symbol of that revolution. This could also be the case for France, but the US is still governed by the same Constitution, while the French have had five different Constitutions since its revolution.

The US sees itself as a country apart, with a different politcal heritage from the countries of Europe at the time. As I said, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are the symbols of the US being different from the rest. As other countries tend not to see themselves in this way, they don't focus on such written documents in this way. (That doesn't mean they aren't patriotic, it's just that the symbols of this patriotism are something else, such as culture or language. It might even be something political, but perhaps politics manifested in through practice rather than what is in the Constitution.) V85 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]