Humanities desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 27

980 Madison Street

Can anyone figure out whether 980 Madison Street (the Parke-Bernet Galleries building) is actually listed in the Upper East Side Historic District, because the New York Times says it is, whereas this book asserts that the building "itself was not landmarked". Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making some assumptions, but both could be correct. The building is within the historic district and is thus subject to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (per this). The building itself need not be registered as a landmark (perhaps). See also: The building lies within the Upper East Side Historic District and the Madison Avenue Preservation Special District... Hopefully, somebody will clarify. 2606:A000:1126:28D:C517:584F:2749:5285 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the wording you give, Eddie, I believe 2606... is correct. Buildings within historic districts can functionally have three statuses — they're individually designated as historic, they're not individually designated as historic but they're still contributing properties, or they're non-contributing properties. At least on the federal level (National Register of Historic Places), individually listed buildings in HDs were generally listed before the HD was listed, since there's not much point to an individual listing later: it doesn't get any additional protection. However, this does occasionally happen, e.g. the Crawford-Whitehead-Ross House gained National Register status in 1973 as a part of the Madison Historic District (Madison, Indiana), but in 1992 it was individually listed. Since your building "itself was not landmarked", it probably has no separate designation, but it's still part of the district. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, New York's generally good at providing National Register nomination forms, which are great for answering questions like "is this building a contributing property". [1] is your link for their GIS site. You can also read the 1400-page local designation writeup, but unfortunately they don't appear to have a table of contents, so you'll be reading for a while. I found a brief reference to this building at the top of page 973, and the building itself is profiled on page 1055 (page number's on the left side of the page, not the top or bottom), so yes it's apparently part of the district. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, 2606..., thank you guys so much! I took the hard work you guys did a slight step forward and found the nomination form for the district (see here), and you are right, it is a contributing property-- one of 1,044 buildings over 57 blocks-- and that pdf you link Nyttend is what was added, essentially verbatim to the NRHP in 1984. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The natural-born citizen requirement, the 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and "state action"

In this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Implied_repeal_of_the_natural-born_citizen_clause) of the Wikipedia article Natural-born-citizen clause, some proposals to use the 5th Amendment and/or 14th Amendment to the US Constitution to nullify the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency are discussed. Obviously these proposals have not met with widespread acceptance yet, but my question is this: Considering that, to my knowledge, the 14th Amendment as well as the implicit equal protection component of the 5th Amendment (as evidenced in cases such as Bolling v. Sharpe) only apply to "state action", what exactly is the logic in applying either of these two Amendments to the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency? As in, can the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency actually be a form of "state action" even though it was created before the current US federal government actually existed? For instance, is the logic here that the text of the original US Constitution counts as "state action" because US state governments were responsible in calling for the 1787 Constitutional Convention as well as for subsequently ratifying the new US Constitution that this Convention drafted and created? Or is there a different, other logic to this--and if so, what logic to this (as in, to the idea that the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency actually counts as "state action") is there? Futurist110 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you saying "was created before the current US federal government actually existed"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency--but also the current US Constitution in general. The US federal government in its current form is a creature of the current US Constitution and was only created after the current US Constitution was already written. The first US President (George Washington) took office in 1789 and the First United States Congress likewise took office in 1789 but the current US Constitution was already written back in 1787. Futurist110 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our own Wikipedia article about the Federal government of the United States explicitly states that it was created in 1789--as in, two years after the drafting of the (current) US Constitution. Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The elections themselves are state actions, as it is the state that organizes them and controls both the polls and the ballots. See also [2]. Regardless of when the rule was written, the question would be whether its enforcement, unquestionably a state action, is constitutional. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean US presidential elections? If so, that makes sense. Plus, as you said, one can protest US states' decision to exclude naturalized US citizens from their presidential ballots. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the states' decision to make. The US Constitution requires a president be natural born. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But is this US constitutional requirement itself a form of "state action"? Indeed, that's what I am curious about and what I'm trying to find out here. Futurist110 (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The states run the elections, but they are restricted by some federal laws, for example the voting rights act, and the amendments prohibiting denial of voting rights based on race, sex, and to those 18 years or older.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs)

"State action" here meaning an action by the government, not specifically by the individual states of the United States. Btw, a "state" is a politically organized sovereign entity. The United States is unusual in referring to its subdivisions as states, as well as in the sovereignty they are granted. Anyway, Futurist, the implementation of the requirement is a state action, whether that takes the form of a state government refusing to place someone on the ballot, or congress refusing to certify the election. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the ambiguity. In America, the states are not "subdivisions", they are sovereign entities. They are controlled by the federal to a certain extent, but there are still many things that are largely left to the states, elections being one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the Wikipedia article for the term State action. Futurist110 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For America, it's ambiguous, because the term "state" is used in more than one way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"State" here is defined as a governmental body. This is why US states are called "states" but also why countries are sometimes called "states". Futurist110 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who in America, besides maybe lawyers, uses this term? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one or almost no one, I'm assuming, but the legal aspect here is vital because this is a legal argument. Futurist110 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two years after the drafting, but it wasn't ratified until summer 1788, just in time to hold elections - and some states demanded a Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first US Congressional elections were held in 1788? As for the Bill of Rights, I'm well-aware when it was ratified, but this isn't really relevant to this specific question of mine because the natural-born citizen requirement for the US Presidency is in the original US Constitution rather than in the US Bill of Rights. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can kind of see how someone might try to claim the 14th Amendment should factor into it. But what part of the Fifth Amendment has anything to do with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since the 1954 case Bolling v. Sharpe, the US Supreme Court has reverse incorporated the equal protection principles of the 14th Amendment into the 5th Amendment--except with the 14th Amendment applying only to US states while the 5th Amendment applies to the US federal government. For what it's worth, the impression that I get is that originalists tend to be pretty critical of this doctrine of reverse incorporation. Futurist110 (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was to ensure due process of law in regard to things like segregation of public schools, equal justice under law, etc. It would be quite a stretch to argue that that has anything to do with the natural-born-citizen clause of the Constitution. You may recall the great row caused by just the rumor (a false one) that Obama was not a natural born citizen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also believe that it would be "quite a stretch to argue" that the 14th Amendment "has anything to do with the natural-born-citizen clause of the Constitution"--as US law professor Laurence Tribe does, in fact, argue? Futurist110 (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has he argued this in front of the Supreme Court, or is he merely theorizing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, he has argued some other issues in front of the US Supreme Court, but not this specific issue. After all, to my knowledge, the US Supreme Court hasn't actually heard any cases about this specific issue yet--so, there was obviously no opportunity yet for Tribe to try making his case directly to the US Supreme Court in regards to this specific issue. So, Yes, as of right now, he is merely theorizing in regards to this specific issue. Futurist110 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe's argument[3] is not exactly how you have presented it. Read the section "Congressional Enforcement and a Coherent Approach to 'Natural Born'. ...if and when the Court were to take a broader view of the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment... Congress could then enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s norm of equality and its recognition of the “privileges of United States citizens,” in tandem with the Article I power of Congress to enact a uniform “Rule of Naturalization.” See Congressional power of enforcement. fiveby(zero) 23:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll have read my OP here carefully, you'll have noticed that, in my OP here, I posted a direct link to the part of the "Natural-born citizen clause" Wikipedia article that discusses Tribe's argument accurately and in great detail. If you'll click on that link, you'll see that Tribe indeed discusses having the US Congress be the initiator of this. However, this doesn't eliminate the fact that if the US Congress will ever actually pass such a statute, then such a statute will certainly be challenged in the courts--which might very well mean that it could eventually find it way up to the US Supreme Court, who would then have to rule on this statute's constitutionality if they will indeed decide to take this case. In such a case, SCOTUS would actually have to decide whether or not such an interpretation of the 14th Amendment (as in, one that allows naturalized US citizens to be US President) is actually a valid interpretation of this Amendment. If it is, then this statute should be upheld, but if it isn't, then this statute should be struck down by the US Supreme Court as being unconstitutional due to it (in the US Supreme Court's view) exceeding the US Congress's authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. Futurist110 (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can decrease the daily working time from 8 hours to 4 hours halt the crisis of population drop?

Backstory:

Projections_of_population_growth
Economic_consequences_of_population_decline
Population_ageing
Eight-hour_day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reciprocater (talk • contribs) 11:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We, global citizens, are facing a demographic crisis caused by low birth rates and decreased migration, especially in the developed countries.

Don't you think it's because we spend too much time a day on work? If we forelook that we won't have time to take care of our household affairs and beloved children, how dare we give birth?

I personally think a lesser work time doesn't mean a greater burden for the employer. Productivity is all about. If a lesser work time yields greater productivity than that of longer work time, there would be no point for the employer to dismiss such a new model.

When we look back on history, the productivity of 8-hour work per day did yield greater productivity than that of 12 hours of work per day.

Do you folks think this approach is feasible? Thank you!

--Reciprocater (Talk) 11:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the Wikipedia reference desk is set up to help you find facts; it's meant for research purposes, not offering opinions about the feasibility of long-term strategies like this. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for letting me know this. So where should I ask on Wikipedia? --Reciprocater (Talk) 11:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia doesn't have a place to do this, because it doesn't really fit into our mission; I think it would be better if you'd find a web forum that's related to demographics or politics. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Do you recommend Wikiversity?--Reciprocater (Talk) 11:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we do not provide opinions, I expect that economists and researchers in other sciences have studied the projected effects of various policies and scenarios that may have relevance to the question, such as short-time working and other variants of working hours reduction. An entirely different proposal to mitigate the projected demographic crisis in the Western countries is to allow and even encourage more immigration from countries with an excess of young people and a shortage of work opportunities. Both are discussed and advocated for in the book Utopia for Realists. --Lambiam 17:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference! --Reciprocater (Talk) 18:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EMIs in India

In the context of Indian finance, what is an EMI? A friend in Karnataka put up a Facebook link to "RBI Cuts Rates, Allows 3-Month Pause On EMIs To Offset Coronavirus Impact". Even before reading the article, I assumed that RBI was Reserve Bank of India, but wasn't sure about EMI. EMI (disambiguation) lists only one potentially relevant meaning, Equated monthly installment, but the only three-month bit in the article is section 3, which refers to "all loans" rather than merely those with fixed monthly payments. Since "EMI" isn't explained in the article and didn't quite fit the article I found, I wondered if it might have a common meaning in India that didn't need to be explained to its target audience. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Nyttend, that is the correct meaning; this page goes into it a bit more. ——SN 54129 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a real estate website for apartments in Boston, Massachusetts. I'm hesitant to trust them on matters in India. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the meaning is indeed "Equated monthly installment"; see here. --Lambiam 17:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointer. Apparently the Massachusetts apartment people can be trusted here :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Won't the $2 trillion stimulus cause massive inflation?

The United States is on the verge of passing a $2 trillion stimulus package.[4] Among the provisions:

Individuals who earn $75,000 or less would get $1,200 each.
Married couples earning up to $150,000 will get $2,400 and an additional $500 per each child.

Won't this cause massive inflation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Obama stimulus didn't, nor did Federal Reserve "quantitative easing", nor has the Trump administration tax cut. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any of those giving away cash to individuals. Is my memory incorrect? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, it came in the form of a tax rebate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stimulates compensates for the collective loss of consumer buying power due to the health crisis and ensuing job loss. Unless it overcompensates, no inflation is to be expected. --Lambiam 19:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot also on how the cash is generated. Generally money which is generated through monetary policy (i.e. printing cash) causes inflation at a much more problematic rate than does money which is given out via fiscal policy (i.e. spending tax revenues). That is because the "system" writ large already has tax revenues as part of its "total money" amount, it merely changes who is spending it on what (i.e. the feds spending it on government projects vs. consumers spending it on staying alive and healthy); since the total amount of money in the system isn't changing, inflation is less of an issue. Injecting money by "printing cash" (or the equivalent in modern monetary policy "Quantitative easing") has a much higher inflation potential because it is adding money to the system that wasn't there in the first place. --Jayron 32 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel it would? Economists generally believe that high inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the (real) economy. The "stimulus" bill is part of what economists call fiscal policy: taxing and spending. Any such spending in the U.S. (as in most countries) beyond government revenue is borrowed by the government. (In the U.S. this is done with Treasury securities.) The U.S. money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, which controls monetary policy. The Fed (as it's informally known) has "operational independence", meaning it doesn't get routine orders from the legislature or executive. Instead, its mission is to oversee the U.S. financial system and pursue its "dual mandate" of stable prices and maximal employment. The Fed contracts or expands the money supply as it deems necessary for its mission; it doesn't do so in direct response to bills passed by Congress. Right now, the U.S. economy is predicted to shrink substantially in the near future due to the COVID-19 crisis, as a quick search on the topic will confirm. (This is typically expressed in terms of gross domestic product or "GDP"). This also means the money supply will likely shrink absent Fed/government action due to things like defaults/bankruptcies and people drawing on savings. Most economists would only expect high inflation if something made the money supply grow significantly instead. To circle back, Treasury borrowing and expenditures (fiscal policy) don't affect the money supply; they just move money around. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded last sentence for more clarity. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DOR (HK): You're our resident economist; I'm curious, what's your take on this question? Eliyohub (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing lost income cannot cause inflation. First, there is no sudden increase in demand; second, the replacement income is less than the lost income; and third, because in this case the situation is so obviously temporary. People are far more likely to slow their buying – due to both social distancing and price surges – than they are to pour into Wal-Mart in mass crowds, demanding the opportunity to pay way above the odds for toilet paper.

Sure, A-holes will hoard and gougers will gouge, creating false shortages, and infecting each other (Darwin At Work), but there’s only so much toilet paper that the community as a whole needs. Once people realize that their normal demand will be met, they will buy only as much as they need, and that will royally screw the A-holes.

Shout out to @AnonMoos: for pointing out that the Monetarists were highly disappointed when the Obama Stimulus didn’t result in hyper-inflation. As students of the Austrian (or, “Austerity”) School of Economic Mis-Management discovered to their great embarrassment, sharply ramping up the money supply when demand evaporates is the responsible thing to do. If it isn’t done with sufficient enthusiasm, as was the case at the time thanks to (ahem) ‘partisan’ resistance, the result is deflation.

How the money is generated matters most to the mop-up efforts next year. The Fed is buying assets to create liquidity, not directly handing out cash or even lending (it isn’t allowed to lend to individuals or private companies directly). When it comes time to back off, those assets are sold and the surplus cash goes back to the Fed. Fiscal policy (tax and spend) is far, far too slow to deal with this kind of emergency.

There are two shocks hitting the economy at the moment, unemployment and shortages. People are suddenly out of work, which means a drop in income and thus in spending (which is deflationary). And, there isn’t enough toilet paper (etc.) on the shelves because of distribution snags. It extends far beyond that, of course, mainly into the services sector: there aren’t enough people offering the services we take for granted, healthcare being the most obvious example. There isn’t a shortage of demand, which we know how to address (ka-CHING!). There is, however, a disruption of supply – people are standing in line to get into grocery stores one at a time – and a massive loss of consumer confidence. The big question is how long it lasts.DOR (HK) (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]