Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< August 27 Humanities desk archive August 29 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents

[edit] Old lady on civil liberties after 9/11

I remember reading an article about a nonagenarian lady in the days after September 11, 2001 who gave a public speech talking to people about the importance of maintaining civil liberties in times of crisis. It may have been given in Congress or something like that. I can't find the article (and www.fourthturning.com, where I've been looking for it, is down). What was this woman's name, and where did she give this speech?

--James Landau

Is that an answer or your signature? :) (If the latter, sign with four tildes; ~~~~). DirkvdM 08:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Was it Granny D? There is the full text of her speeches on her website [1], it may have been the Four Freedoms speech on 9/22/2001. Nowimnthing 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that may be it! This is James Landau, by the way; there aren't too many old ladies named James. I didn't want to sign in with four tildes because I wanted my name to be something more than a meaningless ISP number.
You could also register and then it wouldnt be a meaningless ISP number, but a name of your own choosing. Its free, its fast, its usefull; try it :) Shinhan 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] origin of "death come from over your left shoulder"

— I've often heard the term-death comes from over your left shoulder.Where does that saying come from? The only thing I've found is that in the books of the teachings of Don Juan,he makes mention of this.Also, the throwing of salt over the left shoulder into the face of the devil in American folklore.--pete

Left has been traditionally seen as the "evil" or "bad" side. This may have something to do with Jesus sitting on the right hand side of the Christian god. It may also have to do with the word sinister, which meant "left" at one point in time, and now is a synonym of evil. Another connection for the Jesus/God thing is that Christians are to use their right hands when making the sign of the cross on themselves. Dismas|(talk) 06:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This went even so far that left handedness was considered bad. Even my father, who was lefthanded, was forced to write with his right hand. That was only 80 years ago. And in many cultures, the left hand is considered unclean because that's the one one wipes one's bottom with, but the causality may work in two directions here. DirkvdM 08:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I guess I'm odd then. I use my right hand to wipe... - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because the distinction no longer applies. It was the rule in many cultures that the left hand was used to wipe with, and the right hand was used to eat with, and the functions of the two hands were never mixed up. Nowadays, we're all multi-skilled so it doesn't matter. JackofOz 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What matters here is what opportunities you have to keep your hand clean. If neither toilet paper nor (enough) water are available it is advisable to use your left hand to wipe. It is , however, indeed a cultural remnant in Islam, which stems from a desert people who couldn't afford to waste water. DirkvdM 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle paints? Symbol of warriordom

I think many cultures around the world use some sort of battle paint or symbol to prepare them psychologically or spiritually for battle. Also as a way to show their courage and power many warriors use tattoos or scarification or other symbols. What is the term for this? I couldn't find battle paints or warrior symbol or anything, but I think there is probably potential for a great article, since there are different customs coming from many different parts of the world and historical times.--Sonjaaa 05:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

War paint.[2]  --LambiamTalk 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top wealthiest people list

I am trying to do some research on the top wealthiest people. Can you provide me a list of names of the wealthiest people of 1993 and 1994? Thank You. Middayabcsoapfan 05:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking for the wealthiest people in the world, or in a particular country. The articles which might help you are in Category:Lists of people by wealth, but probably won't cover those particular years. The sources they cite may help, however, since you may be able to find earlier lists in public libraries when you know what magazines publish them.-gadfium 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I just happened to have a 1993 and 1994 Guinness Book of World Records.
1993
  1. Robson Walton >$10 billion
  2. Taikichiro Mori $10 billion
1994
  1. John Werner Kluge $8.8 billion
  2. (Mori died in 1993) $?
the books note that technically the most wealthy are Monarchs, but it is uncertain how much control they have over what is essentially the entire nation's money. Nowimnthing 18:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That is also an issue in the claim that Castro is one of the wealthiest people on Earth. If the entire country is owned by the state and he is regarded as the state then he is indeed very wealthy. Just try selling it, though. And something like that is said of Gates too. In name he has something like 100 billion euro, but that is mostly in shares in Microsoft and for him to start using that money he'd have to sell his shares, which would cause their value to drop, leaving him much less (not that I pity him for it :) ). DirkvdM 07:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If that were the case though, the wealthiest person on earth would clearly be Queen Elizabeth II. Technically, she owns all the land in the UK, Canada, Australia and a bunch of other places. That's a hell of a lot of real estate! As for Gates, his net worth on paper is some €40 Billion, not 100. Yes, if he would start selling most of his shares he'd lose what's called in investing the "control premium", but I wouldn't say that would leave him with "much less", just "slightly less". Someone here should be doing a bit of homework before misleading questioners with data they grabbed out of nowhere and in subjects that are beyond their grasp. Loomis 09:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That last statement cries out for a rejoinder. What do you mean by QE2 technically owning all the land in these countries? JackofOz 04:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For one, she doesn't own London. Apparently, the prince of Wales does.
Assuming most of the wealth of Bill Gates is in his shares in ms, if he would start selling all of them, wouldn't other shareholders start wondering what it is that he knows that they don't and start selling too, causing a landslide? I don't actually know. Like I said "it is said", so I wasn't misleading. DirkvdM 08:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's bizzare, but it's true. It's a quaint little vestige of the feudal system that exists to this day. Technically, all land belongs to the crown, and all "landowners" are mere tenants of the crown. If you "buy" a piece of land from another, technically you're not buying the land, rather you're buying what's called a fee simple estate in the land, meaning you're buying all the rights that you would normally associate with ownership, and for all intents and purposes, you are the owner, yet technically all you really are is a tenant of the Queen. Technically of course. Loomis 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange Rate arbitrage

Maybe a silly question, but with Japan having a 25bp interest rate (side note: can basis points be lexically used in the fashion i just did, or only for interest rate/FOMC raises/falls?), why dont people just take out loans from japanese banks and reinvest with US or Australian banks, where the rates are 5.25 and 6 respectively, and they could get at least 2-3 % in savings accounts, not to mention more in AAA government securities?

Perhaps they have more trust in the Yen than in the Dollar. 145.222.138.134 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How would that really affect this manipulation of interest rates though? As long as the rates are so divergent, cannot the savvy investor take advantage of the difference?
The Japanese Yen seems to be trading unusually low these days. Whereas 5 years ago, ¥100,000 would be worth over $1,700AUD, now it would cost you about $1,120AUD. Most are probably speculating that the ¥ is rather undervalued at the moment, and will likely increase in value in the near future.
What it boils down to is this: Say you borrow ¥100,000 today from a Japanese bank at 0.25% interest for one year. That would mean that in one year you'd owe the bank ¥100,250. Let's say you convert it today into $1,120AUD (the approximate going rate), and deposit into an Australian bank for one year as well, at an interest rate of 5.25%. That would mean that one year from now, the Australian bank would owe you $1,179. You invested $1,120 and you now have $1,179. The Japanese bank now wants its ¥100,000 back, plus the ¥250 in interest. For now let's assume the ¥/AUD exhange rate hasn't changed at all over the entire year. The ¥100,000 would cost you the same $1,120, and the ¥250 in interest would cost you a measely $3. So what you've made is ($1,179-$1,120) $59 in interest from the Australian bank, and you owe $3 in interest to the Japanese bank, leaving you with a cool $56 profit.
However, that's assuming the ¥ remains at its unusually low value. What happens if one year from now the yen recovers just a bit somewhat and ¥100,000 now costs you $1,200? Now you've lost money! To make a long story short, what you're proposing presupposes that the Japanese Yen won't appreciate in value over the next year, even by the slightest bit, for if it does, you've lost money. Loomis 21:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Precisely this happened in the 1990s with Australian borrowers of Swiss Francs. The interest rates on the foreign currency loans were several points lower but any notional savings were wiped out by changes in the currency exchange rates. Many borrowers lost massifve amounts on this. Lisiate 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Lisiate, I was about to mention that. It's nice to know though, that my contributions on the RefDesk make sense to some people, if not for others. Oh well. Loomis 09:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typeface query

Can anyone identify the typeface used in the lettering on this record cover? Thanks. --Richardrj 07:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a very generic sans-serif font. They all look very much alike. Since it doesn't have any creative characters (like a capital G or Q), it is difficult to tell. Looks like the Gothic Sans-Serif set to me. --Kainaw (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What he said. On my computer, "Century Gothic" looks almost identical, but there are many different names for the same font. "Gill Sans Light" is practically identical as well. There are slight differences in these fonts (i.e. how far out the loop on the Rs and Ps goes) but they are so small as to be practically irrelevant, in my opinion. Even if you had them side by side I doubt most people would notice. Note that if you are using characters like Q or G, which do vary quite a bit, then you would be able to tell, but otherwise, no. --Fastfission 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, guys. Works for me. --Richardrj talk email 14:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize I'm a bit late here, but I'm pretty sure it's Futura.--Rallette 16:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WhatTheFont says it's Futura Light. Foobaz·o< 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classics In Nonwestern Universities?

Are there Classics in nonwestern universities? If so, would, say, Chinese universities study Confuncious's writings & his students, like for example, Mencius, instead? An answer on my talk page would nice, thanks!100110100 07:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who said the following quote

Who said " If you don't have bread eat cake"

Marie Antoinette, but sadly she never said it. See Marie Antoinette#Coronation and reign. --Richardrj 10:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Know your classics: "Let them eat cake she said, just like Marie Antoinette". DirkvdM 07:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It was "Let them eat brioche" (a kind of bread made with more eggs than baguette, making it more cakelike). Most historians would agree with Richardrj that she never actually said it. Instead, it came from one of Rousseau's works. JChap2007 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, I've never understood this quote. While it's up, could someone take the time to explain the magnitude of the insult? I undertstand that the people were starving, and that the queen was spoiled, but beyond this I cannot fathom why the infamy... -Russia Moore 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you don't understand about it. She is portrayed as so ignorant of everyday life and suffering that if people can not get the cheapest life sustaining essentials they should eat luxury (comparatively speaking) goods. The foreign born Antoinette was daemonised by the revolutionary literature of the time, much as Alexandra of Hesse was during the Russian revolution. Her view on cake is the only thing most people know about her as it is the only thing polite enough from the slanders to be usually repeated (treason, witchcraft and perversion). MeltBanana 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, that was the exact wording I needed. No one ever bothered to explain that that is the mentality she was suppossed to have when saying this. They simply left it at "isn't that dreadful?" without really explaining anything. A lapse in my thinking. I see it now. -Russia Moore 03:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Into the sunset" Stockhausen? Schoeberg? Cage?

Can anyone help me with finding the title and info on a piece of theoretical music I believe might called "Into the Sunset" Its by someone like Schoenberg. I believe its a one page statement that goes something like.. gather any number of people together with any objects or instruments and at any given agreed time they all start playing whatever they likeand at some point stop. The idea being that although disparate at the start some order will fall out of it at some point.

I have had a look through wiki and the wider net but just dont have enough clues to pin it down. if anyone can helpme it would be great.

lost again james

Sounds like it could be Cage - it certainly doesn't sound like anything Stockhausen or Schoenberg would have written. I'll have a think and get back to you. --Richardrj 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, well the closest I've come up with is Cage's Musicircus. The title doesn't have anything to do with sunset but the description fits. I think Cage did a number of pieces like this - you may want to have a browse through this list of his works. --Richardrj 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard you a a star. see you like crimson. early or belew?

Thanks! I've replied on your talk page. --Richardrj 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it Schoenberg definitely wouldn't have written it, and Stockhausen I'd say probably not. There are other composers I might suggest for such a work in addition to John Cage though, maybe Pauline Oliveros or LaMonte Young... maybe even R. Murray Schafer? - Rainwarrior 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether an answer has actually been given, but I'm pretty sure it's Stockhausen - I played it with some friends (not in public) about 35 years ago. The text ended something like ' ... until they all melt together and the sound becomes golden'. ColinFine 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The only piece by Stockhausen that I know of that could be similar to this description is Stimmung (we have an article on it). But it is not nearly so free as what James described, and I believe it is rather unique in his oevre (I don't think he's ever been quite that indeterminate since). - Rainwarrior 05:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking on it some more, this sounds almost exactly like some of Pauline Oliveros' sonic meditations. You might want to look them up (if it's not in there, you'll find something a lot like it). - Rainwarrior 05:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who was the British king who commanded the sea to retreat

Before the Norman conquest, a king commanded the sea to retreat as a lesson to his people; who was this king? Thank you, --Ancheta Wis 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be King Canute. --Richardrj 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Richardrj, Thank you. Ancheta Wis 22:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The story is legendary at best, and most likely never happened. JackofOz 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
and, as the article says, is widely understood with the reverse sense. ColinFine 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upper or lowercase after exclamation marks?

In my novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, there are sentences with exclamation marks, afterwhich the next letter is of lowercase! is this appropriate, since I always thought you had to use uppercase after an exclamation marks? There are also countless asterisks scattered seemingly at random throughout the book, with no footnotes! is this some sort of code? --Username132 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about the asterisks, but it used to common for exclamation marks (and question marks) to be used in the middle of a sentence, making a clause or sub-clause an exclamation or question. You don't see this in modern English - exclamation marks and question marks are now pretty much exclusively used as stops. --Nicknack009 13:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If they are not used as stops it is usually stylistic—i.e. it is supposed to add emphasis to a given word in dialogue—as I understand it. (The language desk might be the plcae to ask this, though). Depending on the context of the asterisks, they can mean anything from "this is the beginning of a new section" to "this is a name I am not going to give you, and I am trying to imply is based on a real person" (very popular in 19th century fiction in many languages, lots of "Colonel ***" or "Mr. R...", etc.). But without context I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and it has been a long time since I read Jane Eyre. --Fastfission 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • sometimes asterisks indicate the breaks when the work was published as a serial or as a part work.hotclaws**==(82.138.214.1 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC))
Norms of punctuation vary over time. Much eighteenth century writing uses capitals far more than is customary today. On the other hand, in Jane Austen's books most street names appear hyphenated, and without the second element capitalised, such as 'Camden-place' and 'Westgate-buildings' (Persuasion, Ch. XVII). ColinFine 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Inmates at Federal Prison Camp in Cumberland Maryland

I am searching for a list of current inmates at the camp.

I know that the Bureau of Prisons website has an inmate locator. However, I am looking for a list of who is there now. Does anyone know how to find this? Thanks.

There is contact info for the camp here. It seems they have 325 inmates, but it doesn't look like they provide that type of information for any federal prisons. May be for security reasons, but it doesn't hurt to ask them. Nowimnthing 18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to build a prison in Cumberland, MD; I'd be afraid there might be a gap in the wall. :-) StuRat 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combat troops in Iraq

A large number of U.S. military personnel are currently deployed in Iraq. I believe the numbers I hear on the news range from 100,000 to 140,000. I'm curious what percentage of these troops are actual 'trigger pullers' as opposed to support. My background is in the Marine Corps, and even in a basic infantry company - a pretty lean organization - there are a number of billets which are considered purely administrative or support. So, once you take out all the people who are doing payroll, logistics, mechanic and maintenance work, prisoner security, construction, etc., how many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are actually on the ground in infantry, heavy and light armor, air combat, and other direct combat action roles.

Iraq War order of battle has a breakdown of divisions and such, with a little work you could probably work out the numbers. Nowimnthing 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would guess a higher percentage of the US troops in Iraq are combat troops than in historic wars, for two reasons:
1) Many support troops are outside Iraq, in Kuwait and other Persian Gulf states.
2) Extensive contractors are being used in Iraq, such as the infamous Haliburton and Blackwater Security. StuRat 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] militery division patches

Which arm signifies that a army man was in combat if he/she wears their division patch on it? I've smoked too much wackey-tabacciee sense the nam to remember. And all these poor kids comeing back from the bang-bangs dont seem to be honoring it for some reason. Whats the deal?

The left arm. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

[edit] Tennis

http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=16xp5.jpg

Please tell me what event this is and who the woman who is in pain is. Thanks.

See Monica Seles. That was taken after she was stabbed. --Kainaw (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter and Zara Phillips

While I know that they are not technically royals or members of the Royal Family and a good bit of the story behind that, are these two children of the Princess Royal techincally considered commoners? Could they vote for MPs or even stand for a seat in the Commons if they so chose? I know that they are 10th and 11th in line for the throne, but there seems to be some abiguity in their official class status within Britain. Thanks in advance for any help. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Anyone who is not a Peer of the Realm or the Sovereign is a commoner (including Peter and Zara's mother). Proteus (Talk) 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samsung P300

What is the best deal on getting a Samsung P300 in the UK? I don't want to have to spend too much, and don't need many texts or minutes. --86.142.195.245 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


have you tried going to www.doyourownshoppingyoulazybastard.com?

seriously tho, kelkoo and froogle usually do me...200.199.70.119 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Elephant Artillery

Were cannons mounted on elephants at any time in Turkish military history?

I doubt it as the noise and recoil would probably injure and scare the crap out the animal. http://expositions.bnf.fr/legray/images/3/225.jpg MeltBanana 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And they would have needed to get them from far away. --LambiamTalk 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire at the height of its power

Range of the Asian elephant

Lambiam, what about African elephants, your map only depicts the range of the Asian ones? Anyway, the idea of cannons on top of elephants is so weird in itself, I find it odd that you specifically ask about the Turkish military?? You might wanna read the Hannibal article about using elephants in warfare.Evilbu 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The range of the African Bush Elephant is Eastern, Southern, and West Africa (south of the Sahara), while that of the African Forest Elephant is West and central equatorial Africa. That is about as far away. The article on the African Forest Elephant states: "The North African elephant of Hannibal fame was a now-extinct fourth species or a subspecies of the Forest Elephant (Loxodonta (africana) pharaoensis); it disappeared around the 1st or 2nd century CE." The article War elephant states: "The Egyptians and the Carthaginians began taming African elephants for the same purpose [war fare --L.], as did the Numidians and the Kushites. The animal used was the Forest elephant, specifically, the North African relict population which eventually became extinct from overexploitation. This particular breed was smaller than the Asian elephants used by the Seleucids, and were quite often too scared to engage them in combat. The African savannah elephant, larger than the African forest elephant or the Asian elephant, proved difficult to tame for war purposes and was not used as extensively." [my emphasis --L.] Darius III of Persia used 15 war elephants to no avail in the Battle of Gaugamela, in what is now northern Iraq. These were Asian. It would not have been impossible for the Turks to use Asian elephants in their military campaigns; I just said they would have needed to come from far. --LambiamTalk 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You have neglected Surus, an Indian elephant, ridden by Hannibal.EricR 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We do know, from both Livy and Polybius, that by the time Hannibal crossed the Apennines in 217 B.C. after the battle at the Trebia, he had only one elephant left, which he himself rode. Pliny the Elder tells us (Scullard 174) that the elephant was called “Surus” (the Syrian). The Tigris-Euphrates valley in ancient Syria (now Iraq) once harbored the largest Asian subspecies (now extinct) hunted by the pharaohs 3,000 years ago. It is possible that the Ptolemies in Egypt were still able to obtain Syrian elephants in Hannibal’s time, and this may have been the original source of Hannibal’s one surviving animal. In any case, while the majority of Hannibal’s elephants were probably of North African origin, at least one may have been an Asian elephant.

Hart, Keith G. "On Hannibal and Elephants" EricR 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe war elephants were also used in India. As for cannons on elephants, that wouldn't work, no. And elephants are plenty dangerous on their own, just by goring and trampling the enemy. StuRat 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. --Shantavira 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The cartheginians used north african elephants, which are now extinct, ottoman could have used them too, so the logisitcs of the matter are plausable, however getting an elephant to not go absolutely mental everytime something on its back explodes, amongst other issues with the problem, is another matter. Philc TECI 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inequality around the world

hi guys, i'm in brazil at the moment (and having a lovely time, thanks for asking) and i've been told, reasonably reliably, that the richest 1% of brazillians have more than the bottom 50% combined. obviously when i heard this, i went into knee-jerk liberal shock ("why pedro, thats simply scandalous!") but then i got thinking (an event in itself) what is the corresponding ratio is countries i can relate to like the UK, US and maybe for variety, France- does any one know? (p.s. there is an article in wikipedia on the gini coefficient but its not quite the same (i'm sure it is if you understand it, but, well, i dont) thanks!!!200.199.70.119 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While we look for an answer, why would your shock be reduced if it turns out that this was true in other countries too? DJ Clayworth 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

would i be more shocked or less? thats a good question - i mean, if all the world sucks as much as brazil does (inequality wise), does that make brazil any better? if the UK has a simialr level of inequality to brazil, would my shock increase because a "developed" country, my developed country is still so unequal or would it decrease becuase, well, maybe thats jsut the way the cookie crumbles etc? i dont know, but i'm glad you asked the question...200.199.70.119 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a video in Youtube that says that top 1% in wealth terms own more than the bottom 90% in the USA.

See List_of_countries_by_income_equality. In Brazil, the top 10% earn 68 times more than the bottom 10%. In the US, the top 10%/bottom 10% ratio is 15.9; in the UK, 13.8; in France, 9.1; and in Japan, 4.5. -- Mwalcoff 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that a certain level of inequality is required in any capitalist society. This is because, if everyone ends up with an identical income and wealth, regardless or their skills, professionalism, number of hours worked, etc., then there would be absolutely no incentive to get an education or work, leading to an economic collapse. To put it another way: "the only way everyone can have equal wealth is if everyone has zero wealth". StuRat 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So the only way out would be not to have a capitalist society? :) Like in Cuba, where there is little such incentive and people still get plenty education and work. DirkvdM 07:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't fool yourself into thinking that an allegedly communist country has a perfectly even distribution of income and wealth. Government officials and their friends and relatives always seem to find a way to get rich, under just about every system. Also, there is limited capitalism in Cuba. North Korea is closer to pure communism, and their economy suffers, as a result. If not for constant handouts from China and South Korea they would likely suffer a total economic collapse. StuRat 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Suppose half the money of the richest 10% would be distributed among the poorest 10%, what effects would that have? How much would it raise the income of the poor? Of course this depends much on the country. I supose that in countires where there is serious poverty it would have the effect of micro loans, which could be a serious boost to the economy. This would benefit the coutry as a whole, and thus also the rich. Sort of a trickle up effect. Funny, once again I think I invented a term and it turns out it already exists. DirkvdM 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That would depend entirely on how you do it. If you just immediately "confiscate" half the wealth of the rich and simply hand it to the poor, this would cause disaster. Many businesses would not have sufficient operating capital after the money was taken from the rich, and many formerly poor people would quit their jobs, then gamble, drink, and do drugs until the money was gone or they were dead (I knew a poor person who won the lottery, then pretty much did just this). If, on the other hand, you gradually increased the tax rate on the upper income individuals, say over a decade, they could plan accordingly and avoid sudden business disruptions. Then, rather than handing the poor a big wad of cash, if you used that money to provide for free college educations, day care, health care, etc., you could increase their earning potential in the long run. StuRat 13:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also note that if you gave half the wealth of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%, the formerly poorest 10% would now be wealthier than the formerly richest 10%. Was that really what you meant to do ? StuRat 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't happen if the richest 10% have more than double the money the poorest 10% do, as is usually the case (to put it mildly). A related point is that the next richest and porest 10% would need to get a similar treatment, to a lesser extent, but I decided to drop that detail. DirkvdM 08:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I take it you're not a math major ? Let do the numbers: Say the poorest 10% average $10K in wealth, while the richest 10% average $1000K. If you take half of the rich peoples' money, that's $500K. Give that to the poor and now the formerly poor 10% have $510K, on average, while the formerly rich 10% now have $500K, on average, which is less. StuRat 10:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For an example of how NOT to do wealth redistribution, see Zimbabwe. The productive farms of white settlers were taken from them and given to poor blacks, who had no farming experience. This resulted in the destruction of the agricultural sector of the economy. (Robert Mugabe then went on to focus on destroying tourism and any other remaining economic sectors.) StuRat 14:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also important to note that income is not the same as wealth. And it's wealth that gives you the power (at least in capitalist countries). DJ Clayworth 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

cheers guys that list is fascinating! india has a more equal society than france, canada and the UK -thats so cool! shame on the the US though-boo! 200.199.33.8 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the list of countries with the lowest Gini coefficient, you see that the top four (Denmark, Japan, Sweden and Belgium) are all rich countries, and number 5, the Czech Republic, is fairly high on the wealth scale as countries go. On the other hand, most of the countries with the highest Gini coefficients are poor. This indicates you don't need to sacrifice economic growth to have low income inequality. -- Mwalcoff 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
According to our article Gini coefficient:

"Both very high egalitarianism and very high inequality cause slow growth. Extreme egalitarianism leads to incentive-traps, free-riding, high operation costs and corruption in the redistribution system, all reducing a country's growth potential."

The US, being somewhere in the middle on the chart, seems to be in a good position for maximum growth. Of course, one could make the argument that sacrificing economic growth for improved equality is a good trade-off. StuRat 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Note, though, that the US is surrounded by poor countries on the list. Most rich countries are towards the top. The bottom is almost completely dominated by poor countries. The US is at position 92 (out of 124 - not quite in the middle). The next rich countries start at position 53. The US appears to be the odd one out. Statistical analysis tends to ignore odd ones out, so the US should be ignored here too (no offence :) ).
Which way the causality goes is a different matter, though. Maybe rich countries develop more of a sentiment towards the poor because they can afford to (so the US would then be underdeveloped socially - still no offence). Maybe democratic socialism is a better way to go than State Socialism through revolution. But that requires richess to start with (in practise usually attained through exploitation of workers in previous generations). If you're in a vicious circle of poverty-inequality-poverty, how do you break away from that? Russia has ultimately benefited from its course of action, sort of like a ladder one has to climb and then throw away. Other revolutionaries could then learn from their example (and start of with the right goals), but I'm afraid they rarely do. DirkvdM 08:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Ex-communist countries tend to go ultra-capitalist, so I would expect the wealth to quickly move into the hands of the upper 10% in both Russia and China. StuRat 10:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought that too, but the table suggests otherwise for Russia. And China isn't quite ultra-capitalist. They have merely introduced some capitalism within the state socalist framework. But then China is almost as low on the list as the USA. I wonder what is the cause of that. Maybe something similar is done there as with Cuba, assigning the wealth of the state to the leaders in stead of to the state as a whole? DirkvdM 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Recently-communist countries lack many protections for workers that exist in long-standing capitalist countries, like labor unions, political parties for the working class, legislation for worker safety, health insurance, minimum wages, etc. Thus, ironically, such countries are ripe for what Marx called "exploitation of the proletariat". So, whatever level of income equality they may have achieved will rapidly be eroded, at least until such time as these protections come into existence in those countries. StuRat 11:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, like I said, that's what I thught, but the problem is that the big example of that, Russia, is actually rather high on the scale. Btw, I don't think unions are very powerful in most longstanding capitalisms. The US is only a mild example of that. DirkvdM 09:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Russia has only been under ultra-capitalism for a short time, so give it a few years and you will see a much wider gap between the rich and poor. Unions tend to be a powerful force for income equality, at least in certain stages of capitalism. In the US, they were most important in the early 1900's, before substantial government protection for child labor, safety, minimum wages, and maximum hours were put into place. StuRat 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to tell much from simply looking at that one table. Perhaps redistributive policies meant to reduce inequality are conducive to economic growth. Or maybe income inequality gets reduced as a side benefit of economic growth. If the latter is the case, countries should focus on policies that grow the economy, and redistribution will just happen. More information is needed to do any kind of analysis. -- Mwalcoff 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The US illustrates that that is not necessarily the case. DirkvdM 08:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)