Miscellaneous desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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 29

What are these shoes?

How do you name these shoes? Or what keywords could you use to research more about then? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wrangler-Regular-Fit-Darkstone-W32INxL30IN/dp/B007HD2I2Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=clothing&ie=UTF8&qid=1426344119&sr=1-3&keywords=wrangler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.97.43 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a standard Derby shoe to me. --Viennese Waltz 09:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Derby shoe" does not output any relevant results at amazon.co.uk. Might it be that it has a different name in the UK? --31.4.157.152 (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask where to buy them, you asked what they were called. "Derby shoe" is a generic descriptor for that type of shoe, not a brand name. [1] gives Oxfords and Derbys as a category name from which you can start your browsing. --Viennese Waltz 11:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They look like industrial or military boots to me, rather like this. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I call them dress shoes.
Sleigh (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the US engage in currency manipulation ?

Other nations, like China, manage to keep their currency artificially low, relative to the US dollar, to make their exports cheaper and their imports more expensive. Complaints about this are just ignored. So, why can't the US do the same ? StuRat (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be against the first principle in their Manifest destiny. --Askedonty (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assumes facts not in evidence, Stu. --Trovatore (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be less coy, of course the US does engage in currency manipulation. Heck, that's half the Federal Reserve's job. Maybe the point is, there are people who benefit from a strong home currency and people who benefit from a weak one, and maybe the political balance is more in favor of the first party in the US than it is in some countries. But both sides have their day. --Trovatore (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US actually has been weakening its currency quite strenuously, by setting interest rates very low and by means of the policy called quantitative easing. China has suffered pretty seriously from its efforts to keep up. In principle the US could weaken its currency even more, but the costs would probably outweigh the benefits -- weakening a currency has a strong inflationary effect. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would low interest rates drive down the value of the currency ? I would think that would make people want to borrow that currency, increasing demand for it, and thus the value. StuRat (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low interest rates lower the savings rate (because the low interest discourages keeping money in banks) and encourages borrowing (because it's cheap to get loans, so people are more likely to do so). Both of those factors increase the money in circulation. By the simple laws of supply and demand, more money in circulation is greater money supply, which in turn means that money is worth less. QED. --Jayron 32 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a low interest rate also implies a low inflation rate, and that's a good environment for saving money. High interest and high inflation rates are bad for savers, because the government taxes the entire interest amount, not the interest less the rate of inflation. Better then to invest in something that will hold it's value, such as real estate, if you have enough cash to do so without borrowing. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low interest rates might possibly be correlated with low inflation, but for the opposite reason that you're thinking. Lowering interest rates, by a central bank, means increasing the money supply, which is inflationary. --Trovatore (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the money is not worth buying buying will not be cheap. You are counting on foreign buyers. --Askedonty (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence makes no sense to me. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to ancient times when money was weak and you couldn't buy. Anyway borrowing is not making money more valuable inside the country. It affects the interest rates, if they are not regulated. --Askedonty (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do China and other nations who do currency manipulation in a big way have very bad inflation ? StuRat (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on what you mean by 'manipulation'. The US dollar, Euro, British pound, Japanese yen, and many other currencies are freely exchangeable. Exchange rates are set by the market. Any 'manipulation' is done by monetary policy (in individual countries, typically in coordination with fiscal policy), such as the setting of interest rates. The Chinese yuan is not freely exchangeable; its exchange rate is set by China. Also, while often nations (or unions of nations) want to keep their currency low in order to make exports cheap and imports dear, there are sometimes reasons why that may not be the best policy. While China is not having hyperinflation, it is having inflation. An American, European, or Japanese might reasonably ask: "Inflation? What's that?" Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I don't think anyone has cleared up a couple of your misconceptions. What matters is the real interest rate, that is, the nominal interest rate minus inflation. If interest rates are higher than inflation, there is a positive real interest rate. If interest rates are lower than inflation, there is a negative real interest rate. Savers and investors tend to avoid putting their money where it will earn a negative real interest rate. The United States has had a negative real interest rate for the better part of 7 years now. You suggested that by attracting borrowers, low interest rates would tend to drive up a currency's exchange value. The opposite is true. You can borrow in a currency without buying any of it. In fact, low interest rates do attract borrowers, who borrow dollars and then sell them to purchase a currency in which they can earn a higher rate of return. This is known as the carry trade. In this way, low real interest rates drive down the value of a currency. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but don't forget the effect of taxes. If you put your money in a bank and get 10% interest, and there's an 8% inflation rate, that might sound like you gain 2% per year, but if you pay 40% taxes on that 10%, that's 4% in taxes, leaving you with -2% after taxes. Zero interest and zero inflation is better than that. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First premise: US the doesn’t manipulate the currency. Every time someone in the White House, Treasury or Fed “talks down” (up) the dollar, that’s manipulation.

Second premise: China keeps its currency artificially low. If this claim wasn’t just ignorant US politicians seeking to avoid having to do anything that might help improve the US economy, it no longer is the case. See: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/26/asia-pacific/chinas-yuan-currency-no-longer-undervalued-imf/#.VWwFCPk8rC4

Third premise: The US dollar is strong. Not so. Over the past decade, the dollar (measured by the broad trade-weighted index) rose 22.9% from trough to peak, roughly the same as its decline in the decade prior to that. The index is back to where it was (within a point or two) in 1998.

Fourth premise: Interest rates are low to hold down the value of the dollar vis-à-vis other currencies. In fact, interest rates are at historic lows for an extraordinarily long time because of weak demand, not the strong dollar.

Fifth premise: If China artificially depresses its currency, it must have high inflation. In the past 10 years, inflation has averaged 3%, and deflation occurred about 1/4 of the time. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race and violence in the US and UK

Are blacks in the USA and / or UK more predisposed to violence? Are there any "unbiased studies that link blacks to violent activity. Assuming this is true, what explanations are there to explain this difference in behaviour compared to other races. If the anecdotes such as poverty, hardship and poor upbringing are discounted, would the baseline be any different?

Or, is it considered too difficult (or controversial) to compile this sort of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mention poverty, but your use of the word "anecdotes" appears to be intending to dismiss it as an explanatory factor. I don't know about the UK, but the correlation between race and income in the US is established, and the correlation between low income and social disorganization in the US is established. Partial correlation as a statistical technique is needed even to try to identify causation under these circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tread carefully here, and 'anecdote' was the best I can do. If going along the anecdotes line, we could say Chinese or Jewish immigrants who started off very poor are not seen as outwardly violent (no equivalent open gang culture, bloods, cribs, ghettos, gansta culture to name a few)

Reasons for the above are not entirely clear if we just say stuff like just poverty / low income.18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)82.28.140.226 (talk)

Gangs in America are a mixed bunch. Gangs in the UK are mostly white, then South Asian. Some black. Different general behaviours and attitudes on either side. I think you mean Crips, not cribs. Anecdotally, the biggest bully at my first elementary school was a huge Jewish girl. No lie. But I don't hold it against her people. Even she's mellowed out, last I saw her.

I think being young, rather than black or poor, lends a bigger hand. Raging hormones, easily manipulated, desire to fit in, narrow perspective on the value of life, plenty of energy. Here's a more professional Ontario view. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the pointer and not knee-jerk accusing and implying that I'm an overt racist. And probably a member of the KKK as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.140.226 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to hold it against all Wikipedians. We do get quite a few racist trolls here, like anywhere else on the Internet, so it's not surprising that some of our spider senses tingle when questions like these come up. If you are a racist, your phrasing isn't nearly as overt or disruptive as the ones that clearly don't want an answer. Even racist baby murderers can ask questions here, so long as they're not trying to soapbox, troll or get free legal advice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked. Try not to hold it against the blocking admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP IP is a known sock who's been blocked by User talk:JzG for his disruptive behavior. Rather than just close this I am simply giving a more neutral name, which steps on no one's answers. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a question specifically about one race, it's also a vague title. Like replacing "US" in the currency manipulation question with "country" or "these shoes" with "this footwear". Wordier than the old one, too. But if we're copyediting other people's words, I'll decapitalize "violence". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest level for top-level club

Of the 65 clubs that have competed in England's top level of football (First Division from 1888 to 1992, Premier League since then), what is the lowest tier that any of them ever competed in, either before or after their entry into the top level? Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit difficult to pinpoint due to the changes to the steps over the years but I think Wigan Athletic A.F.C., Grimsby Town F.C. and Oxford United F.C. have a shot. Wigan went from (what is now) steps 7-8 up to the Step 1. Grimsby and Oxford have gone down to Step 5 from Step 1. The problem is that the pyramid is ever changing and some leagues have moved up and down the tiers over the years. Also we have to decide whether we look for natural progression up/down or those teams that were playing in a regional league before election to the old Third Division North/South after the Football League's formation or whether they were late joiners to the Leagues (see also English football league system and History of the English non-League football system). With Wigan, it's uncertain as they played in the Cheshire County League (now the North West Counties Football League at step 9-10) and the Lancashire Combination before joining the Northern Premier League (Now Steps 7-8). But before 1979, the NPL was at step 5 as the Football Conference was yet to be formed and the pyramid didn't exist. Teams moved between any of the collective non-league combinations as they saw fit and requested membership to the recognised amatuer Northern/Southern/Isthmian leagues if they felt they were good enough. Because there was no real pyramid, I can't determine what step (if any) the county leagues would have been at the time. Maybe @ChrisTheDude: may have a better idea. Nanonic (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nanonic that it's tricky to determine this due to the changes in the league structure over the years. I think Wimbledon F.C. possibly have a shot too, having played in the Athenian League which fed into the Isthmian League at (what is now) level 7-8. BbBrock (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this question is almost impossible to answer, because there has really only been an official pyramid of non-League football in the last 25 years - prior to that certain leagues were considered to be of a better standard than others by fans/writers but this was purely informal and not defined in any official way. Glossop North End fell as low as the Manchester League, which in the present day is level 11, but this probably doesn't reflect its standing at the time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that AFC Bournemouth began life in the Bournemouth and District Junior League. That must be the most minor league which any top-flight team played in, but there's literally no way to define what level it would have been in 1899......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks all! I guess if it were an easy question, I could have found the answer myself. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]