Humanities desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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.

September 4

What are free ports good for?

Besides being useful for criminal activities, why would developed nations, under the rule of law, not only tolerate, but enable them?--Doroletho (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that low taxation stimulates economic activity. --Viennese Waltz 07:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this applies 100% to Free economic zones proper, like Gibraltar or Ceuta. That is, region that are far away from the main economic hubs and need a helping hand to stay afloat. But what about London Docklands or Free_economic_zone#Germany Hamburg in Germany. Does the government have any special interest in developing these? These regions are close to very active markets. --Doroletho (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Docklands, as the article you linked to says:

"Between 1960 and 1980, all of London's docks were closed, leaving around eight square miles (21 km²) of derelict land in East London. Unemployment was high, and poverty and other social problems were rife."

It then explains that the docklands were made a special economic zone between 1982 and 1998 to encourage growth, which it certainly achieved very visibly, for anyone who has seen the docklands before 1982 (although please note the article also mentions controversies). --Lgriot (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because ships that transport goods around the world often do not only travel from port A to port B. Especially modern container ships like the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller (ship) may collect and/or deliver containers in multiple locations at their shippinglines start and end (see sample route here).

If the ports where "tax zones", the captain would have to declare and pay taxes for his whole cargo multiple times, no matter he never intended to deliver containers 4504-18000 to the first port he visits at the end of his tour but only containers 1-4503. So the ports need to be free zones because else both the Shipping lines and the local tax authorities would have to handle 3-4 times the bureaucracy they handle with a free port, beside some special problems with cargo that may be legal in London but illegal in Rotterdam. --Kharon (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a captain of a modern container ship having to pay import duties on the cargo carried on his ship. That generally is the responsibility of the person / company that receives the goods.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kharon's contribution is, let's put it politely, bollocks. Obviously, container ships or recipient of containers don't pay import duties when the containers are in transit and remain in the ship. In the same way, a cargo plane making a stop somewhere won't pay import taxes on its cargo.

Not all ports are free ports. Many important ports are not free ports, like Hamburg. Quite in contrary, most ports are not free ports, but have provisions for goods that won't be imported (yet). That is, there are customs bonded warehouses, where different tax regimes can be applied, depending on the the type, origin and destination of the products.

Free ports, as pointed above, have an important positive impact on a region, because different activities can be developed in them, that would not be possible if you applied import taxes on all products. Imagine you want to buy 100s of paintings (for speculating on a rising price), and you want to re-sell them internationally after a while. You can buy them and place them in a warehouse in a free port until you decide to sell them. Or, a company could receive spare parts for repairing ships. The spare part wouldn't be taxed after been fitted in any ship.

The idea is to receive goods tax-free, process them and export them using a more convenient tax regime. Indeed, it's a misnomer to talk about free ports. It's not just a a port, but a whole region with some industrial capabilities that's free. 87.220.80.204 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beranger

Anyone can help me find the full name of Beranger [1] (M is for Monsieur) from the List of diplomats of France to Hawaii? KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full name would have been "Charles Béranger" https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/album_comique_cle86f7da.pdf. The poor boy has been treated like in the advertisement for a Jules Verne novel. No indication about the position C.B. would have assumed in Hawaii however. --Askedonty (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it Paul Bérenger?

[2] [3] [4] Шурбур (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are absolutely correct https://archive.org/stream/annuairediploma05trgoog/annuairediploma05trgoog_djvu.txt --Askedonty (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks it’s Paul. What is the accepted spelling Béranger or Bérenger? KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Bérenger, for Paul, Béranger, where Charles is concerned. But Шурбур's links are undisputable, the one you are looking for is Paul Bérenger. In the Annuaire Diplomatique for 1870 I came upon - thanks to those links - they both are listed ( p40-41), Paul in Stettin like in Шурбур's third link, Charles, in Berlin like in the gouv.fr link illustrated above. I do not see any confusion left. Шурбур's first link is very beautiful. --Askedonty (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS There is other data in the same directory regarding Hawaii p42 and p69 which I wouln't know how to order in article so I'm leaving it here. Interestingly in it features a brigadier Béranger [5] member of the government of Spain. The name of this Spanish Navy official and that of a famous of French song-writer with the same spelling of name (Pierre-Jean de Béranger) would explain the 'A' spelling in your original source. They wouldn't have wanted risking being secretly accused of disseminating ignorant typos to the preeminently silent majority. --Askedonty (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of term

In terms of Germany military during the World War II, what would x was the 2 Ic of y mean. I've found it in several document, and in part, i've see on on a article on WP where the Ic part meant Military Intelligence, although I thought it meant operations or intelligence operations. On here, [6]], Ic means General Staff Officer of a higher department (from Division to upwards), Intelligence Officer (Enemy), Security, so it could be military intelligence officer, but what would the two mean. Any ideas. It is from the Funkabwehr article. Thanks scope_creep (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 'a', 'b', 'c' appear to be ranks, grades or classes within 'I' (Intelligence). 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"2 Ic" would be "2nd in Command". DuncanHill (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the "I" be capitalized? 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some British sources have 2IC [7] although I couldn't find an example of 2Ic - perhaps it was written by a non-native speaker? Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or a typo. DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is and never was a rank "Ic" in german military history, far as i know, so i assume it is a translation to english(?) military terms. Its likely assumed as self-declaring by the author(s) of the articles you found it in but obviously its not. You should therefor post your question on the discussion page of these articles and recommend to add the german term in some way like for example "SU".(english "Staff-Sergeant" german "StabsUnteroffizier"). In my opinion foreign military ranks should not be used simply translated without reference or hint of origin. --Kharon (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a typo. I have seen used in several context. In some documents, I saw it as Ic being equivalent to A2 in American military, I think. There is also A3 in American military organisation, but I couldn't identify what the A2 and A3 meant. The A2 aspect, is used as English translation, all over the TICOM documents. I will try and find it in Google GBooks now. scope_creep (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference, I found it several other, and I settled on that definition as intelligence officer. Would 2 Ic mean second in command or adjutant to the intelligence officer.

Christer Bergstrom (19 December 2014). The Ardennes, 1944-1945. Casemate / Vaktel Forlag. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-61200-315-3. Retrieved 7 September 2018.

It looks like qualifier of position:

Bob Carruthers (15 May 2013). Handbook on German Military Forces. Pen and Sword. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-78159-215-1. Retrieved 7 September 2018.

Also p.105

It needs an article I think. I dont how to approach it.scope_creep (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to get the book. scope_creep (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found the book online and the designation. Here it is:

[8]] Section II, in Diagram [II-1]. It seems I-c, 2. Generalstabsoffizier, of the Oberbefehlshaber der Heeresguppe that is Commander-in-Chief of the Army Group. So it is senior officer in German High Command within the Army Group, commanded by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Group. So I think it is answered. Its seems to be a commanding officer, directly in command above him. scope_creep (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]