Humanities desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

What is this painting?

This is the best shot I can find, but it displays behind the bar at a renovated church in Southampton, UK?

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186299-d732578-i35680787-The_Vestry_Restaurant_Bar-Southampton_Hampshire_England.html#35680787

--81.101.105.36 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella, by John Everett Millais, currently on display in the Walker Art Gallery. 195.89.37.174 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella (Millais painting) Nanonic (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Hypothetically and in theory, if every country had a certain amount of money and more money was made so that the amount of money per person was made exactly the same and the amount of money in the world was doubled, and all prices for things were frozen, would inflation still occur? And why? I know this would never work in reality and is flawed in many ways but would it work in theory? 94.14.210.10 (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the mechanism by which prices were kept the same? See this discussion of government price-fixing: [1]. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article Price controls, but it could use some loving attention. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically describing the United States at the time of the western gold and silver strikes—because the US had a bimetallic gold and silver standard, adding more gold and silver to circulation literally increased the money supply. As more and more money goes into circulation, its value goes down, so prices rise to compensate, causing inflation. If (as you postulate) prices were frozen, then with real-terms prices falling (as money is worth less), there would be less incentive to produce goods. Assuming a relatively free market in other respects (e.g., people not being forced at gunpoint to keep productivity levels up), you would get shortages accompanied by either rationing or queueing. In the real world in this situation, some of the money flows overseas (think all those buildings owned by oil-rich countries), which in the short term stabilises the economies of both the newly-rich country and those countries without oil/gold/diamonds etc who are suddenly relatively poorer. 78.146.17.69 (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, inflation would occur by definition; you've described a situation in which "more money was made", and that's inflation. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that is inflation, but rather it's one factor which causes inflation. If there were strong enough factors fighting inflation at the same time, it would be possible to increase the money supply without any inflation. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're inflating the money supply: that is inflation. If your population and economy grow rapidly fast while the money supply is inflated very slowly, you might end up having simultaneous inflation and falling prices. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That definition appears to conflate the symptom with the (presumed) cause. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that your tabbing was off, and you meant to say that about Nyttend's definition. My def comes straight from our article, and says nothing about expanding the money supply. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more careful about my tabbing than many around here. I assume you'll agree that we must be wary about relying on a Wikipedia article as a final authority. —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your tabbing is correct, I don't know what you meant by saying the def I quoted conflated the two. It did not. Nyytend did. And the def I used agrees with other authoritative sources. I think quoting our articles is a good starting point, but we can go to external sources in cases where there is disagreement, as I did further down. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If inflation means the symptom, is there a word for the cause? —Tamfang (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than the "symptom", I would call it the "result" (a "symptom" of inflation might be union strikes for higher wages). As for causes, there are several. The one which has been confused with inflation here is "expansion of the money supply". StuRat (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Price controls don't work in the long term, for several reasons:

1) Changes in the relative cost of items. For example, digital camera prices are coming down relative to film cameras, and any price controls that set them at the same price would lead to cheating (selling digital cameras cheaper).

2) Changes in technology. Cars, for example, are not the same as they were 50 years ago, with all sorts of new features that didn't exist then. So, any price controls set back then really wouldn't apply now.

3) Uncontrollable inputs. Farmers in particular have to deal with changing weather, etc., so the price to produce a given amount of food can go up. If they can no longer sell that food at a profit, they will go out of business and a food shortage will result.

4) Changes in the popularity of items. Lobster used to be considered food for poor people, then it became fashionable. If the price stayed the same, the natural stocks would have been wiped out due to over-fishing (and it wouldn't have been profitable to farm them). It's only the high price that prevents this. (I'd eat lobster every day if I could afford it.)

What really happens under price controls is that they need to constantly adjust the "fixed prices", which follow the natural changes in prices (including inflation), just in steps instead of continuously. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation is not a situation in which more money is made. That’s simply an increase in the money supply. Inflation is when a specifically defined basket of goods and services costs more in a subsequent time period than it did in the previous time period. While that may be facilitated by a rise in the money supply, more money in circulation is not, per se, inflation. Nyttend uses the term inflating the money supply to equate an increase in the money supply with an increase in prices; the two are not the same.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said: you couldn't have "simultaneous inflation and falling prices" if increases in the money supply and prices were equated. Inflation is the process of increasing the money supply, regardless of what else happens; of course it's normally rising prices, but not absolutely necessarily. I was slightly wrong, but not badly; let me quote OED. Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. spec. An undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to the goods available for purchase; (in lay use) an inordinate rise in prices. So it's not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand. Let's not stoop to the "lay use": we need to use the educated terminology, i.e. money supply's being increased faster than money demand. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't say "not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand", and I should point out that increasing the money supply faster than the money demand is also not guaranteed to raise prices, as other factors also control prices. That seems like a poor definition, since it defines inflation as two different, and at times contradictory, ways. This is what happens when non-economists define economics terms. Look it up in an economics text and you will only find the increase in the price of goods and services. Here's some: [2], [3]. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat already pointed out, "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services [(notice the absence of any reference to money supply)] in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. (Trust me? I'm an economist!) DOR (HK) (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a fixed amount of money, the result is deflation. Suddenly injecting a bunch more money as a one-time operation temporarily interrupts/reverses the deflation but then it's back on. Also if every country starts out with the same amount, there are still trade imbalances likely to develop, so the countries that are net importers end up with deflation though the the exporters may be able to avoid it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil-Portugal during the Spanish American wars of independence

What activities did Rio de Janeiro conduct during the wars of independence, i.e. what relations did it have with the rebels, with high Spanish officials, what border incidents occurred, etc.? Spanish American wars of independence doesn't mention Brazil (aside from remarks that its independence occurred in the same context as the Spanish colonies) or Portugal outside the footnotes. I'm aware of the Cisplatine War and related disputes, but that's all I can remember hearing about. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's path to independence actually occurs in a different context than did most of the Spanish colonies. The events that led to the Brazilian independence are wrapped up in the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil where the Portuguese monarchy transferred their capital to Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro remained the capital of Portugal until the Liberal Revolution back in European Portugal caused the King of Portugal, John VI of Portugal, to return to Europe. Shortly thereafter his son, Pedro declared Brazil independent, and himself a constitutional monarch as Emperor of Brazil. Thus, while most of the Spanish colonies became independent through Republican revolutions, the Independence of Brazil occurred due to a dynastic split in the House of Braganza. Shortly after Brazilian independence, a small portion of southern Brazil (which was Spanish speaking, unlike the rest of the country) became independent as the Republic of Uruguay in the Treaty of Montevideo (1828). Other than the Cisplatine War which led to Uruguayan independence, I'm not sure that Brazil played a major role in the independence movements in the other South American nations. --Jayron 32 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was asking a different kind of question. What relationships were there between Rio and the various colonial and anticolonial forces of the Spanish areas during the wars of independence? Either they had some sort of relationships (diplomats here and there, border crossings, approaches to dealing with Indians), or these relationships were absent, and historians knowledgeable on the subject could presumably write a good deal about it. Did they generally have relations with the rebels, e.g. co-maintaining border crossings, exchanging diplomats, and recognising each other's customs officers, or did they generally work only with the Spanish, or were there significant variations from place to place and time to time? I'd just like to know what routine parts P-B played, if any, in the long period of warfare. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find some of the machinations of Carlota Joaquina of Spain, Queen Consort of Portugal and Brazil, to be interesting. --Jayron 32 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, a British naval officer, was involved in the Wars of Independence for Brazil, Chile, and Peru. He may provide some connection, diplomatically or militarily, between the nations. --Jayron 32 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] I did, and Carlotism too. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic Constitution

How many constitutions has the Central African Republic had, and in what years were they promulgated? Also, I would like to know when any of them might have been suspended, and if so, for how long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:49D2:A5AA:F06A:1780 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See History of the Central African Republic. In chronological order:

1 December 1958 (Boganda)
13 August 1960 (Dacko)
[1 January 1966 (suspension)] (Bokassa as President)
4 December 1976 (Bokassa as Emperor)
[20 December 1979 (restoration of 1960 constitution)] (Dacko)
[20 September 1981 (suspension)] (Kolingba as military ruler)
29 November 1986 (Kolingba as President)
14 January 1995 (Patassé)
5 December 2004 (Bozizé)
[24 March 2013 (suspension)] (Djotodia)

Samba-Panza is therefore "interim president" at the moment, but with no actual constituional documents to support her (unless it's the 2004 constitution). The state is described as a "provisional republic" in our main article. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]