August 24 Information

Does China own enough of the US debt that if it decided to make the US repay it, the US would collapse and/or be owned by China? -- 75.10.48.39 ( talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

No. -- Jayron 32 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "decided to make the US repay" ? If you mean that they would stop loaning the US money and thus cease to be a creditor after the US paid off it's current debts to China, then the US would have two options:

1) Find other places to borrow money.

2) Learn to live within it's means.

Some combo of those two is most likely. StuRat ( talk) 01:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Right. The debt is mainly in the form of bonds, which come due at a fixed date. All China could do would be to stop financing the running deficit by buying more bonds each year -- that would cause a lot of trouble but wouldn't be likely to cause a collapse, at least not in any sort of direct way. And the problems that resulted would be at least as severe for China as for the US, because they would no longer be able to support their economy by selling stuff to us. Looie496 ( talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

No, the US obligations to China come due over time, and they can not demand, for example, that the Treasury pay 10 year notes before they have matured. Almost all Treasury securities are currently auctioning at a negative real interest rate, but that has not been the case for almost all of the previous decades. So if China were to arrange the early payment of the obligations they hold, they would be rolled over and that would substantially reduce the financial burden on the US. 76.254.20.205 ( talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

China has to do something with the proceeds from its current account surplus. Up to now, China has put much of those proceeds into US Treasury bills. As others have said, China cannot demand repayment of those bonds before they are due. China could stop buying more bonds, but then it would have to figure out what to do with its surplus. If China converted its surplus dollars into its own or some other currency, its target currency would rise against the dollar. The volume of the surplus is so great that any external target currency (say, the euro or the Australian dollar) would rise dramatically against the US dollar, jeopardizing exports from the holder of the target currency. The owner of the target currency would practically be forced to implement capital controls to stop Chinese purchases. Ultimately, the Chinese would have no other option than to convert the dollars into their own currency, driving it up relative to other currencies, until Chinese exports lost their price competitiveness and the Chinese current account surplus disappeared. On the United States, the effect of a Chinese rejection of its debt would inevitably be to drive down the US dollar. Internally, the US government would not necessarily have any difficulty financing its debt, since the Federal Reserve System has a theoretically unlimited ability to create money to purchase Treasury bills through open market operations. Externally, however, the resulting drop in the dollar would make imports (including oil) much more expensive. This would force US consumers to cut their consumption of imported products, including gasoline, and would have a negative impact on the large part of the US economy focused on consumer spending. This would almost certainly send the US economy back into technical recession. Meanwhile, however, the drop in the US dollar would make US exports much more competitive, boosting economic sectors (including many areas of manufacturing) that are export-oriented or that would gain from the effective removal of Chinese competition. Growth in export-oriented or import-replacing sectors could eventually counterbalance contraction in the consumer sectors such that the US economy, with a devalued dollar, could eliminate its current account deficit and its need for external financing. Marco polo ( talk) 13:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There is one more thing the Chinese could do. They could attempt to sell the treasury bills they are currently holding on the secondary market -- i.e., sell them to other investors. This would complicate the US government's attempt to borrow more money because the government would have to compete with the Chinese government to find buyers for treasury bonds. Of course, the Fed could buy up the bonds, but that would create inflation complications. Having said this, the Chinese couldn't do this at zero cost. They would take a serious financial loss if they attempted to flood the secondary market with t-bills. Wikiant ( talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

It is very hard to imagine the Chinese doing what Wikiant has described, even as an act of war. Selling their holdings would force the Fed to intervene and would cause the value of the US dollar to crash or even collapse. As a result, the Chinese would take a huge loss. What they would probably like to do, ultimately, is to convert their US holdings into tangible assets of real value, such as agricultural land, mines, and oil fields. To do that, they need to cash out of their holdings gradually, so that they can still get some real value for the dollars they receive. Marco polo ( talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If theoretically the US were at war with China, would they be able to select Chinese bonds and refuse to honor those specific bonds while paying out on all the others without being declared in default? Googlemeister ( talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I doubt it. They would simply make it illegal to conduct any financial transactions with China. But if we were in a war with China, this would be the least of our worries. Looie496 ( talk) 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In full-scale nuclear war, yes, but how about a limited scope war or perhaps a proxy war over the fate of some place like Burma ? StuRat ( talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Isn't the standard procedure in such circumstances to freeze the enemy country's assets and pay any debts due to it into escrow until the freeze is lifted? -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

War is the least of our worries. 76.254.20.205 ( talk) 23:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There's always a bright side .... or dark side.

The U.S. can never repay China. Never. The U.S. is going to be buried in debts and that's for sure. But the U.S. still has gold and some other resources to honor just a tiny part of its own foreign debts.

Now the U.S. can demand any small Banana Republic to follow its order in exchange of prompt repay. "Hey! You! I'll pay you back your one hundred million dollars of Treasury Bonds for gold and silver, you just do this and that dirty things for me."

Now you own the bank .... -- Toytoy ( talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What on earth are you talking about? Googlemeister ( talk) 16:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Something like the old saying "Owe the bank $1000, the bank owns you; owe the bank $1,000,000, you own the bank." Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Although perhaps it would be in the billions today (a million wouldn't even pay the hooker allowance for their execs). StuRat ( talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, I must admit I had not before heard that expression. Kind of like the 1 death is a tragedy, 1,000,000 deaths is a statistic? Googlemeister ( talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I hear this line a lot from Americans, and I'm curious about how true it actually is. Certainly in today's world, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are very successful and multicultural democracies, arguably with more civil liberties and better human rights than the U.S. (I included only the colonies where the native population was eliminated and replaced by white settlers, since that's what happened in the U.S.) In the 20th and 19th centuries, Great Britain and its colonies seemed to be ahead in granting civil rights to natives and Africans. Even back in 1783, although the non-U.S. British North American colonies obviously didn't have autonomy, they weren't exactly North Korea style dictatorships either.

So, my question is: how much freedom did the American Revolution help gain, and for long after the Revolution could the U.S. decisively be considered more "free", in our modern sense of "democratic with good civil rights", than the British colonies? -- 99.237.252.228 ( talk) 01:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, the US did gain more control over it's own affairs, including the right to vote, and that can be called "freedom". Also, the freedoms granted to other British colonies are likely at least in part due to the success of the American Revolution. That is, the British could see that denying the other colonies freedom to vote and a degree of autonomy would lead to more wars of independence, which would be expensive, and which they might lose.

However, I tend to think that winning WW2 was ultimately more important for maintaining freedom in the US and worldwide. StuRat ( talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Your "arguably" implies bullshit in the logic. Admittedly, some of the founding fathers of the US (Washington, Jefferson, others?) held African slaves, which is not much of a demonstration of "freedom" or "liberty." The British got rich transporting the slaves to North America, so they have absolutely no high moral ground. The American Revolution at least gained independence from the British and their evils. Edison ( talk) 04:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

My "arguably" implies that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the phrase that follows. There was no bullshit in the logic because I was offering an observation of what many believe, not an argument. -- 99.237.252.228 ( talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I do not appreciate that this question was closed, and marked as a "discussion", with no justification whatsoever. Just because the question may insult some fanatical American right-wingers who can't accept the facts does not imply that it's an open-ended invitation to a debate. My question was very clear:

"how much freedom did the American Revolution help gain, and for long after the Revolution could the U.S. decisively be considered more "free", in our modern sense of "democratic with good civil rights", than the British colonies?"

Granted, it's hard to measure this objectively. However, if we insisted on perfect objectivity in every instance, social science wouldn't exist because some amount of judgment is always necessary. Furthermore, I think this question is highly relevant and interesting because, as I said, I've heard many people claim "our ancestors died for our freedom" in relation to the revolutionary war. I'm simply curious about the extent to which this is true, and the extent to which it's unjustified nationalism.

StuRat offered some good points: I do know that, for example, the generosity of the Quebec Act was partially due to the unrest in the Thirteen Colonies. As for Edison's comments, with regard to slavery, I was referring to the fact that Britain banned the slave trade in 1807, and slavery as a whole in 1833, which is 30 years ahead of the U.S. I'm also curious about what you consider the evils of the British, and for how long those evils affected the other British colonies to the north. (Again, not an argument; I'm in no way arguing that the British had no evils to speak of.) -- 99.237.252.228 ( talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As always, this probably has something to do with American exceptionalism. Adam Bishop ( talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Freedom from rule by foreign powers, which, alas, we've allowed to erode over the years. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I can see why you might argue that other freedoms have been eroded, such as privacy, but freedom from rule by foreign powers seems quite intact in the US, to me. StuRat ( talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Officially, sure, and maybe I should have said foreign influence. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

We can compare the history of suffrage in the UK and USA, although different states in the USA can set different voting laws.

In the late 18th century, both countries still restricted voting to property-owning males.

The USA removed property restrictions for men in various states between 1812 and 1860 and the 15th Amendment nominally gave all men of all races the vote in 1870, while the UK didn't fully remove property restrictions for men until 1918. So white men in the USA were better off until 1918. However, blacks in some parts of the USA could not in practice vote until the 1960s. Hence if you were a poor black male, you were nominally freer in the USA from 1870 until 1918, but depending on where you lived, you might have been better off in the UK until about 1965. After that, I assume equality.

Some women got the vote in the UK (1918) before the USA, but full female franchise in the US came in 1920, and didn't come until 1928 in the UK. Hence, there wasn't much difference, but young US women were better off from 1920-1928.

On the other hand, people in the US still have greater rights to free speech than in the UK: for instance laws on libel, defamation, contempt of court and incitement to racial and religious hatred restrict speech in the UK. And laws on e.g. the right to avoid self-incrimination ( Fifth Amendment rights) are clearer and perhaps wider in the US. In other areas, e.g. gay marriage, there is so much variation between states you can't make a general comparison. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 11:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think you can really make blanket statements like 'people in the US still have greater rights to free speech than in the UK'. This basically comes down to a value judgment about the extent to which different types of speech should be protected, and for example the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index gives the UK a slightly better score than the US. Anyway, going back to the original question, even if you did compile some sort of historical measure of freedom for the US and the UK, it doesn't really tell us what life would have been like for people in the British colonies in North America if the revolutionary war hadn't happened - for example, they could have gained independence in a different manner at a later date. 81.98.38.48 ( talk) 12:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In some "what-if" discussions of alternative history we have been informed by references to fictional works as well as scholarly works. Have writers looked at possible evolutionary expansion of "freedoms" and individual rights in the 13 colonies or the eventual US, if the American Revolution had not been launched (King George makes some concessions which take the edge off the revolutionary fever), or if it had been a quick failure (the army surrendered, the Congress and national leaders captured)? Seems like a likely topic for speculative fiction. Edison ( talk) 14:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think StuRat's second point is key here. If the 13 colonies hadn't rebelled, Britain would have continued to govern its colonies repressively and treated them as cash cows for the home country. (In essence, Britain did govern its non-settler colonies in Asia and Africa repressively and treated them as cash cows, and most of those colonies ultimately rebelled in the 20th century.) You could make a strong case that U.S. soldiers in the War for Independence died not only for the freedom of (white) settlers in the United States but also for the subsequent relative freedom of (white) settlers in the other British settler colonies (the areas that are now Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa). The British learned a lesson: If they wanted to retain the loyalty of white settlers, they had to allow them some autonomy. Of course, the relative decline of Britain as a global power during the 20th century would probably have led to independence for its colonies anyway, but that doesn't negate the historical reality that U.S. soldiers in the War for Independence fought for and won freedom from the British more than 100 years before it would otherwise have been granted.

On the other hand, your point about the lack of freedom of slaves and Native Americans is well taken. Americans who say that "our ancestors died for our freedom" are almost always white Americans with a blind spot for the history of racial inequality in the United States. Marco polo ( talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Regarding your statement: "the relative decline of Britain as a global power during the 20th century would probably have led to independence for its colonies anyway", I'm not sure I agree. That is, had Britain won the War of Independence and hung all the founding fathers of the US, they conceivably could have then kept the 13 colonies and all their other colonies as "cash cows", allowing them to retain dominance until today. StuRat ( talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, we can't know how counterfactual history would turn out, but the 13 colonies were not so lucrative for Britain, despite its efforts to wring cash from them. The Caribbean sugar colonies were much more valuable. The same, I think, is true of the other settler colonies. The real money makers were the colonies that produced cash crops (such as sugar) in demand in other European countries. The 13 colonies had tobacco, to be sure, and they would have become a valuable supplier of cotton to Britain's cotton mills. (In fact, independence didn't change that.) But the real money makers for the empire were the African and Asian colonies with their cash crops that could not be grown in temperate Europe. And those colonies did rise up in the 20th century. Another issue is that the region that became the United States would eventually have had a population that outnumbered Britain's. It's hard to imagine Britain leaving the area west of the Appalachians as a native preserve under the Proclamation of 1763 and foregoing the opportunities for further revenue in that region. It's also hard to imagine Britain passing up the Louisiana Territory after the Napoleonic Wars, and not hard to imagine British settlers leading the way for a conquest of much of what became the Mexican Cession. Even without the Mexican Cession, the population would likely exceed Britain's well before 1900. Eventually those colonists surely would have demanded autonomy. (In fact, in this scenario, there would be no distinction between Canada and the United States. Who knows what that country would have been called? North America?) Marco polo ( talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

99.237.252.228 -- From the strictly political point of view, the North American colonials were demanding either direct elective representation in the British parliament, or entrenched "constitutional" guarantees of local autonomy which couldn't be overturned by a simple majority vote in a future parliament. (It seems that no influential or powerful British politician condescended to even seriously consider either demand...) The "white commonwealths" (Canada, Australia, etc.) didn't receive the degree of autonomy demanded by the North American colonials until the 20th century... AnonMoos ( talk) 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This is an interesting and complicated question. The American Revolution was fought over the right of citizens to have a decisive role in their own governance. If having political sovereignty vested in the citizenry is "freedom", then independence created a society that was considerably "freer" than what had existed before. The Revolution unleashed democratic energies that many Revolutionary leaders did not intend or even desire. The suffrage was expanded; men who could have had no role in government in the old order could become influential political leaders. If you were a woman or a non-citizen (i.e. Indian or slave), your situation remained about the same.

And, as historian Gordon Wood had argued, the American Revolution put slavery on the defensive for the first time in history. Independence from Great Britain allowed the former colonies the option to outlaw slavery and the slave trade, which some colonies had tried do under British rule but had not been not allowed. Several northern states abolished slavery soon after independence, long before Great Britain; all 13 abolished the slave trade before Great Britain, though South Carolina later legalized it again. So how free you were depended on where and who you were. If you were a black person in 1800, you'd be better off in Virginia than Jamaica, but better off still in Massachusetts or Canada.

Is democracy freedom? Democracy can be a messy business and some people, then and now, prefer a more orderly system. Some Canadians regarded the War of 1812 as a fight against the spread of democracy, which they regarded with horror. Irish soldiers in Canada fled to the US, seeking more freedom. Black slaves in the US fled to Canada, seeking more freedom. Which place was more free? Depended on who you were. — Kevin Myers 10:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

From my own ancestral history, this "freedom" was largely that of forcing Native Americans west and occupying their lands just beyond reach of the state and federal governments that existed at the time--always migrating west just out of reach of The Law. Perhaps it was a form a yeomancy--the ability to own one's own land and live off it, with minimal interference from the government. The notion of owning land fee simple was a powerful motivator back then--and one not readily available in Europe. This, in my family's history, was something worth fighting for, whether against the Native Americans or the American state and federal government. Around 1850 though, they seem to have lost their nerve, in my case anyway. 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This sort of "freedom" was not new with the creation of the American Republic: British subjects and American citizens were both "free" to elude the authorities and trespass on Native land. In both cases, authorities lacked the resources to restrain the tide of westward migration -- the frontier was just too big. But the notion that Americans migrated west to get beyond the reach of "The Law" is mostly an American myth, created by dime novels and movies. In reality, westering Americans worked to establish US law & order as quickly as possible. Often, of course, they wanted to establish law & order so that it could be used to restrain the recently dispossessed Natives. — Kevin Myers 23:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you had both groups, those wanting to escape society and those wanting to extend it. Those wishing to escape kept heading west until the frontier vanished, then perhaps went to Alaska. StuRat ( talk) 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Mine, paternally anyway, seem to have been in the "escape government" group--always moving west just about when they started to get summoned for things like jury duty or "fixing roads", or serving in the militia. Got stuck for a century in southwest Missouri though. Perhaps from there the frontier looked rather bleak, for folk from Tennessee. Also, the "yeomancy" urge, and its inevitable conflict with Native Americans certainly predated the American Revolution. But there are a number of colonial "rebellions" of (mostly) common folk against the gentry/aristocracy/powers that be. Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 is an interesting example. It failed of course. In the aftermath my ancestors left the restored royal colony of Virginia for the largely lawless backwater of North Carolina--at least until that became unbearable as well. Too bad they couldn't read or write, else I might know a little more about their actual motivations! Pfly ( talk) 08:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there a term for owning stock in every company (or at least the major players) in a given industry/service? For instance, owning stock in Lowe's, The Home Depot, and Ace Hardware. If there is a term and article for this, my following questions might be answered by that article.

Also, is there any advantage to this? If, using my example again, hardware stores were an up and coming market then I would expect that it would be beneficial to own stock in all of them. After all they'd all be growing or, at least, most would grow and the companies that didn't grow might be bought out by those that did. Although, I can see the other side of the coin (if there are only two sides) in that when one goes bankrupt, the others might grow in value enough to balance out the losses. Dismas| ^(talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This sounds like some sort of exchange traded fund or something like that, sort of a "sector specific" SPDR or something like that. -- Jayron 32 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As a matter of fact, List of American exchange-traded funds lists several sector-specific funds, under the "Market sector ETFs" section. -- Jayron 32 05:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If there was an advantage to doing this, then wouldn't the market adjust prices to take account of this accordingly? Assuming that the market operated on rational principles - which has yet to be proven ;-) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Or, if you don't use ETFs, simply an industry-focussed portfolio?

As for advantages, buying stocks in all companies in the same industry would minimise the intra-industry risks, for example the risk that Lowe's might perform badly due to increased competition from The Home Depot. On the other hand, it does nothing for the risks facing this whole industry. So if your portfolio is entirely exposed to a certain sector, then your fortunes will basically wax and wane with the average performance of that industry. It might be a good idea if you are absolutely convinced that this particular industry overall will keep going up, and you wanted to iron out the risk that any particular company within the industry might perform worse, with its share of the market taken up by another company within the same industry. It should also be noted that the flip side of protecting yourself against Lowe's losses (for example) is losing out on The Home Depot's gains, as the two will offset each other (how much depends on the weighting of your portfolio). -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Companies that share certain characteristics may be referred to as a sector or industry, and investment professionals often refer to having a larger or smaller allocation of investment assets to a particular sector. Putting all of your money in a particular sector is inconsistent with good investment diversification, but it is sound to put more money in sectors you believe are strong and less money in sectors you believe are weak. (Well, arguably sound; you'll find that this is an effective test of the extent to which your beliefs on sector strength are reality-based.) You can achieve exposure to a particular sector through investment in a sector fund, of which there are many. These include index mutual funds and ETFs, as well as actively managed sector mutual funds. John M Baker ( talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The OP didn't say he'd put all his money in one sector, only whether buying every stock in a sector is a good idea. 88.9.108.128 ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Can we sort a type of history writing something dramatic history: which more concerns people's relations and characteristics and their dramatic stories? and if there, is there any examples? Flakture ( talk) 06:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There is a whole genre of historical writing about " Great Men", which is similar to your description. Adam Bishop ( talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Or there's the exact opposite: the Annales approach. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Biography is a literary form that comes close to what seems intended here by "dramatic history". Our article on Plutarch's Parallel Lives (which were written roughly two thousand years ago) points out Plutarch's stated intentions, that he "was not concerned with writing histories, as such, but in exploring the influence of character—good or bad—on the lives and destinies of famous men". -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 16:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In biography the character himself is important no matter which information has dramatic value to be written. Parallel Lives is good example. more brief biographies and the attempt of writer to filter the informations in his view of history telling maybe ethical and important characteristics and so on. But I know not other noticeable work. Flakture ( talk) 21:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

what changes in nature are occuring as Aslan is coming nearer to narnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.229.10 ( talk) 09:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This is probably the worst kind of homework question for the reference desk: A question designed to determine whether an assignment was read. 76.254.20.205 ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Heck in this case, you could even watch the movie for the answer. Googlemeister ( talk) 18:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In the Wiki for the Underground Railroad there is a heading labelled "Notable Locations" under which is Pickering, Ontario. I am doing research on black settlers in the Pickering Township and was interested to see that Pickering was a notable location along the Underground Railroad. However, an explanation as to why it was notable is not given. If you could give me any information or sources where I could find such information that would be greatly appreciated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad#Route 99.243.27.222 99.243.27.222 ( talk) 14:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Our article Pickering Village, Ontario, states that the village was settled by Quakers. (Although Pickering Village is now part of Ajax, it was the main population center of Pickering during the 19th century.) Our article on the history of the Quakers states that they worked for the abolition of slavery. Very probably the local Quakers sheltered escaped slaves. The village's location along Lake Ontario and its supportive population would have made it a natural landing spot for escaped slaves carried across the lake by boat. You might contact the Pickering Township Historical Society for more information. Marco polo ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

What is this gravestone made out of? I've done some searching on Google, and I've found some items that look somewhat close, but not close enough for me to be 100% sure. I've seen it only rarely, and I'm curious if thats' because of pricing, stylistic choice, or some other factor I'm not aware of. ^Avic _ennasis @ 15:06, 24 Av 5771 / 15:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Gneiss. Deor ( talk) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Pink granite gneiss. Do an image search for that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 ( talk) 16:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually a migmatitic gneiss - a google image search on that term shows some similar looking rocks. Mikenorton ( talk) 21:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, all! ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:02, 28 Av 5771 / 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which cities of France has significant population Arabs regardless which countries of Arab World they come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.247 ( talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Paris, obviously... and probably most of the larger metropolitan areas throughout France. To some extent, it depends on what you mean by "significant"... for a small village in Alsace, having three Arab families living in the town may well be "significant". Blueboar ( talk) 20:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I would also guess Marseille. You could try this article List of mosques in France. Flamarande ( talk) 07:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Can anyone give me all the names of any founder of any wikipedia of any language, who has an article written about them? Like Jimmy Wales as an example. Trongphu ( talk) 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Larry Sanger comes immediately to mind.

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger are the founders of the entire "Wikipedia" concept; which by default (because it was the first) was the English Wikipedia. In other Wikipedias, it may be hard to nail down a single "founder"; and for many of them it may not be a person who would merit a Wikipedia article. Other language Wikipedias were essentially "founded" by Jimbo and Larry as well... -- Jayron 32 21:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Those two people are the founder of English Wikipedia, the first wikipedia. How about other founder of other wikipedia of other language, who merit to have an article on wikipedia? I believe each of a wikipedia from any language has their own founder. 174.20.71.229 ( talk) 21:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't think other editions have their own founders. Wales and Sanger founded Wikipedia, which happened to be in English first. The next languages to come (which I believe were Catalan and German) were started up by their respective language communities, but they don't have founders other than Wales and Sanger. Pais ( talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Maybe the OP is after the usernames of the editors who created the first articles in the non-English Wikipedias. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Like the one who first organize and develop or first become sysop or administrator. There must be the first one who started to do something on wikipedia on other language so basically those are the founder. 174.20.71.229 ( talk) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That would be Jimbo: See this link which I pulled off of History of Wikipedia. Wales ok'ed the idea of other language Wikipedias and set up and made the first edits in the first one (German). Nowadays the procedure is a bit more involved: Language_proposal_policy Rmhermen ( talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

From what I have read, profanity is not seen in the Japanese language, as it is in Western languages. This gave me a curious thought: If there's no swearing in Japan, does anyone there have a form of coprolalia, except perhaps going against Japanese etiquette, i.e. speaking out of turn, etc.? Or is coprolalia exclusive to languages with swearing?-- Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Never mind the question about its existence. It seems I didn't read the article well enough. There is a 4% incidence of it in Japan, which means it is rare, but it is there. It does still beg the question: exactly how would it work?-- Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The paper cited there includes a table of "Clinical characteristics of the patients reported by psychiatrists, pediatricians and all the respondents", but infuriatingly it's not in the html version. If you can track down a copy, that may help characterise the symptoms. Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This page is filled with Japanese profanities. Marco polo ( talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Here are some lists of vulgarities from the standard dialect with English glosses: [1] [2] [3]. The article doesn't say there is a 4% incidence in Japan, it mentions one study of Japanese Tourette's patients that found a 4% rate among those patients, along with several other studies whose results are all over the map, and says that there are methodological issues that affect all of the studies. -- BenRG ( talk) 05:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

An increase in money supply without any real growth causes inflation. However, what about a decrease in real output with an unchanged money supply and velocity of money? According to equation of exchange that would generate equally inflation. Is that right? Or would any central bank decrease the amount of money in the case of a recession? Quest09 ( talk) 22:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes. Cases of decrease in real output with no change in money supply are not that easy to find, though. One clear case is the Black Death of 1348-1350, which massively reduced output and caused prices of food and other commodities to skyrocket; see this page (The currency was gold and silver at that time, so the money supply was basically constant.) Looie496 ( talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The effects or affects of government spending depend on where the money is spent. If, for example, it was spent on measures that would tend to increase income equality like public education, universal health care, progressive taxation, prison reform, renewable energy like wind, and synthetic fuel, then the increase in the money supply would grow the middle class and remain circulating as consumer spending. 76.254.20.205 ( talk) 23:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That list is missing infrastructure improvement and commercial paper; alternatively, payroll taxes could be lowered and the work week could be shortened which would lower income inequality without increasing the money supply. Also making taxes more progressive, single payer health care, some sentencing reforms, and probably public education and some renewables and fuel synthesis would result in cost savings. Wouldn't those decrease the money supply? 208.54.5.210 ( talk) 01:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This depends somewhat on your definition of "inflation". Quantity-of-money theorists tend to define inflation in terms of the money supply, rather than in terms of prices. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Inflation is associated with increases in the cost of living, but it's not a direct causation. 208.54.5.210 ( talk) 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Recessions tend to be deflationary, or at least not inflationary, since a lack of demand for products causes vendors to lower prices. An exception would be a recession associated with the shortage of a commodity, like in the 1970s when oil prices surged. In the case of the Black Death, the commodity in short supply was labor. -- Mwalcoff ( talk) 00:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In the modern world recessions cause a large drop in the effective money supply, primarily because they decrease the value of stocks, which are sufficiently liquid to act as money in many respects. They also can drop the value of other debt instruments that contribute to the effective money supply -- these secondary effects played a large role in the 2008 crisis. Looie496 ( talk) 02:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply