Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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 28

$ 250,000

What is $250,000 in 1990 worth today? Any magic simple formulas to figure old dollars to todays dollars?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a number of possible measures of inflation. One such measure is the CPI, which tracks the cost of an average consumer "basket" of goods. That gives you an answer of ~$447,407 to buy the same thing as cost $250,000 in 1990 (although a better algorithm would focus in on the particular good in question). Alternatively, you could try to work out how much it would be worth if you'd left it in the bank for the same period, which might give you a more applicable answer depending on what you're calculating. As for rules of thumb, average inflation in the US is about 3%, so you could make such a rule out of that, but it would be very wrong indeed in certain periods. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of inflation consulting on wikipedia, including being lumped with maintaining our templates on a (?yearly) basis. Inflation is about measuring the uses of money over time. At any one point in time, all the different kinds of uses of money come together in one figure. One USD is worth one USD. But 1990$1 doesn't equal 2012$1. It all depends on how the money is used. If you want to ask about cigarettes and beer, then the answer is a Consumer price index figure. If you want to ask about building dams then the answer is more a GDP per capita figure. measuringworth.com provides a variety of methods for computing the time value of money. I'd suggest you read up on how to figure out what kind of pricing system to use. (I wouldn't use CPI for wages, given that CPI measures a normative bundle, rather than proportion of the economy dedicated to wage labour consumption). Measuringworth.com shows a range of values for 1990$250,000 in 2011 figures as a range from $392,000 to $651,000. (Why not 2012 figures? We're still living 2012, the figures for 2011 are still provisional even) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record Template:Inflation - but see the disclaimer - it's based on CPI like measures - it could be valid if say $250,000 was paid in wages to 1000 people, but as stated not for a personal wealth of the same amount..83.100.201.173 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! That now gives me a "rough" idea. I'll go from there.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Alpha is good for this sort of thing: Enter something like $440,000 in 1990 and it will tell you that it's about $250,000 in 1990 (it's basing it on the CPI). I'm not sure how to make it do the inverse calculation... but I'm sure there's a way. Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, did you mean US$? You'd need several million Liberian dollars today to have the value of $250,000 from 1990, and I expect that the same is true for many other currencies that use "$" to abbreviate "dollar". Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party political systems in United States state parliaments and territorial parliamentary houses

As an Australian I'm used to multiple party systems, maintained by a mixture of preferential and proportional voting systems. I have a fantasy of the US national party system, based on the apparent texture of national voting systems, and the solidity of relatively "unideological" centre-right/hard-right parties. I'm also vaguely aware of the variety of third party centre-left, centrist, centre-right and hard right parties at the national level, and some of the basis of "ideological" and material bases for these parties. I'm aware that my understanding is somewhat fantastical given my distance from the immediacy of US politics.

What I'm entirely unfamiliar with is within state or territory party systems. I was astounded to find that Vermont has a centrist/centre-left party with more than one seat in its state parliamentary houses; and, even more astounded to discover that other such parties exist in so called "fusion ticket" states. Could editors point me to articles on US state or territory party systems that are other than the standard two party system, and in particular to articles on "state successful" third parties (as state parties, or as the state based party machine that has succeeded, rather than their national parties' articles). Feel free to explain interesting party systems at this level you're personally aware of where our articles don't cover your understanding, as well as pointing to our articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Third party (United States), Third party officeholders in the United States, and List of third party performances in United States elections. Notable state third parties are the Alaskan Independence Party and the Independence Party of Minnesota – both have had governors elected in the past couple decades. In Minnesota, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is the equivalent of the Democratic Party, stemming from earlier populist movements. (Also, some parties in U.S. territories could be called third parties). 203.206.101.76 (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, they're called "legislatures", not "parliaments"... The Wisconsin Progressive Party controlled the Wisconsin legislature from 1936-1938. AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you mentioned territories, the parties in Puerto Rico are completely distinct from those in the U.S. itself. AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with AnonMoos) As you asked about territories, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico is mostly a two-party system (New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico and the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico). But the Puerto Rican Independence Party poll somewhere around 3%. In the 2000 and 2004 elections the PIP got one seat in each house, but the 2008 election wiped those out. As elections in Puerto Rico notes, some of the seats are allocated by proportional representation, which is unusual for US elections; I don't believe the PIP would have had any representatives under a single-winner system. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state of New York has a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party, which tend to back the Democratic and Republican candidates, respectively, but there have been cases when the Liberals endorsed a Republican, especially in New York City mayoral elections. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things are bad enough just with two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Rent is Too Damn High Party? Makes me laugh every time... Metsfreak2121 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny. Unless they were to win. Then it might not be so funny, at least not to New Yorkers. But it might well be interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is it ironic?

is the fact that this
http://www.aynrand.org
is not commercial, but a non-profit registered charity ironic? 188.6.76.192 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:NOTFORUM Shadowjams (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Shadowjams!! I meant, does it fit the definition of irony, based on Ayn Rand's beliefs and the definition of Irony. I don't have any problem with the organization whatsoever, either as it is now, or if it were instead a commercial organization (which I then would not consider ironic). It's more a question about the definition of ironic than anything else, and if the organization weren't a registered charity/nonprofit I wouldn't have asked! 78.92.86.229 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be ironic, if you boil down objectivism as "opposition to charity" but that's not the whole of it. Being a registered NPO is not inconsistent with their beliefs: it is in their self-interest to be tax-free and give tax breaks to contributors. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot like rain, on your wedding day for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is ironic is that "rain on your wedding day" is not actually an example of irony Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah...that's the joke...Adam Bishop (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

It is finished.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to the Bible, how is salvation acquired as Jesus Christ explained?

Answer: John 10:9, not John 3:16 where it says "God so love the world that He gave His only beggoten son that whoever believes in Him shall be saved" is wrong because if a person believes in Jesus Christ, then he would believe what Christ say in John 10:9 that whoever enter His body(church) shall be saved. Question now is How do you enter his body or church? Of course you would become a member of his body or his church is how you enter Christ. Not "by accepting him only" You must do as Christ command, because He said on Luke 6:46 Christ said, "Why call me Lord, Lord but do not do as I say?" He said to enter in Him, and to enter in Him is to become member of his body/church (II Corinthians 12:27) That is how salvation is acquired. The right church is the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo in tagalog, because this is where the church had originated from according to the prophesy, From the far east will I gather you"(Isaiah 43:5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.130.11 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered your own rhetorical question. There seems nothing for us to do, other than mark this Resolved. In future, please do not use this forum for your personal proselytising. Thank you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytizing for Iglesia ni Cristo, no less! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Man is the only animal with the True Religion - hundreds of them!" -- Mark Twain ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to open a private discussion if you're willing, just post a note on my talkpage. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

history of investor protection / references

Recently, a small company posted its investor pitch online (publicly). Comments I read said this was literally illegal in the United States, where no company may solicit investments publicly in this way. Could you give me references to read (preferably online) about these protections and what it means exactly? How did this develop? Thank you. 188.6.76.192 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on this thread http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4019861, someone says:

“

"Let me rephrase> Is it legal to put a pitch deck [investor presentation] aimed at private investors online for all to see? I know this is a grey area in the past, and recent legislation has changed things, so I ask again, in hopes of actually getting an answer: Is this legal?"

Someone else answered: "As far as I understand, even with the recent legislation, this is still not legal. They could get into a lot of trouble for publicly advertising an investment opportunity like this."

”

So... could someone give me references for the legislation mentioned? THanks. 78.92.86.229 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bundled these into one as they seem to be about the same issue. Public companies are bound by a lot more regulations and oversight than privately held companies, to protect investors from scams. In most jurisdictions, privately held companies are not allowed to make broad stock offers to the public. FiggyBee (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)2[reply]

In the United States, companies' offerings of their stock or other securities are subject to regulation under the Securities Act of 1933, which is enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by private litigation. Offerings must either comply with the SEC's rules for public offerings or come within one of several exemptions from those rules, most commonly the exemption for private placements. Posting an investor pitch online complies with neither. For a public offering, such a public posting does not comply with the requirement that any written offer be accompanied or preceded by a prospectus. For a private placement, a public posting does not comply with the requirement that there be no general advertising or general solicitation. There is an online introduction to private placements here.

The JOBS Act ordered the SEC to amend its rules by July 4, 2012, to remove the ban on general advertising and general solicitation for certain private placements made only to accredited investors. The SEC has not yet made this rule amendment. John M Baker (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Attorney

The reference desk does not provide legal advice. Consult with a lawyer or other appropriate legal professional on such matters. — Lomn 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]