Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 3

Miscellaneous desk
< May 2	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

What is the purpose of pennies

This question is a spin-off of another question I asked on the Mathematics desk regarding coin counting. Why do we (in the U.S.) still use pennies? They're not worth the metal they're made from, and are (IMHO) an unnecessary hindrance on every-day transactions. In the extreme, I've seen car dealerships advertise vehicles for sale as "only 16,999.99." What the hell does 1 penny matter when they could've easily, and more accurately, said "$17,000." In the less extreme, there are adult beverages that sell by the six-pack as $5.99", resulting in extra time spent (after tax and all) by the cashier making change for an odd number. Why not round everything up to $0.05 or $0.10? Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer the first one (inertia and tradition, I guess), but advertising items for $16,999.99 instead of $17,000 is done because it works. People may know intellectually that $16,999.99 is the same as $17,000, but give them the choice and they're still more likely to buy the $16,999.99 car than the $17,000 car. Lest you snicker at those old fogies who get suckered into this, keep in mind that the most likely demographic to be bamboozled by this type of numeric nonsense is young males 16-29. In fact, all advertising works better on young men than on any other group. Marketing analysts say it's the combination of a lack of inherited brand preferences; sexual insecurity; and overconfidence in their own intelligence and ability to be influenced, which causes them to let their guard down. That's why there are so many shows specifically targeted to that demographic these days: advertisers are more interested in susceptible viewers than general numbers. A show that gets 600,000 viewers but 500,000 in the target demographic can sell more product than one that gets 1,000,000 viewers but only 300,000 in the target. --NellieBly (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's the page Penny debate in the United States. Not sure if we have equivalent pages for other countries. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A further reason for pricing (low-cost) items at X.99 (in jurisdictions like the UK where advertised prices include any sales tax so are the actual amounts to be paid) is that it usually requires the cashier to ring up the price and offer the .01 change, and subsequently to put the money received in the till so that its content matches the internal till record. If prices were rounded up to X+1.00, many more customers would proffer the exact amount, and any who did not wait for a receipt would enable a dishonest cashier to refrain from ringing up the sale and then to undetectably pocket the money. A relative who works voluntarily in (UK) retail shops has been explicitly advised of this more than once. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the math is intentionally obfuscated, just so the cashier is required to open the till in front of the customer and give them some amount of change back? Interesting theory. Any sources to back that up beyond "A guy I know once had a boss who I think told them something like this". --Jayron32 05:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC with following post) Well, rather than your humorously exaggerated scenario, the specific source is in fact my elderly mother, who has worked in various charity shops for a couple of decades or so. Since she has sometimes had the responsibility of pricing (donated) stock, she necessarily has had to be taught the shops' pricing policies, and since I too have worked in retail shops (though bookshops, in an era when book prices were always determined by the publishers), our multiple conversations on the subject have been quite specific, but as I've tried and failed to find online corroboration on past occasions this subject has come up here, you'll just have to judge my trustworthiness on the basis of my past record :-) .

Incidentally, prices of £N.99 are extremely common in the UK, and one increasingly popular chain prices nearly all its stock at £0.99, which is reflected in its name. That chain posts notices offering customers a £5.00 reward for reporting to the management any instance when they are not offered a receipt. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like BS to me. I have to say, traveling in Germany a couple of years ago, I was amazed at how many of their prices are rounded to convenient values. It honestly took me a couple of days before I even realized there was a 1 eurocent piece. It made life so much easier when an item that cost five euros was actually priced at exactly five euros and not 4.99. It made me realize how insane the American system of using pennies in every cash transaction of any size really is. APL (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you dismiss observations explicitly specified as about the UK, made by someone who has resided there for half a century, as bullshit, on the basis of your recent brief visit to a completely different country. How refreshingly . . . self-confident of you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.208 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here, which suggests that the practice originated in the 1880s with the growth of advertising in newspapers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In my limited overseas experience, the Value Added Tax (i.e. sales tax) was built into the price, which made for a nice round number - with the downside that you didn't know what percentage of your purchase was going for the item, and what percentage for taxation. Americans don't much care for that. They want to know what the tax is. The only exception I can think of is at concession stands at ball games or movies, where the tax is built in and the amounts are usually in multiples of 25 cents. There, speed is of the essence. The .99 thing is quite old, and it's not really fooling anyone. If I'm paying 3.99 and 9/10 for a gallon of gas, I'm paying 4 dollars a gallon. But the 3 just sounds so much better somehow, even though it means that I'm simply paying 39.99 for 10 gallons vs. 40 dollars. 1 cent difference. And as for getting rid of the penny, obviously for credit card transactions it doesn't matter, as there are no coins involved - and for cash transactions, I'm sure people wouldn't mind if 98 cents were rounded DOWN to 95 cents, but rounding UP to a dollar would be objected to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Americans don't "want to know what the tax is". Most people don't give a care, and those that do already know the tax rate in their state. (I think it's 6% here.) And in any-case, all those numbers show up on your receipt. Retailers choose to advertise their pre-tax numbers so that they look lower. Especially compared to online sales, and sales in neighboring tax-free states.

I'm also not convinced that rounding prices from 0.99 to 1.00 would be a big deal. Prices go up all the time. If the penny disappeared, some retailers would just roll it into their normal price increases and others would take is as a great opportunity to advertise how they were "not cheating their customers" by rounding down. Sure people would write angry letters to the newspapers for a couple of weeks, but they do that for everything.

Or they could do it like gas stations already do it, and list the prices with penny's included, then simply round up the total.

Give people a couple weeks without pennies and they'll be happier. Some other countries have already made this plunge and (despite the fact that before it happened they made all the same arguments you just did) they think we're crazy for still sticking with the penny. APL (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since decimal currency was introduced in Australia in 1966, the one and two cent coins have been abolished because their existence became pointless, and there is now some discussion of abolishing the five cent coin. It seems the sensible thing to have done. We still have items with price tags of $3.99, etc. If one pays cash, the transaction is rounded to the nearest five cents. Because one rarely buys such small items alone, it's usually a total of several items that's rounded, so it all balances out. No-one is ripping anyone off with it. No-one is complaining. So, as the OP asks, why DOES the USA allow the inefficiency of pennies to continue? HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Because we are not always lemmings who just stand by silently and let the government (and merchants) rip us off. The argument "it balances out" may be theoretically true, but it doesn't wash for the average citizen. We want our 1 or 2 cents change back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you, really? What do you do with it? You can collect it and take it to one of those coin-counting machines they have in grocery stores, but in my experience most of the money when you do that comes from quarters and dimes. Cent coins are little more than metal trash. And because that "see a penny, pick it up" poem has been drilled into our heads, we feel bad about getting rid of it, which makes it even more of a nuisance. And we're not even allowed to melt it down for the metal. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, "it balances out" wasn't meant as an argument. It was a statement of logic. The next bit, where I said "No-one is complaining.", is simply true. As the self appointment spokesman for "the average (American) citizen", can you tell us how much that hypothetical person has really thought about this stuff? Obviously the OP has. Maybe he isn't very average. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They would raise holy hell if it was suggested that they would have to pay more money for something just because their government decided to do away with the penny. Now, if ALL such items were "rounded down", I'm sure the citizenry would be happy with it. I'm not saying that's logical. But while there's been a lot of talk about it, there's been no action. A politician openly endorsing it would probably need to start working on his resume for his next job after he gets voted out at the next election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Very often I put the odd penny straight into the charity box that many shops have on the counter. Otherwise I put it in my pocket and then into a jar at home that I take to a Coinstar machine a couple of times a year. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's your choice. Americans don't like having their choices taken away by bureaucrats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Google [do away with pennies] and you'll see plenty of opinions. Near the top is the one I had thought of mentioning specifically: That people assume the businesses will figure out a way to ALWAYS have it "round up". That may not be logical either, but it's a good example of American skepticism, about not being "lemmings" where their money is concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it seems you are since I'm pretty sure you are wasting more money by keeping the penny thereby raising costs for your government and stores and you usually don't actually know what you're going to pay for something until you get to the cashier (since lets face it whether Americans or anyone else trying to work out the price by adding tax mentally just takes too long to be worth it for most people)... Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The way our brains work, we remember 16,999.99 as "16 and something", not as "17". So, we remember it as being far cheaper, not just a penny cheaper. As for why governments don't eliminate pennies, the fear is that grocery stores and such would all round up, and that this would drive a round of inflation. (Besides, without pennies, what would rednecks use when they run out of fuses ?) StuRat (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, as I just noted above, after you. Americans don't automatically trust businesses or the government, or any particular special interest. Nor should they! The 9-stuff gets especially silly if something is priced at 999.99 instead of 1000.00. Psychologically they're trying to make you think you're saving a hundred dollars, when you're only saving one cent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But, as I already said above, in Australia we've eliminated one and two cent coins, but still have prices like $3.99. Eliminating the small coin doesn't stop the use of the unit as a marketing tool. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. In America that's not an issue. The issue is liable to be the perception that the businesses are stealing pennies from us, that they'll figure out a way to make everything round up instead of down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The simple solution if you really don't trust your businesses is to include it in any legislation dealing with eliminating the penny. Sadly that's too logical and/or involves government being evil even if it's saving everyone including the stores money so isn't acceptable to Americans. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not claim to know how brains work, especially mine. The 9s in 16,999.99 are there to make the 16 look small in comparison. A demonstration: which digit do you notice first here: 99999979999 ?. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Which digit do you notice first here? 77777797777 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Which digit do you notice first here: 11111181111? It's the odd man out that we notice, and things don't have to be smaller per se to be the odd man out. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they just have to stand out. Whether 16,999.99 or 61,999.99, the "61" stands out. For 99,999.99, the absence of a leading "100" stands out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have warned you that my demonstrations never work. It's my Michelson-Morley syndrome. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For change, and to pay for small chains. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time!  11:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

At least we got rid of the half cent 150 years ago. Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention 2 cent and 3 cent coins, and 3 cent paper money. $3 bills, and $2.50, $3 and $4 coins. And a dollar which was not a dollar. Collect (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

People kept getting cut by that diametric edge. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We got rid of the decimal halfpenny in 1984 (when it was worth about what the penny is worth now in real terms), and I don't remember there being many complaints at the time. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, highly visible policy decisions tend to be made on an emotional rather than a rational basis, and the prevalent emotions when it comes to government decisions are anger on the part of the electorate (urged on by the media) and fear on the part of the policymakers. So, in essence, policymakers are afraid to abolish the penny, so it persists. Marco polo (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The government should fear the people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You have no idea how your political system works in practice ,only having an idealised ,sanitised version in your head taught at primary school level ,so your argument .is invalid.Hotclaws (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever you're talking to, a lot of these guys got fired this past November. Another thing we learned in primary school was how to type a legible sentence. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no "the people". There are groups of people, who have interests which may be in conflict with other groups of people, or with the well being of the Republic, or with their own well being (i.e. they think they know what they want, but in the end if they got it they would be worse off). Read Federalist No. 10 (both the Wikipedia article and the original) for a good perspective on this. Perhaps you are correct if you mean "The government should fear that the people, if given to their own devices, would screw everything up." If however, you meant "The government should fear the people because the people elected them, and so the government should do whatever the people want", then I'm not sure that makes for an effective, beneficial government, for any given definition of "people", which usually means "Whatever group shouts the loudest" in the political sphere, and not "everybody", which doesn't exist as a political voice. --Jayron32 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, the government reports to us. Once they stop fearing the electorate, we're in hugely serious trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They don't fear the electorate. They fear the people who fund their campaigns. Don't be confused about who the politicians answer to... --Jayron32 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We elect them to do a job. If we don't like the job they're doing, we fire them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, their job is to return money and political favors to people who fund their election campaigns. They get elected by preaching empty demagoguery and demonizing their opponents; people vote for them because the candidate tells them exactly what they want to hear, preferably speaking in vague terms with no specific plans of action. The only reason they get elected is because their empty demagoguery reaches enough of the people who agree with it, and thus they are beholden to the people who pay for the TV commercials to push the empty demagoguery. I'm quite shocked you believe that politicians fear upsetting the individual voter... We don't fire them; the moneyed interests that funded them previously simply stop giving them money, so they can't get their message of empty, vague promises to the ears of enough of the people. That's how they lose elections. You don't honestly think that enough people sit down and scour through the voting records of their congressmen before deciding to re-elect them, do you? I'm sure some tiny, insignificant portion of the people do that, but most people just want to vote for someone who spouts platitudes regarding a few key touchstone issues, and aren't really interested in who does the best job of actually governing. --Jayron32 20:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's excessively negative. While I agree that money plays too much role in US politics, it's not the only factor. If it was, then self-funded candidates like Ross Perot would be unstoppable. And well-funded candidates do get voted out of office, if they do a poor enough job to become conspicuous. Still, direct democracy (where we all vote directly rather than have "representatives" vote on our behalf) would do away with the bribery aspect prevalent throughout US politics. StuRat (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is really sure why .99 cent pricing works better than whole numbers. It's been shown to be true, but nobody's sure why. I'm not sure throwing out our own theories is worth anything at all. Bickering over them is surely pointless, since not one of you have a real leg to stand on in this case! In any case, the relevant article is Psychological pricing. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

HiLo asks why America sticks with our outdated system that costs taxpayers money.

Bugs is answering the question here. If you image that everything he says is prefaced with "Many Americans Believe..."

While I know I just did above, there's no point debating here. The Reference desk does not control US policy. Whether Buggs is right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Just take him as an example of a large segment of our population.

To take it one step farther, and speaking in general (I don't want to put words in Bug's mouth.) improvements for the common good will be disregarded as "Big Government", fascist, and assumed to have huge hidden costs for the middle-class individual. (Even if the same plan has been deployed in other countries with an over-all cost savings to the middle-class.) In fact, to a surprisingly large segment of our population, any suggestion that USA isn't already in a state of god-like perfection will be met with a demand that you "Love it or leave it."

A large part of American politics (and by extension TV news) involves tweaking people with this sensibility.

With an atmosphere like that, you can see why a politician might hesitate to introduce any change in policy that is so very visible to the average voter. It costs us money, but four more years minting pennies and printing single dollars isn't going to bankrupt us, so they don't kick up a fuss and let the next guy worry about it. APL (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You implicitly brought up the dollar coin, and that's another sore subject. Typically when Americans get one in their change, they dump it as soon as possible. Bills are much more convenient, and unlike our European lemming counterparts, American males don't like the idea of having to carry a purse just to handle dollar coins that bureacrats have imposed on us. Hence, the dollar bill stays. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well us Canadian males seem to have adapted to one- and two-dollar coins just fine. We use an innovation called "pockets" to carry coins. Aren't lemmings the animals who refuse to change direction, and end up running over cliffs? Franamax (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are suspenders still in fashion in Canada? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't tell ya. I wear my clothes over decadal timescales, so probably sometimes yes, sometimes no. If I spend $200 on a pair of dress pants and suspenders are the best way to hold them up, then suspenders it is. I define teh cool, I don't chase it. :) I do hope you're not implying that American men have decided there is no need for pockets in clothing, that seems a rather alarming development, which fashion I'll likely not follow. :) Franamax (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, just that with too many coins in the pockets, a belt might not be sufficient, and suspenders might be required. They certainly were a century ago, when a single silver dollar had some significant weight to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't the science desk, but I've just run an experiment to gauge the scope of this serious problem. I just placed two rolls of quarters, plus six dollar coins (That's all I could find in my big jug of change. I'm sure there are more, but those old Susan Bs just don't jump out at you, color-wise) into my pants pocket. That's in addition to my wallet stuffed with plastic and business cards (but sadly little money), my keys, my phone, my knife, and two receipts. Not to mention the change that I was already carrying. (A dime, a nickle, and four pennies.) Then I jumped up and down a couple of times. I would have done jumping jacks, but the ceiling in here isn't that high, and I'm pretty tall.

You'll all be pleased to learn that my pants are still on and secure.

While clearly more trials are needed, I hope this experiment helps put to rest your concerns and worries on this topic. APL (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A single silver dollar still weighs less then 1 ounce, and they had paper money and gold coins back then, so it is not like they would have needed 50 silver dollars in their pocket. Googlemeister (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you eliminated the penny and replaced the dollar with a coin, I would, on average, carry less coins total by count, and probably about the same by weight. Which is why I brought it up. Perhaps I'm not rich enough to be stuck carrying around dozens and dozens of dollar bills that would be unwieldy if converted to coinage?

Also, I'm not sure where Bugs got this idea that European (or Canadian, or Australian, British presumably) males carry purses or change purses. I've been to Germany, UK, and Australia, and I never noticed men using a change-purse. And why would they? Right now my wallet has a grand total of four singles in it. That's about typical for me. I think I could somehow manage to carry four coins without some sort of special coin-carrying contrivance.

Perhaps Bugs needs lots of singles in case he finds himself in a ... gentleman's ... club? :-) APL (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Without one-dollar bills, strippers get coins tossed at them, but on the other hand, they also get $5 bills a lot more often. Or, you know, so I hear. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, I've never been to a strip club, but from what I hear, they get loonies tossed at them. It never occurred to me till now how Americans would do this--make paper airplanes? Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact in Australia and particularly New Zealand a very large percentage of transactions aren't even in cash so many people probably deal with less coins then Americans. BTW more generally in reply to several points but I'm not sure where to fit this in, in New Zealand and I strongly suspect most countries which eliminated 1 cent or equivalent valued coins there was opposition and claims of how the stores were going to rip people off, raise prices etc. However the politicians did their job properly and ignored the knee jerk reactions, everyone got used to the changes and most are now probably happier for it and most of the complainers have long since shut up. My gut-feeling is despite all the nay-sayers above, if anyone actually had the courage in the US the same thing would happen and no one will lose the job but perhaps I'm overestimating the American people. Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fun fact : According to the chart at United_States_dollar#Historical_exchange_rates and a little math, when the U.S. Half-Penny was discontinued it was worth the 2010 equivalent of 16 cents. (The quarter was worth about eight modern bucks.) APL (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OP here-I've been doing some further digging around the Interwebs (as my dad calls it), and stumbled across some hotel brands that have an actual "rule" about adding .99 to their rates. The idea being that if your hotel's rate is $125 per night- the same as your closest competitor- making it $125.99 is not likely to drive many customers away. And if you sell, say, 5,000 hotel rooms in a year, then that's an extra ~$5,000 in revenue with no effort. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And slightly more revenue for the government as well, assuming the tax is a percentage of the price. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The competing hotel where prices are a penny higher would also pay taxes. --APL (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, when I first went to Japan in 1997, the system there was to have all prices displayed as nice round numbers (such as 200, 500, 1,000 yen, and so on), but then charge you VAT at the counter, so you had to dish out extra one yen coins and other little stuff. The 99p shop referred to above had a counterpart in Japan, called the '100yen Shop' (but you have to pay 105 yen for everything). Then, a few years back, everything changed, and shops were required by law to display prices including the VAT - meaning we knew what we were going to have to pay whilst we were shopping, and not at the till. The 100yen shop was up in arms, because all of their prices had to be displayed as 105 yen, so they tried to campaign for special exemption (even though they were charging 105 yen anyway). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Imperialists?

One accusation I hear many times is that the USA and to a lesser extent the UK and other European allies are pursuing an imperialist/crusader agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere (see here, here and here for example). I see no evidence of this supposed agenda from the western governments or in the western media. Do those making the accusations have any evidence (in reliable sources please) to back up their claims? Astronaut (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your second link doesn't use the words imperial or crusade. The third link mentions a Libyan government spokesman using the phrase 'crusader aggression'. The first link has a use of the word 'imperialistic' in a Libyan newspaper. I would think that the use of these terms is metaphorical - presumably nobody thinks the US is literally building an empire in the middle East? 130.88.73.71 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. My second link does quote Zimbabwean justice minister as saying: "They are voting to say no to the recolonisation of our country". I should have expanded on "...imperialist/crusader..." to mention (re)colonisation when I found the second link. Astronaut (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What this is about, to no small extent, is what could be called a Christian empire clashing with a Muslim empire. Read about the Crusades, and that will give you a start on it. This stuff has been going on for a thousand years or so, and isn't likely to end until one side destroys the other or they decide to live in harmony and agree to disagree about their religions. If you think I'm making this up, check out Armageddon and google statements from guys like Franklin Graham who are convinced that Christianity vs. Islam will inevitably lead to the "last days". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the "crusader" charge, I don't think that there is any serious evidence that US and other Western powers' actions in the Middle East have a religious basis. Some Muslims notice that Western overseas military interventions in recent years have mainly taken place in Muslim countries. They then conclude that those interventions are hostile to Islam and have a religious motivation. What seems more probable, based on the evidence, is that Muslim countries happen to sit on a disproportionate share of the world's most important resource, oil. There isn't much oil in Afghanistan, but there is plenty of oil in nearby countries, such as Iran and Kazakhstan, and in the home countries of many jihadists who had gathered in Afghanistan (such as Saudi Arabia), so there is a concern that Afghanistan, as a "breeding ground for terrorism", could threaten Western interests in the free flow of oil. So, the "crusader" charge appears to rest on a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. (See Correlation does not imply causation.)

However, I think that there is some basis, even in Western media, for a charge of imperialism, though not the old-fashioned empire-building variety of imperialism that prevailed in the 19th century. Instead, this is a "new imperialism" based on the projection of Western (and mainly U.S.) military power overseas, largely in the interest of Western corporations, especially oil corporations. See American imperialism. Support for charges of this kind of imperialism has appeared in Western media. See this article from a mainstream media source. However, Western mainstream media are often reluctant to connect the military actions of their own governments with a pro-corporate agenda, partly because those media are in many ways beholden to governments and corporations that would be embarrassed or discredited by such reporting. Noam Chomsky and others have argued that Western (and especially U.S.) media are involved in a project of manufacturing consent for neo-imperialist policies. Still, alternative Western media such as this source do present evidence of Western imperialism. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

War against Islam isn't a perfect article, but may be useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tenth Crusade has more discussion, including on whether George W Bush called for a crusade against Islam, and references from Western writers calling the war on terror a crusade. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your posts raise the interesting and indisputable point that many Westerners are prejudiced against and/or disrespectful toward Islam, partly for historical reasons, partly due to the inaccurate association of all Muslims with jihadist terrorists. Still, I don't think there is evidence that decisions to go to war have been made on the basis of that prejudice or disrespect. While George W. Bush did use the word crusade, I think that it's clear that he was using the word metaphorically to mean "struggle for a righteous cause" rather than in the historical sense of "Christian holy war against Islam". (Bush later expressed regret for his choice of wording.) The tricky thing is that the word crusade in English has a similar range of meanings to jihad in Arabic. It can mean either "holy war" or "righteous struggle". And, oddly, the relationship between the two religions has a mirror-image quality. A handful of (not representative and mostly not very influential) westerners have in fact called for a religious conflict with Muslims, just as a handful of (not representative and marginally influential) Muslims have called for a war of jihad against the West. Just as most Muslims don't want a religious conflict with the West, most Westerners (including, I think, the most powerful Westerners) don't want a religious conflict with Islam. However, powerful Westerners do want oil. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP's post did not mention religion, only geography. The answer is in Marco polo's last sentence. There has been imperial behaviour, all to control oil resources. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy it. The reason the US and allies keep attacking Muslim nations is that they pose a threat, as when:

• Libya did the Lockerbie bombing
• Iraq invaded Kuwait
• Afghanistan and Pakistan "hosted" bin Laden
• Iran provided support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, etc.

When non-Muslim nations, like Serbia, do such things, then we also go after them. It just happens that the rest of world is generally better behaved than Muslim nations (with the exception of North Korea, although, even then, they have only made threats, not actually attacked outside of Korea).

For an example of a non-Muslim nation with oil and an anti-American government, we have Venezuela. They haven't been attacked because they haven't launched waves of terrorists, invaded their neighbors, etc. StuRat (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure the US supporting a coup in Venezuela was just a bit of harmless fun. P.S. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Even Bush didn't say the invasion of Kuwait was a significant factor. P.P.S. I'm not suggesting the US's sole or even main reason for invading and doing other dubious things in plenty of countries is solely because of oil. I am suggesting that if you look in to their history and in what they do and how much they devote to it, it's clear it's usually in support of their geopolitical interests which often means wanting a pliable government and looking after their countries and corporations interest which includes access to resources like oil and not solely as they often claim in support of human rights or world peace which in fact they often don't care about when it doesn't serve their interests. This isn't unique to the US but as they like to say, they are the world's only superpower. Nil Einne (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're going way back with that coup, aren't you ? But the point is, Venezuela could have held a grudge and launched waves of terrorists against the US decades later, as some Muslim countries did for similar reasons, but they didn't. This makes all the difference. If a nation works hard to keep a feud going with the US, they are likely to succeed. And the invasion of Kuwait certainly was a huge factor in the First Gulf War. If you refer to the Second Gulf War, then that's also related, in that the Iraqi attempt to assassinate Bush senior to "get even" likely led to Bush Jr. invading. StuRat (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is a long term analytical tradition in international relations which labels advanced capitalist states as imperialist and notes their reliance on the transfer of wealth from third world countries. This analysis was developed by VI Lenin in Imperialism, in contradiction to other social democratic theses. As this analysis was developed while the social democratic movement was homogenous, it found favour in both the general left, and was supported by the Bolshevik controlled Soviet Union. After 1945, this analysis was widely used to analyse the relationship between the advanced West and the rest of the world, and is a fundamental assumption in social science. In addition the USSR supported this thesis, as did China and the non-aligned block. As a result, the imperialist thesis maintains a strong following as a general explanation of the relations between advanced capitalist states and other states. While the hyperbolic versions tend not to have academic credibility, the core of the thesis is solidly supported by a weighty number of social science researchers. You may see no evidence of protons with the naked eye, but trust me, they're still there. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Does that explain the ever-more-capitalistic China's prosperity, and Russia's lack thereof? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You'd want to read Lenin and a variety of economic histories for that; but, largely yes. Lenin's argument is that when primitive accumulation ceases in the Imperialist centre, the method for avoiding the declining rate of profit is to accumulate primitively overseas. Interestingly enough the switch between "quantity" and "quality" as the main problem for the Soviet Union happened between 1945 and 1956, the era when they achieved hegemony. It is arguable that China is still undergoing primitive accumulation (those damn peasants and rural proletarians). Of course, then you'd need to get into cyclical crisis theory of Soviet style states. The difference between Russia and China post 1983 could well be explained with reference to labour productivity and labour process management. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is covered in world systems theory. USA is a "core" country, Vietnam for example is a "peripheral" country. The balance of power is likely to shift in the coming decades. England is an example of a country that was once clearly peripheral, producing a raw material (wool) for export and processing elsewhere. Over time, it was able to manoeuvre into being the richest country in the world, importing raw materials from others. Now it no longer has competitive advantage in many sectors. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

poopholding

I was recently reading a thread on another forum about so called "poopholding", the practice of holding in ones numbers 2s in for pleasure. Apparently these people do this for days at a time and get some kind of kick from it. I googled the term and a few related hits came up, but nothing authoritative or reliable. I searched wikipedia but couldn't find anything related, only the encopresis article which doesn't really deal with the for pleasure aspect. Does Wikipedia have an article about this practice? 78.119.58.140 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Might merit a brief mention under Constipation#Psychological. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.208 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The vulgar and unreliable Urban dictionary defines Poopholder as a butt. Poopholding describes one of the skills to be acquired by a child in Toilet training. One supposes the lesson is easiest to learn if successful poopholding is rewarded by positive parental Reinforcement, but after age 3 people are expected to get their kicks in other ways. BTW you are allowed to use the normal term stool for Human feces here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The pleasure aspect could be a result of the 'poop' building up until it comes into contact with the prostate (in men, at least). See Prostate massage, and Male G-spot. -- œ^™ 07:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I hated?

moved to wt:Reference desk#Why am I hated? --Ludwigs2 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Page on Martin Seligman

Hello,

In your reporting on Martin Seligman when he was working at the University of PA you noted that he "enjoyed torturing dogs". Can this be true? And where do you base this fact?

Thank you in advance for your help in resolving this for me.

Sincerely,

Victoria Molcsany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.192.16 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It was just petty vandalism of the article. It has been reverted. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Einstein at the wheel

Is there any record that Albert Einstein was able to drive a car, or that he had a driver's license at any time? Edison (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I googled [albert einstein car], and one of the first things that came up was this Amazon reference[1] which states that Einstein never drove a car because he was "confused by mechanical things". He did ride a bicycle, although that's a bit less complicated of a machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) So how did he get places beyond bicycle range? Cabs? Did his Cousin/Wife Elsa drive? (Sounds so southern/US) Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably in Europe he took public transit, like everyone else. Maybe in New Jersey too? --NellieBly (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This quotes a section of a book by Harald Fritzsch which says "...Einstein had insisted on driving. Haller asked Einstein for his driving license, and Einstein really had one!" (Haller seems to be physicist Kurt Haller). If you plan on citing that book as a reference in an article, you should probably confirm from the actual book that this summary is accurate. In addition, various places also talk about this incident, but I can find no evidence that it's anything more than a joke. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For Einstein to get a California drivers license, he would have had to be a legal resident of the state. Was he not always a resident of New Jersey after he moved to the US? Edison (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Einstein was a visiting professor at Caltech for three winter terms only—1931, 1932, and 1933", says Caltech -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, on reading a scrap of that book online, it seems "Haller" is a fictional (or at least a composite) character (named Adrian Haller, not Kurt), who the author uses as an agent to have physics discussions with Newton etc. Unless someone can get hold of the whole book, you should discount it as a reference. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Found one book which claimed that he never learned to drive: [2]. Edison (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)