Humanities desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 18

The ravages of deflation.

I am completely baffled by the headlines and WSJ articles proclaiming that Europe is on the verge of collapse because the prices for consumer goods may drop (deflation). What's wrong with it?

Also how does purchasing sovereign governmental bonds help to stimulate the economy?

Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A complex question, as our deflation article shows. One obvious consequence though is that consumers expecting prices to drop will have an incentive to delay purchases, causing a drop in demand, which leaves the producers having to drop their prices further to attract custom, in a deflationary spiral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and when employers try to cut wages to match, you can expect lots of trouble, especially where there are contracts and unions and minimum wages in the way. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, deflation hurts debtors disproportionately. Look at what happened in the housing market bubble (an Economic bubble is just a rapid deflation in a specific sector of the economy). People with mortgages saw housing prices deflate, making their homes "under water", meaning that the value of the home doesn't actually cover the outstanding debt on it. Now, instead of this merely striking a single sector, imagine the entire economy doing that. If you took out some debt when money was worth less, and then deflation hit, you still have to pay back the amount of cash, but now that cash is worth more in purchasing power, which means your repayment takes up a greater portion of your value. This also works for companies as well: prices fall, but liabilities such as insurance costs, rents, and wages do not, meaning that companies see less income (because their products are worth less), but still pay out the same cash. Bad news for all. Economists generally agree that slight inflation is generally the sign of a healthy economy. Small amounts of inflation tend to put upward pressure on wages (thus benefiting more people) without overly burdening purchasing power. --Jayron 32 04:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but there should be someone who benefits from deflation. It should be a zero sum game. Also how about bond purchasing? How does it help fighting deflation? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly individual winners under deflation, but if you want to set in place foundations to help prepare the way for solid broad-based growth over the next 5-10 years, then permitting deflation now is generally not the way to do it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, debt holders, such as banks, would benefit as long as they keep getting payments that are worth more and more each month, and those on fixed benefit retirement programs,etc., would similarly do well. However, chances are that eventually the debtors and governments will be unable to make their payments, and default. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the government purchases bonds that are in circulation, it will increase the money supply, which will lower the effective interest rate. If they sell bonds, the opposite happens. I'm not sure which is the appropriate response to deflation, although I suspect it is the latter. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very confused. The entire premise behind civilization (i.e., not going back to roving warbands as the basis of society) is that the economy and trade are not zero-sum games. To the extent that deflation is bad for anyone other than debtors (i.e., the over-leveraged wealthy and/or corporations), it is because the knock-on effects of declining consumption (in the end) hurt absolutely everyone. If that's strongly counter-intuitive, see Economy of Japan and focus on the last 2+ decades. —

Llywelyn II

08:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a gospel tract that gives more significance to Mary, mother of Jesus?

Out of all the gospel tracts I've encountered, it seems that they barely touch any information about Mary and what she has to do with salvation. Honestly, I did read The Illustrated Bible Story by Story, by DK Publishing, and I remember that there was one line that talked about how Mary, mother of Jesus, was regarded as the Second Eve, because she maintained perfect obedience to God and was known for her sinlessness. Eve sinned, but Mary did not. She obeyed God. Jesus was regarded as the Second Adam, because of his perfect obedience too. Unfortunately, the gospel tracts completely neglect Mary!!! Is there a gospel tract that gives more significance to Mary, mother of Jesus? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariology is a very large topic, with many contributors and changes in doctrine over the centuries. To answer your question, see Mary (mother of Jesus)#Specific references, which lists Scriptural references to Mary - in particular, the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-39), and John 19:25-26 ("Woman, behold thy son!"). See also Co-Redemptrix and related articles. Tevildo (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool. There is an article on Co-Redemptrix. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... further to Tevildo's excellent answer above, I would add that many tracts are produced by Protestant churches who do not believe in Roman Catholic Mariology. Dbfirs 10:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and to further two excellent answers with my own more meager one, I'll just note that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are both more pro-Marian and Protestants less so precisely because the former value extra-scriptural tradition and the latter discounts it. With Mariology, you're not really looking at gospel tracts: you're looking at traditions and interpretations handed down by the Doctors of the Church. —

Llywelyn II

08:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why does my vitamin B have 6000% percent of this stuff

I'm looking at a package of vitamin b and it shows like 6667% daily requirement of thiamin. whyy. how is that healthy? If it's healthy, why is it set so low? (by RDA) --89.133.6.76 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Thiamine. The RDA is the amount required to remove the risk of beri-beri and similar deficiency diseases - above that, you can eat as much of the stuff as you like ("There are no reports available of adverse effects from consumption of excess thiamine".) Whether or not it'll actually do you any good probably comes into the area of medical advice. Tevildo (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo's answer makes sense. Otherwise, are you sure there's not a decimal point in there somewhere? Can you find an illustration? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people believe in "megavitamin" therapy (taking obscene multiples of RDA). I don't. I just want a normal amount of the stuff. So, I assume there are no laws against any obscene overdosage of vitamins, and I want to make sure I don't have such a silly pack in front of me. Why doesn't the FDA also suggest a maximum? Well, I guess they would just start using that. Still, I'm uncomfortable with not even being able to determine if the maker of my vitamins intends it to be a controversial megavitamin therapy, or just a normal dosage. --89.133.6.76 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a strange looking number - like two-thirds multiplied by a thousand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No man this is the actual amount, it's not hte only one in the vitamin that's over 100% - same as if it had been this one for example http://www.optimumnutrition-bg.com/images/stress-b-complex-facts.jpg (I just did a google image search for "nutrition label vitamin b supplement" to get you that example picture.) --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overdosing on (some) vitamins can be a bad thing. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, VERY interesting link, especially since the last paragraph of the lede explicitly mentions vitamin B3. I thought there was some effect like that. So why aren't maximum recommended allowances printed? (even if it's just a recommendation.) Why only print a minimum? (which is also just a recommendation - it's not like you die if you don't eat anything all day that has vitamins listed in it.) Come to think of it, maximum might be more important than minimum, since you can eat all sorts of different prodcuts throughout the day and it will add up. But if my soy milk is fortified with calcium, I'd like to know if I'm likely to get more than the recommended dosage if I drinking 2.5 liters (or quarts) in a given day for some reason, such as eating a lot of cereal with it. (Where the cereal might also be fortified come to think of it. . .) Is vitamin overdosage just not a common concern? (as long as you get the minimum)? I mean if you eat 6-10 times the recommended dosage of all the vitamins, every day, is that still fine? --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious answer is "Because the law doesn't require it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the most notorious overconsumption might be Vitamin A, which can be toxic.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, obviously the question is why printing maximums isn't required where RDA is printed, given that it would be useful. --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6667% daily requirement is 66 and two thirds times the daily requirement. Vitamin B1 is a water soluable vitamin so your body will excrete the vitamin B1 it dosen't use.
Sleigh (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. If I'm consuming 66 times the "daily recommended" dosage, I'd like to know how the FDA thinks that compares with a recommended maximum. --89.133.6.76 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't care, as long as its labelled accurately. FDA doesn't set recomended maximums. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(same poster) I guess it's just pretty much a non-issue in most cases. I would think so, the only thing I want to make sure is that I'm not accicdentally eating some crazy person's idea that I need 10,000 times the daily recommended intake of whatever. For normal foods, I eat as much as I want from them. But when I see a vitamin supplement that has 66x the daily recommended dosage I'm like - wait, do the manufacturers happen to be insane? -- byh the by, the famous futurist Kurzweil is among these insane people. https://www.google.com/search?q=kurzweil+vitamins "takes 150 vitamins a day", including intravenous vitamins so he can "be immortal". (Hold out long enough, based on vitamin supplements, for medicine to cure old age.) That is crazy in my opinion, since if you're going to argue that you have to show that there is any such effect. it's not like they discovered a mouse that lived for 15 years (versus normal longevity of 2 years) in a storage container of multivitamins where it ate 15,000 the recommended amount per day. there's just (to my knowledge) no basis, it's just simple craziness. I'd like to avoid it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try the consumers, who will prefer very large amounts of non-toxic vitamins to reasonable amounts for enough of a premium to matter. EllenCT (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that the USRDA doesn't include a maximum, they don't even make it clear whether the RDA is a minimum, maximum, or average recommended dosage. For sodium, I suspect the 2500 mg figure they use is meant as a maximum. I think the logic must be "for things which people generally overdose on, give the maximum as the RDA, while for things which people generally underdose on, give the minimum as the RDA". StuRat (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we had access to a reference source so Stu didn't have to go his whole life not knowing what the RDA means. So he wouldn't have to suspect things, but would be able to actually read what the answers to his questions are. Has anyone seen an encyclopedia around here? I swear, someone should create a website of some sort, where we could collect this information in one place, and then questions like Stu's could be answered with minimal effort. Goodness, has anyone heard of such a thing? The best thing I could find was an obscure website called Wikipedia, where I found an article about the Dietary Reference Intake, which is the method used to calculate the recommended daily allowance. The text there says "Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA), the daily dietary intake level of a nutrient considered sufficient by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine to meet the requirements of 97.5% of healthy individuals in each life-stage and sex group." (bold mine). Hope that helps. Also, according to that article, they DO Include maximum recommendations for those nutrients which are harmful in large amounts, "Tolerable upper intake levels (UL), to caution against excessive intake of nutrients (like vitamin A) that can be harmful in large amounts. This is the highest level of daily consumption that current data have shown to cause no side effects in humans when used indefinitely without medical supervision." We even have a nice table, referenced to the original source, which lists all of the various recommendations, upper levels, etc. for various nutrients. --Jayron 32 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took you to write that, you could have made it past the first sentence of the article. There's a whole section, the third one, called "Disputed value" and reading "The value of RDA/RDIs is disputed among nutritionists. Indeed, even the 'definition of RDAs and their relevance to health' is disputed. It then gives the example of Sodium and speaks directly to Stu's point. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, which is why I included a link to a reference because this is the reference desk. Stu finds it beneath himself to actually back up anything he says with verifiable referencing, claiming that "obvious" statements don't need references (he often claims that when called on his lack of references). However, Stu's definition of "obvious" is somewhat idiosyncratic, meaning "literally almost every statement StuRat makes". Conveniently, whenever he is working with that definition, he never has to provide a single reference for any random statement he chooses to make. --Jayron 32 02:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about artist F. Tayler

I'm unsure about an artist and would appreciate information about him so we could set the records straight.

I created Category:John Frederick Tayler on Commons for a series of illustrations to The Ballad of Chevy Chase signed F. Tayler, which I uploaded. Now I strongly suspect that John Frederick and F are not identical, as motives and style differ, but I'm unable to find information about this other "F. Tayler". A separate category for him would be appropriate, but I would prefer to know more before I do anything. Anybody who has access to information? --Jonund (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think they're the same man. I find several references to "Chevy Chase" being illustrated by Frederick Tayler, President of the Water Colour Society, or by Frederick Tayler (1802-1889). [2] [3] [4] [5] Our page on John Frederick Tayler (1802-1889) puts brackets around his first name to show he was better known by the middle one, and says he was President of that society. I think you're going to have to show something stronger than stylistic evidence that there was a separate F. Tayler who illustrated "Chevy Chase". --Antiquary (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Antiquary, in his obituary in the London Times "Frederick Tayler" the water colour artist died on 20 June 1889, the same day as John Frederick Tayler per his article, it is clear they are the same person. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My suspicions were unfounded. --Jonund (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estimate of compensation to Britain for loss of 1776 USA.

OK, I know it was a victorious outcome for the U.S. over Britain and that's all in the past. I am not concerned with the rights, wrongs or politics surrounding or following that fact. But out of sheer curiosity, I wonder what the perceived financial loss was to Britain, expressed in current £ Sterling. Yes, there were savings too, insofar as not having to maintain a Colonial Government and Militia etc. but the loss of such an asset as the USA must have been incredibly immense, even allowing for the then untapped oil reserves, gold, silver, grain, timber, technology as we know it, and international commerce. Difficult question to assess I know. And if it's not possible to do so, I understand. Thanks. 77.97.208.118 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article Financial costs of the American Revolutionary War, but that just covers the short-term costs of the war itself. How the world would have developed if the USA had not been independent can only be a matter for speculation, starting with how North America would have been divided between Britain, France, Spain, and Russia. Tevildo (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can always look at the current GDP of the US and assume that would be added to Britain's GDP, but that makes a lot of assumptions. Personally, I'd expect that if the US hadn't split off suddenly, in war, it would have done so gradually, in peace, as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., did. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. As for the French and Spanish bits of North America, if the Thirteen Colonies had still been in British hands during the Napoleonic Wars, we'd almost certainly have annexed them since neither power had an effective fleet after the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. As it was, the US bought Louisiana, the proceeds of which were used to build an cross-Channel invasion fleet which was never used. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possibility whatsoever of GDP₁+GDP₂. Continued British control over North America couldn't've increased British investment over the already huge sums that were expended but would have reduced French &c. investment and German, French, possibly Irish immigration in favor of other venues. Moreover, the South was never going to go along peaceably with British emancipation: you have a choice between A) commercial interests win out and the British maintain their own slave trade decades or centuries longer, self-justified by even-worse-than-historical ideas about eugenics; B) a war in the early decades of the 19th century that would have produced a separate American union with the South relatively stronger than the North and uninterested in ending the practice ahead of time; or C) a war after the development of exploding shells and modern ordinance that Britain would have won handily but at the cost of turning America into an underdeveloped Irish-like quagmire.

77.97.208.118 seems to be interested in how great Britain could have been with America's resources but the correct answer is that, for anyone in the British elite, it was already headed in the best possible direction (owning as much as possible at minimal cost, with huge returns) right up until the point where WWI and then WWII forced them to liquidate everything and shifted the world's financial center from the City to Wall Street. The problem is with having failed to accommodate Germany₁, not with having failed to hold on to the colonies. —

Llywelyn II

08:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural terminology

Is there a term for the ornamental brickwork above and below the top-storey windows of this building? I think I've seen a term that refers to ornamental work with the indentations (below the windows) and the slightly overhanging stuff (above the windows, and on the tops of the facade's corners), but I don't know what it is. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The overhanging stuff above the windows is called corbelling, I believe. See, for instance, the page here about its use in brickwork. Deor (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Deor above, but see also cornice. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informally, all of the brickwork that is offset from the dominant plane can be referred to as corbelling. Some cornices are made via corbelling, but not all. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Alansplodge (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I know what corbelling and a cornice are (WhatLinksHere for those pages will show plenty of articles I've written), but I tend to confuse corbelling with dentilling, and anyway all three of these terms were slipping my mind. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]