Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 27 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 29 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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. |
I know that Nazism and Soviet communism were two types of totalitarianism. Oddly enough, I sometimes see "socialism" used as a label for totalitarianism (like IngSoc). Are there any other totalitarian ideologies? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I vaguely remember reading about a short story about Enyclopedists who devise a fictional island that becomes real. They describe the island in such rich detail that it exists in fiction, and somehow that enters in reality. -- Gary123 ( talk) 03:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Please identify the music that begins here at 3:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxzvVGlVZqE. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 03:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add some more female profiles to the subject of Greeks. There are 25 people listed there and only 2 are female. in the area where famous people are portrayed by a picture in the different nationalities. Please add:
There are countless others but this is a start.
– — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
Chris Orfanakos ( talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) September 28th, 2013 Chris Orfanakos
I should first clarify that I'm not really asking about the various buying and selling mechanisms that determine a stock's price on an exchange, but rather a more fundamental question of why stock has "value". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkot ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a read a number of articles such as http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/133.asp, but I have trouble understanding why non-dividend paying stock has value other than the reason that there is a demand for it. I understand that fundamentally stock represents a percentage of ownership in the company. However, since it can't be redeemed via the issuing authority (i.e. I can't demand that Google compensate me in cash for a 0.01% stake in the company), the only way I can convert stock to any other compensation is via a third party. Seemingly, if there was no third party, then the stock is relatively worthless.
Non-dividend paying stock usually carries voting rights (and if it doesn't then it really does seem worthless), but I would guess that most individuals invested in the stock market don't really have an interest in exercising the insignificant amount of power this entails. Instead, it seems that the true value of voting rights is in that other individuals and organizations may be interested in purchasing the stock so that they can have a greater influence in the company. However, does this mean that anyone that owns such stock and doesn't exercise voting rights is essentially "squatting" on the stock, waiting to sell to someone else so they can "use" it to gain influence in the company? If so then what about cases where there is already a majority share holder of the stock? Does the other 49% of stock lose value because it can't be used to gain a controlling share?
I understand that to a certain degree stock entitles one to the assets of the company should it fold, but since the company has creditors that will be paid before stock owners, it seems that this is, at best, a constellation prize. As can be seen when companies declare bankruptcy, their stocks drops to a few cents which is invariably a tiny fraction of the stock's price in better times.
Nkot ( talk) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That's like asking what gives a dollar bill value if no matter how long it sits in your drawer it doesn't spit out any coins, any dollar bills, or anything else of value such as even a sandwich or anything else: what gives it value is that it's accepted as value by others. if this valuation by others goes up over time then it's worth more and more just by sitting there - without having to spit anything out. 178.48.114.143 ( talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way this was really cute: "the only thing I can think of is that the possibility of bankruptcies give stock some value, since in theory a shareholder is entitled to some of the proceeds of a bankruptcy". That's some Icahn thinking right there :) 178.48.114.143 ( talk) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
If a non-dividend paying stock were to be valued at zero, it would present a great arbitrage opportunity: just buy all the stock (for nothing!) and own all the company assets and future earnings. So obviously for companies worth anything even non-dividend paying stocks need to have some value. By the same argument, ideally speaking, that stock value would equal the company's "true value"/(Number of stocks issued). Now, transaction costs, complications of law, different estimates of "true value", differing utility functions of the market players etc mean that that equation is too simplistic. But it hopefully convinces you that even in theory (as in practice), stocks of non-dividend paying companies have value, and the less friction in the market, the less it matters whether the company pays dividend or not. Abecedare ( talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I now realize that Looie496 had already made this broad argument; hopefully seeing the same point presented in two ways, will still be of value to the OP. Abecedare ( talk) 00:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a recognised measure applied to any society which determines at what point a state is classed as a "police state"? And what factors are indicators? 31.25.4.14 ( talk) 10:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.
Rojomoke ( talk) 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashirazz ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be the standard now that health insurance plans deny coverage for autism treatment unless required to do so by a mandate. I'm trying to understand how that came to be the case. I understand that there was no treatment (except institutionalization) until the 80's, but it seems to be agreed upon by the medical community (e.g. the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ABA therapy helps. Did the Mental Health Parity Act have an effect? Is it because of all the quackery out there (hyperbaric chambers, mercury chelation, homeopathy)?
Thanks! 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.c.owen ( talk • contribs)
Diabetes and asthma are two examples of chronic conditions with no cure. I believe they are both covered by most health insurance plans. Jonathan.c.owen ( talk) 13:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Duoduoduo. As a parent, I can't imagine putting a kid through intensive behavioral therapy that wasn't needed, and with the autism rate being what it is, it's hard to imagine doctors/therapists lacking for work, but I can respect the desire for an objective test (I'd like to see that happen too). Googling "objective test for autism" turns up several different methods that are being pursued. In the mean time, it seems like insurance companies could avoid fraud pretty accurately by requiring a second opinion. Jonathan.c.owen ( talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, StuRat. I know first-hand of a good number of parents of autistic kids (in our state that doesn't have mandated coverage) who are avoiding getting an autism diagnosis, because at least they can get coverage for related symptoms. That seems a shame. It seems like an objective test would change a lot of things. Jonathan.c.owen ( talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In Buddhism, nirvana is literally a state of "extinction". The goal, to the extent which I understand it (which is to say, not at all) is to prevent the reunion of the skandhas and free people from the cycle of death and rebirth ( samsara).
However, does this mean that Buddhism would teach people to approve of the end of all life on Earth, for example by a runaway greenhouse effect, and would oppose the seeding of life on other planets? Or do I badly misunderstand the doctrine? Wnt ( talk) 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< September 27 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 29 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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. |
I know that Nazism and Soviet communism were two types of totalitarianism. Oddly enough, I sometimes see "socialism" used as a label for totalitarianism (like IngSoc). Are there any other totalitarian ideologies? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I vaguely remember reading about a short story about Enyclopedists who devise a fictional island that becomes real. They describe the island in such rich detail that it exists in fiction, and somehow that enters in reality. -- Gary123 ( talk) 03:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Please identify the music that begins here at 3:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxzvVGlVZqE. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 03:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add some more female profiles to the subject of Greeks. There are 25 people listed there and only 2 are female. in the area where famous people are portrayed by a picture in the different nationalities. Please add:
There are countless others but this is a start.
– — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §
Chris Orfanakos ( talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) September 28th, 2013 Chris Orfanakos
I should first clarify that I'm not really asking about the various buying and selling mechanisms that determine a stock's price on an exchange, but rather a more fundamental question of why stock has "value". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkot ( talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a read a number of articles such as http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/133.asp, but I have trouble understanding why non-dividend paying stock has value other than the reason that there is a demand for it. I understand that fundamentally stock represents a percentage of ownership in the company. However, since it can't be redeemed via the issuing authority (i.e. I can't demand that Google compensate me in cash for a 0.01% stake in the company), the only way I can convert stock to any other compensation is via a third party. Seemingly, if there was no third party, then the stock is relatively worthless.
Non-dividend paying stock usually carries voting rights (and if it doesn't then it really does seem worthless), but I would guess that most individuals invested in the stock market don't really have an interest in exercising the insignificant amount of power this entails. Instead, it seems that the true value of voting rights is in that other individuals and organizations may be interested in purchasing the stock so that they can have a greater influence in the company. However, does this mean that anyone that owns such stock and doesn't exercise voting rights is essentially "squatting" on the stock, waiting to sell to someone else so they can "use" it to gain influence in the company? If so then what about cases where there is already a majority share holder of the stock? Does the other 49% of stock lose value because it can't be used to gain a controlling share?
I understand that to a certain degree stock entitles one to the assets of the company should it fold, but since the company has creditors that will be paid before stock owners, it seems that this is, at best, a constellation prize. As can be seen when companies declare bankruptcy, their stocks drops to a few cents which is invariably a tiny fraction of the stock's price in better times.
Nkot ( talk) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That's like asking what gives a dollar bill value if no matter how long it sits in your drawer it doesn't spit out any coins, any dollar bills, or anything else of value such as even a sandwich or anything else: what gives it value is that it's accepted as value by others. if this valuation by others goes up over time then it's worth more and more just by sitting there - without having to spit anything out. 178.48.114.143 ( talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way this was really cute: "the only thing I can think of is that the possibility of bankruptcies give stock some value, since in theory a shareholder is entitled to some of the proceeds of a bankruptcy". That's some Icahn thinking right there :) 178.48.114.143 ( talk) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
If a non-dividend paying stock were to be valued at zero, it would present a great arbitrage opportunity: just buy all the stock (for nothing!) and own all the company assets and future earnings. So obviously for companies worth anything even non-dividend paying stocks need to have some value. By the same argument, ideally speaking, that stock value would equal the company's "true value"/(Number of stocks issued). Now, transaction costs, complications of law, different estimates of "true value", differing utility functions of the market players etc mean that that equation is too simplistic. But it hopefully convinces you that even in theory (as in practice), stocks of non-dividend paying companies have value, and the less friction in the market, the less it matters whether the company pays dividend or not. Abecedare ( talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I now realize that Looie496 had already made this broad argument; hopefully seeing the same point presented in two ways, will still be of value to the OP. Abecedare ( talk) 00:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a recognised measure applied to any society which determines at what point a state is classed as a "police state"? And what factors are indicators? 31.25.4.14 ( talk) 10:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.
Rojomoke ( talk) 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashirazz ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be the standard now that health insurance plans deny coverage for autism treatment unless required to do so by a mandate. I'm trying to understand how that came to be the case. I understand that there was no treatment (except institutionalization) until the 80's, but it seems to be agreed upon by the medical community (e.g. the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ABA therapy helps. Did the Mental Health Parity Act have an effect? Is it because of all the quackery out there (hyperbaric chambers, mercury chelation, homeopathy)?
Thanks! 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.c.owen ( talk • contribs)
Diabetes and asthma are two examples of chronic conditions with no cure. I believe they are both covered by most health insurance plans. Jonathan.c.owen ( talk) 13:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Duoduoduo. As a parent, I can't imagine putting a kid through intensive behavioral therapy that wasn't needed, and with the autism rate being what it is, it's hard to imagine doctors/therapists lacking for work, but I can respect the desire for an objective test (I'd like to see that happen too). Googling "objective test for autism" turns up several different methods that are being pursued. In the mean time, it seems like insurance companies could avoid fraud pretty accurately by requiring a second opinion. Jonathan.c.owen ( talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, StuRat. I know first-hand of a good number of parents of autistic kids (in our state that doesn't have mandated coverage) who are avoiding getting an autism diagnosis, because at least they can get coverage for related symptoms. That seems a shame. It seems like an objective test would change a lot of things. Jonathan.c.owen ( talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
In Buddhism, nirvana is literally a state of "extinction". The goal, to the extent which I understand it (which is to say, not at all) is to prevent the reunion of the skandhas and free people from the cycle of death and rebirth ( samsara).
However, does this mean that Buddhism would teach people to approve of the end of all life on Earth, for example by a runaway greenhouse effect, and would oppose the seeding of life on other planets? Or do I badly misunderstand the doctrine? Wnt ( talk) 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)