Humanities desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18

Sin Tax on Goods of Inelastic Demand

Hello. If governments tax goods of inelastic demand to raise revenues, how effective are sin taxes on such goods? Quantity demanded will not lower by much for an extraordinary tax hike. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big if. A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies finds that sin taxes are an effective public policy measure, because those things considered sinful have relatively elastic demand curves. The lead researcher commented that such taxes were "the most effective deterrents to drinking that researchers have discovered, beating things like law enforcement, media campaigns or school programmes" [1]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, by definition, everything a sin tax is applied to is optional, survival and quality-of-life wise. No one's life ends up worse because they stop smoking, so if you tax the shit out of cigarettes, you expect the number of cigarettes sold to drop by a predictable amount, which it does. These sort of optional items are driven almost purely by pricing; if you raise the price demand goes down. That is the definition of elastic demand. Items with inelastic demand are things like gasoline; people need to get to work, so they aren't going to stop driving. They'll just spend less money in other areas of their lives to compensate. However, per the study cited above, and many other like it, if you raise the price of things like cigarettes and booze, people smoke and drink less. --Jayron32 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reply, except that gasoline is also a quite substitutable good, at least in the longer run - people can car-pool, use public transport, buy a more fuel-efficient car next time they change cars, choose a job closer to home next time they share jobs, etc, all of which, at the margin, will reduce demand for gasoline if the price increases. Jørgen (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that experimentally, it turned out not to be true. If you look at a graph of gasoline prices, there's an interesting phenomenon. Looking before the turn-of-the-millenium events which affected gasoline supply (mainly the Iraq War and Hurrican Katrina), gasoline prices in the U.S. maintained at a steady rate of between $1.00 and $1.50 per gallon for most of the preceding decade. There were some spikes now and then, but the equilibrium price was somewhere around a buck and half per gallon. After the double whammy of Katrina and the outbreak of the Iraq war, there were some serious hits to the supply of crude oil and gasoline, and predictably the price went up; it spiked at times to almost $4.00 per gallon, but it sort of resettled at $2.50-$3.00 a gallon by, say, 2004 or so. It has remained effectively constant since then, despite a "return to normalcy" in terms of supplies, and people aren't driving less despite paying almost double today what they paid 15 years ago for gasoline (comparing gasoline prices to other measures of inflation, it has FAR outstripped price increases in other areas of the economy). That's a classic show of inelastic demand; the price doubles, and demand remains constant. What Katrina did for the gasoline retailers was to give them a chance to experiment with what they expected all along; Americans would bear a much higher price in gasoline; they just needed an excuse to raise the price to try it out. Considering what the U.S. pays for gasoline compared to the rest of the world, it is clear that gasoline was seriously UNDERVALUED in the 1990's (indeed, it probably still is). Now, I will grant you that at some point the demand for gasoline will become elastic. If Americans had to pay $10.00 or $20.00 per gallon, you can bet that they'd find alternatives to it mighty fast. --Jayron32 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of comparison, the current forecourt price in (my part of) the UK works out to about $7.30 per (US) gallon. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footwear for speedsters

I watched the first episode of No Ordinary Family the other day. The wife has superspeed and seems to run in her everyday shoes. I realize the show is fictional, but I found it ludicrous that normal footwear, especially that intended for a business setting, would stand up to speeds in excess of 600 miles an hour. Tennis shoe tred would wear down only after a few moments. After reading the chapter on the Flash in James Kakalios' book The Physics of Superheroes, I started to wonder what type of material could be resilient and flexible enough to hypothetically create a running shoe (the boot and, more specifically, the tread) suitable for a "speedster". Does such a material exist? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevlar would probably hold up pretty well; that's what they use in fireman's suits, among many other uses. But you'd need something underneath it to make it sturdy enough for a running shoe; that I'm not so sure about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the shoes - what about the runner's legs and feet? I've picked up a few injuries over the years while running at a stately 8 mph, despite the best technology that Mr Reebok can devise. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. I served in the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division for 3 years, and after running 4 - 5 miles every other day or so for that whole time, your feet and knees tend to get a little jacked up. But since this is a hypothetical question, the physical realities of running at superspeeds don't really apply. I am mainly interested in the shoes one would wear. Let's face it, a person running at that speed can't go bare foot unless they are invulnerable too. I think a few nails in the foot would bring somebody from 600 - 0 very quickly! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't they defy gravity, too - then the shoes will only have to handle air resistance. Air at the speed of sound will rip apart any cloth, but a solid piece of hard plastic will do it. East of Borschov 15:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As James Kakalios explains in his book, they may have a wicked stride of almost 700 feet when running at 3,600 mph, but gravity will eventually take over. They must push off with their feet to provide forward motion. That plastic tread would wear down quickly. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostexorcist -- In one of the first few episodes, the "Katie Andrew" character briefly lists several scientific problems with the "Stephanie Powell" character's powers, which seems like a sly wink on the part of the series producers/writers... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinamo Zagreb

It is written: NK Dinamo Zagreb was a football club from Zagreb. Tuđman considered its name Dinamo to be too communist. No explanation is given. In my mind, the word "dinamo" has no political associations whatsoever. Why would Tudjman consider it "communist"? LANTZY ^TALK 06:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because of the association with the Dynamo Sports Club which was the Soviet sports machine that produced all those Ivan Dragos. In a post-communist world, it would make sense that a club wishing to distance itself from communism would also want to distance itself from that name. --Jayron32 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that makes sense. I was thinking it was something about the word itself, as if it belonged to that group of words which have acquired the heady aroma of Bolshevism: comrade, commissar, cadre, chairman, sickle, etc. (If anything, "dynamo" sounds a bit fascistic, like something Marinetti would call his football club.) LANTZY ^TALK 09:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick tot-up on the Dynamo (disambiguation) page shows 48 football clubs from the former Soviet Union with "dynamo" in their title. I'm not sure about Loughborough Dynamo F.C. though! Alansplodge (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that they really meant Soviet machine, especially in combination with comic stock like Drago. There was public reaction against their own past and their own socialist legacy. But in the end it was a personal decision, a point in FT's current politics of the period. East of Borschov 15:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history page of the official club (Croatian language) only says the name was changed soon after WWII and the club was meant to be a communist surrogate for several former Zagrebian FCs, but this quick history on a Slovene page says the name was inspired by the name of the Moscow sports club (quote: " Zaradi dobrikanja s takratno Sovjetsko zvezo je bil 8. maja 1945 po vzoru na moskovski Dinamo ustanovljen Dinamo Zagreb, ki je v sebi združeval naslednika dveh dotedanjih največjih klubov (Građanski in HAŠK)." - "Due to sycophancy towards the Soviet Union of the time, on May 8th 1945 Dinamo Zagreb was formed, following the example of Dynamo Moscow, and it included the successors of the biggest two former clubs [in Zagreb], Građanski and HAŠK. I don't know how much the second source can be trusted, but it would appear Jayron is right. In addition, Borschov has a good point, too - I can't say about other ex-communist countries, but AFAIK at least in Slovenia and Croatia, there is (most notably on the right side of the political spectrum) a certain touchiness towards anything that might by even the most twisted turns of the mind be in any way or shape connected to the communist past. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, comrades. I was simply ignorant of the history of Eastern Bloc athletics. I assume that many share that ignorance. Perhaps the Tudjman article should be altered to provide a bit of context. LANTZY ^TALK 07:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I learned something new as well. Until now I was convinced there must have been some electronics company called Dinamo somewhere, I didn't realize the name came from Moscow. After all, a great part of the mythology of ex-Yugoslavia had been about how the country had been independent from the oppressive Russians, and the names of sports clubs were usually of three varieties - if a club had been historically significant long before '45, the name stuck (case in point, Olimpija), then there were ones that had some evocative peoples'-republic-slogan-like name and then there were ones called for their major industrial sponsors (although quite often, the industries themselves had evocative slogan type names as well:), and since, as you point out, "dynamo" isn't exactly a communist buzzword, I figured it was called so for some factory or other. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Merchandise Performance Hedging

Do retailer's usually have agreements with suppliers on liability for a product not meeting sales expectations? To illustrate what I'm asking imagine Mattel introduces a new doll and Toys 'R Us stocks them. First off would Toys 'R Us corporate review and decide whether to stock every new product or would there be a standing agreement between such major partners that they will stock all new products but with the option to review and refuse? Then assume the doll barely sells at all. Is Toys 'R Us stuck with the product or would there be some sort of agreement where Mattel would take some percentage of the loss for putting out an undesirable product? (with possibly the upside of gaining a percentage for excellent performance)? I realize with small retailers they would be stuck with whatever stock they got and have to sell at a discount to get rid of the excess units. But I'm wondering if with large retailers they have some sort of agreements that protect them from underperforming merchandise? In simplest terms - do large retailers hedge product performance somehow or do they ONLY diversify by stocking thousands of products? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism and Israel

Is it just me, or has there been an increasing tendency to label people who find fault with policies of the Israeli government as antisemitic? Isn't the difference obvious? Or, is it just me? Perhaps my (limited) news feeds are out of whack. Just curious whether my impression is misguided or if there's evidence for such things, on an increasing level? I mean, really, I'm as far from antisemitic as possible, but I am no fan of the government of Israel (relatively speaking, and not relative to many of Israel's neighbors!). Is criticizing Israel becoming more synanomous with antisemitism? Pfly (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has indeed become a standard ploy of apologists for the Israeli government. There's some information in our article New antisemitism. Algebraist 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that people criticize Israel at every occasion, for the most insignificant reason and deny its right of existence as a consequence of any action of the army. I do see some anti-Jewish bias here, be the criticism be based on true facts or not. (not anti-semitic, since Arabs are also semitics).--Quest09 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Gaza = "most insignifant reason"? Thanks for proving the point of the OP. However, I'm not sure that there is an increasing tendency, it is the routine discourse of Israeli gov't for decades now. --Soman (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your point about Arabs also being Semitic is an example of the etymological fallacy. The word "antisemitism" and its relatives, certainly as used today, relates to Jews and Judaism. --ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference often isn't obvious. It's a problem with the object of criticism is heavily identified with an oppressed or formerly oppressed minority. It's no more obvious than figuring out which of the critics of Obama are doing so because they honestly have intellectual differences with his policies, and which of them are reacting largely because a Black man in power makes them uncomfortable. It may even be the case that some of those making said criticisms don't know what is actually motivating them. The stakes of making that distinction are clear. If the differences are truly policy or intellectual in nature, then they can be engaged, taken seriously, reasoned with, and so on. If they come from gut hatreds, they cannot, and need not be engaged with. In the case of Israel, my own feeling is that a lot depends on where the people are from. In the United States, anti-Semitism is as far as I can tell practically a non-starter unless you are a complete "redneck." (Jews have, except in the craziest and most backwards of circles, fairly effectively become "white," so long as they aren't Orthodox.) In France and the Middle East, it seems to still be a big issue. The Middle East I understand (they feel they are under a war of occupation, and that makes everyone angry), France I do not. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I admire Israel deeply for this ploy. While they are small, they can cry antisemitism if anyone objects to them trampling over anyone else in the area, and when they are big (and, obviously, by that time multicultural) by that time no one can seriously cry "antisemitism" about Israel as a government for two reasons: 1) they are too multicultural, it would be a joke to make that cry. and 2) there isn't really much to object over, just as you don't see much objection of the United States for its domestic policy with native Americans: it's all in the past! So, I just see Israel doing exactly the same thing America did in its early expansion -- America appealed to the Christian God for its righteous mission of expansion, whereas Jews appeal to much the same. It's their homeland, and anyone who would take that from Jews is obviously anti-Jewish. They'll milk that while they can, and then they'll drop the whole matter (once they're big enough) and never mention it again. They're downright brilliant. 84.153.193.81 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that occupying Gaza is a minor issue. You twisted what I said. But everywhere in the world, the security forces make mistakes and sometimes shoot people by accident. However, if that happens in, say, Belgian, no one goes on claiming to dissolve the Belgian state. They still are recognized as something that can exist further. Most criticism against Israel is, however, in the direction that they should not exits.

I couldn't possibly be twisting what you said, because I didn't read it! I just read the original question, and not any of the responses. 84.153.193.81 (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is certainly not doing to the Arabs the same as America did in the past to the Indians. They are certainly not in an open war against Arabs, even if the international press sold this idea to the whole world. Quest09 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we live in different countries or read different media, but almost all criticism I see of Israel is in the direction that it should exist, but within its 1967 borders (the green line). There are, by the way, many (Flemish) people who want to dissolve the Belgian state, but that's a completely different issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot of Flemish people who would dissolve their state, if allowed. What you do not see is a lot of non-Belgians analyzing how unfair Belgian is as a state. The same applies to other European countries and their minorities Germans-Turks, Frenchs-Arabs, East Europeans-Gypsies and much, much more. The problems of Israel get much more attention than any other conflict or tension. Quest09 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quest09, you said above "It is strange that people criticize Israel at every occasion, for the most insignificant reason and deny its right of existence as a consequence of any action of the army." Who does that? No one in this thread is doing that. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that fellow wikipedians are anti-semitic or are bashing Israel. However, every violent action of the police is often stamped as genocide by many media.Quest09 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... According to your analogy, the Palestinians are a minority in Palestine? TomorrowTime (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are a minority in the middle-East, surrounded by Arabs. Quest09 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But all the other minorities you describe don't have sovereign states of their own with police forces or armies so I still think your analogy is somewhat flawed. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I think you are describing, OP, is not new. I saw part of a documentary not too long ago, made by an Israeli, in which this general issue was addressed to some extent, specifically with regard to the Anti-Defamation League. I'll see if I can get a ref for that documentary, and try to recall better what exactly was said about this. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible to be critical of the government of Israel (as many Israelis are) without being antisemitic. However, many of the people who criticize Israel are indeed antisemitic or exhibit antisemitic tendencies. This is evident when synagogues are attacked during times like the Lebanon War or Gaza conflict, or when, during the Durban Conference that was supposed to be about fighting racism, "anti-Zionist" activists passed out copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This blog post shows that a Canadian anti-Israel activist's master's thesis talks about "Jewish privilege" and "Jewish racism" -- clearly the kind of things that can be described as antisemitic. Personally, I think the argument over whether a given anti-Israel zealot is or is not antisemitic misses the point. Being reflexively against any country, or the people from that country, is a form of bigotry, whether it's antisemitic or not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's worth noting that the terms of the debate are slanted towards those who would describe others as anti-Semitic as a means of terminating the discussion. I think that's part of what is being responded to. I can say, "I don't think there needs to be a specifically Jewish state, in the same way that I don't think there needs to be a specifically Catholic or Protestant state either." That doesn't mean I want to kick the Jews out; it means I think that religious and ethnic plurality should be enhanced and that the Palestinians should either be considered full members of the state or be given their own state. I can say that I think many of the policies by the Israelis are in fact motivated by a base racism against the Palestinians. Is any of this anti-Semitic? It would be convenient to say, "yes," because that means that nobody would have to take any of my opinions seriously. All of this is quite a far cry from the most extreme (e.g. genocidal or exiling) anti-Israeli sentiments, obviously, but I think are more common to the actual criticisms of Israel that exist in Europe and the USA. If the only non-anti-Semitic opinion is to be in favor of a "Jewish state" then there isn't a whole lot of room for "rational" dissenting opinion, which obviously works in the favor of those who are pro-Israel. It's of course convenient to point out that the most rapid members of any given cause are of course going to be the craziest, but to use it to discount all criticism (which I do think is done on a regular basis) is a huge logical fallacy. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links? We don't need no stinkin' links!

Just deleting a copyvio and saw this. In particular the second paragraph of the "Intellectual property" section. Is something like that actually enforceable? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Probably not. Long answer: see Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. The copyright aspects of linking have not been settled by the courts. The idea that you can link to anyone else's pages is largely an unwritten expectation without strong legal support. There are some cases in which arguments against "deep linking" have been successful. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seemed so odd. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lions Clubs

--173.23.34.149 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Is there a Lions Club in Ocean City, MD & if so how can I contact them?[reply]

I'm going to guess that if you ask google that question, it'll answer you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learnt depression

Is there any evidence that feeling depressed as a reaction to particular personal events is something leant rather than innate? Thanks 92.15.5.101 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says depression is innate? Quest09 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad answer. The querent is the one asking a question, and is asking for evidence. Please provide references. This is a reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not answering the question. I was asking a question myself about his suppositions. Who says that you cannot ask a question after someone asks you a question?Quest09 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your tone as challenging the querent, rather than asking him or her to provide a link to explain the question further. Sorry if I am mistaken. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seligman's theory of learned helplessness is pertinent here.--TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is cognitive therapy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stock split and derivatives

Would the derivatives of a stock be adjusted accordingly if the stock is split before the corresponding derivative expires/matures? K61824 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lmgtfy[DOT]com/?q=derivatives+stock+split —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.193.81 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The same goes for one-time "special dividends." Derivatives are contracts. Like all sophisticated contracts, they have clauses which cover obviously changed conditions unforeseeable at the time the contract was made, or foreseen changes that are delayed. 63.17.93.42 (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of painting

From which painting does this image come from? http://forums.doyoulookgood.com/images/avatars/17482105464c16f55ef3695.gif

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.236.203 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Girl at the Cemetery by Eugène Delacroix. MilborneOne (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the US Marines really kick recruits out of basic training at the drop of a hat?

A friend once said that if anyone sheds a tear while in Marines basic training, they can get kicked out of there.

I thought it was hard to get out once in; you don't give the 2 weeks notice to quit the military, you get out once your contract is up, or you get injured, or other major circumstances happen.

Crying (or even shedding a single tear FGS) isn't a "major" circumstance.

Would anyone corroborate on this? --129.130.252.150 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article from Army Times says the attrition rate in the US Marines boot camp is 12 to 15 percent, so I'm going to say they don't kick recruits out for shedding a tear. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no crying in ~~baseball~~ the Marines! Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They really aren't interested in having unwilling and unsuitable service members so several reasons for " administrative separation"[2] (drug use, failure to get a security clearance, body fat standards, "convenience of the government for parenthood") but for those in boot camp there is "Entry Level Separation" for those failing to adapt to military discipline, culture, and work standards[3] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article breaks down the dropout rates further. Overall, dropout rate is about 10% for men and 20% for women. Because they have rather high standards to simply get into boot camp, the dropout rate is much lower than some may expect. -- kainaw ™ 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of that 10% and 20% what % was for those who made the decision to quit rather then getting tossed out against their will? Googlemeister (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]