Humanities desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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.

June 22

Is there a club for net exporting countries or rich exporters or poor ones?

There's clubs for nations that don't have much in common like "speaking French" and "being in late British Empire" and "being African" (I think there's one for debtors or creditors?) maybe there's one for net exporting or having a current balance account surplus? Or net exporting of larger subsets of "everything" like services, minerals, agriculture, non-commodities or food? Or countries with a high percent of GDP from commodities or single commodities making them most vulnerable to price slumps of a single thing regardless of what that thing is (i.e. without being a group that only net exporters of a specific single thing can apply to join, which I know exists)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a little behind the times with respect to the Commonwealth: Mozambique, Rwanda, Togo, and Gabon have joined, despite never having been British colonies. OPEC is of course the most successful commodities cartel; according to a Google search result I can only see a snippet of, there have apparently been others among exporters of diamonds, coffee, bauxite, tin, and rubber... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Edinburgh Declaration for Commonwealth of Nations joining criteria. Pure speculation of course, but there is a branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society in the USA. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would we USers be allowed in all the Commonwealth Games events? Or at least the ones we aren't too strong at like basketball? Could we host sometimes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to make more sense to have a club for each single export than larger categories like "goods" or "everything". Why did they want to join the Commonwealth and why did whoever accepts and rejects applicants want them in? Would USA be allowed in if our government wanted to or are we too big? Would win too much at the Commonwealth Games (not soccer, darts or cricket though, we wouldn't win that). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably struggle a bit at netball and lawn bowls too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would all depend upon whether the US is adjudged to comply with the Harare Declaration. I'm soooo tempted to indulge in a bit of leg-pulling here, but not everyone shares my weird sense of humour! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Non-Aligned Movement.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There could certainly be some issues there, especially in the areas of racial equality and participation in the democratic process. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USA: Corporations that wanted to merge under Dem president, denied, but approved under Rep president.

Corporations that were denied merging under Obama, but approved under Trump. ChatGPT gave me 3 examples, are there any others?

-T-Mobile and Sprint: the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint was initially proposed during the Obama administration but faced opposition and was abandoned. However, the merger was later approved during the Trump administration in 2019.

-AT&T and Time Warner: In 2016, AT&T announced its plan to acquire Time Warner, a major media and entertainment company. The proposed merger faced scrutiny and legal challenges during the Obama administration. Ultimately, the merger was approved by a federal court in 2018 during the Trump administration.

-Bayer and Monsanto: In 2016, Bayer, a German pharmaceutical and life sciences company, announced its intention to acquire Monsanto, a U.S.-based agricultural biotechnology company. The merger faced regulatory reviews and antitrust concerns, including under the Obama administration. However, it was approved by regulatory authorities in various countries, including the U.S., in 2018 during the Trump administration.

However, I asked ChatGPT for examples where denied under Clinton, but approved under Bush. It actually gave me 2 examples that were eventually approved before Bush became president...

-Exxon and Mobil: In 1998, Exxon, one of the largest oil companies, announced its plan to merge with Mobil, another major oil company. The merger faced scrutiny from regulatory authorities, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), during the Clinton administration due to concerns about potential antitrust issues. However, the merger was ultimately approved in 1999 at the end of the Clinton administration.

-Daimler-Benz and Chrysler: In 1998, Daimler-Benz, the German automotive company, announced its intention to merge with Chrysler Corporation, an American automaker. The proposed merger faced regulatory reviews and scrutiny during the Clinton administration. However, the merger was approved in 1998, and the combined company became known as DaimlerChrysler. It should be noted that the DaimlerChrysler merger ultimately faced challenges and was later dissolved in 2007.

Can anyone think of any other examples? Thanks. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I’m not familiar with the topic in question, but I would strongly recommend not thinking of ChatGPT as a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you can use ChatGPT to find claims and then verify. These are "do you know of any" questions. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

And then ChatGPT can pull answers to these questions out of its digital nether regions. Did you actually verify the above claims? --Lambiam 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious about the claim that the AT&T/Time Warner merger "faced scrutiny and legal challenges during the Obama administration" because of the timescale: the deal was announced only slightly more than two months from the end of the Obama administration, and there's no mention of a challenge to it until after Trump took office. I'm also dubious about the claim that the Bayer/Monsanto merger "faced regulatory reviews and antitrust concerns, including under the Obama administration" just because this is a vague statement: "concerns" could mean anything, and where were these reviews and concerns taking place, even if they were contemporaneous with Obama? They were compelled to divest assets to BASF (in Germany) in order to gain regulatory approval - from the EU? Then that would not be relevant to the question. Were they declined the right to merge, or even discouraged from merging, by the Obama administration? Unless we can remember these events in late 2016, we don't know, because ChatGPT doesn't give sources. We have to search for old news items about it, and an exhaustive search isn't possible. Ideally ChatGPT would have trawled through various old newspaper articles for us, pieced together the information, and cited them. In reality it may have looked at assorted web pages of varying quality, "misinterpreted" them based on the proximity of phrases, and misinformed us in a way that is difficult to check. Card Zero (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another question, have there been any 2 companies denied wanting to merge, under a Republican president administration? 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

In 1958, under the Eisenhower administration, Bethlehem Steel was denied a merger with Youngstown Sheet and Tube (United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 168 F. Supp. 576 (1958)). --Lambiam 21:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're including hostile takeovers, the Broadcom Inc's attempted hostile (opposed by the Qualcomm board) takeover of Qualcomm was blocked by Trump's executive order. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I mentioned that as it's an example of an attempt to combine two fairly large companies which may have been a merger if the Qualcomm board had agreed to it. There must be many smaller acquisitions which are blocked for various reasons during most modern presidencies e.g. the Chicago Stock Exchange or Lattice Semiconductor are two others under the Trump administration. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before Robert Bork sabotaged anti-trust law ca. 1980, it was reasonably common. Teddy Roosevelt was a big "trust-buster"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that such mergers often require prolonged scrutiny and argument before eventually being approved, or not, it may be that refusal under one administration followed by approval under a later one in part reflects merely these prolonged procedures against the background of short(ish) 4-year presidential terms. Have you compared your list with such mergers refused under a Republican president and later approved under a Democrat(ic?) one? Beware of Confirmation bias. (Apologies for my uncertainty over US political terms – we Brits are somewhat oblivious of US nuances). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.228.117 (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Funds Rate:

The U.S. federal reserve raises the federal fund rate, the rate at which banks borrow from other banks. But is it mostly smaller banks borrowing from bigger banks? Do big banks borrow from small banks?

Also, is it incongruent for 2 banks to borrow from each other? A and B. Is there benefit to that? The only way I think of is as a loop, bank A borrows from bank B, who borrows from bank C, who borrows from bank D, but bank D borrows from bank A.

JPMorgan is currently the largest and richest bank, in terms of assets and etc., does it borrow from smaller banks? Thanks. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

1) The Fed Funds rate is the rate at which the FED lends money to financial institutions; interbank rates are different. 2) Everyone borrows; no exceptions. Almost all interbank lending is to cover short-term (e.g., overnight) shortfalls in required minimum capital balances / ratios. 3) At 9am, Bozo Bank is short $30 million, and borrows from Clown Financing Co. At noon, Bozo gets a large cash injection (e.g., sells off a mortgage portfolio), and pays back the Clowns. But, Clown ran into a bit of “market misadventure” and needs more, so having established some good will with the Bozos, it borrows $20 million overnight. Mix in another bank, rinse and repeat. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Federal funds are overnight borrowings between banks; DOR (HK) may be thinking of the Fed's discount window, which is a facility for loans by the Fed. Mostly big banks borrow fed funds from little banks, although this is not always the case. Borrowing Fed funds allows banks to maintain their required bank reserves at the Fed. John M Baker (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. federal reserve: core inflation, CPI inflation, and PCE inflation.

I recall the U.S. federal reserve looks at core inflation the most, for determining whether or not to raise interest rates or not. Which 1 of these takes into account the prices of cars, car loans, and car insurance the most?

Also, is prices of cars, and prices of homes, are parallel? Meaning they go up and down together, or they are pretty independent of each other? Thanks. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The categories Motor vehicles and Housing have a slightly larger weight in the CPI than in the PCE; see Personal consumption expenditures price index § Comparison to CPI. The PCE is the preferred measure by the Federal Reserve of core inflation; see Core inflation § Usage. For a somewhat meaningful comparison of the price developments of cars and homes (which is fraught with difficulties anyway because either covers a huge range, and what was a typical car or home ten ot twenty years ago may not be so typical today) you'd have to correct for inflation. --Lambiam 20:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good response. Add: real estate is fundamentally local, whereas vehicles are somewhat more widespread. I don’t mind buying a car from a place I wouldn’t want to live.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations II question.

Can anyone think of any companies where B bought A, then C bought B and split A back into it's own company?

That happened with Dole juice. It was bought by a bakery company in 1932 (Dole was then called Hawaiian Pineapple Company). But the bakery company struggled financially and was bought by a private billionaire in 1985, David H. Murdock. Then in 1996, the private billionaire split Dole into its own company again, but the bakery company was no longer a bakery company, it was now a real estate company. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

You need to look for companies that merged but were required to divest of a subsidiary. I'd look at supermarket and bank mergers for examples. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]