Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 14

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.

March 14

Why do I need a broker?

Googling for "why do I need a broker", seems to imply that the purpose of a broker would help me keep a portfolio, and advice me. But assuming I don't want to pay for advice or aid with stock trading, can't I just buy stocks for myself? At my own risk? 186.146.10.154 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In order to buy or sell stocks on the NYSE for example, you need a licence. The broker has a licence, so you use a broker for buying and selling the stock. RudolfRed (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where you do business, Rudolf, but in my neck of the woods, discount brokers will execute my trades for about $10 a shot. (Of course, with my track record, they deserve to be executed with extreme prejudice.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't have articles on these, surprisingly, but brokers are often classified into "full service brokers" and "discount brokers" (including - and sometimes simply called - "online brokers", as they often operate online). If you do not need the management service and advice, you can use the latter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We do have Brokerage firm and Discount brokerage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Pay to play" has sort of a sinister ring to eat, but people "need to eat". If you went into business for yourself, jobs would be obsoleted and children would starve (or need to steal your kid's lunch money). Other top ten Googles for "why do I need a certified..." include public accountants, arborists and electricians. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And "why I need a..." finds "job" at the top. Then scholarship, phone, dog, wife, girlfriend, website, gun, mentor and man. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is not right. You don't need a broker to trade on the stock market. You could trade through a direct-access trading system. However, if you want to trade just now and then, a discount broker will provide you with a much better price per trade than setting up your own system. Think in terms of retails vs. wholesale. Besides that, do not confuse the role of a stock broker (who forwards orders to the market) and a fund analyst, portfolio manager, consultant (who advises you to buy/sell this or that). --Llaanngg (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you do need a broker to have access to the stock market. Brokers serve as gate-keepers who provide access to the market and process trades. Individuals, even wealthy individuals, cannot do this on their own. Direct-access brokers are still brokers. By accepting your trade, the broker is guaranteeing to your counterparty that you will accept and pay for the security you are buying or that you have and will deliver the security you are selling, as the case may be. As already noted, however, discount brokers provide this service quite cheaply. Full service brokers provide additional services that you may or may not feel that you need. John M Baker (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Olden Days you could only admit so many people to the floor of an exchange and you needed to make sure they can be relied on and know the rules, etc. Even though most exchanges operate only electronically these days, you still need to make sure the people who are directly interacting on the exchange can be relied on and know the rules, which is why all recognized securities exchanges still maintain a membership-based or regulated brokerage system. Even if you are trading through a web portal without ever talking to anyone, it has to be a member/regulated broker who oversees, and takes responsibility for, that portal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You need a broker if you wish to be....broker. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Early 20thC world map

I have a shortbread tin that's decorated with an early 20thC world map. It has some rather odd features, which I'm trying to find an explanation for. Unfortunately, the map has been cropped to fit the tin, and doesn't show the name, publisher, date, (or any other metadata). Various oddities include:

• It shows the USSR, which would indicate a date after On 28 December 1922
• It appears to show Britain and Ireland as one country, which would indicate before 6 December 1922, at least.
  • Oddly, this country is labeled "The British Isles", rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland are all individually labeled).
• China, Mongolia, and Tannu-Tuva are shown the same colour, albeit with borders between them.
  • But Manchuria is clearly separate, and a distinct colour.
• A broad swathe of countries from N Europe to SW Asia (Sweden, Finland, all of central Europe, the Balkans, Turkey, and most of Arabia) are all coloured the same.

Can anyone explain these anomalies? Iapetus (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The British Isles is a geographic entity, not a political one, so it's valid for a map of any era in human history. See British Isles. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that "British Isles" is a geographical term. But this is a political map, and I've never before seen a political map use it in place of the actual country names. Iapetus (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the Partition of Ireland on on 3 May 1921 was intended to create two self governing provinces within the UK. After the Anglo-Irish Treaty on 6 December 1921, which led to the creation of the Irish Free State on 6 December 1922, the border change was not accepted by everybody, hence the Irish Civil War which continued into 1923. As a biscuit tin map would not need strict accuracy, so it's possible that they went with the British Isles option during that state of flux. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Although some factions in Outer Mongolia asserted autonomy or independence as early as the 1920s, the Soviet-backed Outer Mongolian independence referendum was not held until 1945, and there was no widespread international recognition of its independence from China until much later (Mongolia did not become a UN member state until 1961, the UK did not recognise Mongolia until the 1960s, the US not until the 1980s).

Manchukuo was declared in 1932, but Manchuria (under a different regime) was also virtually autonomous from 1916 and flew a different flag to the rest of China during the late 1920s, until 1928. So if we assume China, Mongolia and Manchuria are portrayed contemporarily, the map could have been produced either in the 1920s (before 1928), or between 1932 and 1945. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't go far enough back for this question, but might be of help to similar questions: How Old Is Your Globe? —Tamfang (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be useful, or at least fun, if you could take a digital photo and upload it temporarily so we can see the thing. As to "the British Isles", it's possible that the mapmaker was deliberately trying to avoid offending anyone by showing Ireland in one way or another. If other parts of the map show adjacent countries the same color, then using one color for the whole of the British Isles doesn't really imply that it's one country. (Admittedly, the absence of a border is another matter.) --69.159.61.172 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Even the term "British Isles" is contentious for some: see Talk:British_Isles/name_debate. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that they've had a map designed for a biscuit tin, based on a geographic map, but coloured for aesthetics only, as the variations you describe really don't seem to make much sense for political, geographical or geological reasons and connecting "N Europe" to "most of Arabia" appears a bit bonkers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Could the original have been produced for some specific cause? Was there some sort of pan-Balkan-Nordic-Arabian movement in the early 20th century? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Could one of the inks have faded? —Tamfang (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Could it have been a highly detailed version of a Risk (game) map? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, as requested: some photographs. http://s1078.photobucket.com/user/Iapetus303/library/ Iapetus (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's post-1958, or Chad would have been labelled French Equatorial Africa --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That can't be right, because it also features Trans Jordan (1921-1946, or 1946-1949), Tannu-Tuva (annexed 1944), and as far as I can see no Israel (1948/49). Maybe "Chad" in this case means the territory within French Equatorial Africa, rather than the independent country. Iapetus (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at that article in more detail: "French Equatorial Africa" was a single colony (containing several territories) from 1934-1958. But from 1910-1938, those territories were separate colonies in a federation. So that implies the map is pre-1934. Iapetus (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Chad existed as a geographic unit within AEF up to 1958 (see Chadian General Council election, 1946–47). --Soman (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A few more clues:

-Alsace-Lorraine is coloured French, so this is post-1919.

-It shows Leningrad, not St Petersburg/Petrograd, so this is post-1924.

-It shows Peipeing, not Peking/Beijing, so this is post-1928. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no "Saudi" in Arabia, and Hejaz and Nejd are shown in block capitals (implying they are independent countries) - which would put it before 1932. (Although slightly confusingly, it doesn't show any actual borders between them, or with Oman). Going back to the Far East, the borders of "Manchuria" seem to best fit Manchuko, rather than any of the other definitions of Manchuria I could find. So that would date the map to some time in 1932, after the official establishment of Manchuko (Feb) but before the official establishment of Saudi Arabia (can't find the exact date). Iapetus (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as a general note, dating the map to after a date on the basis that it shows a change is firm, but dating the map to before a date on the basis that it doesn't show a change can only be tentative, because there are any number of reasons why a change is not shown on a map for some time - in some cases for a long time. On the other hand, all the signs seem to point to it being certainly from 1932 or later, most likely no later than 1934, quite likely to be from 1932 specifically. Is that fair? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Do note that Sakhalin appears to be divided. Romania includes Moldova. Finland includes Karelia. Czechoslovakia is missing? Germany and Poland have same colour. Burma is shown distinct from India but in same colour (indicating that the map is post-1937). I'd say it's a WWII map. --Soman (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia's borders are shown, just not labled (ditto for Austria). Germany and Poland are the same colour as Sweden, Finland, Danemark, Lithuania, Estonia, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Crete, Turkey, Iraq, and Arabia (excluding Hadmramaut). That doesn't represent any alliance or occupied territory of WWII that i know of, so I'm not sure what the significance of that colour is. Iapetus (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "British Isles": this appears on many political world maps in the decades before and after 1922, with both islands the same colour. Examples from Wikimedia Commons: 1922 National Geographic; 1925-8 Finland; 1928 USSR. Elsewhere US 1942.jnestorius^(talk) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it true that Demosthenes and Aristotle shared the same dates of birth and death?

The wiki articles say so, but it seems like such a coincidence. Is it really true, or did someone at some point copy the wrong set of numbers somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not a very reliable source, I mean, I couldn't even edit it. but Britannica says: Demosthenes (born 384 bce, Athens [Greece]—died Oct. 12, 322, Calauria, Argolis) and Aristotle (born 384 bce, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece—died 322, Chalcis, Euboea). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Both pairs of figures are given by multiple apparently reliable book publications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Too bad Britannica doesn't list its sources so I cannot trace it back. I'd really like to know where these dates originally came from. By the way, do you think it'd be useful to call out this coincidence on the articles? That way readers would no it's no oversight on Wikipedia's part, and perhaps a future editor will find a definitive final original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually think that it is a remarkable co-incidence. I am no mathematician, but in a large enough set of dead people you are bound to have some who were born in the same year and died in the same year. Some supernerd can probably use Wikidata to find more people who share that characteristic. And finding the source of the dates used in Brittanica doesn't help much, because the question is where those dates came from, et cetera, all the way back to the original source. It is a long time ago, so the information is probably not very reliable anyway. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Our article on the so-called Birthday paradox (which is basically: A lot more people share a birthday than you'd expect!) shows that in a collection of 23 people, there is a 50/50 chance of two of them having the same birthday. So, are there at least 23 ancient philosophers who are at least as well-known as Demosthenes? Probably. So there is a 50/50 chance of two of them having the same birthday. Even if our OP only knows of 10 philosophers, there is an 11% chance of a match. SteveBaker (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the OP's issue wasn't about birthdays within the year, but about birth and death years, so it's doubtful if an equally neat calculation could be done for those. For starters, the set of possible days of the year is a closed set, while the set of years isn't. Plus, death year and birth year are not logically independent variables of each other. We'd further have to consider that for most people in antiquity, birth years can't securely be known at all, so the question would have to be: out of the number X of prominent Greek people of the 4th century BC whose birth and death dates we happen to know, how likely is it that two of them share both? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not remarkable next to Jim, James, Betty and Linda. But still "weirder" than this "urban legend". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

About Aristotle, our article contains pointers to several works of secondary literature said to have explored the issue, so we could probably figure out what the ultimate primary sources are from there. As for Demosthenes, this contains some information. I take it that the death dates will be a lot easier to verify than the birth dates, since both men were public figures at the time and their deaths were connected with well-documented political events of their time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone can cap this [1] (couple born, married and died on the same day). 92.31.143.223 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be quite remarkable if all the events were independent. However, people usually marry somebody about their own age, so it's not all that surprising they might have the same birth date, especially if that influenced their decision to marry, and perhaps their choice of a wedding date. Death dates, on the other hand, are closer to being random, assuming they did nothing to bring about an early death. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I know of one case that comes very close: Hermann Goering and Alfred Rosenberg. Both were born 12 January 1893, both were Nazi/Third Reich VIPs, both were sentenced to death at Nuremberg, both were scheduled to be executed on 16 October 1946. But Goering went and spoilt it by suiciding on the night before he was supposed to hang. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Suiciding? Oh dear. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:suicide:

• Verb: suicide ‎(third-person singular simple present suicides, present participle suiciding, simple past and past participle suicided)
• (intransitive) To kill oneself intentionally.

• (Both quotes given are from novomundane authors, but I'm sure this verb has reached Britain by now.)

• There's also a transitive usage: To kill (someone) and make their death appear to have been a suicide rather than a homicide (now especially as part of a conspiracy).

• That's not part of my linguistic armoury yet, and may never be, -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because some people use a word is no reason for the rest of us to do so. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Methinks thou dost protest too much, Duncan. I demonstrated the word's validity because you queried it. People are free to use it, but nobody is required to do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't querying its existence, rather the taste of anyone who would use it! DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking you off my Christmas list deChristmaslisting you forthwith. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Christmas doesn't make any sense, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Insurance

One argument against insurance is that insurance doesn't reduce the cost because insurance costs the policyholder in premiums. Not everyone can afford insurance. Is that true? What do insurance companies and policyholders respond to that argument?

Bonupton (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly insurance costs more on average than it pays out, or they couldn't stay in business. Even in the case of a co-op, this is still true, since the administration still uses up some of the money. The most compelling argument for insurance is that something necessary and easily replaced, if paid for by all, can become impossible for an individual to replace. For example, if your car is totaled, and you can't afford to repair it, you could be unable to get to your job, become unemployed, and lose your house, all of which could cost far more than replacing the car. Of course, people could self-insure and save up their own money for a "rainy day", but that takes time and discipline, which many lack. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As an example, look at health insurance. Surgery can cost upwards of € 10 000 and many people have no hope of ever saving that much, so if they don't want to die should they need the operation they pretty much haven't got any other option. Even if they could save up the money, which many people simply cannot no matter how hard they try, that won't help them if they need the operation before they reached their savings target. And if everyone did it like that, all that money being saved up would sit dead in all their accounts, so people wouldn't have the freedom to use that money to improve their quality of life in a different way. Insurance allows people to save up money for rare occurrences, so that although collectively they lose, individually they win in the sense that they free up money to spend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree on that "free up money for other things" part, since, on average, they must spend more on insurance than they would need to save for the expense. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

They spend more on insurance that they receive back on average, but they usually spend less on insurance than they would need to save in order to secure similar coverage on their own. For example, we have a community of 10 people and one of them will need a surgery costing 10000$ during the year. Insurance (with a 10% margin for admin) would set everyone back 1100$ that year, but to secure similar level of coverage by themselves each would have to save up 10000$, severely restricting their spending on other things. Yes, insurance company will (hopefully) receive more than it pays out, but insurance allows people to spend money that they would otherwise have to save for extremely expensive low-probability events - money that would probably not be used for any useful purpose in the end, even if you manage to save that much.No longer a penguin (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

But that $10000 only needs to be saved once, versus the $1100 which is spent every year. Therefore, after 10 years, they will have spent $11000 on premiums, while they only would have spent $10000 if they saved the money themselves, and hopefully made some interest on the money before they did. Ideally the savings would build up over generations of inheritance, and we would no longer have the problem of being unprepared to pay our medical costs when young. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That example was only used to illustrate how insurance can free up your cashflow for a given year. In reality, insurance is often used for very low-probability events. Make it a 1 in 100 or 1 in a 1000 event (which is more what insurance is about) and suddenly the cashflows with insurance look better than those without. Not only that, but sometimes saving enough is not even an option. Let's say I go alpine skiing. There is a very low probability (probably higher than average, since I have skiing skills of a fat cow) that I cause an accident causing (unspecified kind of) damages worth 100 000 $. As a person in his 20s I could literally beg, steal, borrow and barter and would still not be able to scrape together half that amount. Thus, I would have to delay the trip until I'm 40, diverting a large portion of my cashflows for this skiing trip of a lifetime, or gamble with my future. Instead, I can buy insurance rather cheaply and not care at all that the insurance company makes a net profit from it. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is another strange reason to have health insurance in the US, in that the hospitals, pharmacies, etc., are allowed to charge people without insurance a much higher rate than those with insurance, because both the insurance companies and medical providers provide bribes (campaign contributions) to government officials to make it that way. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, note that in jurisdictions with community rating laws, health insurance is a brilliant deal for the sickly, such as those with chronic health issues, but a poor deal for the young and healthy. 110.140.60.6 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Stu, I know it's not your style, but you should really try giving the "reference" part of "reference desk" a chance once in a while, especially when equating campaign contributions with bribes. In fact, different prices charged by hospitals, etc. towards insurance companies and ordinary folk has been mostly attributed to bargaining power (see [2], for example). Furthermore, the medical providers are not "allowed" to charge different prices, they are simply not required to charge the same price. You know what? Most other businesses are not required to charge the same price to all customers, so it isn't exactly a corrupt anomaly.No longer a penguin (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree on many other businesses charging different rates to different customers. There are some big ticket items where the price is negotiated, like cars and houses, but that's not the same as charging an entire class of people (the uninsured) more. And in cases where you do have essentially the same thing sold at different prices, the strategy is typically to charge the rich more, not less, as is the case with health care, since the poor tend to be uninsured. This can only happen because competition doesn't work in health care. You can't just hold out for a better price if you need treatment now, so you end up paying whatever is charged. This is why health care prices should be regulated. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's an account of one case explaining why prescription drug prices are so high, due to Medicare not being allowed to negotiate "as a concession to the pharmaceutical industry": [3]. Such concessions come because of the power big pharma has, as a result of their political contributions and/or bribing regulators with promises of high paying jobs for them and their family members.

Another reason prescription drug prices remain high in the US is because the politicians refuse to allow ordering of prescription meds from other nations. If this was allowed, then the international competition would drive down domestic prices, too. The reason often given is that the US can't trust drugs coming from other nations. However, many other nations have regulations even more stringent than in the US, and better enforcement. The real reason ? Those political contributions again. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and miserable though it is, what the source covers is a completely different issue - it's about Medicare (which is basically government provided insurance) not being allowed to act as a normal market participant, i.e., not being allowed allowed to do what insurance companies legitimately do. It has nothing to do with insured vs uninsured. If anything, this source argues that charging different prices is good and medicare should not be prevented from doing it. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And your last point is , again. But I won't even bother.No longer a penguin (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As StuRat accurately but perhaps misleadingly states, insurance companies have bargaining power and negotiate lower rates than an individual can do. (There is no need to ascribe this to the effect of their campaign contributions; almost all goods and services have unregulated prices. As it happens, one of the few exceptions to this is the cost of insurance, which is regulated by state departments of insurance.) Thus, on average, an individual will pay less in insurance premiums than the same individual would have had to pay medical providers (although there is, of course, considerable individual variation). John M Baker (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as a negative of insurance, government subsidized insurance can lead to poor decisions, as in the case of government subsidized insurance in flood prone areas. Were it not subsidized, the insurance costs would be too high, where the risks are high, and construction would not take place in those high risks areas. That's how it should work. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Insurance is essentially just gambling - it's no different than buying a lottery ticket. Any rational person should look at the price of a lottery ticket, multiply it by the odds against winning and compare it to the prize money. If you do that then it's almost never a good idea to buy lottery tickets. If it was a good idea, you can bet that big businesses would buy up as many tickets as they could get their hands on!

So why we buy insurance is the same reason we buy a lottery ticket. Either:

1. We're badly mis-informed, or "statistically challenged".
2. The loss of a few dollars for a lottery ticket makes no practical difference to your life - so the "cost" seems like zero...the benefits of a significant win is generally believed to be an ENORMOUS (even 'infinite') benefit. So normal arithmetic doesn't quite apply here - it seems like zero cost for infinite gain - which is a good deal.

Same deal with insurance. The cost of the policy is small enough that you're willing to bear it - but the potential loss if you don't have it in a worst-case-scenario could be the ruination of your entire life. If you accidentally drive your car into a Rolls Royce worth a million dollars - and you don't have insurance - then you'd lose EVERYTHING in paying it off for the rest of your life. So while the risk is small, the consequences are more or less infinite...and again normal arithmetic doesn't apply.

However, some people are statistically challenged. When offered an "extended warranty" on (say) a TV set that costs 20% of the price of the item for 5 years extra coverage - people aren't facing an infinite benefit. So they should say "Is there a 1:5 chance of the TV failing in the next 5 years?" - I have 4 TV's in my house - I've owned them all for at least 5 years and none of them has failed. So I strongly suspect that buying the extended warranty is a bad idea. Furthermore - I ask myself "How does the company that offers this make a profit?" and it can only be if the purchasers of the warranty make a loss. Furthermore, I know that they have great statistics on a million TV sales - so they know the exact failure rate - and even if my estimate is wrong, theirs isn't. If they're willing to take the bet - then I shouldn't. Logically, I should put 20% of the cost of every major purchase I make into an interest-bearing savings account and use the money to replace items that fail. Over the long term, I'll make a profit by doing that - I am (in effect) my own insurance company.

So for items you can't afford to cover (cars, houses, lives) then insurance makes sense - but for items you can afford to replace (TV's, kitchen appliances, computers, phones), it doesn't. Betting on the lottery at odds of a billion to one makes sense - betting on a roulette wheel does not.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"Extended warranty, I can't lose !" - Homer Simpson

"Whoa, that's a little too far." - Moe, after inserting a crayon back into Homer's brain, in order to restore him to his dim-witted state, so he would fit in better with friends and coworkers. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: ‘... for items you can't afford to cover ... insurance makes sense - but for items you can afford to replace ... it doesn't.’: As I've shown above, even that isn't a rule set in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In yesterday's Budget the Chancellor increased the Insurance Premium Tax to raise funds to help people who live on flood plains. It's a national disgrace that development was ever permitted there, and the flooding of the past few years has revealed the planning departments' incompetence. That said, reducing subsidy only hurts people who are suffering because of construction which has already taken place.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that the insurance agency would insist that insurance isn't gambling, despite it requiring money up front and only paying off if a given event occurs. Of course, even the gambling industry now insists that gambling isn't gambling, and calls it "gaming" instead. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Try living without insurance, and it will eventually bite you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The only types of insurance I have now are car insurance, because it's legally required, and health/dental, because not having those means I would be charged much higher rates for services, under the US system. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I go a bit further than that. I have house insurance - because loss of our house would be a financial blow from which we'd never recover. I have life insurance on my life (but not on my wifes) because I earn most of the money in our marriage and if I died, she'd have a hard time keeping the house on her income alone. But no "extended warranty" scams - no pet insurance, no Alien abduction insurance. SteveBaker (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, Steve, the plural of "wife" is actually wives. --Trovatore (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that pet insurance is a scam not worth the money, unless you are really, really attached to your pet to the point where you would pay any amount - because pet insurance in normal circumstances costs more than what it pays out. Something to consider about life insurance: Will you have enough money stashed away to cover her funeral costs, if it comes to that? If so, fine. If not, a life insurance policy for, say, 10 to 15 thousand dollars should be a good investment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Cost of Monarchy

One argument for a republic is that it costs alot to have a monarchy. Is that true? Is that an argument for why a country should be a republic. Do advocates for a republic in Australia argue this way? What is the response of advocates of constitutional monarchy to that argument?

Bonupton (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That would depend on your assumptions. If you're going to set up the monarchy with dozens of castles and then have them grant lands to thousands of relatives and nobles, then yes, it will get rather expensive. On the other hand, if you set up a monarchy where only the current monarch gets paid, and then only enough to live on (or maybe more, so they won't be tempted to take bribes), and all their relatives are expected to work for a living, it could be quite inexpensive. Democracy isn't all that cheap, either, when you consider that all the elected reps get paid (and even worse, vote for things not in the public interest, in exchange for bribes/campaign contributions). StuRat (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Although in the case of Australia or the UK, you have the cost of the monarch and the cost of elected representatives. Iapetus (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

How does Australia support the monarchy ? Is there a budget line for funds they contribute ? StuRat (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family, it appears that they don't. So whatever benefits Oz gets from having a Queen, they apparently get for free. But the British taxpayer still has to pay for a monarch and a parliament. Iapetus (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The House of Oranje, or Orange, was Europe's most expensive monarchy last year, costing 39.9 million euros. So that is one extreme. For the other extreme we probably got to look at micronations and microstates. For example the Kingdom of Elleore and Tuvalu. So, a monarchy costs something between 0 and 40 million euro per year. It's however expensive you want to make it. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And a republic too, can be as expensive as you want. The President of the Republic gets € 178 923.72 a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Which republic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think 80.114.147.138 means the president of France who receives €178,923.72 according to this. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mercy buckets. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The argument is not a simple one. For example, you need to offset the nominal "cost" of the monarchy with income they bring in to the country. This is often simplified down to tourism (this can be a lot of money) but there's often a trade role for royal families, as they travel the world drumming up support for their country. Any head of state can fulfil this role, but there are intangible benefits from them being royals - some people respond with great deference to royalty and they're untainted by association with political parties, past political failures etc. They're subject to personal failures, but so's everyone. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to compare the cost of a monarchy with the cost of a presidency in a similar sized country (and it has to be a non-executive presidency, so not France or the USA where the president is head of government with a much more complex role). The British monarch is quoted as costing £35.7 million. The German presidency costs £30.8 million, the Italian presidency an astonishing £181.5 million. As far as I know, neither of those presidents attracts a lot of tourist income! 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily true, since a democracy could democratically decide they need neither monarch nor president and e.g. dump the applicable duties on the PM.

When Prince William married Kate Middleton, the government declared the day a public holiday, which cost businesses massive sums (maybe someone is in a position to quote estimates?). On the other hand, the event brought in huge numbers of tourists from around the world. So I suppose there are both costs and benefits, both direct and indirect, and the economics are not necessarily so simple. But let me put it this way: I doubt getting rid of the monarchy would have a significant impact on countries' budgets.
Of, course, I'm strictly talking about western constitutional monarchies, such as the European ones, where parliament are the ones who ultimately control the monarchs' budget allocation. An absolute monarchy such as Saudi Arabia or Swaziland, where the royal family has absolute control of the nation's wealth (and hogs a lot of it for themselves, at the expense of the powerless common citizen), is very obviously a totally different kettle of fish. In such countries, getting rid of the monarchy likely would save a fortune. Which is precisely why such royal families will brutally preserve their power at any cost. 110.140.60.6 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not just huge busloads of tourists - all the people who had a day off went and spent their money on leisure activities. The economy doesn't just turn on things being produced, the people who earn money by producing things need to also spend the money to keep the wheels spinning.

Bear in mind that the constitutional monarch doesn't just "do nothing" constitutionally speaking, they are an important part of the constitutional checks and balances. Countries that have non-executive presidents often seek to emulate the institution of the constitutional monarch. And while you may have to pay for a coronation ever few decades, it saves the expense of having to choose a new one every 5 years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's theoretically true that the Queen offers constitutional checks and balances - but when did she ever employ them? Every single law placed in front of her to sign gets signed - it's said that she'll sometimes ask for clarifications or complain a bit - but they get signed. I'm fairly sure this has been true for Kings and Queens over the last couple of hundred years so it's a deeply ingrained pattern that's hard to change without rioting in the streets.

The question of what would hypothetically happen if she refused to sign a new law is an interesting one - but I'm fairly sure that calls for abolition of the monarchy would spike - the (very annoyed) parliament would likely de-fund the monarchy - and a referendum on getting rid of them entirely would be presented to the British people. Now, theoretically, the queen could simply not sign any laws directing her to end her own monarchy - and then you get into difficult territory. Government could continue to "pass laws" without her signature - and then it all comes down to a question of whether people would accept and obey these new laws - and whether the police and the military (who swear an oath to support the monarch - not the government) would enforce and obey them. Precisely what would happen would probably depend largely on the mood of the people and how they felt about the monarchy actually stepping in to prevent that law from being signed in the first place. If it was something that everyone wanted - then that would probably be the end of the Royal Family...if not, then probably the government would have to step down, there would be elections and within a year or two, it would all have blown over.

But the Queen doesn't act like the Supreme Court in the USA - although she has those kinds of "checks and balances" powers in theory - she probably doesn't have them in practice - and she certainly never even tries to exercise them, nor probably ever will. 17:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and even looking at manufacturing, a day off doesn't necessarily mean lost productivity. If there was an oversupply of whatever they were making, then a day off might have been needed sooner or later anyway. If they were producing just the amount needed, then they might need to put in an extra day sometime (maybe an extra hour at a time), to catch up. Only if they were running flat out and not able to meet demand would a day off actually cost them.

If we look at retailers, those who sell essential items will still sell just as much, but on other days. Nonessential item sales might even go up, as noted previously, with people buying a variety of "Royal Marriage" items they wouldn't have otherwise. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wills/Kate Middleton wedding was a colossal waste of time and money, given that she is still regularly referred to as "Kate Middleton", as if they were simply shacking up together and living in sin cohabiting without the benefit of matrimony. It's not that married women are automatically assumed to take their husband's name/title these days, as would once have been the case - but she kind of did, which was sort of the whole point. "Let's all go berserk and ga-ga about their wedding, but then let's pretend it never happened" seems to be the current journalistic paradigm. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the media do in Australia, but in the British media (or certainly the British media that I read) she's now usually referred to as "the Duchess of Cambridge". Proteus (Talk) 14:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Australian media are crap, therefore a wedding was a waste of time and money" seems to me to be stretching logic just a little too far. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an international issue, folks. Here are just a few of the many sites that discuss this very question: [4], [5], [6], [7]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Obligatory link to C P E Grey's video on the subject, with its surprising twist. -- Elphion (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that the UK has the fewest public holidays of any nation in Europe, and worldwide, only Mexico has less, [8] I don't really see how an extra day off for a jubilee or a royal wedding can be added to the "cost of monarchy". It's just a public holiday and republics (bar one) have more than we do. Alansplodge (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to guess. 163 million pounds were spent on Royal Wedding memorabilia - some of that by tourists, some by UK residents. The wedding itself cost 50 million. With the standard rate of VAT (purchase tax) at 20% - we know that the wedding netted around 32 million from tax on the sale of mugs and t-shirts, etc. So it only had to earn 18 million in increased tourism. On the month of the wedding an extra 350,000 visitors came to the UK compared to the previous year - so the government only had to get about 50 pounds per tourist to break even...and at a 20% VAT rate, that reflects an average of 250 pounds in purchases per person. Trust me, when I go back to visit my family in the UK, I have to spend a LOT more than 250 quid on hotels alone for even one week in the UK...not including transport, food, etc. In truth, a lot of people in the UK must have traveled into London that day - so there were more hotel, food and transport purchases because of that too.

CONCLUSION: We know for a fact that the Royal Wedding turned a significant profit for the UK government. Whether the day off work had economic benefits or downturns is a separate matter.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

VAT's not the only money the government makes from purchases - it also makes money (albeit more indirectly) from the corporation tax paid on the profits of the retailers and manufacturers, and from the income tax paid on those companies' employees' salaries and shareholders' dividends. So an even greater proportion of the £163 million would presumably have ended up in the government's coffers one way or another. Proteus (Talk) 14:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of people spent the Royal Wedding day at their local boozer, which was allowed extended opening hours for the occasion; [9] the duty on a pint is 52p, 13 times higher than in Germany. Then you have to pay VAT on the duty. 17:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly don't disagree that the government made considerably more profit than in the VAT estimate that I made, above. I simply wanted to prove the statement that they did actually make a profit. I also wanted a convincing and easy-to-follow argument using numbers that everyone can agree on without needing a degree in economics! The statement that the government profited from the royal wedding can be proven easily and comprehensibly from the VAT numbers alone - so I didn't need to clutter the argument any further.

I wish one could come up with a similarly simple argument to show that the monarchy as a whole is (or is not) a profit-making scheme for the British people - but that's a tougher sell. What percentage of tourists come to the UK because of the publicity generated by the Royal Family? Who knows? We can't get into the heads of those tourists to ask them - and perhaps, in many cases, they don't even know themselves. Advertising works, even among people who claim that they never pay attention to adverts.

For the Royal Wedding, it's a singular event, happening over a short period of time - so we know how many tourists came to the UK over the period around the marriage compared to the previous year - which is an excellent way to provide a low-ball estimate for that attraction. But because we've had a monarchy for far longer than we've been a country - there is no way to know which tourists are coming in a more normal year because we have royalty - and which because of our world-renowned culinary arts and reliably pleasant weather! With the possible trade benefits, we have a similar degree of difficulty - but we could at least ask how much business we got from country X before and after the royal visit to X.

It's only one data point - but when my wife (who is an American) came to the UK, what REALLY blew her mind was that we were staying in a small family-run hotel (Molland House) that was built in 1262 - and that nobody found this particularly surprising. That we could visit the impossibly ancient Dover Castle - and realize that the castle was still being built when our hotel room was constructed! She was astounded that you could walk into a Roman fortress and nobody would stop you touching the stone walls or walking across the ruins of the houses inside - and that far from this being a tourist trap - we were able to wander around in the middle of summer for a couple of hours without seeing another soul there. Seeing the astounding complexity of Canterbury Cathedral and knowing that most of the people who built it knew that they'd be long dead and buried before it was completed - yet lavished so much craftsmanship on the smallest detail. The depth and breadth and all-pervasiveness of history completely blind-sided her.

But I don't think the issue of the current royal family entered the conversation even once.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has probably run on for too long, but your post just prompted a thought: whether the monarchy is net-beneficial is a different question to whether the royal family is net-beneficial. The monarchy performs a constitutional and "nationhood" role, which if the monarchy did not exist would need to be performed by a different institution. But the royal family - in terms of all the relatives of the monarch and all the privileges granted to them - the considerations are different. Maybe the royal family brings in the tourists, or maybe the assurance of her family being treated well helps the monarch to do her job well? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That assumes that the "nationhood role" in fact actually has to be done at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)