Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 24

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.

January 24

Argentina and the Falklands during WWII - general questions

I have been reading some editorials from Argentine newspapers during WWII, and I am surprised by the absence of any discussion of the Falklands issue. Considering that Britain was tied up in an existential crisis, what prevented Argentina from annexing the Falklands? Were the islands strategically valuable enough to the British to justify diverting scarce resources to defend them? Were Argentine politicians simply not concerned about the Falklands at that time? Was Argentina leery of any such action due to internal anti-fascist sentiment? Wouldn't pro-Axis Argentines have been particularly eager to annex the Falklands? Was there ever any discussion of a "trade" whereby Britain would have relinquished the islands in return for Argentine assistance in the war? LANTZY^TALK 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In that Juan Peron was a possible fascist with ties to Nazi Germany (these ties being demonstrated post-WW2, when Argentina became a haven for Nazis), and was VP starting in 1944, soon to be President, any action taken against any of the Allies might have gotten Argentina lumped in with the Axis Powers. If so, I expect their actions would have been ignored until Germany surrendered, at which point the full force of the British and US Atlantic fleets would have been brought to bear against Argentina, perhaps attacking more than just the Falklands. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Seizing the Falklands would be tantamount to declaring war under any circumstances, much less during a global conflict in which an attack on the UK would assuredly incur the wrath of the rest of the Allies. Isolated with a long indefensible border, Argentina would be committing national suicide, not right away, but eventually. Brazilian President Getúlio Vargas seemed to favor the Axis as well, but he knew which side his bread was buttered on. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Offhand, I can't think of anything worthwhile Argentina could trade either. According to Argentine Navy#20th century, in 1940, it had two old battleships, three modern cruisers, a dozen destroyers and three submarines. The army and air force would be irrelevant, since they'd be pretty far from the action. By D-Day and afterward, the Allies had enough trouble supplying their own forces. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Britain was one of the world's leading powers during World War II, and was much more powerful in military and economic terms than it was in 1982. As such, it's likely that the Argentines would have believed that going to war with the UK over some economically worthless islands was a really bad idea. The 1982 war was also a bad idea for much the same reasons, but the UK was militarily weaker and the Argentine government was desperate and dumb. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

According to The Falkland Islands Museum & National Trust "In 1942 a garrison was posted to protect the Islands in case of attack by the Japanese. The main body of this garrison was the 11th Battalion of the West Yorks, replaced by a smaller garrison of the Royal Scots in 1944." So apparently no perceived threat from Argentina at the War Office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Either that, or they made very sure the Argies were fully aware of the strength of the troops in the Falklands. After all, it is not like the Falklands were a likely target for the Japanese.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if the Japanese were desperately short of sheep. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Until the 1970s Argentina had no real interest in the Falklands, South Georgia, or the South Sandwich Islands. They're as far away from anywhere as it's possible to get, with (then) no strategic and negligible economic value. The waters around them contain only fish and whales, which can be harvested from a home port on the Argentine mainland much more affordably. But by the '70s the realistic prospect of future mineral extraction on continental Antarctica, and later offshore oil extraction, became a foreseeable prospect. Ownership of the Falklands (et al) gives the UK a claim on these (claims that overlap and conflict with Argentina's). Elimination of those claims is in Argentina's long-term economic interest, maintenance of them in the UK's. 87.113.28.157 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Would the advent of Exclusive Economic Zones be another relevant factor? Nowadays, owning a small isolated group of islands gives control over marine resources in a large swathe of the ocean, which I don't think was the case during the second world war. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As our article states "...the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise Argentines' long-standing patriotic feelings towards the islands and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations". I believe that's the real reason. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When I was in Buenos Aires several years ago, you could buy little pins at most newsstands with an outline of the islands in Argentine colors and sometimes "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" or some shortening. I brought home one or two, I recall. So they still remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism and the US Presidency

I'm not American and won't be voting, so this isn't a POV question.

I watch US politics with interest. (It's so very different from our politics here in Australia.) In my lifetime I've seen the first Catholic President and the first black President. In neither case did that "first time" characteristics seem to make any major difference to the behaviour of the President, despite massive fears (and fear-mongering) among and by some opponents before their election.

A possibility right now is the first Mormon president. Now I'm sure Romney is a wise politician, and not dumb enough to impose all values of his faith on the country on the day of his inauguration, but what are those values? You see, we don't have many Mormons here, apart from those well dressed missionary boys, mostly from the US, who knock on our doors at times. What do Mormons believe in that is significantly different from the mainstream American political and social direction? HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Try Mormonism#Theological_foundations and Mormonism and Christianity and see if those answer your questions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A true-blue Mormon has to believe in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon, which is pretty wacky. Historically the religion was associated with polygamy. They disavow it now, but the association still remains present in people's minds. Beyond that they are not a whole lot different from other very conservative Christian sects. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ecX2) Note that the President wouldn't be able to impose his values on the nation, in any case. But, here are some values and actions of Mormonism at odds with many Americans:

1) Originally, Mormons believed in multiple wives, and a few breakaway sects still do. This also seems to imply they don't believe that women should be treated as equals, since they didn't have that right.

2) The core of their belief system is that Joseph Smith was an American prophet, who communicated with God.

3) The Mormons were briefly at war with the US, after they massacred a wagon train of US citizens. At the conclusion of that war, they agreed to give up plural marriages. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never read the Book of Mormon, so I can't say I know a lot about the subject. However, I do know that Mormons consider their faith a branch of Christianity. Like most devout Christians in the U.S., devout Mormons tend to have socially conservative views: against homosexuality, against pornography, against abortion, etc. However, not all Mormons feel this way, and there have been Mormons elected to office as Democrats too. Anyway, Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts and, despite what he might say during the primary campaign, is generally thought of as a "Main Street Republican" more concerned about economic issues than social ones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't really been a lot of talk about Mormonism in this campaign, at least not officially. It's a touchy area. And ironically enough, the current darling of the right wing, Newt Gingrich, is much closer to being a de facto polygamist than Mitt Romney is, so far as is known. Romney, Santorum and Obama all pass the "family values" litmus test, and Gingrich fails it miserably. Which suggests that the voters aren't all that concerned with social issues either. Almost all of the debates have been dominated by discussions about money... as Tom Lehrer once said, "the one thing all Americans sincerely and deeply believe in." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

From an archaeological perspective, Mormons believe in some strange things, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon outlines it pretty well. Heiro 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How significant is archaeology in US electoral politics? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk)~

We have more fossils in office than you might think. —Kevin Myers 07:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked what Mormons believe in that are significantly different from mainstream America, and although s/he focused on politics, I thought they might be interested in some of the other non-mainstream beliefs of the group. Since one of the tenets of the religion is that the Book of Mormon was "translated" with divine help, many believe that it is a factual account of ancient North America, that Native Americans are the descendants of Jewish exiles, that Jesus appeared here to them(Native Americans) after he died but before he ascended to heaven, and plenty of other non-mainstream things. Since I primarily edit Native American archaeological subjects here I occasionally run across the subject of Mormons and archaeology. And while many Mormons declare themselves to be just another branch of Christianity, they do have beliefs that are significantly different from other denominations. I find it interesting and I thought the OP would as well, since they stated that they do not have much experience with Mormon beliefs. My apologies if no one else does. Heiro 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, Mormons don't believe in anything dumber than any other form of Christianity. They just don't have two thousand years of tradition to back it up. In the year 4000 it probably won't seem so strange. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it significant that Mormons used to support polygamy? Plenty of people in the Bible have two or more wives. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That is true. However, we don't do lots of things that were done in the Bible. Public stonings, for example. Polygamy is what stuck in people's craws although there were certainly other divisions between Mormons and other Americans. Utah got statehood well after neighboring states (1896) and the state was required to ban polygamy at the outset, I believe in its constitution. This followed many years of unrest and sometimes fairly nasty relations between the Mormons and Washington. This is a complicated story that does not reduce well to a paragraph. However what people remember is the polygamy. You might do well to research the presidential run of George Romney, his dad, in 1968 and see what attitudes were expressed then.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Having just read through the article on George Romney, I was a bit surprised to learn that he Mormonism wasn't really an issue back then. At that time, the Mormon orthodoxy had some pretty racist views (as did many others) but he defied them to support the Civil Rights movement. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Mainstream" Christians would say that New Testament passages such as 1 Timothy 3:1-2 are relevant. Moreover, even the Old Testament is not that enthusiastic about large harems (1 Kings 11). AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Romney abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea, like many Mormons, in accord with modern Mormon practice? Wine is commonly served at state dinners in the White House, but there have been tee-totalling Presidents in the past. Such total abstention would be out of the American mainstream, but not unheard of. As for polygamy, his great-grandfather Miles Romney left the US with his four wives and moved to Mexico with a splinter group of Mormons who wanted to practice polygamy, which is why his father was born in Mexico and later immigrated to the US. I've read that Romney is eligible for Mexican citizenship because his father was born there. He has many Romney cousins still living in Colonia Juarez, Mexico. Edison (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If he does (and I have no knowledge one way or another), I wouldn't think it would be an issue at all. Most Mormons I have known personally have been abstainers without being prohibitionists, and if Romney abstains, I would think he fits into that mold as well. That is, even if Romney doesn't smoke or drink alcohol or coffee or tea it doesn't mean that he's interested in stopping anyone else from doing so. I think many Mormons recognize that others don't abide by the same dietary restrictions they do. If we had a Jewish president, I don't think people (meaning any people with half a brain) would seriously think such a president would impose any bans on bacon or lobster even if they themselves wouldn't partake of it. Likewise with a Mormon president, I don't know that one would see any ban on such substances. It should also be noted that not all Presidents are known for following the professed tenets of their religion in terms of their politics. Richard Nixon was a Quaker, a sect which is overtly pacifist; a stance which I don't think Nixon himself held too closely in the political sphere. Religion in American politics is not unlike sex or money: people don't mind if you have it, as long as you don't talk about it in mixed company. --Jayron32 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Although we have had Presidents who referred to what they thought God wanted them to do, most notably George W. Bush. He was a mainstream Protestant, though, so people didn't find this quite as objectionable as if someone with a wackier religion started saying such things. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Bush, didn't he say he was a self reformed alcoholic who became a teetotaller earlier in his life? I see we have a George W. Bush substance abuse controversy which suggests this is indeed the case (although mentions cases when he was possibly drinking during his presidency). So there was a self proclaimed tee-totaller in the White House less then 4 years ago. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Romney has stated that his drink of choice is caffeine-free Diet Coke, which goes along with the Mormon prohibition against caffeine. Surely as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had official dinners, does anybody know if alcohol was served then? What about when he was the Head of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He abstains from alcohol and tobacco, except for once when he was a 'wayward teenager' [1] (he is also listed in List of teetotalers). [2] suggests he holds meet-n-greets in coffee houses but potentially does not drink coffee. [3] quotes a spokesperson who says he doesn't drink alcohol, tea or coffee or use tobacco but does drink Vanilla Coke and potentially other caffeinated soft drinks (they aren't specifically prohibited according to the common understanding of his faith) but would prefer not to discuss religious issues. IMO the later seems to be supported by his historic behaviour. As Mwalcoff said, he seems more main stream then his rivals in many areas and from a religious POV seems less interested in involving his religion then recent president mentioned above.

As also mentioned by someone else, considering the alleged behaviour of one of the other republican candidates, the historic polygamy thing seems a non-issue.

To use another random example with some relation to his religious beliefs, his views on evolution [4] don't seem too bad, although although of course it can be difficult to know how genuine such statements are during the middle of a campaign. As a case in point one remaining candidate who is/was a medical doctor gave some fairly bizzare comments in his 2007/2008 campaign but as I understand it later came out with a less strange sentiment in a book.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the above answers miss the mark here somewhat. The question was not, "How does Mormon doctrine differ from other churches?" The question was "What do Mormons believe that is significantly different from the mainstream American political and social direction?" As a so-called "Mormon," I'd have to answer that there isn't really a political belief that we ALL share, other than perhaps the land known as the United States of America is a special place that was divinely prepared with a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, which made it fertile ground for what we believe to be the restoration of Jesus Christ's original church. It is true that most Mormons are politically conservative, but some aren't. It is true that almost all Mormons consider abortion to be morally wrong, but some don't. Members of the church are scattered across the political spectrum from Conservative to Liberal, Traditionalist to Progressive, Republican to Democrat, and every point in between (or beyond!). We do not vote en masse, and in fact, we are cautioned over the pulpit at least once before each election that the Church as an entity must remain strictly neutral in regard to specific candidates. The Church does involve itself at times in questions of political policy when its leaders feel that a moral issue is in question (for example, Proposition 8 in California, Parimutual Gambling in Utah, or the Equal Rights Amendment). I could go through most of the above answers and take issue with inaccuracies, but I don't have the time, or the energy. My original point is probably my best one-- let's make sure we actually answer the question being asked Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vaguely on the topic, the White Horse Prophecy (I reviewed it for GA) is quite interesting. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To address the original question: I don't think practicing Mormons have values that different in everyday life than conservative Protestants or Catholics. Among Americans, they're generally just known for their politeness and abstention from caffeine. All About Mormons is a pretty interesting treatment of the issue [5]. Romney himself seems to wish he could keep faith private, which is notably different than, say, Rick Perry. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

President of the United States whose most recent service was House of Representatives

If Newt Gingrich should become President, would he be the first President since Abraham Lincoln whose most recent federal service was as a member of the House of Representatives? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

According to List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held, you've got Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield and William McKinley (all Ohioans). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

McKinley and Hayes served as governors after being in the House. According to our article, though, Garfield went directly from the House to the presidency. Looie496 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed Garfield. Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Governors are at the state level, not federal, so I don't think governorship matters for the purpose of the question. RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Garfield was also a senator-elect. The state legislatures then designated senators, and had elected him before the 1880 campaign to begin his service in 1881. Our articles says in late 1879 but I suspect that is wrong and it is January 1880. I do not believe he was ever sworn in as a senator. But a unique situation: Garfield was a congressman running for president, and even if he lost, he'd be promoted to senator. McKinley was defeated in the House in 1890; the Democrats basically redistricted him out of every Republican vote they could, McKinley was controversial for having sponsored a tariff bill that had raised prices, and he still only lost narrowly. As there was no assurance the Republicans could regain control of the legislature in 1891 and redistrict McKinley into a friendly seat (there was then no ten year limit on redistricting) and as that meant he would spend two years out of office, he and his advisors decided on a run for governor, which was an excellent bully pulpit to look presidential from as there were then few duties to the positon, and he was elected in 1891 and 1893, setting himself up nicely for a presidential bid.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia books

Why are wikipedia articles showing up in google book search as books? http://books.google.com/books?id=wtuiSgAACAAJ. Isn't this bad?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

They're licensed copyleft, so any "publishers" can reprint them if they follow the requisite licensing instructions. Google Books is not very discriminatory. If someone has bothered to pay for an ISBN for something, they'll put it in the catalog. The idea is likely to sell copies of the eBook through various marketplaces. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For some reason that I fail to understand, Books LLC thinks there is a market for collecting some loosely related Wikipedia articles together and publishing them as a real book. I wonder if the "...free access to book updates online..." is simply a Wikipedia URL? And I wonder what's with the "...free trial membership in the publisher's book club"? Astronaut (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Memphis desegregation

When was the city of Memphis desegregated? I found an article online that says the schools were desegregated in 1954. The city had to have preceded this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did the city have to go first ? And, for that matter, what does it mean to say the city was desegregated ? They may have had a segregated police force, fire department, buses, etc., and various segregation laws in effect, and I doubt if they all ended at once. As for where people choose to live, there is still a remarkable degree of self-segregation in many cities to this day. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

School desegregation followed from the national Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education with "all deliberate speed", while many other types of segregation were contested on a very local level until well into the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw an article, I believe in the New York Times, about recent (mostly black) students in Memphis being allowed to attend schools in the rest of Shelby County due to merger of school districts. Such articles probably discuss desegregation there. I find the 1954 date likely dubious and a mistaken understanding of Brown. Few school districts desegregated immediately in the wake of Brown, even those proceeding in good faith required some period of planning to re-do school attendance lines, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

getting in touch with Valerie Browne Lester

hi - this is after an edit conflict - I'm writing on behalf of my father, a descendent of Phiz; he is very eager to contact the abovenamed author, but we're having trouble finding a way to do so - can anyone help?

I hope it's ok my posting another question while I have 2 others current on the desks.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of roundabout; but her son's Web site has a contact page, and if you explain to him why you'd like to contact her, he'd probably be willing to give you her e-mail address. Deor (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Another way would be to contact one of her publishers either to ask for contact information or to ask them to relay a message to her. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Much more likely he'd pass it on; contact information is often intentionally difficult to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, all, for the detective work! Will try her son first of all - would be interested to get in touch with him anywayAdambrowne666 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Worked a treat, thanks again! - he's very approachable, and we're now in touch with Valerie, who is delighted to begin a correspondence. I just wonder how you knew how to find her son, Deor? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the mainstream economists' view of the New Deal?

According to the article Great Depression, the common view among mainstream economists is that FDR's New Deal accelerated the recovery, however this claim is unsourced. I am curious as to what the mainstream view is on the New Deal and the effect that it had on the recovery, and whether it did indeed accelerate the recovery or prolonged the depression. A source would be nice, too. 124.171.112.28 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think a generalization can be made here. Clearly different economists are going to take different views on this. Since we cannot compare it with a world in which Hoover won a second term, it is all theory anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want sources, start with New_Deal#Critical_interpretations_of_New_Deal_economic_policies and follow the footnotes in that section. --Jayron32 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the mainstream economists might say "While the New Deal lessened the suffering of the Great Depression, preventing a potential communist revolution in the US, it also laid the seeds of big government which, in subsequent decades, have led to out of control government spending and the unsustainable debt burden we currently face". For those who don't think there was a real danger of a communist revolution, had people been left to fend for themselves, I suggest reading The Grapes of Wrath. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some mainstream economists would say that, but I think that the mainstream encompasses a range of positions on the question. For example, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman are both mainstream economists by any reasonable definition. Both support government stimulus as a response to economic recession or depression, and neither seems to think that current government spending is "out of control". Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy during recessions makes sense, it's borrowing more money during good times that makes no sense whatsoever (that's when the money borrowed previously should have been paid off). StuRat (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be surprised to see economists use such loaded political terms as "big government," but StuRat is right on the possibility of a communist revolt. Without the New Deal, there's strong indication the US economy would have progressed from depression to outright collapse, which is a ripe environment for a change of regime. It took the New Deal combined with WW2 industrial spending to bring the economy back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Big C, no; little c, possibly. The more enduring threat than a "communist revolt" is that the US employers be forced into something like the Australian Arbitration system—as a way to cripple an even more threatening workers movement. TBH, comrades, fascism (militant, populist, change driven, right wing politics) is far more likely a result of system collapse in the US in the 1930s. The networks of proletarian consciousness were limited due to the evisceration of the IWW in the 1920s, and didn't start to rebuild until late in the 1930s with the CIO. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Default through inflation"

In the book "This Time Is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff, the authors repeatedly talk about governments 'defaulting through high inflation': using high inflation to erode away defaults and how hyperinflation is essentially equivalent to default. I must admit, I don't think I fully understand what they're going on about here. I can't find much information on the concept online which is accessible to a layman (I am certainly by no means an economist!), and was hoping someone might be able to walk me through the basics of how this works.

I can see that inflation reflects a decrease in the actual tangible value of a currency (you can use it to buy less goods, simple enough), and yet at the same time, if the government has a debt of say £100 (I'm looking at you, UK) and massive inflation occurs putting up the price of goods and services, the government will still owe the same debt of £100: it hasn't actually become any 'cheaper' in the literal sense. Is the concept to do with the fact that a decrease in the value of their currency will mean any money the government takes in from externally (say, dollars) will be worth more GBP and therefore the debt will be more manageable? I suspect not - I think forex rates are a different matter entirely, and I expect governments would not want to rely on foreign currencies to service their own debt. However, I can't see how then they have "inflated the debt away".

Is it meant to be a sort of 'trickle-down effect', whereby a decreasing value of money means businesses take in more money, higher wages must be paid to compensate for higher cost of living etc and since people have a greater amount of money (in quantity, not value), the government can tax more (in quantity) and thus pay off its debts which are, relatively speaking, smaller? Any simple-ish explanation as to what's going on when a government cuts debt through inflation would be extremely appreciated - many thanks in advance, 86.26.13.2 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Imagine that I owe you £100 at a fixed interest rate.. That's about €115 right now. If the inflation in the UK is going up I just could sit here and wait until my €115 become something like £110, which could save me money, since my debt is still the nominal £100 at a fixed interest rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

But that only works if you're using a currency external to the one the debt is in; otherwise your £100 will always be £100 no matter what happens to inflation - so it is a case of using other currencies to 'step outside' the inflation of the currency the debt is in? 86.26.13.2 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point is, if people used to make thousands of dollars and now they make millions of dollars (but can buy no more at the grocery store than before), then they can pay hundreds of thousands in taxes and paying that $100 is a petty transaction. It is obviously not default in the legal sense, as the exact amount of money is repaid - that's the point. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The government doesn't need two currencies to reduce your debt through inflation. It has heavily borrowed at a rate of, let's say, 5%. If inflation goes up, it will lend money at a higher rate, and so increase its income. 88.8.69.246 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, it works something like this. Suppose $1 = £1. (This is just an example). The Government A, which uses dollars, owes Government B £1000. They decide to print new dollars and pay off the loan. They give Government B $1000. However, printing all this money will cause hyperinflation. So maybe $100 = £1 now. So the $1000 they paid is actually only worth £10. So instead of getting £1000, government B gets £10 from government A, even though the debt is paid in full. I may be completely wrong, but I think this is what it is talking about. Eomund (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's far simpler than all of that. Remember that money represents goods and services. Inflation means an increase in price of all goods and services (or a decrease in value compared to those goods or services). The government gets its money as a percentage of incomes, profits and sales and inflation increases the nominal value of each of those. So when a government prints a tonne of money, tax receipts (in nominal terms) go up, but the (nominal) value of the debt does not. Suddenly it becomes easier to pay off. Alternatively the government could just give the printed money to its lenders, but most countries cannot do that by law. 124.148.55.187 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is true that "most" countries can't do that. Developed, western economies tend to have a separation between the government and the central bank, but that is far from universal. --Tango (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Its really simple. Country XLD owes you XLD 1000, which now amounts to 1 bar of gold, or someone cleaning your house for a year, or 60 flat screen TVs. Then XLD prints money, and more money, and even more, trying to break Zimbabwe's record. Of course, people see XLD printing and printing and understand that there is no magic extra production backing up all that printing. All the XLD money suddenly seems to be what it is: paper and ink. (Even if there was extra production they shouldn't be printing anyway, because they still would be stealing, but that's a slightly different subject). After a year, XLD still owes you XLD 1000, but the value of 1000 XLD is now just 0.0001 bar of gold, or 2 minutes of work, or 2 square inch of a TV. So when they finally give you your money back, its worthless. So they do give back the money they owed you instead of saying "sorry, we can't pay you", but you end up with nothing. Or, in the case when they only inflate their currency with 10%, with less than you expected. Joepnl (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope Gregory XI

I notice that in Papal conclave, 1370 it says that Cardinal Pierre Roger de Beaufort first opposed his election but eventually accepted. Is there further details somewhere as to who or what convinced Beaufort to accept his nomination?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cardinal de Beaufort became Gregory XI: awkward wording for a reluctant candidate.--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)All of the other Wikipedias that have a topic on that belong to traditionally Catholic cultures - sadly, they're not much more help - they all state he initially refused before accepting (indicating it's a noteworthy part), but the French one adds that this was 'according to common custom' - none of them have sources for the statement, and I can't immediately find anything to back up that suggestion. (Possibly not so helpful, but at least that's a few potential sources of help ruled out, and an idea to check out :)) --Saalstin (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(Ah, Wetman and I have read this two different ways - Doug, if you were asking 'Why did the Cardinal oppose the election of Pope Gregory XI', the answer is, as Wetman said, he was elected to the post and initially refused to serve before giving in. If you're asking 'Why did he refuse his own election?', that's what I was going at) --Saalstin (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am mostly interested in who ultimately convinced Beaufort to accept the post.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found a reference for who convinced him, but aside from the usual theatrics of reluctance, he was also a cardinal nephew who had titles and honours heaped upon him as a child and young adult. He wasn't even an ordained priest when he was elected pope. He was only ordained on January 4, the day before his consecration. Since, by all accounts, he was of excellent morals, and a scholar in canon law, maybe he opposed the election on legal grounds. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Borgia TV-series the Dean told Rodrigo that it was common custom to answer no to the first acceptasne question and yes only to the second. Rodrigo accepted this, though unwillingly. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate answers to my question.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)