Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 10

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.

December 10

You just don't give it away for nothing

In previous (United States) Congresses, when just one seat is vacant, has the number required for cloture votes been rounded up to 60 or down to 59? Mathematically, it's 59.4, so I'm not sure which they would do. Thanks! Abeg92contribs 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You always round "up". If the "break-even" point for vote was, say 50.1, that means you need MORE votes than that to pass, any less than that point fails. Thus, for fractional "break-even" points, you always round up. In the case you cite, you need absolutely more than 59.4 votes. 59 votes is less than 59.4, so the measure would fail with 59 but pass with 60. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

abuse in The Sun Also Rises

The Wikipedia entry mentions Jake going through abuse as a child. Does anyone recall where it mentions this in the book? This completely slipped past me when I read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.211.93 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read that book more than once, and I sure don't remember that. In fact, I just took it out with a click on "rollback". Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The WP article doesn't discuss this, but the novel was extensively edited prior to publication with a lot of material about the characters' backgrounds, psychology, etc, excised - due to Hemingway's "iceberg" theory about only revealing a small proportion of the situation and leaving most of it lurking unobserved below the waterline. I can't provide more detail right now, but there's lots published about this. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality of health care provision around the world

I vaguely remember hearing a news story about some recent research that measured the comparative quality of national health care provision around the world. The line I remember was that the British system was ranked below that of Estonia. However, I can't find a source for the research. A search of the usually reliable BBC news website has brought up nothing. Any pointers? Many thanks, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source (WHO). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not the one. That list dates back to 2000, and it says that the WHO no longer compile such lists "because of the complexity of the task." So it must have been someone else's work. I'll keep looking, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bailout cost

The FT had a blog post comparing the cost of the US bailout to other inflation adjusted US budgetary programs:

---

Bloomberg has rejigged its estimated total of potential US support to the markets to around $8,500bn from $7,700bn, reflecting the most recent Fed proposals to save the world.

A ginormous sum, by any measure, and one which Barry Ritholtz has helpfully put into perspective.

By Ritholtz’s estimate, the total actual cost of the various bailout programs (including Citi, but not including today’s announcements) exceeds $4,600bn dollars, making it the “largest outlay in American history.”

So large, that according to inflation adjusted numbers provided by Jim Bianco of Bianco Research, “the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined”:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion • Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion • Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion • S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion • Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion • The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est) • Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion • Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion • NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion TOTAL: $3.92 trillion ($3,920bn)

Further, he notes:

The only single American event in history that even comes close to matching the cost of the credit crisis is World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

Ritholtz estimates that by the end of 2010, the final bill may scale up to as much as $10,000bn.

---

Are these estimates correct? What is the explanation of the bailout being more expensive than WW2? Because WW2 cost Europe more as well as had huge personal costs that the US budget of course does not measure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.13.100 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What format is the aid in? If it includes tax cuts, it's questionable whether they should be included in government spending. Similarly, does it include missing tax revenue due to companies losing money and people not working, or the cost of social security payments, etc? It seems to me that the costs of a war would be quantified as something like costs of materiel + wages of soldiers and other workers + repairing war damage + cost of care for veterans. The cost of the economic crisis will be expressed in different terms. If you looked at the cost of WW2 to Germany, the figures would be much higher. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bloomberg figure for the bailout is misleading. They arrived at the 8.2 (or 7.7) trillion by adding up all the funds. loans and assets the US government is guaranteeing, but guaranteeing a loan is not the same thing as spending the money. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a large proportion of that money is loans that will most likely be paid back and shares that will most likely accumulate in value. The treasury may even make a net profit once they close all their positions in a few years' time. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be too optimistic, Tango. I don't think there can be any doubt that the banks owned a lot of stuff that was not worth what it was in the books for (eg subprime mortgages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the banks have recorded massive losses for those, that doesn't mean they won't pay back their loans from the treasury eventually. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the comparison, but you have to remember that it's quite misleading and shouldn't be taken seriously. First, it includes purchases of securities on which the government can reasonably expect to make a return. This is not just the purchase of bank preferred stock that the government hopes to go up in value; it also includes large amounts of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, where repayment in full is by far the most likely outcome. Second, it includes guarantees of debt that mostly won't go bad. For example, most banks won't fail, so much of the FDIC's obligations under the Temporary Loan Guarantee Program won't be paid out, even if banks do as badly this time around as they did in the Great Depression. Third, it includes amounts that have been authorized but probably won't be drawn down in any way. For example, it includes the Fed's $540 billion commitment to the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, which was set up to buy commercial paper from money market funds. Money market funds have found the program unappealing, and as of last week not a single dollar of the facility had been drawn down. John M Baker (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding to your list: It also makes more sense to analyze this intervention as a fiscal and monetary stimulus. Only the New Deal and S&L Crisis above are similar in this respect. An intervention designed to 'bail out' credit markets (despite understandable cynicism) is very much like the printing of money or selection of a budget deficit/surplus designed to contribute to short-run Keynesian aggregate demand to smooth-out economic cyclicality. Notice that it's only been since September that significant net job losses have been reported (I mention this to support the idea that credit markets are the 'grease that lubricates the engine' at the center of the economy.) Secondly, a large majority of the actual "paid-out amount" is coming from the Fed's balance sheet. The fed buys back government securities, increasing the money supply. Fed actions can't really be analyzed using the same "costs" approach as, say, an individual or corporation. Fed money is costless in that sense; it can print as much as it wants. The only cost is eventual inflation. With the massive bank deleveraging, however, they can get away (or rather they must inject!) with injecting a ton of liquidity without having to worry about inflation. The last FOMC minutes actually concentrated on deflation as serious concern! Lastly, even the additional Federal Budget deficit (the $700 billion) is being borrowed, primarily from foreigners (China's massive trade surplus sucks up Federal debt!) at very low rates. There have been two days since September when (short-term) T-Bill rates actually went NEGATIVE. Investors are so risk-averse and America-loving that a couple of times they were willing to pay the government for the right to lend it money! With the appreciation of the USD [1] (as a result of the insatiable appetite for US Federal debt) lately, they'll be paying back their creditors with even stronger dollars than they borrowed. The only major threat to America's solvency is if it loses it's position in the world as THE best place to invest. Sorry Obama, that means more ships, tanks and punitive foreign policy.NByz (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So are there any estimates of the bailout cost that could be considered more "accurate"? 199.43.13.101 (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It depends on precisely what happens over the next few years, and we can only guess at that. I'm sure people have come up with estimates, but there is an enormous margin of error in them (probably to the extent of making them useless). The final result in 5 years time could probably be anywhere from a $500 billion profit to a $10,000 billion loss. Where in that range it will be is anyone's guess ($500b profit is more likely than $10,000b loss - that kind of loss would require the complete collapse of the economy, in which case it's pretty meaningless to put a monetary value on it). --Tango (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, a dollar cost isn't the appropriate way to analyze a fiscal or especially a monetary stimulus. What is the 'cost' of the Fed lowering interest rates? (by providing short-term liquidity, either printing new money or distributing shelf money [this is my own term for money that exists, but the Fed holds to, effectively keeping it out of the money supply or economy generally]) The only cost is inflationary. I say 'inflationary' not necessarily 'inflation', because most of the time it's done when the economy is contracting anyway, so the net effect is just inflation targeting, or the keeping of inflation within the expected range.

Most of the 'money' (excepting the $700 billion TARP) being used here is Fed money. The fed can (and I will argue, has to) inject heavily right now because there is negative bank money creation via the money multiplier effect. Under normal circumstances, when you deposit a dollar in a bank, that dollar is lent out to a borrower (ignoring any reserve requirement), resulting in the 'creation' of an extra dollar in the economy. There is now the claim to dollar you are owed by the bank (you can still get at it because banks carefully track how much short-term liquidity will be needed by their depositors and ensure enough funds are on hand) and also the dollar in the hand of the borrower. Chances are, that borrower is going to deposit the dollar in another bank account, extending the effect further. The more leverage in the economy (via this and many other processes) the more "money" (by certain measures of what money is) exists. When banks stop lending as aggressively - either out of fear, or out of a need to improve their capital ratios - this money creation effect is reduced and the money supply either shrinks, or grows less quickly.

When this happens, it becomes the Fed's responsibility under it's 'inflation targeting' policy to increase the money supply and/or decrease short-term interest rates (which it can only do through intervening in money markets) to avoid deflation. The Fed normally does this by buying up government securities in the open market. Every asset it buys takes another dollar of money off of its balance sheet and injects it into the economy. It's useful to think of many of the Fed's interventions right now as simply an alternative way of injecting money into the economy. There is no real 'cost' to this; the Fed can print an unlimited amount of money to support their inflation targeting goals. In fact, it's just what the Fed is mandated to do.NByz (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, you might say that the 'cost' is to the holders of government securities that would otherwise have been bid-up when the Fed buys them back. With zero-coupon T-bill auctions selling damn near par right now, it's hard to make that argument! NByz (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Our common future

I've been trying to find a source to download Our_Common_Future, preferably a .pdf Can anyone help me? In advance, thanks. --93.184.122.12 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The article you linked has a link to here, which has the full text. Algebraist 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseball RBI Rules

In the article on Runs Batted In, it says:

The official rulebook of Major League Baseball states in Rule 10.04:

(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores:

(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter's safe hit (including the batter's home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice, or a passed ball, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or
(3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.
(b) The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in
(1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or
(2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play.

(c) The official scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run that scores when a fielder holds the ball or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, the official scorer should credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when the runner notices the misplay, the official scorer should credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice.

I understand all the rules except for a 2 (in bold). Does anyone know what this means? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This refers to being walked (the Base on balls article explains it well); being hit by a pitch; and to interference by the catcher. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Are they talking about when the bases are loaded? Does that mean that if the bases are loaded and the batter gets a walk and forces in a run, the better isn't credited with an RBI? That doesn't sound right to me. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait a second, I get it. I thought the 'unless' applied to 2a. Thanks! 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, if you are walked with the bases loaded (by 4 balls, Hit By Pitch, or catcher interference) you get credited with an RBI. Since none of these events credits the batter with an "at-bat" it is thus possible to get a "run-batted-in" without getting an "at-bat". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. My error was that I misunderstood what I was reading. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious. RBI credit without evening having an official at bat! DOR (HK) (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit ironic. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What was the composition of the European Parliament by group immediately before and after the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?

The European Parliament is subdivided by political groups (e.g. PES, EPP-ED, UEN, ALDE, etc). Each group contains a number of MEPs. These numbers are not stable and vary from day to day as MEPs change groups, resign, are unelected or are elected. For that reason, the European Parliament issued factsheets and press releases periodically to indicate how many MEPs each group had on a given day. Those factsheets are available online, but the ones before 1996 are sparse and/or contradictory.

On 17 September 1995, there was an election in Sweden to elect its MEPs. The results of those elections are available, but they only give the parties that those MEPs represent. They do not give the groups they sat in, nor the effect they had on the group numbers.

So my question I have for you is simple.

• What was the composition of the European parliament by group immediately before the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?
• What was the composition of the European parliament by group immediately after the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?

OK, two questions.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This question relates to the appointed MEPs, just after Sweden joined the EU. Some of the pre-election MEPs from Sweden were; Bengt Hurtig was in GUE/NGL (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=0956A36F55CDDD4068889174234954F1.node1?language=EN&id=2116), Bengt-Ola Ryttar (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=69EC2DB9A320A86E5B3CD9A472B4E500.node2?id=2070&language=EN), Inga-Britt Johanson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=5373CDDD6EBBFCCE7C753BC1E8D3A635.node1?language=EN&id=2065), Kristina Persson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=942310B245595B4CA26250944037609B.node1?id=2069&language=EN), Reynoldh Furustrand (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=E52BE4EA6D7313B9584D3ACD8D0E18F9.node1?id=2112&language=EN), Maj-Lis Lööw (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=6995DA42B976B62F4DD4E694053B2E1D.node1?id=2067&language=EN), Tommy Wailedlich (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=7E14252CC97B9761510E2A53CFAF6B30.node1?id=2151&language=EN) represented PES, Karin Starrin was in ELDR (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=CB434BDF9EE96A5B7FF3D6DBCD0A12A8.node1?language=EN&id=2146), Margareta af Ugglas (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=D9BEEB6334EAC60C42DB4863F785CD56.node1?language=EN&id=2148) was in EPP. --Soman (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

and more, Karl Erik Olsson was in ELDR (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=C273E625B568DF757DB7D83A87FFD344.node1?language=EN&id=2068), Jan Andersson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=459C8F90325F2E9D10D04C8AB350EEFF.node1?id=2107&language=EN) and Axel Andersson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=3EA5A28693C3BF80FB2663A5BE6CD147.node1?id=2105&language=EN) in PES. Per Gahrton (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=C22004A474B86253CA15B9CACC96D4E6.node1?id=2114&language=EN) was in the Green group. I think there are various EPP MEPs that my superficial google search didn't find. --Soman (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Soman: I don't know if you remember me from the marathon discussion on the political groups of the European Parliament earlier this year. Thank you for your hard work, which will come in useful for the European Parliament election, 1995 (Sweden) article. Unfortunately, you have not answered the question I asked: I needed to know the total composition before & after, but what you told me was how it had changed (it's like asking "what's the temperature?" and being told "it's up 5 degrees"). What I was hoping for is something like this:

Date	Notes		PES		ELDR		EPP		UFE		EUL/NGL		G		ERA		EN		NI	Total	Sources
1995-09-15	Before elections in Sweden	217		52		173		54		33		27		20		19		31		626
1995-09-18	After elections in Sweden	216		52		173		56		33		27		20		18		31		626

- but that's not what you gave me. Unfortunately, it looks like this info is just not available on online sources (I may have to email the Parliament itself, and it may not be able to answer!). However, thank you for your hard work. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Using some of the names found by google earlier, I found this at swedish wikipedia: sv:Lista_över_ledamöter_av_Europaparlamentet_från_Sverige_1995 (which, in retrospect, should have been the first place to look). Comparing the wikipedia article on the 1995 nominees with the 1995 election, we come up with the following:

3

2

Party	EP group	pre-election seats	post-election seats	difference
(s)	PES	11	7
(m)	EPP	5	5
(fp)	ELDR	1	1
(c)	ELDR	2	2
(kd)	EPP	1	0
(mp)	Greens	1	4
(v)	GUE/NGL	1	3

See also sv:Europaparlamentsvalet 1995. --Soman (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've worked it out. The Sweden Europarl site gives this list of the Swedish MEPs. Cross-referencing it with the EuroParl MEP archives and against some reference books gives us this:

The change in composition of the European Parliament due to the Sweden elections was as follows:

Date	Event		PES		ELDR		EPP		EDA		FE		EUL/NGL		G		ERA		EN		NI	Total	Sources
1995-01-06	After enlargement (1 January 1995) and formation of EUL/NGL (6 January 1995) but before formation of UFE (6 July 1995) and elections in Sweden (17 September 1995)	221		52		173		26		29		31		25		19		19		31		626
1995-09-17	Change due to elections in Sweden	-4		+0		-1		+0				+2		+3		+0		+0		+0		+0	See below
Date	Event		PES		ELDR		EPP		UFE				EUL/NGL		G		ERA		EN		NI	Total	Sources
1995-10-09	After formation of UFE (6 July 1995) and elections in Sweden (1995-09-17)	217		52		172		55				33		28		19		19		31		626

The results by political group of the Sweden election were as follows:

Group		Before election (1995-09-16)		Change	After election (1995-10-09)		See also
	PES	11	Birgitta Ahlqvist; Axel Andersson; Jan Andersson; Reynoldh Furustrand; Inga-Britt Johansson; Maj-Lis Lööw; Kristina Persson; Bengt-Ola Ryttar; Yvonne Sandberg-Fries; Maj Britt Theorin; Tommy Waidelich;	-4	7	Birgitta Ahlqvist; Jan Andersson; Anneli Hulthén; Maj-Lis Lööw; Maj Britt Theorin; Tommy Waidelich; Sören Wibe;
	ELDR	3	Hadar Cars; Karl Erik Olsson; Karin Starrin;	+0	3	Hadar Cars; Hans Lindqvist; Karl Erik Olsson;
	EPP	6	Charlotte Cederschiöld; Karin Falkmer; Holger Gustafsson; Per Stenmarck; Margaretha af Ugglas; Ivar Virgin;	-1	5	Staffan Burenstam Linder; Gunilla Carlsson; Charlotte Cederschiöld; Per Stenmarck; Ivar Virgin;
	UFE	-	-	+0	-	-
	EUL/NGL	1	Bengt Hurtig;	+2	3	Marianne Eriksson; Jonas Sjöstedt; Jörn Svensson;
	G	1	Per Gahrton;	+3	4	Per Gahrton; Ulf Holm; MaLou Lindholm; Inger Schörling;
	ERA	-	-	+0	-	-
	EN	-	-	+0	-	-
	NI	-	-	+0	-	-
Total		22		+0	22

I've updated the European Parliament election, 1995 (Sweden) article accordingly. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Galaxia the Stories Of Ilusion

I added a request for an article how long I need to wait till the article actually appears on Wikipedia is it possible to request it here ? if so there's the material for the article: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666

In my view, this falls into the category of articles that should never appear in Wikipedia, for the reason of . . . well, non-notable seems too generous. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

is this a probe of offending me ? Youre just a Hongkong clerk mind your buisness and do not intefere ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is Fan Fiction. Fan fiction virtually never gets its own article in Wikipedia. For a very good reason, too. There are literally hundreds of thousands of short fan fiction stories, Wikipedia cannot afford to write articles about every last one of them. Unless your work is mentioned in professionally published newspapers and magazines it's not going to have a Wikipedia article. Sorry.

(Incidentally, you do realize that "Illusion" isn't spelled like that, right?)

APL (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So first I need a Magazine to review this ! Somebody could have tell me earlier and not trying to offend me so Ill find a Magazine than ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought of saying something here, but as I'm just an unemployed clerk I won't interfere. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a word or phrase?

When one spends many hours on a boat, especially a small boat, and especially in fairly rough seas, and then one steps off onto dry land, one experiences (sometimes) the continuity of the rocking sensation that one experienced on the boat -- it seems the solid, dry land is tossing to and fro just as the sea did. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Any phrase, or single word to describe it, either from colloquial usage (preferable) or from perhaps scientific or medical literature? Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Illusions of self-motion#Sea legs suggests this is one of the things 'sea legs' can apply to. Algebraist 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Great. Thank you. Yes, that is exactly the sort of colloquial phrase I was looking for. And, interesting article. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another version of the expression is "losing your land legs". The idea is that have "sea legs" when you are comfortable on the moving boat and "land legs" when youare confortable on land. --Anonymous, 11:05 UTC, December 11, 2008.

And it matches the sensation of walking just after you have gotten off a trampoline. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Or just after you've gotten off, on a trampoline. (Hmm. Note to self: Must try that some time)  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think probably "sea legs" is the primary phrase, and that "land legs" is only a corollary to that. And sea legs I think primarily refers to a proficiency in using one's legs, and by implication, maintaining one's balance -- on a ship at sea. Strictly speaking, this is not a term for the sensation one experiences sometimes upon disembarking a seaborne vessel. Maybe "rubbery legs" would be more like it. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

British pound sterling vs. EURO

Why is the British pound falling so much and so rapidly against the Euro (I believe it's down to 1.14 today from about 1.50 not so long ago) in recent months? Could it get down to 1:1 or less? - and if this happens, could it eventually necessitate an entrance of the UK into the Eurozone (even if the British don't really want to)? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The value of currencies fluctuate against each other for many reasons, but a likely strong reason for this would be the current economic crisis. The pound is related to the British economy which is about the size of Germany (an Euro member). The euro-zone is related to all of its members, some of whom will be more affected than others in the current economic climate. As Britain is a huge nation in terms of finance, banking and investment the impact of the current credit-crisis is maybe being felt more strongly in Britain (and thus the pound's value) compared to the Eurozone. Yes the Eurozone is being impacted upon too but the scale may be smaller or that area accounts for less business.

Second point - I see no reason why it couldn't get below 1:1 if that is how the currency markets end up valuing it.

Third point - I'm not aware of any rules that necessite the UK entrance to the eurozone, the EU, like the UN and most international organisations has limited power over nations to make unpopular demands unless other countries (within or outside of the organisation) support it. ny156uk (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Britain is perceived to be relatively harder hit by the financial crisis than continental Europe, because of the large presence of the financial sector there, as well as additional housing market troubles that the Eurozone hasn't really seen. This makes investors move away from pound-denominated investments, as they are perceived to yield lower returns, hence a depreciation of the pound. (source) Some sources say it's just speculation about central bank interest rate cuts, and some of the recent spikes you see are indeed related to the BOE cuts.

There's no necessity of the UK entering the Eurozone as it was a 'necessity' for it to exit the ERM. There's no government or central bank obliged to do anything, but it's certainly more attractive to join the Eurozone for the UK at this moment (see: United Kingdom and the euro), because some of the benefits of having a common currency weigh higher than usual when there's an economic crisis.

There's probably a few weird scenarios that one can cook up that would probably make entry into the Eurozone more or less a necessity, though. For example, if the pound declined to .25, and the UK government somehow needs to borrow a huge sum of money now, expected appreciation (because no one really believes the pound is going to stay at .25) would make the cost of that borrowing quite prohibitive. In such a case, the adoption of the euro would solve the problem. Edit: Actually, this works the other way around. See, thinking of a scenario is quite hard. Edit 2: You could see it the other way around: if the government has to borrow right now, when the exchange rate is believed to be higher than it will be (expected depreciation), it would be cheaper for the government to adopt the euro. User:Krator (t c) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The main reason for the sharp drop in recent months is that investors had chosen to hold pounds sterling in recent years because the Bank of England set the interest rate (discount rate) for sterling much higher than the interest rate for other major currencies such as the euro, or even more so, for the very low-yielding yen. Many investors worldwide borrowed in yen (or Swiss francs or even euros) at very low rates, then bought pounds sterling, driving up the price of pounds sterling in other currencies. They made an easy profit by earning interest in sterling at a much higher rate than they paid to borrow in yen (or Swiss francs or euro). This is known as the carry trade. However, in the past few months, the Bank of England has cut interest rates sharply and signalled an intention to cut them further. This has eliminated the profit investors were making from the carry trade and exposed them to the risk of losses. So they have been selling their investments in pound sterling (driving its exchange rate down) and paying off their loans in yen (or Swiss francs or euro). It is also true that the United Kingdom had a severe financial crisis, which has affected it disproportionately because finance (the City of London) plays a greater role in its economy than in many other economies (including that of the United States).

It is certainly possible that sterling could reach parity (1:1) with the euro. However, if it does, it is very unlikely that the UK could quickly adopt the euro, because instability in the exchange rate between sterling and the euro would make the UK ineligible to adopt the euro. In order to adopt the euro, the UK would have to satisfy its convergence criteria, which include maintaining a stable exchange rate with the euro for a period of two years as part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM II. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I’m curious why we are so careful not to offer legal or medical advice (or even do someone’s homework!), but giving unprofessional investment advice without any caveat is perfectly acceptable. After all, a questions about why one currency is moving against another is almost certainly primarily for the purposes of investment / speculation. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends who arrives at the question first and how interesting the question is. If it is a sexually orientated medical question there is no shortage of answers but a curious shortage of censors ;-) I agree however that accepting any advice about anything from complete strangers is fraught with danger. It is odd how Wikipedia proudly boasts a "no censorship" rule but is keen to censor views on these help desks - unlike other help fora. I expect the thought police will be along in a minute to whip these comments down because we mustn't rant either. Richard Avery (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's general disclaimer says "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area". I think the reason we don't have a specific RD guideline about handling financial advice requests (whereas we do have one for medical advice requests) is that requests for financial advice are not very common on the RDs.

Also note that, as it stands, this question is a request for information, but not a request for advice - the questioner does not indicate why he is seeking the information or how, if at all, he intends to act on it. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I laughed so much when I read the comment: "a questions about why one currency is moving against another is almost certainly primarily for the purposes of investment / speculation". AS the person posting the question in this case, I can say: No, not at all - I wish I had just a few hundred euros to invest, but alas no. I have no intention of speculating, I was merely trying to understand an important economic situation that is affecting us all as a normal person on the street, as I think practically all of us who ask questions here are doing. But very amusing paranoia, thanks for the laugh! Also, many thanks to the people who provided information, especially MarcoPolo who as usual gave me a very interesting explanation that can be easily understood even by an economics dumbo like me - muchas gracias! Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Here are a couple of graphs that illustrate the interest rate differential. First, here are UK Rates [2] with the "repo rate" representing the BoE's key rate. Next, here are Eurozone rates [3].

Under uncovered interest rate parity, the expected change in an exchange rate pair between two countries (with a freely floating currency) must be such that an investor could not profitably expect to borrow in one currency, convert the borrowings to the other, invest for a period of time, and convert back to the original currency. If investors could profitably perform arbitrage of that kind, market pressures would force the currencies to adjust until it was no longer profitable. So if one economy has higher domestic rates than another, there must be an expectation that the lower-rate country's currency will depreciate against the higher-rate country's currency. Because 'uncovered' interest rate arbitrage includes some risk (as opposed to 'covered' interest rate arbitrage, which uses the forward market to instantly lock-in exchange rates.) there will always be some deviation from this exact parity, representing the risk premium. Although this risk premium is especially high right now, parity will still hold to some degree. The further and further from interest rate parity currencies go, the more profitable this sort of arbitrage is.

You can see from the graphs above that UK rates (for all maturities) started off the year absolutely higher, and (except for the ten-year; long term rates tend to be far removed from parity) ended absolutely lower than Eurozone rates. This relative change made holding pounds less attractive than euros, bidding down their value.

Currency speculation is certainly not investment. Currency positions can be used to manage risk or to simulate casino odds. Currency speculation produces no expected return, only a variance, and is not an investment or asset class.NByz (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)