Humanities desk
< February 1	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 3 >

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.

February 2

A handful of men having...a lot

I keep reading about how a handful of men own the same wealth as the bottom half of all people. So, how much does the top half have? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For context, see World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50% (16 Jan 2017). Alansplodge (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would depend strongly on how you mesure the total wealth of all people. According to here: https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/global-wealth-report-2017-201711.html the "total global wealth" is $280 trillion (November 2017). By this figure the top half would have $140 trillion. This would have to be spread across far more than 8 people, since the richest individuals all have less than $100 billion. Staecker (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the top half have $140 trillion? That would only be true if everyone was equally wealthy. The above linked article says the bottom 50% collectively own $426 billion. I don't know if they included children and how those with negative wealth were counted. Anyways, $280trillion-$426billion=$279.6trillion owned by the wealthiest 50%. 107.190.103.117 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about your math? Because $279.6 trillion / $280 trillion = 99.9%. You're claiming that the wealthiest 50% own 99.9% of all wealth. Mũeller (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have found the answer, page 156 of the Credit Suisse report, to be richer than 10-20% of North Americans you must have a wealth greater than -$11,799 up to $297 and 80% of people worldwide have more than $466. When they calculate the total wealth of the poorest 50% on Earth they are grouping together Ferrari driving North Americans with millions in debt and poor subsistence farmers and subtracting the wealth of millions of farmers to pay the debts of the North American who blew millions. If the poorest 1% worldwide were ignored, the other 49% would have closer to 2% of global wealth instead of 0.1%. 107.190.103.117 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} According to the "Global Wealth Report 2017", published by Credit Suisse (see link), the bottom half of all people (counting only adults) owns less then one percent of the total wealth (page 9), so that means that the top half owns over 99% of the total wealth. The total wealth is, according to this report 280,289 billion dolars (page 5), meaning that the top half collectively own almost 280 trillion dollars, while the poorest half (about 2.5 billion adults) own less that 2.8 trillion dollar, i.e. about 1000 dollar per adult, for the top half this would be over 100,000 dollar/adult. - Lindert (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Edit: I see Staecker interpreted the question differently. I was working under the assumption that you were asking about the 50% richest people, instead of the people that own 50% of the total wealth. - Lindert (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lindert,Staecker, and Alansplodge. So roughly, the wealth is divided like 1% for the bottom half, 1% for the richest few men, and 98% for everyone else? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Pyramid fits the real wealthholder spread surprisingly exact. Top 10% hold 85%, the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% or the top 30% hold 97%. The numbers seem different depending where you draw the line but the grand scheme is crystal clear a pyramid. See Distribution of wealth#Wealth distribution pyramid. Interestingly there is also a classic form of financial fraud called Pyramid scheme. --Kharon (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kharon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all.

The reason I asked, by the way, is that the comparison about the top group of men compared to the bottom half the planet is often delivered without explanation, and worse, misstated. I just heard on some talk show "...The top 6 richest people have more than half the planet's wealth..." And that is just not true.

People who use the comparison ought to add that the bottom half has very, very little of the total. They ought not leave the impression that the richest have half the planet's wealth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the first source, eight richest people own as much wealth as the least wealthy half of the population together. Total global wealth: 852 billion dollars. Therefore, each of these richest people owns an average of 53 billion dollars. From the second source, the total wealth is 280 trillion dollars. There's no claim that 50% of that is concentrated in the hands of eight people. The 852 billion is not related to the 280 trillion. From the third source, global wealth is again 280 trillion dollars and the wealthiest 1% of the population controls 50% of it. The 3.5 billion poorest people own 2.7% of it. 86.176.18.217 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A joke edit, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak -- the story seems to have reached you in somewhat garbled form. The claim was that the 42 richest now have roughly the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of of the world's population. See [1]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnonMoos. Now I'm all confused again. So, what percentage is owned by the top 1%, the bottom 50%, and the rest of us? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The richest 8 own 0.1%, the richest 1% own 50%, the richest 2-50% own 50%, the richest 51-99% own 3.1% and the poorest 1% own -3%. 107.190.103.117 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound at all right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers all came from the news sources others provided above and a credit suisse report. The media is being deceptive in the way they make their statement on the top 8 vs bottom 50%; I could also state you could throw a dart in Africa and have a 90% chance of hitting an adult with more wealth than the poorest 150million North Americans combined, it's true but one needs to know the massive debts of a few cancels out the small wealth of many. 107.190.103.117 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get it!!! Finally! Thank you. I read the figures you wrote above for like ten minutes and now I get it. Thank you!! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... according to those figures, the top 99% own around 103% of the wealth... something is off. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10% of North Americans have debt that exceeds their assets by over $10,000. 107.190.103.117 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese New Year & Presidents' Day on the same date?

In which years do Chinese New Year and Presidents' Day both fall on the same date? Is there a formula to determine when this happens? 47.19.33.202 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably when the day of a new moon such that there are ten other new moons between it and the next winter solstice coincides with the third Monday of February in the Gregorian calendar. Any formula to predict the position of the moon would have to be pretty complex -- see Lunar theory... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the Chinese calendar is still ~~observational~~ astronomy-based and not an arithmetic algorithm. Is it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of dates for this century at Chinese New Year - which shows that they will coincide in 2094, on Monday 15th February (unless you mean Botswana'a Presidents' Day, rather than the US one, in which case the answer is that they will never coincide). That there is such a list suggests that it it not observational, but is being calculated in advance. Wymspen (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian_Milky_Way -- for the purposes of the Chinese calendar, "new moon" means astronomical conjunction (unlike in the Islamic calendar, where it means the first visible thin crescent seen right after sunset). Obviously the Chinese calendar is not "observational" in the sense of the Islamic calendar, since at the time of a new moon you can't directly observe whether it will have ten other new moons between it and the following winter solstice! AnonMoos (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that's why they're "early" so often!, I wrongly assumed it was just ancient leap rules getting out of sync with the real moon. And I didn't realize you said next solstice not previous and that if it was previous it'd have to be the spring equinox to be January/February. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You can make this simpler. The Chinese New Year falls at the new moon next following the entry of the sun into Aquarius (which happens around 20 January). New moons come every 29 or 30 days. There will be a new moon about 15 February (since there was an eclipse on 31 January). To find the rough date for following years add 19 days or subtract 11 days each year as necessary to keep within February. Remember to jump back a day every 19 years (saltus lunae). I've not heard of Presidents' Day before now, but assuming it's the third Monday in February it will keep within the range 15 - 21 February. 86.176.18.217 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better known as Washington's Birthday Wymspen (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More like officially known as Washington's Birthday but better known as President's Day. George's actual birthday, February 22, used to be a federal holiday, but in the effort to make holidays fall on Mondays, it doesn't fall on the 22nd anymore. But it's still the Washington's Birthday holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 22, 1732, February 11, 1731 and February 11, 1732. Amazing how one man can be born so many days. Interestingly, Washington was born 1732.1 by 2-1 consensus, square root of 3 is 1.7321. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 86.176.18.217's "saltus lunae" appears to be an allusion to the Metonic cycle, but as far as I know, the Chinese calendar is pre-calculated according to the best astronomical information available at the time, and does not depend on any fixed schedule of intercalations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming streets after medieval rulers

How common is that in the Western world? Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a King Henry's Walk not far from here. It's where he used to go hunting. Even closer is Queen Elizabeth's Walk. 86.176.18.217 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's in England and refers to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. Am I right? I also assume those have been the common names of those places for centuries. What I am interested in is naming or renaming streets after medieval rulers in modern age. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More likely Henry VIII as Henry VII wasn't one for outdoor sports. The term "Queen Elizabeth" almost always refers to Elizabeth I unless otherwise stated (excepting our present Sovereign Lady of course). Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oddly specific question. I'm not even sure how to begin researching sources for you to read. Can you help us help you; what led you to the question? Perhaps if we can know your greater purpose, we can know how to help you better. --Jayron 32 17:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A quick Google shows that in England there are King Alfred Roads in Harold Wood, Chippenham, Chepstow and Derby. Also a King Harold Road in Colchester, King John Roads in Kingsclere and Gillingham, Dorset (a bit surprising really because he was a bit of a bad hat), a King Richard Road in Hinckley (a lot more popular but rubbish domestic policy), an Empress Matilda Gardens in Milton Keynes and numerous Queen Eleanor Roads, Drives and Gardens all over the shop. We have had lots of kings called Henry and Edward, so it's hard to tell if the road names are referring to medieval ones or not.

Further afield, there are streets called Rue Charlemagne in Paris, Brussels and Luxembourg City. There seem to be streets named after Henri IV in most major French cities, obviously a popular chap. There's a Barbarossastrasse and a Maximillianstrasse in Berlin. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your qualification about modernity until after I had posted. It's a bit difficult to tell, but Milton Keynes is a New Town that was developed in the 1960s and 1970s, so must be a recent one. My aunt used to live in King Harold Road in Colchester, which appears to date from the 1950s. Harold Wood was largely built from the 1930s onwards. So many of those are going to be fairly recent namings. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Near where I live in Raleigh, NC there is a King Richard Road. It is in a neighborhood that was built in the 1960s. But other than this kind of "hunt and peck" method of randomly naming such streets, I am still struggling for the sort of information the OP is looking for. Perhaps they can elaborate on their needs and purpose so we can provide proper help. --Jayron 32 17:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think everyone's struggling. The trouble is that though the names of towns, villages, mountains and rivers have been the subject of systematic academic research in Britain for just over a century, and in Germany and Sweden for a little longer, perhaps a century and a half, street names are still a badly underdeveloped field of study. Here in Britain I don't know of any full-length scholarly treatment of the whole subject of street names apart from Adrian Room's The Street Names of England, and even that's more descriptive than analytical. He has a chapter on "Commemorative and Propitious Names" which has a section on royal names, but he doesn't deal with medieval kings as a separate subject. Along with streets named after more modern kings he mentions a Canute Place in Knutsford, Cheshire (which was just Market Place until the 19th century) and King Ecgbert Road in Dore, Sheffield (date not mentioned). To add to the "hunt and peck" results, Hastings in East Sussex has a Harold Mews and a Conqueror Road. --Antiquary (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses! Here's some context. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, many streets in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia have been (re)named after medieval kings and queens who cannot be credited for anything other than having existed. I suppose it comes with rising nationalism and that the Western countries had gone through that much earlier. I wonder if such namings still occur in the West. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH one could say it comes hand in hand with an effort to distance oneselves from the recent communist regime, and find a good name for the large amount of streets named after communist functionaries lacking good candidates for a toponym-themed name. Admittedly, nationalism provides a plethora of name candidates. 93.136.42.200 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Greece, it is rather common to name streets after Byzantine Emperors. My hometown of Alexandroupoli has streets named after Nikephoros II Phokas, John I Tzimiskes, Basil II, Constantine XI Palaiologos, and a street named after the entire Komnenos dynasty. The city was not built until the 1870s, and does not have a particularly long history. Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little off-topic, but there are of course far more streets named after medieval saints. Moonraker (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Nevsky Prospekt was named when it was built in the 18th century, then had its name changed a couple times in the Soviet era, then changed back. Sankt-Peterburg/Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg was similarly renamed. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for streets in north america named after kings in Google gets hits for MLK; doing the same thing with "queens" just gives you, well, Queens. It did lead me to our article on List of eponymous streets in New York City, but I didn't see any royalty in there. There is also List of eponymous roads in London, which has plenty of royal names, but it's not clear which are named recently in honour of medieval rulers. Matt Deres (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Representation of the People Act 1918

Could anyone point me to a full text of the Representation of the People Act 1918 as originally enacted please? The link on Legislation.gov does not work. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acts prior to 1988 have not been digitally archived. The Parliament website recommends contacting the archives department directly to request a copy. See here. --Jayron 32 18:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could click here (sorry to be a smart-arse Jayron). Alansplodge (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had already found that link Alan, unfortunately it scatters the notes in between the sections of the Act, making it hard to follow just the text of the Act. DuncanHill (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Is this any better? Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent Alan, many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]