Humanities desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 16

Global Inequality and the Golden Billion

According to the Page 14 of the UN Human Development Report of 1998 (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/259/hdr_1998_en_complete_nostats.pdf), the richest 20% of the human population on this planet consumed about 86% of its resources, measured as private consumption expenditure. How has this global inequality changed over the past two decades? and what is its measure today in 2017 in term of natural resources consumption instead of wealth or income? Any sourced statistic figures of resources and commodities will be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.21.130 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Latest such report is for 2015 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf, you can read that. I am dubious of the usefulness of such buzz terms as Golden Billion. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, there is an Oxfam report today suggesting the the 8 wealthiest people in the world (NB - eight people, not 8%) have as much as the poorest 50% (3.8 billion) of the worlds population. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38613488 Wymspen (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That report's kind of meaningless when most people are subsistence farmers without bank accounts. It's like comparing oaks and redwoods. Most oaks are doing just fine. A more narrowed and contextual comparison would make more sense. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, their wealth, small as it is, is entirely "off the books", being their possessions, land, and home. You might expect such things to be counted, but in subsistence farming communities there may not even be official records of who owns what, as they don't have any cash to pay taxes, so there would be little point in keeping track of it, and, since those government's are often dirt poor too, they couldn't afford the effort, in any case. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than random speculation of what would be expected, the methodology Credit Suisse uses to estimate wealth distribution (which is then used by Oxfam to produce the above) is here [1] as a link from [2] which itself is linked from the BBC article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did a general really believe that if the Cold War blocs had 2 survivors & 1 then the side with 2 wins?

That sounds too insane to believe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a quote from Dr. Strangelove. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This mentality, if that's the word: "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed. But I do say 10 to 20 million killed, tops - depending on the breaks." -- General Buck Turgidson

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier for us to figure this out if you provided some kind of context. Where'd you hear this? Do you have a name at all? Time frame? I assume you're actually looking for a quote - what they really believed is something we're unlikely to ever know. Matt Deres (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. But the OP may be interested on what concepts the leaders did work under, thinks like Mutual assured destruction and Brinkmanship. --Jayron 32 15:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here it is: Thomas S. Power. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may also then be interested in the concept of hyperbole as a form of rhetorical device and the concept of War hawk as a political group. --Jayron 32 18:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable Heat Incentive scandal

Under the current law, if a new Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland took office without anything happening to Arlene Foster, would she automatically be back into office as First Minister (so essentially she's just unable to exercise the office until then), or is she totally out of office and she would have to be re-elected by the Assembly? The start of the scandal article makes it sound like she's just suspended until a new deputy comes in, but Renewable_Heat_Incentive_scandal#Resignation_of_Martin_McGuinness_and_collapse_of_Stormont makes it sound like she's completely out of office. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the BBC, "Martin McGuinness's resignation as deputy first minister automatically put Arlene Foster out of her job as first minister, because they hold a joint office. After the positions have been vacant for seven days, the administration is effectively dead and the law says the Northern Ireland secretary must call a new election after a "reasonable" time period." 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The scheme offered to pay £1.60 for every £1 spent on heating." Wow, that's epic incompetence. Did they really not know that this would lead to people heating places that didn't need heating ? StuRat (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations of independence prior to July 4 1776

Which colonies declared independence before July 4, 1776? So far the list I have is:

Delaware, on June 15, 1776
Massachusetts Bay, on May 1, 1776
New Hampshire, on June 15, 1776
Rhode Island, on May 4, 1776

Am I missing any? And what of Massachusetts Bay, which supposedly declared on May 1, yet Rhode Island is often mentioned as the first state to declare independence? Is the Massachusetts Bay declaration not of independence? (text here: [3]) I mean, it seems like it is, but on the other hand it never uses the word 'independence' that I see. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more are mentioned in United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#The_final_push. 184.147.116.166 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the ones I see there are authorizing delegates to vote for independence at the convention, rather than outright declarations themselves. --Golbez (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how one defines "declared independence", North Carolina may have declared before July 4, 1776. A series of "resolves" were undertaken by various local government groups which could be interpreted as such. See Mecklenburg Resolves (May 20, 1775) and Halifax Resolves (April 12, 1776), the two dates that appear on the flag of North Carolina. There were also the Liberty Point Resolves and Tryon Resolves. Also was Maryland's Bush Declaration of March 22, 1775. --Jayron 32 14:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mecklenburg Declaration isn't even real! And yeah, that's a definite issue. It's one thing to say the king is evil, etc etc, and another to say "we have no more ties with England". A lot of those earlier declarations were the former. --Golbez (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Halifax Resolves does say "resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, reserving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof) to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out."[4]. Whether that is a declaration of independence or a declaration of the intent to declare independence is probably another matter for semantecists. --Jayron 32 15:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]