Miscellaneous desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 5

money supply

I realise that this would not likely happen in real life, but in theory, couldn't a government take a certain portion of the money they raise in taxes each year, and dump it in a hole somewhere, there by reducing inflation? Wouldn't that be the opposite of a foolish government increasing inflation by printing more money?

Also, just curious, is there any relevance to calculating the total amount of money in circulation, and dividing that by the population? I calculated that a while ago for Canada, and came up with 2000$ per person. Does that mean anything in the big picture if I happen to have more than 2000 $ (or whatever amount) to my name?

Duomillia (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money in circulation is meaningless. One could have $1 in cash and $10,000,000 in the bank. --Nricardo (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the 10m in the bank isn't "real money" in the same sense as 10m stuffed under my mattress. Remember, the moment I deposit my vast fortune (ha ha) in the bank, they turn around and loan it some one else, hoping that I don't come back the very next day to try to withdraw it. In other words (I think) money in cash in my pocket I can freely spend any time, where as to spend money deposited in the bank, some one else has to pay back a loan first. (I know that bank are required to keep a minimum of deposits on hand in cash, but not all of it...)

Duomillia (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course your money in the bank is "real money"! You can take it out and by stuff, you can use it to pay your bills, you can use it as a deposit for a loan. In what sense is it not real money? Yes, banks use deposits to make loans to other people, but just because you deposit money in the bank it doesn't just "disappear" into the celestial aether. The bank is required by law to give it to you back if you want it, and if they can't, the government will step in and do it for you. Deposited money is real money, in every sense of the word. You can spend it as freely as you want.

The thing is, there is MUCH, MUCH more money in the world than there are physical money-bills (say you buy a house for a million dollars. Do the bank were you get your mortage actually take a dump-truck of bills and drive it to the seller? No, of course they don't). You could bury as much money in a hole as you want, it wont make much of a dent in the total money supply.

There is, however, ways which the government (the Fed, specifically), do limit the amount of money that is in circulation. The most visible, of course, is increasing the interest rate. The Fed lends a lot of money to banks (money which they create, the dollar is a fiat currency, the Fed can create as much as it wants) and they have a specific interest rate the banks have to pay. That interest rate govern how easily a bank can get a hold of money. If it's low, the banks can get a hold of money easily, and thus they are more likely to lend it out to us regular folks. The rate at which we get a loan is reduced, because the banks have to pay less for it. If the interest rate is high, it's much more difficult for the banks to get money, and therefore they need to charge higher interests for the money they lend out. When it's more expensive to get a loan, people will be less likely to buy a house, or a car, or invest in a new business or whatever. People spend less, the economy slows down, and there's generally less increase in the amount of money in the world. Thus, inflation slows down.

Isn't that a much smarter way to limit inflation than just burning bills, which is a big hassle and makes virtually no difference at all? I certainly think so. Belisarius (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, people don't generally pay taxes in cash :), so there's very little money to dump. And it would be stupid to throw away the taxes, because, you know, it's useful for stuff! It pays for police departments, it fills in pot holes, makes sure people can go to school. Why would you throw that money away? Belisarius (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could fill a pot hole with it.... 99.226.216.2 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As our OP points out - when the government prints too much money (as is currently happening - for example - in Nigeria) you get inflation. It follows that reducing the money supply (by taking money out of circulation) would have the opposite effect. So taxing people more and burning the money you take from them - should have the effect of reducing inflation. A Revaluation of the currency would be another way to do that (see Devaluation - which is the opposite of that). SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money creation. --Nricardo (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, most western countries are consistently increasing their money supply over any long period of time. If the rate of increase of the money supply is exactly equal to the rate of increase in goods and services available, no inflation takes place (we find that the "no inflation" case rarely maximizes total utility though... that's complicated) So the central bank could choose to reduce the rate at which they are expanding the money supply to fight inflation.

As another practical matter, most western countries try to keep their monetary authority (the Fed in the US, or central banks generally) separate from their fiscal authority (the federal government). Because it's the monetary authority that has a monopoly on the printing of money, they have the practical power to set the target inflation rate and interest rate (by influencing the money supply). If a fiscal authority (some level of government) tried to influence the money supply in the way you suggest (reducing it by taking bills out of circulation), the monetary authority will just use its' vastly superior monopoly power to increase the money supply directly, maintaining the mix of inflation and employment that it considers optimal. In this way, the central bank is considered politically independent from the fiscal authority.

But you're right, reducing the money supply reduces inflation. Central banks do this by selling securities, usually government bonds. When they sell the bond, they receive money for it. That money is now out of circulation. The central bank isn't concerned with profits or a "balanced budget" like fiscal authorities. They have few expenses, and aren't required to provide much in the way of service (compared to federal governments). They just manage the money supply.NByz (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football question

I'm watching an FA Cup match between Aston Villa and Gillingham and it appears that about half of the Villa players have some sort of greasy smear in the front center of their jerseys. Are they covering up some sort of banned sponsor? If so, why only some of the players? The stuff looks like axle grease. I'd look at the team page, but I fear that someone, in their zeal to keep the Villa page as up to date as possible, will have put in the final score. This happened last night when all I wanted was some info on Forest Green v. Derby County and boom!, there's the final score already. Thanks much.98.235.67.132 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) And yes, I realize that anyone who may know the answer is probably fast asleep since I'm watching this at 11:30 p.m. Eastern U.S.[reply]

That grease is actually a mentholated ointment, to help keep the footballer's airways clear during play. Probably the British equivalent of Vicks VapoRub. It appeared in the Premiership around the same time as the influx of French players a few years ago. Quelle surprise. Rockpocket 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's the stuff - we get Vicks stuff here in Blighty, so no need to worry. We also get various Vaseline branded products that would do the job. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense. It is cough-and-cold season. Can't have those laddies sidelined with the sniffles.98.235.67.132 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a joke right? Footballers with Vick or Vaseline on their shirts? I have never heard so much twaddle in all my life. Where are the links and citations. There would seem to be some major advertising possibilities here but who ever heard of soccer players running around advertising 'Night Nurse' on their shirts. Nah, can't believe any of this. Richard Avery (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joke:

"I put Vicks on my shirt to wake up," said Jon Busch. "It keeps me alert. A few other players do it too." [1]
"now you can enjoy the stench of Vicks all game without looking as if you've spilt a kebab down your front" [2]
"As far as I'm aware it's Vicks-type stuff that's rubbed on to the shirt to improve the player's breathing during a match." [3]
"For a few years they had obviously been told that the Vicks or whatever it was would help their breathing ... some lower-league players have since picked up the idea (just recently I saw a substitute in a Championship match daubing the front of his shirt with something from a jar before running on)." [4]
"It is some form of vapour rub, which is put on the top of the chest so that the vapour will rise and ensure that the players nose stays clear while playing," points out Carl White." [5] Rockpocket 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't know if it's true or not but it appears to be a common theory, football shirt vapor rub and vapour rub soccer shirt. I would have thought that putting it under your nose would have been better. Help you breathe and keep away the smell from the other players sweaty bodies. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, OK, I'm convinced. What a wonderful thing is the placebo effect. I wonder what colour is the Vick salesman's new Porsch? A bit like those little adhesive things that sportsmen and sportswomen used to put over the bridge of their noses to 'open' the airway and get more air in (and out presumably). Richard Avery (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vicks shirt slime seems to have superseded the anti-snore nose tape in football. Robbie Fowler held out the longest, but even have gave up in the end (perhaps he realized it only served to provide more material for those spreading the [unfounded] coke addict rumours). What next I wonder.... Rockpocket 08:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I always thought it was just sweat and neve gave it a second thought — chan dler — 09:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful thing is the placebo effect. Undoubtedly so, but Vicks does contain Menthol, which is a Decongestant, so there is a real pharmacological occurrence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liddle's syndrome

Can you please assist me with Doctor's names in South Africa who can give me more information on Liddle syndrome, because I cannot find anything on the internet.

Regards

Litetia Wolmarans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.60.60 (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the title from "Question". I don't know about SA doctors, but try Liddle's syndrome. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This condition appears to be in the kidneys, so I'd consult a nephrologist. It also mimics hyperaldosteronism, which is an adrenal gland disorder, so an endocrinologist might be able to help with the initial diagnosis. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a web search on "South Africa" nephrologist -investment and found a good result. (The -investment part was needed because every other Google hit was an "investment opportunity".) One match I found was Dr. A. A. Khan at the Entabeni Nephrology Centre in Durban, South Africa: [6]. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found a directory of South African nephrologists, organized by state and city/neighborhood: [7]. It doesn't include Dr. Kahn from Durban, though, so apparently isn't comprehensive. It also lists Gauteng twice, with a different list for each instance, and sorts names based on first initial, not last name. So, this web site needs work, but is still good enough to find a nephrologist in SA. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity Generation by Company/Utility

Who are the 10 largest Energy Generators in the world (by electricity production volume) for either 2007 or 2008 - include Government Agencies, where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simo19 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look through List of countries by electricity production or World energy resources and consumption? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journey's End

There are infinite universes, dimensions etc, in each things happen that didn't happen in others, things succeed while failing in others. If Davros' reality bomb would effect all universes, wouldn't he have succeeded in at least 1 of them, thus destroying them all, even the ones where he was stopped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't understand the question: Journey's End (Doctor Who) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sorry I didn't provide a link. Also, I posted here as it doesn't seem to fit the Entertainment or Science desks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct answer is: "IT'S A WORK OF FICTION!" - but what I suppose you want to hear is that if there are an INFINITE number of universes, etc - then Davro's reality bomb worked in an infinite number of them - failed in an infinite number of them and turned into a pink aardvark in an infinite number of them. SteveBaker (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frknl, Steve, are you the reason these pink aardvarks are [8] around my computer desk?! That multiverse thing is having a breeding week! Julia Rossi (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. If:

There are an infinite number of universes.
Any event that is not impossible has already happened in some universe.
A bomb than can destroy all universes is not impossible.

then we conclude that our universe would not exist. But we know that our universe does exist, so ... Gandalf61 (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following solution to this apparent paradox :

In this universe it is not possible for The Doctor to fail to save the universe.
Any universe where it was possible for The Doctor to fail to save the universe would not have survived long enough for the Reality Bomb to be constructed.

Therefore : There are no surviving universes where it is possible for a reality bomb to be constructed, but not also disarmed by The Doctor.

APL (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the correct answer is indeed "it's a work of fiction", it also appears that the multiple universes in the Doctor Who series aren't classical quantum mechanical ones, in which everything that could happen happens in one of them. There seem to be only a few of them, rather than an infinite number. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DJ Clayworth. I do realize its fiction :3 but I was looking for a kind of scientific reasoning. I guess the assumption is alternate realities work differently than as shown in other Sci-fi.

Looney Tunes laws ?

If you dropped a piano off a roof into a crowd, intending to kill people, but they all managed to get out of the way in time, could you be charged with attempted murder ? How would they know which people's attempted murders, or even how many counts, to charge you with ? Any country or jurisdiction will do, as this is purely a theoretical question. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on attempted murder contains a considerable level of detail on English/Welsh law, although I'm sure you've already looked. 82.41.152.178 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would they know? They'd have to figure it out, make some guesses, etc., and see what they could charge you with. There isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all answer here. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought it wouldn't be necessary for the prosecution to identify any particular intended victim/s, but just to establish there was murderous intent on the part of the perp. Just like terrorists, who don't have any particular victim/s in mind, but they sure intend to kill any and all people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you drop a piano off a roof into a crowd of people, your intentions are pretty clear. I have no doubt that an attempted murder charge would stick even without any particular person being identified as the intended victim. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to this than meets the eye. As you say, it would depend on the legal system you were dealing with, but pushing pianos off roofs is very unlikely to be an offence in itself anywhere, and under any system of law it would be hard to charge you with attempted murder (and harder to convict you of it) without evidence (a) that it was you who pushed the piano and (b) that you knew there were people underneath when you did it. Short of a confession (which is always unwise in such cases), it seems to me very unlikely that the evidence would be very clear on either front unless there were several non-accomplices on the roof with you who saw you push the piano and who also saw you looking down at the ground just before you did it. Of course, in exceptional circumstances the people on the ground might have been looking up at you, but in the normal course of things people rarely look up at roofs. If they were looking up at you and saw you on the roof with the piano, it seems unlikely they would have been hanging about directly underneath. Strawless ^(talk) 12:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for the sake of argument, let's say the perp films himself and confesses that he meant to kill "as many people as possible". How would they know how many counts of attempted murder to charge him with ? And whose names would they list as the potential victims ? Would they just grab a group that was milling around near where it hit and say they were all the targets ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether "murder" doesn't generally mean the willful killing of a specific individual; certainly the definition varies from state to state here in the U.S. "Reckless endangerment" (as it's called in the Maryland criminal code) might be a more fitting charge, inasmuch as "anyone who's there when the piano falls" could lack the specificity required for first or second degree murder. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Many states do have an "Attempted Manslaughter" statute, which this sounds like it would fall under~~ I take this back. You implied specific intent, which would be 'attempted murder', although it might be easier to prove 'terrorism' due to both the nature of the crime and the motives of the defendent. IANAL Livewireo (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One count of attempting to kill person or persons unknown, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of littering. Phil_burnstein (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget "disturbing the peace" for the horrible sound a crashing piano will make. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a statute on the books in New York State called "Depraved indifference to human life". For example, stealing a manhole cover for the metal without caring if anybody falls into the hole...Rhinoracer (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astrological star patterns

I've recently been looking at some astrology sites. I'm a Saggi, therefore the archer. I'm not at all interested in horascpoes or the like but would like to understand how the first person looked at the stars and saw an archer? (same for all signs as I can see) It strikes me that there is a random spread of stars around which someone has drawn a picture - why an archer? It doesn't really look like an archer does it? After some good beer I thought I could see a ferrari 246 91.110.32.120 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Constellation#Constellation systems across the world and History of the constellations. It's all down to those ancient greek chappies and their vivid imagination. Or Chinese, or Inca, depending on your locality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just stars, but any random pattern we attempt to make look like something familiar. Much of it is due to cultural conditioning. An Inuit might see a kayak, for example, but we wouldn't. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the names of the constellations are different in every civilisation. What American's call "The Big Dipper" (a ladle) - is "Ursa Major" (the great bear) to astronomers - and "The Plough" (plow) to us Brit's. It doesn't help that the orientation of the constellation is different depending on what latitude you live on. A constellation may look completely upside-down in the Southern hemisphere compared to the North. I don't know about the constellations so much (because they are increasingly hard to see due to light pollution) - but here is a superb concrete example: I grew up living in the UK - seeing a partial moon as if it were the letter 'C'. I read that many native civilisations believed the moon was a boat that sailed across the sky carrying the gods...which seemed really strange to me because a 'C' looks NOTHING like a boat. It was only when I moved to Texas (considerably further South) that I realised that the moon is turned somewhat on it's side here...if you went further south still - it would look like a letter 'U' - just like a boat! For something as clear and obvious as the moon - that's a pretty stunning difference - we can only guess how those differences in star patterns would change people's views of what these patterns might represent. Of course, while this is all very amusing - it has absolutely zero real value because the stars that look close together in the sky - might be gazillions of light-years apart in 'depth'. So the stars that belong to the same star sign are really utterly unrelated - yet another reason why astrology is bullshit. SteveBaker (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the original poster hit upon something: After some good beer I thought I could see a ferrari 246. I've always only half-jokingly postulated that constellations were named by priests or shamans quite under the influence of interesting entheogens. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena and pareidolia for a broader scope of humans reading patterns into things, as recently as Jesus in a nebula in 2004 or the monkey deity in a tree in 2007. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this points out Inuit beliefs about stars is pretty much lost and in the area I live it would certainly be true. The only belief in this area that is still current, among children, is that whistling at the aqhaliaq will cause them to come down, remove your head and use it for a soccer ball. But you know I have never heard an adult whistle when they are visible! One legend, not sure from where but listed here, is that the Pleiades are Nanook and a group of dogs. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought the populist version of a phenomenon is a means of communicating to the masses when that's important. Jargon is saved for making things obscure. I'd guess "There goes a Ferrari" bonds more people than "there goes a street legal 250 GT Europa/Boano/Ellena/Pininfarina Coupe/Lusso". But can you ever really know...?Julia Rossi (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your zodiacal sign is based on what constellation the sun was in over 2000 years ago. Your actual sign is probably different. See this article on LiveScience.com. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HK Holden id plate

How do you read the id plate on a HK Holden Premier. What do the letters and numbers mean150.101.231.95 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) then our article explains what each element of the number relates to. Nanonic (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information in our article is only scratching the surface of what that number tells you. Many of the fields are manufacturer-specific - so our article can only talk about them in the most general terms. I could tell you (for example) that on a MINI Cooper, the sixth character is '1' for a gasoline MINI, '2' for hydrogen power, '3' for a diesel, and '4' for electric...but on the Holden, it might tell you anything from the color of the seat covers to how many cylinders the engine has...we simply don't know. To pick another example - the eleventh character ALWAYS tells you which factory it was made in - but unless you know what letters Holden use for each factory - you don't know anything useful! On a MINI, 'T' means "Oxford, England" - but I have no clue which factory a 'T' in that field would mean on a Holden. I can only suggest either (a) finding a Holden enthusiast club or (b) asking on the Talk: page of our article about the car - I know that there is a Holden fanatic who works on all of the Holden articles - if he doesn't know - nobody does! SteveBaker (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another tip is oldholden.com. This link is the monaro version but it could be a guide[9]. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valet Stealing cars

Who is responsible for the damages should a parking valet damage a client's car in an upscale luxury hotel such as those found in Dubai? Similarly, who is responsible should a parking valet steal the car? Acceptable (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the laws in Dubai, but, in general, I would certainly expect car thieves to be held criminally responsible. Financial responsibility could be more complicated. The thieves could be sued, but might not have the money to cover it. The hotel could possibly be sued for negligence in hiring people with criminal records, say. Finally, if not legally adults, the thieves' parents might be held financial responsible. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In common law jurisdictions, a valet who stole a car would be criminally liable (ie. they'd be the one thrown in jail), but the company who employed the valet would be civilly liable (ie. they're the one you'd sue). I can't find our article on it right now, but in general, an employer is liable for the on-the-job actions of their employees. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - the term to look for is "vicarious liability". PeteVerdon (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot provide legal opinions. You should not in general rely on any legal advice given to you by anonymous persons of unknown qualifications. Especially about legal jurisdictions which might have legal systems in a patriarchial society based on Sharia as well as civil and criminal law. See also [10]. Your country's Dubai embassy might be able to direct you to qualified legal counsel or to offer practical advice.Edison (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]