Humanities desk
< October 24	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 26 >

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.

October 25

Credit Suisse Rebranding

When and why did Credit Suisse rebrand itself to the current name?

I never understood why a Swiss bank would have a French name. Apparently it still went by its original German name, Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, as late as 1972: Credit_Suisse#Acquisitions.2C_growth_and_First_Boston, so the rebranding must have been a recent thing. Pizza Margherita (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, French is an official language in Switzerland as well, notably in Geneva which is an important banking centre. French is more of a pan-European language than German is, so that's another factor if they want to increase their overall presence in Europe. Also, Credit Suisse trips off the tongue a lot more easily than Schweizerische Kreditanstalt. --Viennese Waltz 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The company's website has a history page which says in the "Milestones in Credit Suisse’s History" slideshow: "17/34 1989 - CS Holdings - CS Holdings, set up in 1982 as a sister company to SKA, becomes the parent company of the Group". However, it seems that "Credit Suisse" was used in US and UK well before that - the 1974 merger with White Weld & Co resulted in Société anonyme financière du Crédit Suisse et de White Weld. [1] and a 1978 joint venture in London was called Credit Suisse First Boston. I suspect that the German name was too much of a mouthful for English speakers, Alansplodge (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Credit Suisse, it does say the company was modeled after Crédit Mobilier, which may have influenced the naming. --Jayron 32 11:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which, by the way, was totally unrelated to the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal. I'd never heard of the original Crédit Mobilier, and I was confused why any company would want to take a name inspired by a political scandal, so I thought it best to put in this note. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Pizza Margherita (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1982 the CS (credit suisse) holding was founded. 1989 the SKA (Schweizerische Kreditanstalt) became part of the Credit Suisse Holding. --JMS (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

U.S. / Canada border monument on I-95

So, I tripped over this image which shows the end of Interstate 95 in Maine approaching the Canadian border. To the right of the image is a monument that says "United States" on one side, then "Treaty 1825" on the other. I'm trying to track the meaning of the monument. As far as I know, the border itself was defined by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 (not 1825) and I cannot find any treaty signed between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1825 that would pertain to the modern Maine/New Brunswick border in any way. I've also made a search for more information about this Monument, to no avail. Does anyone know more about it, or what it says on all 4 sides? My google-fu fails me today. --Jayron 32 16:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the date that the road was constructed. On that premise I found A History of Maine Roads 1600-1970, Maine Department of Transportation, State Highway Commission (1970), which only says: "When Maine became a state in 1820 it inherited from Massachusetts five operating turnpikes..." but no detail about a road to the border. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Houlton–Woodstock Border Crossing, the crossing shown here has only existed since 1985. Maybe the monument says "1985". Still doesn't explain the meaning of "treaty". Anything firm or written down somewhere on the internet, or some better pictures on the internet that anyone knows about or can find would be most helpful. Thanks! --Jayron 32 16:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says "1925" (see picture here of the stone on the other side of the road (Begin I95))), and probably refers to the International Boundary Commission which was established in 1925. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another border marker completely on the other side of the country (Blaine, Washington) also says 1925 [2]. It seems to be a standard design. --Xuxl (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks all! --Jayron 32 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wall along Mexican border

If Donald Trump gets elected as president,how would he go about building a wall along the US-Mexican border? Would he need approval from congress first before going ahead and doing so? And what could he do in order to make Mexico pay for it? I don't think it's likely he'll be elected, but I'm asking just because I'm curious.Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Donald Trump gets elected as president he will not have to build a wall. Enrique Peña Nieto will do that for him, to stop the flood of US economic migrants wanting to move south into a freer country.--Aspro (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also to where Trump's friends have moved the jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a thorough analysis about why this can't be done see: [3]. The article describes the technical and non-technical factors (actually impediments) for this project - environmental issues, engineering difficulties, federal and state level players. I also don't see how they could send the bill to Mexico, nor if Mexico could even pay for a 2,000 miles wall. Of course, Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is 'easy.' Hofhof (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chatter that belongs in a forum

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

He can try sending the bill. What's the Spanish for "Return to sender, address unknown"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's "returno sendero, adreso no saber."Hofhof (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno. Although if he wants to drop the discourse to Trump's level, he could send it back with a message something like ponerlo donde la luna no brilla. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To save face, he could make a deal with Mexico that says if they pay for the wall, the US will give them something more valuable, like an even more lucrative trade deal than the NAFTA one Trump always complains about. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidates promise things assuming a friendly congress. When Congress is not friendly (as in the later Obama years) they really have very limited power to get anything done. Trump would have assumed a Republican majority House of Representatives, which is the only chamber that can introduce budget bills, which would mean that assuming he had the support of the party, he could get them to pass a bill that he wanted, leaving it up to the Senate to threaten filibuster or defeat the budget i.e. "government shutdown". Would the Democrats, if they had the numbers, stop all government business to keep a wall plan from being introduced? Well, that's anybody's guess.

An obvious though ironic way to save costs is outsourcing, and personally, I took Trump's speech from Mexico to be hinting at outsourcing wall construction when he said "Mexico will work with us" [4] Obviously the cheaper it is the easier it is to get passed.

As for how Mexico would pay for it, he is keeping that totally under wraps. My assumption, for which I have no source, but which I think is hinted at in " They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it. And they're great people and great leaders but they're going to pay for the wall." is that he would enact a tax on remittances from the U.S. to Mexico. By extending the time frame on which the revenue is calculated to whatever length is needed, he could say that Mexico paid for the wall. I have taken several of Trump's comments, most notably at the first presidential debate, to be support for a value added tax (national sales tax or so-called "FairTax") of approximately 16%, and so the taxation of remittances to Mexico would automatically be a part of that. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK and supported by our article, most FairTax proposals suggest a retail sales tax rather than a value added tax. Likewise many other proposals for a national sales tax in the US suggest some sort of sales tax that isn't a value added tax.

I don't understand your point on remittances. Whether a sales or consumption tax of some kind or value added tax, this isn't going to affect remittances other than potentially for fees.

There have been some proposals for a Financial transaction tax which would affect remittances as well as other financial transactions, but these are normally a lot lower than 16%. Note that proposals like 9–9–9 Plan do not tax all financial transactions, so likewise would not generally affect remittances.

I've seen some suggestions particularly related to Trump to only tax foreign remittances, but often without any real details on how these would be implemented etc and in any case they're likewise separate from a sales or consumption tax (although they could be part of a combined plan like the 9-9-9).

If you don't tax remittances, whether only remittances or all financial transactions and you reduce income tax rate you will potentially reduce the tax paid by foreign workers and migrants in the US (presuming they are paying income tax) who send remittances. Although since current tax rates are progressive and many proposals are for a flat rate, it can get complicated.

Practically however, I think it's likely many proposals which include a sales or consumption tax (including those few which include a value added tax) would probably ^{[citation needed]} result in them paying more. Not because such taxes affect remittances, but because despite what some people seem to believe [5], even people who send remittances or who sometimes go back home do actually buy and use services where they live. And low paid migrant workers often aren't paying much income tax, or sometimes not any due the progressive nature and other factors. But a value added tax, and likely a national sales tax or other consumption, tends to be regressive.

Of course Trump has also suggested simply stopping remittances until Mexico pays for the wall [6]. This may be why recent proposals suggest to collect payment after the wall was built, since this seems a lot more difficult without extremely effective border control.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]