Humanities desk
< April 24	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 25

Active societies promulgating Jakob Lorber's work

Hi - there are several sites on the web, but the email links don't seem to be operating - I'd like to get in touch with whomever has copyright over his writing, and/or any Jakob Lorber societies that are still functioning, especially English-speaking ones.

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this Jakob Lorber, who died in 1864? That would mean his writings are in the public domain in every jurisdiction that I know of - no copyright. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that his writings were published post-humously (don't know the dates); I don't know if that affects the copyright status. Our article says the German company Lorber & Turm holds most of the original writings in an archive. Their contact page is here. Have to go, hope someone else can help you with the societies, and in figuring out the copyright status. 184.147.125.78 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 184.147.125.78 - i will try that avenue. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-humous, as in after he's turned to soil? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or after the grave-digger turned up the soil. StuRat (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Impact of shared government services on balance of trade

I think I already know the answer to my question, but I'd like to have it sanity checked by people who might actually have survived through some sort of economics course.

Assume we have two countries, A and B, which share a common defence force. With defence being a public good, A and B decide to fund defence spending on a per capita basis, so A contributes $(population * X) and so does B. So far, so simple. But life's never simple. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that spending (and hence employment, etc) on defence is distributed logically. And logic dictates that instead of the ratio being a per capita one, spending in country B is only 50% of $(population * X) with the balance spent in A.

(If a real-world example helps, you could imagine a NATO member state that wasn't Belgium or Luxemburg. Although the amount concerned is a tiny fraction of the total defence budget, some part of that budget is spent on NATO's various shared services in Belgium, Luxemburg, etc. Or if you fancied a different public good, you could imagine an European Union member state's contribution to the EU's admin budget.)

My assumption is that the 50% of B's defence budget which ends up being spent in A is, in economic terms, importing services - specifically the public good of defence - from A. Is this correct? Does the service component of A and B's respective balance of payments numbers include this transaction? "Yes" is fine as an answer, but if it's "No" then please help me understand why that is! Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to think of real-world examples, I don't think "balance of payment" applies here. When country A transfers money to country B for defense purposes, it is treated as a gift, I believe, rather than as payment for a service. The example that comes to mind is the US relationship with Israel -- we provide massive support for their defense expenditures, but we treat it as foreign aid, not as payment. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind a relationship like NATO in the defence field - NATO has some shared assets like HQs in Belgium and E-3 Sentry AWACS planes somewhere funded by its membership - rather than straightforward gifts. But even US aid to Israel has to show up in the various national accounts of both countries somehow. Can't have debits without credits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think? I read one paper about a part of the EC commission being criticized for not using double entry bookkeeping and I was unable to find any indication that HM Treasury used it. Do we actually know if finance departments of governments use it? Dmcq (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I am only guessing. If I knew already I wouldn't be asking. But never fear, there are three universities nearby with significant economics departments. One way or another I'll know some day, even if it costs me a lunch or two. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is this guy an idiot?

Not answerable with references & Wikipedia is not the place for opinions.

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

"If any of you take Britain's future seriously then you must know by now that Britain has to get out of the EU to continue to run our own Political system. At the moment Parliament is bossed around daily by Brussels. All this Homosexual and Lesbian Marriage stuff all comes from the EU in Brussels . It is now a crisis in France. If we want our own Country back you have to vote UKIP. The ony Party dedicated to remove Britain from Europe. The Tory Party is full of people with the same view, but are frightened to speak out loudlu and effectively enough to force the likes of the Tory hierarchy and the Lib Dems like Clegg to do anything . They love Europe and its gravy train potential Clegg has already had a basin full, as well as Kinnock and Mandelson. They are all now millioniares on the back of it , of course they will keep it going as a fall back position for themselves.. Vote UKIP and have done with it now."

I think so but perhaps I don't understand his point. Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for debate so we can't answer your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want a debate - I just want to know if his argument works in basic sentential logic or if he's very confused. Horatio Snickers (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're presenting a false choice, but that said, I see no reason to conclude that it's internally logically meaningless. All the statement really says is "this party is the only one that can accomplish what's needed", and that is (from a logical standpoint) perfectly valid. It doesn't really concern itself with any of the hows, whys, or details that might be usefully subject to logical analysis. — Lomn 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a person's argument is logical gives no evidence whether a person is idiotic or confused. A shrewd, intelligent, and rational person may make inaccurate, illogical, and irrational statements because they believe that those statements will advance their cause. So it isn't possible to answer the question in your heading with the evidence provided. It is possible to assess the accuracy of some of this person's assertions. For example, it is certainly not true that support for same-sex marriage in Britain comes only from the EU. In fact, the EU has no position on the matter, and there is plenty of support for it among Britons with no significant connection to the EU. On the other hand, it is certainly true that because the UK is a member of the EU, Parliament has to take into account EU rules very frequently, and perhaps nearly daily, as he asserts, though this does not necessarily amount to being "bossed around." This person's assertion that leading Conservatives and Liberal Democrats support the EU because they have gained personally is doubtful. These individuals could command high compensation whether their work was involved with the EU or not, so unless there are clear cases of corruption, it's hard to argue that they support the EU for personal gain. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that most major financial contributors to all major UK parties (except the UKIP) support EU membership for the UK, most likely because people with money are concerned about their firms' profitability, and Britain's EU membership is good for business. So the person's statement is a mix of untruths, partial truths, and untruths. As I've pointed out, though, that has nothing to do with the person's intelligence, and it says nothing about whether his goal (exit from the EU) would be good or bad for the UK. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real quote? maybe from an election leaflet? It is county council election time in England, and UKIP candidates are hoping to get more votes than usual from regular Tory voters. Like other small parties they have fewer people to choose their candidates from, so there will be plenty who don't have the typical politician's way of presenting an argument, or prefer the "man in the pub" type of language found here. If this person ever got elected to the local council he(?) would be required to take part in making serious decisions, representing constituents, etc, and would very quickly become out of their depth. A bit like the Five Star movement in Italy as far as I know. Sussexonian (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is real, it doesn't appear to have made it on to the Internet in the form quoted above. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Marco Polo's comment above - "A shrewd, intelligent, and rational person may make inaccurate, illogical, and irrational statements because they believe that those statements will advance their cause." I've seen some very clever but sneaky politicians say things that they probably don't believe themselves but that will appeal to the bigots, nationalists or racists, etc. in society simply to gain their votes. I don't believe what politicians say. I find that a practical starting point for understanding their behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with you on not believing what they say, but I don't understand how that's a starting point for understanding them. Now, if you were to believe the opposite of what they say, that would be a starting point, maybe helpful maybe not. But just not believing it? How does that give you any information? --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk. Even if idiot had a clear definition, which it doesn't, no reference can tell you whether or not this person is an idiot. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]