Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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 7

Reference to Halle Berry

I read the following statement in a news article (about Deflategate). The article states: "This is a circumstantial case, to be sure, but it is the Halle Berry of circumstantial cases". The full article is found here: Tom Brady's Legacy Forever Scarred by Damning Wells Report. What does the reference to Halle Berry mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rather non-PC reference to Ms Berry's ethnicity - the implied analogy is "circumstantial evidence:direct evidence::black actresses:white actresses". Ms Berry is a very good black actress, and this case has very good circumstantial evidence, but Ms Berry is not white and this case has no direct evidence. (Please feel free to substitute "female actor" for my own non-PC language in the preceding). Tevildo (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is this a "well known" reference? I have never heard this, or anything remotely close, before. I know that Halle Berry is biracial (as are millions of other people). Any reason that her case is so "special" and "note worthy", such that it would create a well-known or well-recognized reference such as this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a well-known reference at all. What's going on is that lots of sports columnists develop peculiar references that they use to build their "brand." You know it's a Rick Reilly article, for example, if there's a gratuitous reference to how flossing is boring. Mike Freeman just really, really loves Halle Berry.[1][2][3][4] --M @r ē ino 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy Tevildo's racial analogy; it just doesn't ring true to my ears. It sounds to me as if Freeman is simply using her name as a idiosyncratic superlative, and that "the Halle Berry of circumstantial cases" just means "the strongest of circumstantial cases". Our article on the writer is at Mike Freeman (columnist). He no longer works for CBS Sports, so our external link to his biography there is broken, but here is a link to his Bleacher Report profile. -- ToE 16:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tight, super-sexy, kick-ass, circumstantial case rather than a flabby, unattractive, weak one. I doubt this has anything to do with Ms Berry being a black actress rather than a white one. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused by the entire thread, but see Ilex opaca. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it now. "Halle Berry" is a synonym for "top notch". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Now it makes sense to me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schumann's stranded repeat sign

I have a technical music notation question that has stumped both my music teacher and myself. It concerns how to interpret an opening repeat sign with no corresponding closing sign. It appears in the 4th piece, "Grillen", from Robert Schumann's Fantasiestücke, Op. 12.

If you go to page 9 of this score, the final measure in the top row starts with a repeat sign. But there is no closing sign anywhere, just some double bar lines. There's another opening repeat in the second row on page 10, and its closing repeat is on row 5. The answer to the question of where the closing repeat of the original repeat sign is, is never answered. It surely cannot mean that the entire piece from the repeat sign to the very end, is repeated, can it?

This stranded repeat is in every edition of this music that I have been able to track down, yet nowhere is there any commentary on what it means. These editions include those edited by Schumann's widow Clara, who was a virtuoso pianist who knew more than anyone what his intentions were, and was renowned for her attention to detail, so that sort of argues against this being just a misprint. The recordings I either have or have tracked down on youtube all seem to just ignore this repeat sign. How do they know this is the appropriate course of action? Any clues, anyone? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure speculation, but as the 8 bars after the opening repeat sign are repeated further down the page, maybe an earlier version (or the MS) had an end-repeat sign where there is now a double bar in the fourth system on the page, and omitted the 8 bars that now come after that double bar, with a first- and second-time set-up around the double barlines on the second system. Then in a later version the repeat was written out in full, but the opening repeat sign wasn't removed. I agree that a reasonably careful editor would notice the discrepancy at once, but in the days of hand-engraving (as memorably depicted here) it wasn't easy to correct errors. It's conceivable that there should be an end-repeat mark at the double bar on the fourth system, and that seems to be the only possible way to make the start-repeat possible. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If my counting is correct, that would be where the key signature changes from 5 flats to 6 flats? I might try repeating that whole section and see if it makes musical sense. (I'm playing this in an eisteddfod soon, and I'm limited to 5 minutes, so I'd better get out the old stop watch.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Yes, that works, both aesthetically and chronometrically. My esteemed teacher supports this approach, and that was a nice birthday surprise for her. Thanks for the inspiration, Andrew. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Music Theory Q & A.—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might ask there if Andrew's suggestion doesn't work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Crossing international or interstate borders by car

I have watched a documentary that reports that the Mexican-American border is heavily guarded. However, I am not sure if the Mexican government is as vigorous as the American government in keeping illegal immigrants out. How heavily guarded is the Canadian-American border? I have heard that some Canadians take advantage of the American "Black Friday" and cross the border to buy things. For safety and legality in traveling by car, do people generally collect a valid passport and tourist visa before hitting the road? 140.254.226.191 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few years since I've done so, but basically crossing the U.S. - Canadian border is much easier than the U.S. Mexican border. When I did it, you stopped for a second, showed the requisite documents, and were waved on. Going from the U.S. into Canada was easier than the reverse, but neither was particularly hard. I used to regularly drive from Chicago to New Hampshire and back again, and the best route is actually across Southern Ontario (it is almost exactly 1000 miles using either the Canadian or American routes, but the tolls in the U.S. are quite pricey!). I never had to speak to a border agent longer than about 60 seconds at either border. One time, going into the U.S., they made me open the trunk of my car, but didn't look more than a few seconds, and then told me to go about my business. That's about it. This article and this article and many others I can find note the difference. The reason for the difference in security levels would likely be a lively discussion, but is outside the realm of this board. --Jayron 32 16:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to do the same trip (Detroit to and from Connecticut). Back then no passport was required. Now it is, or you need to have an "enhanced drivers license", which is essentially linked to an online passport. I haven't bothered going to Canada since they added that requirement. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I drive into Canada from the United States (and back into the United States) roughly once per year. The border is under surveillance, and crossings are restricted to guarded checkpoints, but it is not as intensively patrolled or fortified as the Mexican border. No visa is required by either country for the other's citizens, but the United States does require passports (or the alternative document that StuRat mentions, which is not much easier to obtain than a passport). I have never had any trouble crossing the border in either direction. I've had my car trunk searched maybe 4 times out of 10 crossing into the United States, never crossing into Canada. (I suspect that this is mainly to prevent drugs coming from Canada to the United States.) Typically, the guard asks a few questions about your destination in the country, the purpose of your visit, your occupation, and how you know any traveling companion. I've taken my dog with me. In that case, they want to see proof of a valid rabies vaccination. It is certainly true that Canadians make shopping trips to U.S. border cities, because prices are often lower south of the border. Canadians who live near the border even cross just to buy (cheaper) gas for their cars. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the Detroit River by private boat requires a once a year inspection or calling the U.S. on a official video phone on the Canadian side.[5] On the Great Lakes you are required to call the Canadian border patrol when you cross into Canadian waters (must be tricky in parts of Lake Huron and Superior).[6] It used to be common to cross the Detroit River for the nightlife but since 9/11 that has lessened. The enhanced ID available in some states is cheaper than a passport or Pass card but neither the ID nor Passcard is good for international air travel. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live, in Vermont, about a couple hours from Montreal. I've made the crossing probably half a dozen times and it is much like what Marco says above. Though, I've never had to open my trunk. I thought I might point out a thing or two though. Canadians don't just come down during Black Friday but come down quite regularly when the exchange rate benefits them. Some stores here know some Canadians and will hold things behind the counter for a couple days if Canadians call to say they're coming down and don't want to find that the item is sold out when they get here. Also, people in Derby Line, Vermont used to be able to cross the border quite freely to visit friends down the street, which also happened to mean crossing the border. See that article for more on the particulars including a library where the border actually crosses through the building. Dismas|^(talk) 19:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you were a US or Canadian citizen it used to be true that you could cross the border with nothing more than proof of identify (usually a driver's license) and proof of citizenship (usually a birth certificate)—documents that most people would have, so no advance planning was required to cross the border. And in practice, if you seemed like an American or Canadian to the border guards, they often wouldn't even ask for that. (One time in 1997 a US border guard at the Rainbow Bridge started by asking me "Bringing anything in?" in such rapid speech that it came out as about three syllables. I said "Huh?" or "What?" and he said "Okay." Elapsed time, less than 5 seconds.) The US started requiring passports (or other documents that most people who don't travel regularly won't have) for all travelers only in 2009, and I think they've generally gotten stricter about checking things than they used to be. Returning to Canada, I haven't noticed any such changes, but I don't know if visitors have a different experience. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty easy going back and forth now. I guess now that we have to use a passport, they are actually less strict. I did get pulled aside once and they went through my car, but that was in early 2002, when they actually did have armed soldiers patrolling the border. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are banks able to loan out more money than they receive in deposits?

I barely have any economic or financial knowledge at all, but am trying to learn more and have been reading through this article [7] about banks on the How Stuff Works website. The third page of the article says "that while people are putting money into the bank every day, the bank is lending that same money and more to other people every day."

I've been struggling to figure out what the word "more" is referring to in this context. The previous page of the article explains a process that I believe is called fractional reserve banking, in which banks are able to loan out more money than actually exists in physical form. However, it seems that within this process, all of the money that banks are able to loan out still has to be deposited first, whereas the quote seems to imply that banks are loaning out more money than actually gets deposited.

I'm aware that banks don't loan out the entirety of what they receive in deposits, because of the reserve requirement. But is there some other way that a bank can loan out money, other than just relying on the deposits of clients? --Jpcase (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best article on Wikipedia to start you off is capital adequacy ratio; banks and other financial institutions typically have liabilities (which includes the repayments of deposits) and assets (which includes stuff the institution owns, like mortgages). Banking regulators impose capital requirements, with the idea that the bank will be able to meet any practical call on its liabilities. The financial crisis of 2007–08 was, in part, caused because those requirements were inadequate, and because assets the banks owned (in the form of mortgage-backed securities) turned out not to be worth nearly as much as the banks thought they were. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All very good, but I think Fractional-reserve_banking is the better place to start. In short, OP is is correct that for most banks, the total amount loaned out at any given time is more than the sum of all deposits. Leverage_(finance) is also good background reading. When there have been insufficient regulations, and banks become over leveraged, they risk defaulting through a bank run, which has happened several times in history, and is a related but somewhat simpler situation than the 2007-8 financial crisis. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bank might lend out more money than it has received in deposits. To understand why, think of the bank's balance sheet: it has assets and liabilities. In a very simple bank, its assets might consist entirely of loans, while its liabilities might consist not just of deposits, but of the bank's capital. For example, consider a bank that has taken $50 of deposits and has $50 of paid-in capital. Its total liabilities are $100, which means that it must also have $100 of assets. In this simple example these might all be in the form of loans to customers, so in this case the bank has lent out more money than it has taken in deposits, but not more than its total liabilities.

In real life, bank regulators require that a certain fraction of the bank's assets be held in cash (or certain other special assets). This is so that the bank can usually repay the deposits of anyone who has a current account with the bank, without running out of money. Suppose, in our example, that the regulators require that the bank keep 25% of its assets in cash in case a few borrowers come in and take money out of their current accounts (the bank doesn't need to keep all its assets in cash, because it knows that not everyone will try to take money out of their current account at the same time): then in this example the bank has to keep $25 of its assets in cash. This means that it can still lend out $75 as bank loans. Again, the volume of loans made is greater than the deposit base, but, again, it has not lent more than its total liabilities. The general point should now be clear: banks have more than one kind of liability, and thus may be able to lend more than they have taken in deposit. RomanSpa (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I think we need to be careful with the terminology here.

Fractional-reserve_banking does not mean that an individual bank can lend more than the deposits+equity. As far as I know regular banks cannot do that, but I stand ready to be corrected.
Leverage_(finance) is again not applicable, since leverage involves using borrowed money (aka deposits, in case of banks) to make investments, and the leveraging advantage arises from the ratio of this borrowed money to equity.
Not directly relevant to the original question but we also need to distinguish between regular banks, and the shadow banking system, since the latter is the one which is much more loosely regulated and played a large role in the financial crisis.

As I said above, I believe the answer to the OP's quation is that a bank cannot lend more than their its combined equity and deposit (and because of CAR requirements the amount it can lend is strictly less), but there may be nuances I am missing. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Though Roman and I have worded our answers in the form "can" and "cannot" respectively, we both are in agreement! Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be careful with terminology, and I can see how "fractional reserve" is not quite what the OP is asking about (though I do still think it's good background). But now I'm confused about leverage. You claim that "leverage is again not applicable, since leverage involves using borrowed money (aka deposits, in case of banks) to make investments." So, are you saying that banks do not use deposits to make investments (e.g. loans)? Because if they are not investing that money in some manner, then they'd have full reserves equal or greater to deposits, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Indeed Leverage_(finance)#Bank_regulation seems to indicate that leverage does apply to banks, and that reserve requirements do not, by themselves limit the extent of leverage. So instead, capital requirements are mandated in many places so that "these institutions do not take on excess leverage and become insolvent." SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Fractional-reserve banking and Leverage (finance) are indeed goodbackground material, but I was just pointing out they do not answer the OP's question of whether banks can lend more money than their deposits.

With respect to fractional-reserve banking in particular, it is commonly understood by laypersons to mean that "banks can create money out of thin air", or "lend more money than they have". While the former is arguably true, the latter isn't (afaik) since fractional-reserve banking essentially means that banks can loan out at least some of their deposits (ie not all loans financed by owner's capital). And as soon as you allow banks to loan out say even 1% of their deposits , you'll have a fractional reserve banking system, and by itself it has nothing to do loans exceeding deposit. In their question, the OP already indicated that they understood this point.
And as for financial leverage: a bank can in theory have infinite leverage ratio while still lending out less money than its deposits. And it can have a leverage ratio infinitesimally above 1 and still lend out more money than its deposits. So again this factor alone doesn't say anything about the loan/deposit ratio.

That's the reason I was calling for care. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That clears a few things up for me at least. But now I'm left wondering if the claim "loans can exceed deposits" is directly supported by any of the links above? I've tried to find something to that effect, but have so far come up short. I suspect that the claim is derivable as a logical implication of some of the details in the CAR and capital requirement articles, but to see that, a reader would have to be fairly familiar with the material already. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has to clarify himself based on the above questions. Fractional reserve banking would be the apparently relevant issue, but Jpcase would need to clarify himself in regard to the above answers. When Alan Greenspan asked Ayn Rand if FRB was moral, she advised him it was, as a considered risk. 100 Voices. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay McWalter: @Semantic Mantis: @RomanSpa: @Abecedare: @Medeis and Μηδείς:

O_O

Woah. Hehe...I knew that whatever answer I received was likely going to take some work on my part to understand, but this is a surprise. I have to say, I was a little bit stunned when I saw the sheer number of replies that I've received on this question... both stunned in gratitude and just stunned by the sheer complexity of it all.

I feel like I should reiterate the point that I led my original post with - I really don't know much about economics or finances at all. Hence why I was reading "How Stuff Works". ;) I'm only 21. I've taken a single basic economics course in college, and I can't say that even fully understood that. It seems like the question that I'm asking is somewhat advanced, probably above my head a bit. I really do want to try to understand this, but to borrow a quote from Denzel Washington's character in Philadelphia, you might have to "explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old", haha.

SemanticMantis - when you talk about leveraging, are you saying that banks will receive loans themselves and then take that money and loan it out to others? If so, where are the banks receiving these loans from? The Federal Reserve?

RomanSpa - I think I follow what you're saying. By "paid-in-capital" are you referring to the money that has been invested into the bank by stockholders?

@Jpcase:: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. By the way, to get a basic understanding of this, I strongly suggest you ignore all the stuff that people have mentioned about Fractional-reserve banking, Leverage (finance) and capital adequacy ratios; these are all important issues, but are not relevant to getting a basic understanding of how a bank's balance sheet works. Finally, I've been asked by one of the other contributors here to provide a reference in support of my earlier remarks. If you're just starting out in economics, a really good place to start is "The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets" by Frederic Mishkin; an interested undergraduate should be able to read it with no trouble. More generally, you mentioned that so far you've taken just one basic economics course in college: if you enjoyed it and want to learn more, do consider studying more - economics is one of the most intellectually rewarding of subjects, and financial economics (which is the area of economics that deals with banks and financial markets) is tremendously exciting at present! RomanSpa (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare - perhaps the biggest enigma for me out of everything I read above would honestly have to be the meaning of "after ec", haha. Is this an economic term or is it just internet shorthand?

--Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"ec" is wikipedia slang for edit conflict. On the Reference Desks it generally seems to mean something like this: "While I was taking the time to write this great answer, someone else posted their answer. But instead of going to the trouble of looking at what they wrote and editing my posting so that it does not duplicate theirs or so that it acknowledges or responds to what they said (as appropriate), I'm just going to post it the way I wrote it." But perhaps some people intend it differently. I haven't read all the content above. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but my only barely relevant knowledge here is the relation of FRB to ethics. The problem in the US is that the FDIC and the implicit political promise of bailouts for too big to fail companies creates a huge moral hazard. We'll see how this works out over the next couple of years, depending if there's a crash or a Federal Reserve audit. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answers in here are more complex than necessary. The only thing OP needs to understand is that deposits is only one part of the funding that the bank has. Other major funding sources include:

equity capital - i.e., the money put in by shareholders.
bonds - i.e., the investors on the market purchase the debt securities issued by the bank. The buyers typically include mutual funds, insurance companies and private individuals.
subordinated securities - a riskier type of bond that is closer to shareholder equity
Lending from other banks - not very common except for short term deposits, although sometimes significant lending occurs from non-commercial banks, such as European Investment Bank.
Insurance premiums - where banks also act as insurance companies, they borrow from insurance policy holders against a promise to pay out later, when the insurance event occurs.

There may be other ways of funding as well.

To give an example, a bank I'm familiar with [8] had 38% of its balance sheet funded from deposits, 26% from debt securities and subordinated debt, 13% from insurance policies and 5% from shareholder equity. On the other hand, only 49% of its balance sheet was also lent to various creditors, with significant amounts of cash and financial instruments held at hand. One should keep in mind that this is a merchant bank - a more retail-oriented bank will have a larger share of deposits.No longer a penguin (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We still should be careful with the terminology. In a sense, when you deposit money with a bank, you are loaning it to them (you can earn interest on savings accounts, and they get to do other things with the money), but that's not what we normally call it. So it's better to say that they make investments with our deposits. I still don't have a good, clear reference for the claim "banks can loan out more money than they have in deposits", but everybody here seems to think it is true. Everybody also seems to agree that loans cannot exceed total liabilities, which we can think of as mostly deposits+equity. If you look through the formulas in the CAR article, I think that loans exceeding deposits is a consequence of some of the equations, together with the actual regulatory limits. SemanticMantis (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. In no sense, when you deposit money with a bank, are you lending it to them, as you can clearly see from our article on deposit accounts. A banking deposit is legally and economically entirely different from a loan to the bank. The whys and wherefores of this are, however, outside the scope of the original question, which I have attempted to answer above. RomanSpa (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Type of social dance shown in Pride and Prejudice

What is that dance called? I'm talking about the dance that has barely any touching. It just doesn't look like waltz to me. What is that dance? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might it have been a Morris dance or a Country dance? --Jayron 32 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a description in the novel, or to a specific film or TV dramatisation of it? Paul B (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film dramatization. 164.107.182.34 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This film, or some other version? Paul B (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this page for some possibilities. A more specific answer will depend upon the exact adaptation, although it's likely to be a variant of country dance that Jayron linked to. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah, you are referring to this scene. It's supposed to be a country dance, possibly based, I'd guess, on Hogarth's country dance from the Analysis of Beauty. It's probably created specially for the film, to give a suitable air of elegant distance. The music (Bach!) is completely anachronistic. That would never be played at a dance in the 1810s. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That music is a minuet (and is not by Bach - it's the tune from Abdelazer by Purcell that Britten used in his "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra". Even less likely to be used at that date than Bach, I fancy). But I suspect the question is about the following scene, which very likely is a country dance. --ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that our articles claim that the waltz only reached Britain in the same year that Pride and Prejudice was published. Rmhermen (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this "Historical Social Dance blog" entry on "What did Jane Austen Dance?" lists Waltz among "things Jane Austen didn't dance, regardless of how often someone thinks it's a good idea to put them in an Austen movie". Like the previously linked Jane Austen blog, it too lists Country dances, Cotillions, and Boulanger (redlink!) as the ones that Austen danced/mentioned in her work. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs and cars

Although I do know that gangsters in cities may be involved in violent crime and purchase cars to show off their status, I wonder whether they actually turn themselves in in order to receive a driver's license. Wouldn't the driver's testing centers be suspicious of the illegal activity or the high-profile criminals? Do gangsters have legal, valid driver's licenses? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the gangs don't get caught by the driver's testing centers, do they have to go to jury duty or get drafted into the military? Or do they somehow try to evade those responsibilities of being a citizen (in the United States)? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US you have to register for the draft, but there hasn't been any actual conscription for decades. The penalties for not registering are fairly small for a criminal, too, like becoming ineligible for student loans. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's basically 3 approaches taken by criminals:

1) Maintain their own "legit" public presence. That is, have a registered mailing address, phone number, etc. This only works if they aren't wanted by police.

2) Go underground. For those who are wanted by police, they can have a fake driver's license, steal one from somebody who looks similar, or just run whenever the police try to stop them.

3) Set up a new "legit" identify. They can do an identity fraud to completely set up under a new name. This works better if the person whose ID they steal is dead (of natural causes, to avoid police scrutiny), or else that person will find out somebody else is using their ID when they apply for credit, file their taxes, etc. It's also best to move to another city, so any policeman who pulls them over won't recognize them. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious whether Stu's got any references, or if he's going on personal experience here. :)

I have never once been asked whether I was a gang member when applying for a driver's license, even though I lived in Fort Apache, The Bronx. I am not quite sure I understand the question. If the implication is that information that might implicate someone in a criminal matter would be shared with the authorities, I am not sure that that's the case. I'd suggest reading the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anybody at a testing center would dare to make a citizen's arrest of a dangerous fugitive. (I can just imagine the driving test: "Turn right at the light and parallel park in front of the police station.") Also, they would not be accepted for a jury by the prosecuting attorney. Finally, there is no draft currently, but if there were, it would depend on how desperate the situation was, I'd imagine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the OP has in mind are wanted criminals. That is, if the FBI or whoever is actively looking for you, could you still go and get a driver's license. You do occasionally hear similar situations, where a long forgotten suspect gets nabbed while picking up a parcel or lost item or something. My guess is that if you're a hardened criminal, getting caught driving without a license is the least of your priorities and probably skip it. Matt Deres (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals would very much like to avoid being picked up for driving without a license, because, if they are, then their prints will be run and they could get charged with far more serious crimes. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the two lifestyles of upstanding citizenry versus criminal activity are carefully managed they would tend to be incompatible and this would probably extend to the automotive realm. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, at least in some states, juries are picked from registered voters; if you're not maintaining your own "legit" public presence, you won't get selected. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the public's POV, this issue is similar to other reasons people might not be able to get a driver's license, like being an illegal immigrant or being delinquent on property tax. The argument against denying all such people licenses is that they will then drive unlicensed, run from police and create dangerous high speed chase situations, and do a hit-and-run at an accident rather than stop to render assistance, because they can't risk being caught. There has to be a balance between this risk and the seriousness of the crime. If the person is a serial killer, then catching them any way you can is obviously a higher priority, so watching for such people if they try to renew their licence makes sense. On the other hand, if they just have unpaid parking tickets, then pushing them into driving illegally seems foolish. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP has asked the question based on a number of incorrect assumptions. Limiting myself to only US examples of gangsters, AFAIK being a criminal -- alleged, indicted, or convicted -- is not a basis for being refused a driver's license. And if they want to hide where they live when one gets a driver's license -- or register their fancy wheels -- they can always lie. Or register the car (or their business, or their fancy home) in someone else's name. And the vast majority of law enforcement agencies do know who the bad guys are -- at least the higher profile ones -- so the problem there is not finding the bad guys. (Then again, sometimes law enforcement wrongly identifies people as being gangsters; it has been known to happen. After all, not all Sicilians, Columbians or Russians are gangsters.) The problem is, unlike what is shown in tv shows, building a case against the gangsters that will stand up in court & send them to prison. It's been many decades since law enforcement could simply shoot their way into a gangster's lair, arrest everyone, & put the mooks behind bars. So bringing gangsters to justice is like a game: each side knows who the other is, & what crimes they have committed, but until law enforcement obtains evidence, or identifies reliable witnesses, or catches the gangster red-handed, the gangsters are allowed to live their lives like any law-abiding citizen. -- llywrch (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several decades of growth

In the 1970s Ireland was ranked 37th in terms of GDP per capita. Today, they are 11th per capita. Is the phenomenal growth a result of the end of the war? 78.146.102.221 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "war" was just in Northern Ireland, wasn't it ? StuRat (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(It is 2015, so 1970 was 45 years ago, right? tempus fugit) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's still ongoing. Unfortunately. Some people who grew up with guns, just can't put them down, just like drug addicts. There will always be war until these people are put away and not left to teach their children to fight with lethal weaponry.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

23:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mathematics is pretty shit. But back to the point. Why did their per capita outlook grow so much? 78.146.102.221 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly in northern Ireland, yes, but a bit of killing in Ireland republic too. 78.146.102.221 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 European Commission article "The economy of Ireland: whither the Celtic Tiger?" discusses how "over the last two decades, Ireland achieved a remarkable economic transformation". There's also this paper titled "The Irish Economic Boom: Facts, Causes, and Lessons". From briefly skimming them, neither seems to attribute it to a cease in fighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did the improvement in the economy help dissuade people from making war? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is impossible to answer. We know there was an improvement in the economy (mainly in the Republic) and there was a peace process (in the North). But how could you show that one caused the other? It can be shown that people in the Republic gradually became less bothered about unification of the whole Ireland, and that its government was willing to work with the British government. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willing? It was more out of necessity. £7bn of bailout would hardly be called 'willing', more like an Oliver Twist scenario.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

15:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The growth was mainly due to Ireland entering the EU in 1973. The £30Bn in subsidies to that small poor country plus a huge common market opening to it was very wisely handled by the Irish. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The EU didn't exist in 1973. I think you mean the EEC.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, KageTora. Can't even remember me own name sometimes. I even had to enlist your help to spell my name. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought that The Troubles had a significant economic impact on the Republic of Ireland. There were some bombings by the Ulster Volunteer Force, a Loyalist paramilitary group, the worst being the the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and there were regular skirmishes between the IRA and security forces along the border. But as User:StuRat says above, most of the carnage was in Northern Ireland and (to a lesser degree) mainland Britain. The Celtic Tiger epithet now has a rather hollow ring, as Ireland was later included amongst the PIGS - the spendthrift countries that caused the European debt crisis. Ireland received a substantial "bailout" from the IMF and the EU, although the direct contribution by the British Government alluded to by User:KageTora above seems to a loan rather than a gift. [9] Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That is why I called it an Oliver Twist scenario, because they were already getting money from the IMF, but then it was just, "Please, sir, can I have some more?"

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

10:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on top of that, "Since its accession to the EU the country [Republic of Ireland] has received from the European Union EUR 41,624 million over what it has contributed." [10] At least some of that has come from us poor Brits. Are we downhearted? Well, just a bit to tell the truth. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]