Humanities desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 28 >

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.

September 27

how are short positions closed when markets jump on open?

In theory what's to stop any/every short seller from being a naked short seller, in case the markets open even higher than whatever their cover was? There seems to be an assumption during a 'margin call' situation (if I'm using this term right) that before it hits the point that the investor cannot cover, it would gradually (day by day, intraday) rise to that level. But nothing guarantees this, does it? The market could open Monday three times higher than the trading price Friday, and then what? Even if the short seller sells at that point immediately, what guarantee is there that the rest of their contract would be fulfilled?

Do short sellers' contracts in fact go unfulfilled for this (or other) reason? [i.e. inability to buy the sell to return as promised]. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A short seller is obligated to meet the contract regardless of price movements. If the short seller doesn't have the resources to buy the necessary stock, the short seller is basically bankrupt. Margin is a device for reducing the risk that that will happen, but it doesn't reduce the risk to zero. Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margin calculations include an allowance for intraday and overnight volatility - this is called "maintenance margin". Exchanges often reserve the right to increase margin requirements in periods of high market volatility. And if there is a very large and unexpected overnight price movement, an exchange may temporarily suspend trading in order to ensure an orderly market. Ultimately, as Looie496 says, a short seller's obligations are not limited to deposited margin, and are in theory unlimited. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I mean let's say some news leaks over a weekend in an otherwise not so volatile market that literally make's the cap of a company when it opens Monday 80x higher. Every short seller goes broke. Does that mean if you were on the other side of those contracts they're not going to be honored? So the people who sell to the short sellers might not have their obligations honored? (If the short sellers 'go bankrupt'?) I realize this is unlikely in practice. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. In some markets the exchange acts as a central counterparty, and is responseible for closing out positions if a member defaults. Or a broker may be responsible for taking over their client positions if a client defaults. But finally, yes, there is a risk in extreme market conditions that some contracts will not be honoured. In a well organised market this counterparty risk is monitored, minimised and spread out, but it cannot be completely eliminated. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we're talking about a typical situation where the short seller ("Joe Shmoe") is an individual with a margin account at a broker-dealer ("Big Investment Bank"). When the short sale is made, say in "Longshot Mining Co.," the broker-dealer borrows the security that must be delivered, see our article on securities lending. There are two sources of lent securities: Customers who have margin accounts, who by agreement with their broker-dealer lend their securities automatically and unknowingly, and institutional investors who lend pursuant to agreement. Let's assume the lender here is an institutional investor ("Broad Mutual Fund"). Big Investment Bank posts collateral equal to at least 100% (typically 102% in U.S. markets) of the value of the Longshot shares that were borrowed.

Now there is some kind of after-hours news development that causes Longshot's price to sky-rocket when it opens the next day. We are actually looking at two different securities loans, the one from Broad Mutual Fund to Big Investment Bank and the one from Big Investment Bank to Shmoe. For the loan to Shmoe, Big Investment Bank may make a margin call, but it doesn't have to; it may just buy shares of Longshot on the market in order to limit its risk. Big Investment Bank will then try to collect any shortfall from Shmoe.

For the loan from Broad Mutual Fund to Big Investment Bank, the amount of collateral posted is required to be adjusted daily. If Big Investment Bank cannot post the additional collateral or return the borrowed Longshot shares, it will be in default of its agreement with Broad Mutual Fund.

In the United States, at least, securities loans are not covered by the central counterparty guarantee, although the original short sale is covered by that guarantee. John M Baker (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High risk group

how can i explain the High risk group communities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.155.3 (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is incomprehensible without further context. AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High risk of what? We cannot answer your question unless we know what the community in question is in risk of. You cannot just be generally at risk; you need to be at risk of something happening to you. --Jayron32 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume they are asking about communities where members are at high risk of basically everything bad, like infant mortality, dropping out of school, gang membership, arrest and imprisonment, drug and alcohol addiction, violent death, etc. In the US, we've started calling these simply "at risk communities" or "at risk individuals". The single biggest contributing factor to all of this is typically poverty. However, things get complicated because poverty is also a result of living in those areas. Thus, it's called a cycle of poverty. We may think of this as primarily a problem of city slums, but there are also rural at-risk populations, such as those on some Native American reservations, and in parts of Appalachia. The initial cause of the poverty can sometimes be traced, such as Native Americans losing their fertile ancestral lands and being forced to move onto less productive land, coal mines in Appalachia being played out or run with far fewer workers as a result of technology and automation, and industry leaving cities, such as the decline of the automobile industry in Detroit. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Turks - An offensive name?

I'm confused - why do people name things after the "Young Turks" (see disambiguation Young Turks (disambiguation) for some examples) if the original Young Turks are famous for their atrocities? Isn't that tantamount to naming something "The Nazis"? I understand that it might mean something along the lines of "political agitator" but I find it odd and surprising that no one gets offended by it. Is there something I'm missing? This is all I could find on the topic, and it's not much: Change The Title of Young Turks it is very offensive. Duga3 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many non-Turkish nationalities of the former Ottoman empire have negative memories of them, but in the English-speaking countries they've become a vague metaphor for people willing to shake the system up and disregard old rules. Might as well ask why "Gang of X" expressions are formed on the model of "Gang of Four"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In English, calling someone a Nazi is a rather vile insult, unless it's used as a joke, like the Soup Nazi. The expression "Young Turk" has pretty much positive connotations. Like a rebel. And we tend to like rebels, at least up to a point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squat toilet demonstration

Can someone link to an image of someone using this properly to defecate and micturate? I don't care if it's not safe for work. I simply cannot imagine the posture of why the excrement doesn't end up all over the place. Thanks. 12:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is an image and here is another which I hope will explain. I assume male users micturate squatting. There is much to commend this style of toilet in terms of physiological efficiency. Richard Avery (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you be using it to get excrement all over the place? I can't imagine how you would do that. They seem pretty self-explanatory to me, and I've found them great to use. 131.251.133.26 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the first picture is a fully clothed man (pants, belt, etc) demonstrating, the second picture is pictograms. nothing NSFW about either one. http://www.chronicprostatitis.com/images/squat-toilet.jpg and http://www.kcpwindowonjapan.com/2013/05/washiki/ 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second image from an oblique angle makes it much clearer what's going on. Doesn't a man have to remove his pants entirely to use one of these? μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. These toilets are not uncommon in France, as well, and I personally find that adopting the position shown in the diagram puts my feet directly under my bum, so that complete removal of the nether garments is the only option. And, even then, it's tricky not to get it on your shoes. Tevildo (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP said "I simply cannot imagine the posture of why the excrement doesn't end up all over the place." Not removing pants and underpants meets this qualificaiton. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do these toilets work for older folk with ageing, arthritic knees? My orthopaedic surgeon has recommended that I avoid squatting. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two pieces of advice I have seen are to stretch one leg out straight [1] or to use some sort of aid such as a camping stool [2]. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we took some Scouts to France in the 1970s when these were much more common, they coined the phrase "ski-jump khazi" because of the required posture.[3] As to how "male users micturate" (how charmingly put), I have always stood and aimed for drain hole. Simple. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this question explained to me that the user faces the far wall of the stall and not the door as I had always thought. Dismas|^(talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on the country and the design of the toilet and what you plan to do (as well as you're anatomy), but I don't think it's entirely agreed whether you should face the wall or the door. See e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7]. In case you think this is only something that funny tourists consider, you can see (and I presume tell from the language) some similar discussion amongst Malaysians [8] [9] (right link, read carefully). Since I've used my fair share of squat toilets in my day, I was somewhat with 131 in not understanding how the excrement would end up everyone until I remembered that the reason I've used them is because I spent most of my early life in Malaysia and um, the toilet 'accomplishments' of Malaysians are fairly legendary something I've encountered myself (to be fair, the most common problem isn't it landing outside). I still don't know how it happens but it does. But it can also happen with Western style sitting toilets so.... Nil Einne (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If urination requires standing and sending a stream at that flat a target with such low walls, I imagine the floors around those things must be ... juicy. Not a great place to test your balance! Wnt (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give me examples of the Five Points of Calvinism or TULIP

Can someone give me examples of the Five Points of Calvinism, or TULIP, and how they apply to people? I don't think I am visualizing it correctly. For instance, in a case of a poor drug addict, what would a traditional Calvinist say (in terms of treatment) to the drug addict and how is that different from what an Arminian would say to the poor drug addict or a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or a Lutheran or an Anglican or a Quaker or a Methodist or a Mennonite or a Mormon/LDS or a Jehovah's Witness? I choose the drug addict example, because it's easier for me to visualize Total Depravity. 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is discussed in Calvinism. It's worth pointing out that the core premise of Calvinism is somebody's theory. I don't think there's anything in the Bible that says anything about God pre-determining who will be saved. ←Baseball Bugs

You are not being very helpful. For the sake of an academic discussion, let's assume that there is no God in reality, so that we can focus on the theology. (I am still trying to figure out the reasoning behind this idea.) 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a comparison of Arminianism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism on the Arminianism page.

Calvinism: Total depravity without free will permanently due to divine sovereignty
Lutheranism: Total depravity without free will until spiritual regeneration
Arminianism: Depravity does not prevent free will

Maybe from a Calvinist point-of-view, the drug addict would be totally depraved, totally unable, due to divine sovereignty. God is in control of the person's life, whether he likes or not, and somehow "makes" him a drug addict? Or is being a drug addict a sin intrinsically and the person feels irresistible grace so despite having the sin of drug addiction, he would still be saved? From a Lutheran point-of-view, the drug addict would be totally unable until he is somehow spiritually regenerated. How is this different from Calvinism in practice? Maybe Arminianism would focus more on the person's willingness and that despite that the person is in sin, that person must be willing in order to be saved. So, where did God go in Arminianism? How is this theology reflected in practice? 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

entirely off topic and no reason to use intentionally offensive term when self-descriptive one exists

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

The way it's reflected in practice is that it gives the teabagger types the excuse not to do anything to help the disadvantaged, since it's either their own fault or it's "God's will". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's a teabagger? Is that theological slang for "Reformed" or "Calvinist"? 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate name for the "tea party" (which the tea party itself coined [Google "tea party coined tea bagger" if you didn't know that]). And there's a specific term for their core belief, which I just heard on talk radio the other day, but I can't recall what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your usage is intentionally offensive, and you know it, you wouldn't say "C&cksucker types" to refer to gay men or "n&gger types" even if they used the term in reference to themselves. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you provide real-life practical examples in everyday conversation, not politics? 164.107.102.16 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check Google for expressions like, "If someone is poor it's their own fault". And it's not just politics. I've heard this countless times in everyday conversation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"God is in control of the person's life, whether he likes or not, and somehow "makes" him a drug addict?"

That is not how calvinists would view it. Rather, they would say that, although God preordained that he would be a drug addict, nevertheless he acted on his own real desires. Calvinists are compatibilists, i.e. they believe that predestination/determinism is compatible with free choice. Therefore a person is responsible for his actions, they are all of his own choosing, God did not force him to do anything, even though God controls everything.

And yes, Calvinists (and Lutherans) believe that a person will only respond to the Gospel if God has decided to save him/her. Only then will that person repent of his/her sins and trust in Jesus for his/her salvation. However, they also believe that God uses means to save someone, which includes preaching, reading the Bible, and Christian charity/love. Therefore all are responsible for using the means that God has provided and those who are already Christians have a duty to evangelize.

A practical example (though not concerning salvation): When Calvin's wife was dying, he promised her to take care of her children (which she had from a previous marriage). She said that she had entrusted her children to God, but Calvin replied that that did not preclude him (John Calvin) from caring for them (thus being the means by which God provides for those children).

P.S. I mentioned 'free choice' above, I purposefully avoided calling it 'free will'. Calvinists do not believe in free will, but they do believe in free choice, i.e. someone can choose to do anything he/she wants. A good example is someone addicted to smoking. Every time he lights a cigarette, he makes a free decision to do so, nobody is forcing him. Nevertheless, he is not truly free, but is in a sense 'enslaved' to smoking. He just can't break the habit. In the same way Calvinists believe the human will to be 'enslaved' to sin, to such an extent that they cannot free themselves of it without God renewing their will (in Biblical terms: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." - Ezekiel 36:26). - Lindert (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindert, can you explain a little about your background in Christian theology? I see that your background is really in Physics, not the Humanities. Also, where and how did you get access to the story about Calvin's wife? And why did you include Ezekiel 36:26 in your response? Is this biblical verse a common verse to support Calvinism, or has this been used by an official Reformed denomination? 164.107.102.98 (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm not a theologian, I have no formal training in that area, my information comes mostly from personal reading (and listening to online lectures/debates). I was also raised in a reformed tradition. Remember many people on Wikipedia contribute to subjects they're not experts in, which is ok as long as you use good sources. The story about Calvin's wife is from one of his letters, cited in her Wikipedia article: Idelette Calvin. Ezekiel 36:26 is indeed used frequently in reformed circles, though non-reformed denominations, such as Lutherans use it too. It is also cited by reformed creeds, such as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: ch10. You can read what Calvin had to say about it here in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. - Lindert (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic. Dude, this has nothing to do with politics.

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

I'm still looking for the term I heard the other day and failed to write down, which is the theory held by a growing number of politicians (the Sarah Palins and Ted Cruz's of the world), that the reason people are poor is that they have turned away from God, and that's how they justify cutting support for the poorest Americans. It's a single word term, maybe something like "salvationist", but I don't think that's it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Prosperity Theology, but that is a completely different issue which pretty much all the groups in the OP's question condemn. If you'd asked this is a separate thread, as your own question, you'd probably had an informative answer faster, if that's what you wanted. 86.164.30.45 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Work Interrupted

Hi, I'd like to know that, who are on this[10] picture. I think the little boy is Cupido/Eros, but I'm not sure, but for the women I have no idea. Thank you for your answers, Y 6 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean the name of the model, or the character depicted? I can't answer either, but the woman is very similar to the one in this painting by the same artist, even down to the hairstyle and clothing. I guess that in both cases the idea is that she is being distracted by love from her everyday activities. Eros also appears, with a different (and apparently feistier) woman, here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it's Cupid and a young woman, by which I suppose they mean the woman isn't meant to be anyone in particular. Matt Deres (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the French article is actually in English, but I'm not sure it's entirely reliable. My impression is that specific mythological figures have attributes to make them recognizable - as in the Young Girl defending herself against Eros, where the arrow clearly identifies him. Since there is no attribute in Work Interrupted, I think the conclusion should be that it's a generic cherub. If that woman is meant to be a specific one, the cues to her identity are sparse - more likely she isn't meant to be anyone particular. Being fully clothed, she's probably not a Goddess or the incarnation of a concept, however. Effovex (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's obviously the Goddess of Squash. Cupid better watch out for her serve. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's winding balls of wool, so eminently distractible fromable. Squashable but not squash balls :) The cherub has a stick in his hand so I guess it could be Cupid with an arrow. Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fromable? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it now. (Disclaimer: Pennies were abolished in Australia in 1966; St Valentine's Day, to be exact.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another penny has just dropped about that connection to the topic. I knew there must have been a reason for my mentioning SVD, but it wasn't in my conscious mind at the time. I'm a tad slow sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The cherub is apparently "anointing her ear with perfume", so I think it's not a stick in his hand. More like an olde worlde version of a cotton bud.

I experience a sense of personal inadequacy about this question. My favourite painting of all time is by Bouguereau (see my user page, top right), so I feel a certain responsibility to know more about his work than I do, in fact, know. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed miserably to find any commentary about this painting on Google. None of the books that mention it have a preview, there are a huge number of sites just showing the image and the title is a common phrase in both English and French. All my usual tricks are of no avail. Alansplodge (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the picture is that 'love' is whispering in her ear, luring her from her work. That is, she's spotted some handsome ancient Greek dude and is distracted by the sight of him. He is 'off screen' as it were, but the little cupid stands for the desire that she feels with 'whisperings' of love. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(blatant chat, not an answer. Maybe a question?:) It's always a pleasure to look over Commons' huge collection. The image seems similar to the more clear-cut Cupid in File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - A Young Girl Defending Herself Against Eros (1880).jpg. Commons has on frequent occasion gotten nasty comments about explicit imagery, and I suppose some people must look at images like these and suspect the man of pedophilia (indeed, I wonder how many artists would dare to draw such images today), but I think they would be utterly and interestingly wrong. I think that paintings like File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Charity (1878).jpg and File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Motherland (1883).jpg celebrate a sense of women's nurturing and innocence. Looking at these and many other paintings (File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Young Woman Contemplating Two Embracing Children (1861).jpg, File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Not Too Much To Carry (1895).jpg) I can't help but get the feeling that he perceives, say, the beauty of a woman's thighs and breasts as being as much about the heirs they can bear and nourish as for their pleasure to the eye. It may be a socially backward perspective to admire women for what they are for rather than what they are, yet it also seems more mature and romantic; a sense that he is looking at them with the thought of living a life with them rather than spending a night. N.B. The same aesthetic applies to a music video I like, Mecano's "Una Rosa es Una Rosa"). Wnt (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]