Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 15

Number of Germans in eastern Europe killed and/or expelled

How many Germans in eastern Europe were killed and/or expelled towards and after the end of ww2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The bonfirer (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This is the sort of irrelevant discursive chat that makes others despair of this page. Stop it.

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

Shouldn't have tried to take over the world and enslave the expellers then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Very worrying attitude. Fgf10 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better to have been passive and allowed the Nazis to take over Europe, ja? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the practised art of putting words in my mouth. The German settlers could have been removed without killing them (and indeed, large numbers of them were). This is the difference between justice and revenge. Note that nobody is asking about or discussing the initial conquering of the territories in question. Fgf10 (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acts against even a single German disproportionate to what he or she did are wrong and should never have happened. But war is horrible, mean people exist on all sides of any size and these things happen and are used to minimize an even worse national leader down plan of enslavement, starvation, exile to Siberia and extermination of the various "Eastern subhuman races". And they left their country to take others peoples' countries, might've been more Nazi than average to volunteer so they should have to go back. I have nothing against German people or their culture, country etc. of course (I'll either marry a German or a Jew (because incredibly pretty)) I just don't like Nazism and cruelty. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the ethnic Germans expelled from the east included many – probably a majority – whose ancestors had been there for centuries, so I wouldn't count them as part of the Nazi invasion. —Tamfang (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Textorus (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rates of "intentional homicide" in different countries

Some figures quoted above on this page suggest that people are about 400% more likely to be a victim of "intentional homicide" in the USA than in GB.

Is there a chart somewhere on or offwiki showing these figures? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have linked it up there. It's somewhat obviously named List of countries by intentional homicide rate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the term "intentional homicide". If it's accidental, I wouldn't call it homicide at all. Is there a US English vs. UK English diff here ? There's also a legal versus scientific diff, I believe, where legal homicide requires intent. So, if an insane person kills another because they think they are killing a dragon, that would be scientific homicide but perhaps not legal homicide. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This guide [1] may be useful. 86.176.84.174 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: homicide just means killing another person. Hack (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. If you asked an executioner or a doctor who performs euthanasia on brain dead patients (with the consent of their relatives), I doubt if either would tell you they commit homicide. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If only we had a sourced article... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The executioner is definitely committing homicide according to the dictionary definition. The doctor who administers a lethal injection to a terminally ill and excruciatingly suffering (but alive) patient at their own request is still committing homicide. The brain-dead patient might not be homicide if they're "dead" already (see medical definition of death). Even killing someone in justified self-defence is homicide. Whether or not an act is homicide has nothing to do with its' legality or morality. Eliyohub (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever write its' again, you may find out the hard way what homicide is. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hence "Word Crimes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) (from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database) says: "United Kingdom - 1995: 1, 2013, 1" and "United States - 1995: 8, 2013: 4". So 400% down from 800% is rather encouraging isn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true though that the homicide article doesn't seem to have a category for "accidental homicide". If you kill someone by accident, in a situation where you had exercised all due care, I think that's still "homicide", isn't it? I would like to see the article clarified on this point. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References for bondage hood article?

It's proving almost impossible to find good references for the bondage hood article, which has recently been turned into a redirect for that reason. Part of the reason for this seems to be that this is such a commonly sold piece of BDSM apparatus/clothing that huge numbers of un-citeable shopping websites selling the item dominate the results of any web search. Using the term "gimp mask" finds news sources, but only generally of a pop-culture nature. Can anyone find any reliable sources that might be used to help build this article? -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's proving so hard to find references, that would seem to indicate that the subject is not notable enough to have its own article. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this is such a common item -- found in sex shops everywhere, sold by hundreds of on-line stores, referenced in popular culture the whole time (generally under the name "gimp mask", and particularly memorably in Pulp Fiction) -- that it's quite remarkable that we can't find sources. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's remarkable at all. Bondage is not a topic that gets much coverage in mainstream media, for obvious reasons. --Viennese Waltz 11:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching in Google Books (not really sure that I want that on my work computer though). Alansplodge (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the bibliography of the article "Bondage and Discipline" (pp. 178-180) by Maureen Lauder in volume 1 of the four-volume Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender (Fedwa Malti-Douglas, editor-in-chief; Macmillan Reference USA, 2007):

Bean, Joseph. 1994. Leathersex: A Guide for the Curious Outsider and the Serious Player. San Francisco: Daedalus.
Brame, William; Gloria Brame; and Jon Jacobs. 1996. Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Dominance and Submission. New York: Villard.
Midori. 2001. The Seductive Art of Japanese Bondage. San Francisco: Greenery Press.
Miller, Philip, and Molly Devon. 1995. Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns: The Romance and Sexual Sorcery of Sadomasochism. Fairfield, CT: Mystic Rose Books.
Wiseman, Jay. 2000. Jay Wiseman’s Erotic Bondage Handbook. San Francisco: Greenery Press.

Hope that helps. Cited article available on request at Wikipedia's Resource Exchange (WP:RX). -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic. Thank you. -- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Kilgore vs. Albert Rust

What do you think about it? According to the archives it is David Kilgore on the photo. --jdx ^Re: 11:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was added to the Albert Rush article here [2]. I'm inclined to believe the editor as they seem to have some history of correcting misidentified photos. Unfortunately they don't seem to have provided more info despite a request over 2 years ago User talk:OBlevins#Albert Rust Picture making it difficult to update the description of the photo on commons and they seem to edit sporadically not having edited since last December. It may be better to remove it from both articles and make a note in the image talk page until this can be resolved. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US mortgage crisis 2007

Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Boom_and_bust "This housing bubble resulted in quite a few homeowners refinancing their homes at lower interest rates, or financing consumer spending by taking out second mortgages secured by the price appreciation."

Explain please what is reason for creditor to lower rate and why do they do it during rising of estate prices? E.g. if loan was 100 000 USD, rate was 10%, period was 36 months, monthly payment was 3 226.72 USD according formula Monthly payment = [ r + r / ( (1+r) ^ months -1) ] x principal loan amount , where: r = decimal rate / 12.

After 18 months balance was 53 727.53 USD. If now debtor will take new credit to close first one, the monthly payment will be 3 226.72 USD again. So there is no reason neither for debtor nor for creditor to refinance. If creditor will lower rate, he will incur losses. 72.19.61.71 (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refinancing is a way to reduce mortgage burden in times of housing price rises. One thing you need to appreciate as background is that the interest rate that banks will lend on depends on the risk that they take on. All else being equal, a house where the loan makes up a greater percentage of the price is riskier than one where the loan makes up a lower percentage.

Let's say in year 1, the house is worth $100, and you borrowed $90. At this point you are borrowing 90% of the value of the house; if you stopped repaying and the bank had to sell your house, it hopes to get at least $90. So the bank is at risk of losing money if house prices fell just 10%. (By contrast, had you only borrowed $75 on a $100 house, the bank is at risk of losing money only if house prices fell by 25% - which is less likely.) So let's say the bank lends you at 9% interest rate, whereas on a 75% loan-to-value ratio it would have been willing to lend at 7.5%. For simplicity, let's assume this is an interest-only loan so your principal stays the same for the next couple of years.

There is a housing boom, all the house prices go up. Two years down the track, you still owe the bank $90. But now your house is valued at $120! You go to the bank to refinance your loan. To pay out your original loan of $90 you need to borrow $90, but now it is only 75% of the value of the house - all else being equal it is now a less risky loan. The bank is now happy to lend you at 7.5%. You end up with a lower interest rate on exactly the same house and exactly the same loan amount, what's changed is the market value of the house. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the above information is useful, I think it misses the nature of the refinance that is being asked about. The key thing is the statement "if the creditor lowers the rate, he will incur losses". This is absolutely true -- but the original creditor is not the same as the new creditor. Instead, in cases like this, the borrower pursues a wholly new mortgage at a lower rate which is used to immediately pay off and close the existing higher-rate mortgage. The new creditor is looking to earn money from lending at current rates independent of the rates that were in force when the original creditor issued the original loan. In those cases where the old and new creditor are the same root entity, fees associated with the new mortgage still provide immediate risk-free income to the creditor. Note also that, due to the nature of mortgage-backed securities, the entity that approves and issues a mortgage in the US is frequently not the entity that administers the mortgage. The former runs primarily on fee-based, rather than interest-based, income, and so has all the more incentive to refinance at every opportunity. — Lomn 16:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lomn, if you are referring to my post above, I had in mind a different bank for the refinancing to the initial bank that issued the original loan. But it doesn't matter. What the OP fundamentally failed to grasp is that banks will refinance at lower rates in boom times because of how they calculate risk. The broader economic circumstances in 2007 don't really matter for the purpose of conveying that basic point, as it holds true in any market experiencing increasing house prices, all else being equal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And something the quoted article section doesn't really touch on is that in modern economies, interest rates generally track the central bank rate—in the U.S., the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate was kept quite low from 2002-2005, and a number of economists have held this contributed to inflating the housing bubble, since it meant credit (including mortgage credit) was cheap. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this more: banks resell mortgage debt to other lenders in the financial markets. In the U.S. this occurs via mortgage-backed securities, as mentioned. If hypothetically there were no lenders in the market to lend, you might have trouble refinancing, but this effectively never happens. (In the U.S., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exist for the purpose of providing such liquidity. They will automatically buy any conforming loan.) It's true that the owners of the original mortgage would prefer the borrower not refinance and keep paying the higher interest rate, but they're legally required to accept payment. This risk that the borrower might repay their loan early is called reinvestment risk, because the lender will have to find someplace else to reinvest their money. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, some mortgage contracts provide for an "early repayment charge" if the mortgage is paid off before the end of the term. Do they not have these in America? 86.176.84.174 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I've never had a mortgage myself, so I can't say anything from personal experience. All the results I get on a Web search are about other countries, though it might be called something different here. We do have prepayment of loan, which mentions it but says nothing about prevalence in different countries. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the factors I note (and find odd) about american home loans is that interest rates are usually fixed for the life of a loan e.g. x%p.a. for the life of the loan, even if that life is 30 years. This makes refinancing VERY attractive if interest rates drop. Here in Australia, by contrast, interest rates on home loans are usually floating - they move with the market, making refinancing much less attractive (unless you can find a lender which offers thinner margins between the central bank rate and their own - there is a degree of competition, but the general direction in movement of rates on loans, both new and existing, is in tandem across the entire market). When the central bank raises or lowers interest rates, it usually affects almost all home loans (including existing ones) across all lending institutions and banks.

(Technically, you can "fix" your rate for up to 5 years with some lenders, after which it reverts to a floating rate again. But the "fixed" rate takes into account the bank and interest rate market's predictions of likely interest rate movements over the life of the "fixed" period, so it's a gamble as to whether you'll save any money doing this - though it does offer the the benefit of certainty of repayment amounts).

I wonder, doesn't the American practice encourage a "race to the bottom" - when the rate goes down, the borrower can refinance - but when the rate goes up, the lender is stuck with a fixed "underperforming" loan (since it's below the new market rate)? How can such a system work? Eliyohub (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different from the rest of the debt market. If a company has outstanding bonds that pay 10%, and rates drop to 5%, they can issue new bonds and pay off their original high rate debt with the proceeds. Homeowners who refinance are doing effectively the same thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they can do that or not totally depends on the terms of the bond. Here, at least, many fixed-interest bonds (and there aren't many such bonds on the market) do not have an "early buyback" right for the issuer (except sometimes at pre-specified intervals, such as once every five years or whatever). If interest rates drop, the bond becomes hot property, and its' capital value on the secondary market increases to bring the "yield to maturity" back into line with the new interest rate. The opposite happens if interest rates rise - the capital value of the bond drops. Do US corporate bonds generally include a clause allowing the issuer to redeem the bond from the bondholder at face value at any time of its' choosing?? This would severely undermine the attractiveness of the bond - wouldn't the issuer have to offer a higher interest rate to compensate? Eliyohub (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some bonds are callable and some are not. As you say, callable bonds are less attractive to buyers. They may pay an interest premium over market to compensate. They also may have time limits on when they can be called, e.g., not callable for the first X years. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the U.S. mortgage market is heavily subsidized by the government, because doing so is politically popular. It's the whole "American dream" thing. Fixed-rate mortgage says that their prevalence in the U.S. is a result of government policy. There are adjustable-rate mortgages in the U.S., though they're typically only for borrowers with not-so-great credit histories or low assets, who can't qualify for conforming loans or other subsidized mortgages such as VA loans or FHA loans. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the U.S mortgage market is bizarre, and in some senses surprisingly advantageous for the homeowner:

• The homeowner can repay part or all of the mortgage ahead of the due date without penalty (usually), but the bank can't demand repayment ahead of time.

• Mortgage rates are commonly fixed for 30-years, or at least 5-10 years. If mortgage rates go up during that period the homeowner doesn't have to pay any additional money. However if the mortgage rate drops the homeowner is free to refinance with a competing mortgage company, again usually with no penalty.

• If the homeowner can't afford the repayments, then can typically walk away from the house, even if the value of the house is now below the size of the mortgage. Doing so will damage their credit score, but they won't necessarily ever have to pay the mortgage back.

One of the oddities of the 2007 mortgage crisis was that even though there was vast mismanagement and fraud on the part of the banks, much of it was advantageous to individual homeowners (in a pure economic sense) because they got larger loans and larger houses then they would otherwise be able to afford. This may have been terrible policy from a societal point-of-view of course ... Dave w74 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, but I need little more info, as I'm not economist. In film "Too Big to Fail" there is such explanation:

1149 00:57:11,836 --> 00:57:13,937 Start with the homeowners.

Okay okay, here's how you explain it.

Wall Street started bundling

home loans together-- mortgage-backed securities--

and selling slices of those bundles to investors.

And they were making big money,

so they started pushing the lenders, saying,

"come on, we need more loans.

The lenders had already given loans

to borrowers with good credit,

so they go bottom-feeding. They lower their criteria.

Before, you needed a credit score of 620

and a downpayment of 20%.

Now they'll settle for 500, no money down.

And the buyer-- the regular guy on the street--

assumes that the experts know what they're doing.

He's saying to himself, "if the bank's willing to loan me money,

I must be able to afford it."

So he reaches for the American dream.

He buys that house.

The banks knew securities based on shitbag mortgages were risky.

You'll work on "shitbag."

So to control their downside,

the banks started buying a kind of insurance.

If mortgages default, insurance company pays--

default swap.

The banks insure their potential losses

to move the risk off their books

so they can invest more, make more money.

And when a lot of companies insured this stuff,

one was dumb enough to take on an almost unbelievable amount of risk.

- A.I.G. - And you'll work on "dumb."

And when they ask me why they did that?

- Fees. - Hundreds of millions in fees.

A.I.G. figured the housing market would just keep going up,

but then the unexpected happens.

Housing prices go down.

The poor bastard who bought his dream house--

the teaser rate on his mortgage runs out.

His payments go up. He defaults.

Mortgage-backed securities tank.

A.I.G. has to pay off the swaps--

all of them all over the world

at the same time.

A.I.G. can't pay. A.I.G. goes under.

Every bank they insure

books massive losses on the same day.

And then they all go under.

It all comes down.

The whole financial system?

And what do I say

when they ask me why it wasn't regulated?

No one wanted to.

We were making too much money.

Is it correct?

Main article has such diagram. On this diagram where is Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? And why government did not let Fannie & Freddie go bankrupt? 72.19.61.71 (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not misleaded Freddie and Fannie are lenders, working in close association with the credit enhancement business (CEP). Regarding the movie, see this, and perhaps its comments about the standard role of the villain. --Askedonty (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the movie, see this"-- "Too Big to Fail" is not Hollywood film. Hollywood ones (Margin Call, The Big Short) much much worse. "Inside Job" -- another non-action film with good explanations. 72.19.61.71 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those would be "issuers" in that diagram. They buy (or bought, in the case of Lehman) individual mortgages from banks, credit unions, etc. (the "lender" in that diagram), package them into securities, and sell those securities. Something possibly unclear in that diagram is that the Lender and Servicer can be the same entity. If you get a mortgage from say, JPMorgan Chase, you'll typically send your payments to Chase. But, Chase doesn't keep your money, because they sold your mortgage to others. Chase deducts its servicing fee (for doing the job of collecting and managing payments) and passes the rest along. (Technically the servicer is usually a separate subsidiary owned by the bank holding company.) A lot of people don't know this because general economic and financial education is terrible.

The U.S. government didn't let Fannie and Freddie go bankrupt because it was quite likely doing so would have led to Great Depression II: The Sequel. Fannie and Freddie make up a huge part of the mortgage-backed security market. There are trillions of USD invested in their MBS. If they had gone bankrupt, all of that might have vanished. Also, Fannie and Freddie were "government-sponsored enterprises", meaning they had an implicit guarantee from the U.S. government. This was an idea cooked up by policymakers with the intention of supposedly getting the U.S. government "out of the mortgage market" while still effectively subsidizing it. This might not have been such a good idea in hindsight, though I'll avoid further opining as it's disallowed on the Reference Desk. Some people have said letting Lehman Brothers go bankrupt was a mistake, since it kind of lit the fuse on the crisis. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The U.S. government didn't let Fannie and Freddie go bankrupt because it was quite likely doing so would have led to Great Depression II: The Sequel. Fannie and Freddie make up a huge part of the mortgage-backed security market. There are trillions of USD invested in their MBS. If they had gone bankrupt, all of that might have vanished." -- If they have money of investors only, then I don't see the problem. Investment is not a bank deposit. Investors must understand that at any time they can lose all.

"government-sponsored enterprises" -- But not government-controlled, are not they? 72.19.61.71 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bank deposits are loans to the bank. Granted, today they're typically government-insured up to a certain limit. In principle, you're right. Would you be willing to stake the world economy on a principle? And sure, Fannie and Freddie should probably not have been allowed to guarantee such a large amount of assets with relatively little oversight, but once that's done there's no way to undo that overnight. Anyway, the Ref Desk isn't intended for political debate. And you're right; Fannie and Freddie weren't state-owned enterprises like, say, the BBC. We have an article on government-sponsored enterprise. They're basically public-private hybrids. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to understand motives of decision of saving Fannie & Freddie. Can you prognose a scenario? E.g. government lets Fannie & Freddie go bankrupt, what will then be most probable consequences. Bank runs? 72.19.61.71 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and bank failures, and stock markets cratering, and a general credit freeze as everyone stops lending to each other. Credit cards stop working, people can't get mortgages, businesses can't pay their bills so they lay off people or go bankrupt. Many trillions of USD in assets vanishing isn't going to cause nothing. Don't forget that a lot of this was already starting to happen at the time. The crisis was bigger than Fannie and Freddie, but not rescuing them would have likely made things much worse. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]