Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 21

Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21

Name of bias

What is the name of the bias (if there is one) in polls/surveys/etc. that results when some respondents answer a question how they think they should answer and not how is actually true? By this I mean like if a poll asks "How often do you pray?" with the responses being "Several times a day", "At least once a day" or "Less frequently than once a day", many people who do not regularly pray will probably put "At least once a day" because they think they should be praying that often. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Response bias. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, the social desirability bias. Neutrality^talk 05:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is 3% the usual number of people?

What percentage of the world's population dies every day? I'm just wondering if the 3% figure that the 2011 end times prediction article states is close to the daily average. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A note on the prediction. 3% of humans will be raptured. Many more may die from the earthquakes and other disasters. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Mortality rate#Statistics its approx 155,000--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Some really rough calculations....

Assume 50 years average life span. So, 100% of those people die in 50 years. That means 2% die in one YEAR. So in one day the percentage is 2% divided by 365, approximately 0.005% HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That may turn out to be in the ball park, HiLo, but it only considers the deaths of people who are alive at any given moment, not those who get born in the ensuing 50 years, many of whom will also die in that period. I think this is a fine question for the Mathematics Desk. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I might take it over there now. And maybe I should have said "... incredibility rough calculations involving several outrageously simplistic assumptions..." ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's now on the Mathematics Desk too if you want to play over there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what must be happening is that the blessed are being replaced by automatons during the rapture so that the rest of us are not unduly pressurized into faith by seeing the real selves of the raptured ascending into heaven. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Like the movie, Apocalypse of the Body Snatchers. Camping himself seems to have gone missing. God, with His eternal sense of humor, might have raptured Camping and no one else, just as a joke on humanity (or on Camping, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on! If 3% of the world's population died every day, everyone would have died in a little over a month! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not right, Arwel. Once today's 3% die, the population is reduced, but also boosted by births that occur today. Tomorrow is another day. 3% of tomorrow's population die, but new people are also born tomorrow. And so on. It's never more than 3% of whatever the existing population is on any given day that dies; it's not 3% of the population on 21 May 2011 that die every day for the next 33 days. But, as we now know, it's way less than 3% anyway. Boy, I'm glad we have a Maths Ref Desk.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Following up on Jack's analysis here — if there are currently 7B people, and everyone's risk of death per day were 3% (identically independently distributed as an exponential distribution), and there were no births, the time until the expected value of the population drops below one person would be −log(7000000000)/log(0.97) or roughly 745 days, just over two years. The expected time until extinction would be a bit different; I'm sure we have an article but I don't know where it is. It gets more complicated if you add births, but at that death rate, it's not going to delay extinction very long. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Airline industry

Hi I have two questions, inspired by the new ITN item. First, why does the WTO get to tell Boeing it has to pay back $5.3bn in subsidies? Why is it any of the WTO's business whom the US government subsidizes? Practically, does Boeing have to listen to the ruling? Second, the Spoke-hub distribution paradigm and Point-to-point transit articles say that after airline deregulation, airlines switched from the latter model the former. What about the regulations made the airlines unable to switch? Thanks! 68.35.40.154 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the USA is a member of the WTO and one of its basic rules is that government subsidies are unfair competition as they distort the market. It's more or less the following: there is an international market which buys a certain number of large planes every year. If one of the main producers gets a large subsidy of its local government it can logically lower its prices against another producer which doesn't get such a subsidy from its respective government. That's very obviously unfair competition and there is a true danger that if one does it and gets away with it that all major players will follow its example. That would simply screw the companies of poorer countries which are unable to award large subsudies.

Someone may defend such subsidies as they indirectly "protect local jobs" but remember that we are speaking of 'public tax money' (which should be better spent in education, basic infrastructure, a fair system of justice, etc). There is also a high danger that politicians (who decide over government subsidies) will be simply bribed by the companies in exchange for such "a small favour among friends".

In pratical terms the USA could simply ignore the WTO decision, which in the worst case could only cancel the USA membership of the WTO (fat chance of that). Please notice that European and also US agriculture are subsidized by the respective governments and that the WTO is largely unable (and probably uninterrested) to do anything about it as the official excuse is "food security". Flamarande (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly understand the reasoning behind it, but I was more asking whether being a member of the WTO gives the WTO the ability to effectively tell private companies what to do (i.e. give the loans back) instead of taking action against the government that acted unfairly. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If the USA ignores the WTO I'm pretty sure other countries could ask for sanctions/retaliation or possibly trade compensation (although sanctions/retaliation are the norm AFAIK [1] [2]) [3]. These options may include sanctions on imports from the US but the biggest threat against the US tends to be ignoring their copyrights and patents [4] [5] although these may not work if the amount received is deemed too smal [6]. Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the simple answer to the clarified question is that the WTO agreements do not allow for penalties against the offending government, as far as I know. The WTO rules say that in the case of an illegal subsidy, "the Member granting or maintaining such subsidy shall take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or shall withdraw the subsidy." If that doesn't happen, other countries can then take appropriate "countermeasures." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, Boeing has accused its major rival of almost the same thing. See Airbus#Subsidy conflicts for details. Astronaut (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer your additional question about the WTO: They don't tell the company, to pay the money back, they tell the goverment that paid out the subsidy in question to demand their money back.

About the second question on the hub-and-spoke system. Regulation meant that companies couldn't just offer flights on any old route they wished to serve. Routes were awarded to specific airlines and usually not more than two companies could serve the same route, sometimes with additional rules about revenue-sharing thrown in. That meant that carriers couldn't develop hub-and-spokes-systems because they would have had to obtain the traffic rights on all the different routes serving a single airport. After deregulation, when anybody could offer flights on any route they wished, naturally competition increased. In order to fill their planes with transfer passengers and to offer more connections, airlines started developing hub-and-spokes-systems. It was their reaction to increased competition following deregulation. Before, there just was no need to do this.--Zoppp (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Schwartzenneger bodybuilding tips

could you summarize Schwartzenneger's tips on bodybuilding? 94.27.177.200 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You could find The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding : The Bible of Bodybuilding, Fully Updated and Revised which has Arnold Schwarzenegger as the main author. You can purchase it through Amazon.com (the link I included is from them) or any other bookseller online (don't take my link as an endorsement of Amazon in particular) or perhaps you can find it at a local library. --Jayron32 02:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Per [7]: "Arnold was from the old 'No Pain No Gain' school of bodybuilding. His routines consisted of high sets and reps, mostly not to failure." (Meaning lots of repetitions, but not so many that you can't do any more.) "He trained each muscle group three times each week (except calves, forearms & abs which he trained every day), using a six day split routine.... Arnold's routine changed constantly. At times he trained twice a day, while at other times once a day was enough.... Arnold tried everything, and picked what worked best for him at that particular time.... Remember this is a very advanced bodybuilding routine and should not be used by beginners or intermediates...." There's similar information at [8] which also includes diet tips.

Don't forget that he admitted to taking steroids. So, it's fairly important to stress that you almost certainly can't get to his level without advanced professional training and cheating. It's much better to try to set realistic workout goals for yourself, eat right and in limited quantities, and focus on whole-body exercises until a professional trainer or your doctor says you're capable of performing a bodybuilding regime anywhere near as strenuous as Arnold's. And even then, you're very unlikely to match the steroid-based bulk growth, and you should be glad about that. Dualus (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing that made him so strong is that he didn't have any set routines. He had exercises he would do, but he always did them in random order. That way, he never plateaued the way most people do. Steroids help, but they can only help to a point; his randomness was a major factor in it as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine his genes played a major part too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

irreverent side discussion.

Did he have two human parents or one human one god like Hercules? No one's answering, I guess nobody knows. The Wikipedia article says only: "His parents were the local police chief, Gustav Schwarzenegger (1907–1972), and Aurelia", which sounds like a Goddess to me. But it doesn't use the word "demigod" or "god" anywhere in the article, so this is just conjecture. Can somebody confirm? 94.27.180.112 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC) It's just the poorly written article. The full line is "His parents were the local police chief, Gustav Schwarzenegger (1907–1972), and Aurelia (née Jadrny; 1922–1998)." So, his parents were Gustav Schwarzenegger and Aurelia Schwarzenegger. Née is French for born, and in this instance means "birthname" or maiden name, i.e., his mother was Aurelia Jadrny before she married. (We also have an article at Aurelia that says it's Latin word for "golden" commonly used for female names.) If you had actually clicked on Gustav Schwarzenegger and read the very first sentence under the Biography section, you'd have your answer there, as well: Gustav Schwarzenegger, the father of Arnold Schwarzenegger, married war widow Aurelia Jadrny (July 2, 1922 – August 2, 1998) on October 5, 1945, in Mürzsteg, Steiermark, Austria. Hope that helps clear up your confusion. Avicennasis @ 03:43, 19 Iyar 5771 / 23 May 2011 (UTC) Despite your rude answer, nowhere in the article does it say that Arelia was fully or even half mortal. 79.122.86.254 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC) You're welcome. :) See Common sense and Occam's Razor. They should explain why our articles will list the hundred things someone is rather than the millions of things they are not. As an example, it helps us avoid this:"Obama is currently the US President. He is not currently a US Senator, nor a US Representative, nor the Prime Minister of Canada, nor the Queen of England..." Avicennasis @ 09:26, 20 Iyar 5771 / 24 May 2011 (UTC) Whatever. I don't know why you're being evasive, but common sense says 1) Aurelia sounds like the name of a Goddess. 2) Schwartzenneger had the body of a demigod, like images of Hercules, etc. I doubt that using the Goddess-like name Aurelia is just vandalism of our pages, since you linked to so many different places, so the only common-sense conclusion is that yes, Schwartzenneger is a modern-day Demigod, just like Hercules was in his time. Thanks for nothing, though. 188.156.250.194 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Anytime. Avicennasis @ 03:45, 21 Iyar 5771 / 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently he managed to build a body from scratch around ten years ago, with help from one other person... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Data about the inflation of the Portuguese escudo

Hy there, I'm looking for reliable sources of information about the inflation figures of the Portuguese escudo (which was withdrawn in 2002 and replaced by the Euro). I'm interrested in its yearly historical development (in which years was the inflation higher, in which was it lower). Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Boeing

They are defense contractor. Then why they support the anti-war Democratic Party, not the pro-war Republican Party? --DHOD 1234 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Democrats are afraid of The Chinese. Schyler (one language) 03:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Democrats are not, nor have they really every been, an antiwar party. The current President, a member of the Democratic party, has supported expanding troop levels in Afghanistan and started an air war over Libya. It is a common characterization by some Rebublicans, when campaigning and trying to win elections, that they will characterize Democrats as "doves" and themselves as "hawks", but actual Democrat politicians are no more or less "pro" or "anti"-war than their Republican counterparts. --Jayron32 03:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Jayron. Boeing didn't and don't support the entire Democratic party. They supported the guy (in this case Obama) more likely to win the latest Presidential election. He might just remember this favour and give an indirect favour in return. I imagine that Boeing supports Republican or Democratic candidates in equal measure; it supports whoever is more likely to win the given election. Seriously why do you think that large companies give large amounts of money for the campaign of politicians running for a public office? Because they trust them and believe that these politicians are the best choice for the whole country? Or because "a friend in need is a friend indeed" and will probably repay the favour with interrest? And the best thing is that he won't even repay it with his own money but with tax money. It's one of the little flaws of democracy (actually this happens in almost all forms of government). Flamarande (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a flaw of representative democracy, where those representatives will betray the people in return for bribes. This doesn't work in direct democracy, where there are no representatives with the power to decide major issues. StuRat (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all the defense contractors donate heavily to both sides in every presidential and congressional race, and make it clear through their lobbyists that their future contributions will be in proportion to the candidates' support of their business prospects. Campaign contributions are merely a strategic business expense for most of the Fortune 5000 companies, and even more so in the Citizens United v FEC era that we in the US recently entered. You shouldn't assume that a corporate campaign donation of any amount means that the company's leaders are interested in the candidate's success, only that they are interested in their level of influence if the candidate succeeds. Dualus (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Neither party can best be described as "anti" or "pro" war; that would be an oversimplification. The Center for Responsive Politics lists Boeing's political contributions here. Note that Senator Patty Murray of Washington (a Democrat) is the top recipient of Boeing contributions; this is because Boeing has much of its operations based in Washington and Murray is a champion for Boeing. Since Washington is a "blue state," with a mainly Democratic delegation to Congress, this accounts for some of the imbalance. You should also see Airliner Wars, about Boeing's competition with rival Airbus. Although Airbus is a French/European company, it has friends in the Republican Party who support its bid for government contracts over Boeing. See this piece in The Atlantic. See also this 2009 piece in Daily Finance on a $35b aerial refueling tanker contract:

Before getting into why the contact will likely end up being split, it's worth focusing on the regional politics involved. The Boeing work for the tanker would be done in Washington, Connecticut and Illinois. By contrast, the Airbus/Northrop Grumman tankers would be built in Alabama and South Carolina -- not to mention Europe. In short, the Democratic party wants Boeing to win, and the Republican party favors Airbus/Northrop.

I hope this helps. Neutrality^talk 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "party split" shows that they donate about equally to each party. They aren't donating based on "big scale" politics — they're donating based on influence. They had a big up-tick for Dems in 2008... because the Dems had a huge sweep then. Boeing bets on whomever they think the winners will be — and probably also donates to the losers, for good measure. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. corporations PACs tend to finance both major parties because they want to be on the good side of whoever wins. They often contribute a lot to incumbents, no matter the party, because incumbent members of Congress win the vast majority of the time. Big-business donors don't usually contribute to political campaigns because they think they can swing the results -- they know a few thousand dollars to a given member of Congress isn't going to decide an election. Rather, it's a way of getting their foot in the door to the member's office after the election to lobby for this or that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My own company's PAC contributes to the Congressmen and Senators that they think are most likely to do what the company considers the best way to do things. And they're counting on those folks to pay more attention to those who contribute more money. It ain't rocket science! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the current wars aren't all that beneficial to companies like Boeing. Most of the expense goes into things like wages, transport, infrastructure and logistics. Going forward, it makes the US less less able to buy the kinds of expensive and unrelated products that Boeing produces. It is also introduces uncertainty in the market so policy makers might think the US doesn't need so many Joint Strike Fighters (Boeing owns the rights to the second place concept) and more cheap Cessna-type planes that can carry missles. The real money is made because of the apprehension of war. Boeing should hope China completes their aircraft carrier and keeps building submarines.

You might also be interested to see the article on Scoop Jackson, a Democratic Senator from Washington who was known as the "Senator from Boeing". --JGGardiner (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Democratic Party and Boeing have similar interests when it comes to protecting the jobs of Boeing workers, if increasing defence spending will guarantee jobs. Republicans traditionally care less about job creation and particularly the interests of American unionized labor. Hence a reason for Boeing to lobby Democrats. But as already mentioned, Democrats entered First World War and the Second World War, started the war in Vietnam, took action in Bosnia and Kosovo, and are now attacking Libya, as well as several smaller operations in Africa in the 1990s, the blockade of Cuba in the 1960s, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

updates on two international societies

I'm still hoping the Red Cross Society of Eritrea and the Tuvalu Red Cross Society will gain official recognition by, and admission to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. What's going on? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a wikibook submission

Hello, Would you be interested to publish on wikipedia humanities a modern translation of the Quran that supports the Bible and acknowledges it together with the Torah. If not can u direct me to a publisher?

Please browse the book on the following link: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B84c0FlSZXoANDNhNDI3MzMtMTJlOS00OGY0LThlYzctMGIzZWY1MWM3NTBk&sort=name&layout=list&num=50 41.153.241.65 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikibooks. However, I know nothing about their inclusion policy: please do not upload anything there unless you can confirm that this is the type of book that they want. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, no: Wikibooks are meant to hold "free content textbooks and annotated texts", while a translation of a text would probably have to go to Wikisource. They prefer "previously published, public domain translations" (s:Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes#Translations, [9]), but might accept a new one as well. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

University in Brega

Which university has a campus in Brega? This is the location of some fightings. --Ksanyi (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is probably Bright Star just outside of Brega, here. -- kainaw™ 13:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

German volunteers in the Spanish Civil War

Having written the German involvement in the Spanish Civil War page, it occurred to me that there may be "unofficial" German volunteers, possibly on both sides. I have one figure of 5,000 German/Austrian volunteers in the International Brigades, but could do with further information on these people, which don't get much coverage. Were there lots? Were there organisations to send them? Which sides did they fight on? That sort of thing. Any help appreciated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

citizenship of my hypothetical (but likely) child

I have dual nationality: United States and United Kingdom. I live in the UK. My partner is a German citizen and lives in the UK and Germany. We are moving to South Africa where we will be living for only a short time. Scenario: I am pregnant and our baby will probably be born in South Africa. Question: What citizenships would the child automatically have? How would it change if I were legally married to my partner? What citizenships would the child be eligible to apply for/have in the future, if not automatically given at birth? Can one have more than just two nationalities at the same time? Thanks! (P.S. this is not any sort of request for legal advice and I am not yet pregnant. I am just musing on the possible situation. Obviously, when I am actually expecting, I will get advice from government representatives who will not be surmising. But in the meantime I am very interested/curious now.) 94.197.112.113 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See South African nationality law, British nationality law, and German nationality law. According to those articles, your (hypothetical) child will definitely be a German citizen, will almost certainly _not_ be a South African citizen (if you're not going to be permanently resident there), and, assuming you've lived in the UK for three years, would be eligible for British citizenship (but you'd have to apply for that, it wouldn't be automatic). Tevildo (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See also United States nationality law. The position under US law is very complicated, _does_ depend on whether or not you're married, and is sensitive to the amount of time you've lived in the USA as an adult. I wouldn't like to speculate on this particular element of the question. Tevildo (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In theory your child will be a citizen of the USA, UK, and Germany (notice that you, your partner and your child hold European Union citizenship. It will not be a citizen of South Africa according to the South African nationality law which states that only "a child born in South Africa after 6 October 1995 as the child of South African citizens or permanent residents is a citizen of the Republic of South Africa". You and your partner aren't citizens or permanent residents of South Africa. You could go to a country which awards its citizenship to every person born upon its soil.

Notice that we can also lose our citizenship according to the laws of certain countries. Read German nationality law#Loss of German citizenship, British nationality law#Loss of British nationality and United States nationality law#Loss of citizenship. Flamarande (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are not a "UK citizen by descent" (i.e. you are not a citizen through one of your parents being a UK citizen, rather than unconditionally by being born in the UK before 1983 or by being born there afterwards AND one of your parents also being a UK citizen), then your child WILL be a UK citizen by descent. However, if you are a UK citizen by descent then you cannot transmit UK citizenship to your own children unless they are actually born in the UK. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(op) I grew up in the US to American parents and didn't leave the country until I was 18. That means that according to this, I satisfy all of the conditions for transferring US citizenship to my child except that my partner and I aren't married. I wonder if the marriage would have to be in place at the time of conception or birth? The case with the German citizenship is quite clear, he passes on German citizenship to his child by default. The twist on the British citizenship by descent not being passed on is curious! Thanks for explaining that in simpler terms than the article does. As I am a naturalised citizen (and have been for the last six years living in the UK), then it looks like I would pass on British citizenship, too. So, if we're married, three citizenships, and all of them, it seems, can be retained unless the child does something as an adult to renounce it or otherwise cause its loss. Interesting, and thank you all for your help and links! 94.196.251.142 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in assuring your child's US citizenship, be sure to visit or notify the local US consulate as soon as possible to obtain a US birth certificate. And hope your child doesn't try to run for President of the US in thirty years or so. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate gift

Hello all. Now that my music lessons will be ending soon I'd like to get my piano teacher a gift to express my appreciation for all he's done for me this past year; he's really a kind and patient person but also a brilliant teacher. Unfortunately I have no idea what to get him, since he is a bit old fashioned in that he doesn't talk about his personal life in our lessons so I don't know what he would like, and he strikes me as the type who, if receiving a gift, expects a "real" gift (ie, not a Hallmark card). For Christmas I gave him chocolates so I need something else. If it makes any difference, this is my first year with him, I do plan to take lessons with him again next year, these are private lessons that meet weekly, unaffiliated with my high school, and he is an older gentleman (I would guess late 50s/early 60s) without children. My question is essentially a question of etiquette: What are some appropriate but general gifts that I can give him? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source of the problem from a man who is pushing 50. Until I had children, if I wanted something, I simply got it. So, it was not possible for someone to get me something I wanted because I already had it. Now, I have children. My resources are spent on getting them what they want. What I want is sleep - something that cannot be given as a gift. But, that is going off on a tangent. So, all you can do is show appreciation with something that he doesn't necessarily want but doesn't mind receiving. Do you have any other skills that could be of use? For example, you might make a great lasagna. You could make dinner for him one night. You might be great at photography. You can take some piano-themed photos and give him a small framed photo (with the offer to give him one much larger if he really wants it). You might be a great computer user. Hey may need someone to teach him to use Craigs List to advertise his services. -- kainaw™ 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How about tickets to a really good concert of a kind that you may have discovered he really likes. That would show you're aware of his preferences and also he would be able to relax and enjoy some excelent music instead of just working at it.190.148.136.77 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I just reread this and realized a concert might be out of your price range so perhaps an appropriate CD. 136 77.190.148.136.77 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How old are you? If you are over the age required to buy alcohol in your country, then a bottle of Scotch usually goes down well (if you aren't old enough to buy alcohol, then it might be a little inappropriate). --Tango (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wine would be better. That's the gift I got in a similar situation. 92.24.190.64 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope he/she is in high school. Book, book coupon. 190.148.136.77 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I missed that bit. A book that they know the teacher will like (eg. a biography of his favourite composer) might work. A book coupon is no better than a card. The gift isn't about the money, it's about the thoughtful gesture. If the teacher wants a book, he can buy it with or without a coupon - they aren't expensive. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out... If the teacher wants the book, he would have purchased it already. However, there is another option if it is possible. Get a signed book. My signed copy of The Hitchikers Guide was a gift. I had read the books and had at least two copies of them all when I received the gift, but it was special because it was signed (and it was even signed to me). -- kainaw™ 21:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Flowers or a small plant would work well here. Neutrality^talk 22:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a house plant plus a bottle of wine. 92.24.190.64 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is piano tuning software some of it free, that might be appreciated. Piano not included. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a plant. Get something that looks nice, already in bloom, but be sure it comes in a very nice container. If he is so inclined, he can reuse the container to plant something else...or, if not a "green thumb", a nice plant container can be used for multiple things: a mantle piece decoration, a candy holder, an ash tray, a loose change jar, etc. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Billionaires break laws of economics?

Economics says that an efficient market will not allow anyone making a super-profit, as other competitors rapidly step in and profits fall due to competition. So how come there are billionaires like these? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9488576.stm 92.24.190.64 (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Because economics is not like physics. --Jayron32 23:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote one economist, the efficient market hypothesis (as with so many other economic laws) is "illuminating, but not true" - that is to say, it's a very useful theoretical construct for broadly describing how the world works, and it makes for very informative models that help you get the idea of what's going on, but on a day-to-day basis, it breaks down all the time. Shimgray | talk | 23:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just replace 'billionaire' with 'trillionaire' in what constitutes 'super-profit' and everything still works right? Vranak (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See barriers to entry. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Who says the market is 'efficient' anyway? Unless you mean 'demonstrating that markets don't show rational behaviour' it doesn't seem to be very efficient at anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See Efficient-market hypothesis for understanding of the hypothesis and who believe it applies where. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No economist (outside perhaps the Austrian School ) would suggest that any markets are truly efficient. For a market to be efficient it would need to perfectly meet all the assumptions of perfect competition, some of which are actually impossible.Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the Efficient Market hypothesis has been discredited - it is false. So, you are reading outdated Economics. 188.156.137.202 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Got any proof for that assertion? 92.15.21.174 (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you can't follow it. 188.156.31.98 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that means "no I havn't". 92.15.18.144 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, if you leave me some contact information I'll walk you through it. I'm not going to start a flame war with people who can't understand a simple proof. I can also just send you a publication, per your request, but you won't understand it.188.156.241.170 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Trolling? 92.28.241.163 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason I'm not answering is that people would think it's a troll. I'm not trying to start a flamewar here. Give me some means of contacting you (it can be a disposable e-mail address) and I'll walk you through the proof. You can come back here and post that I've done it. 79.122.16.169 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming it's been discredited suggests it was once held to be true. I don't believe it was. It's a simplification of reality that massively simplifies the maths allowing us to get answers to problems we wouldn't be able to solve otherwise. We know those answers aren't quite right, but they are close enough in many situations to be useful. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tango, in academia it had huge cachet. People are afraid to talk openly of the fact that it is false (I can send you evidence), despite writing articles that presume that it is. 79.122.97.10 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing about the "laws" of economics is that they are laws in much the same way that "wild stabs in the dark" are laws. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why individuals are able to amass great wealth, notwithstanding the limitations on superprofits. One reason is that the law provides protection for intellectual property, such as software patents and trademarks, allowing innovators such as Bill Gates to receive large returns. No one else can legally start making and selling Windows software.

The efficient market hypothesis applies only to the values of market-traded securities and instruments, so it has no application to billionaires who made their money in other ways. Of course, there are some individuals, such as Warren Buffett, who did become billionaires through investing. Adherents of the efficient market hypothesis would argue that they are just outliers, owing as much to luck as to skill in their rise to the top. John M Baker (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When you consider how many millions of people invest in stock markets, one of them will be the luckiest. 92.15.18.144 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've thought this through. After Buffett's smash hit performance for his first 20 years, making 20 billion, did you think he was on equal footing with everyone else regarding the next twenty years? After all, anyone's luck can run out. Do you think he is on equal footing with anyone else now, regarding the returns his company gets in the next 5 years? 79.122.16.169 (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read Survivorship bias. 92.28.241.163 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it. It's not just that Buffet won the lottery once. It's that he did so every year for twenty years. Nobody gets 30%-50% returns every year. It's as though someone won a lottery for 40 years in a row. You would have a point if Buffett made his billions by winning once, instead of over and over again, repeatedly. 79.122.16.169 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not even Warren Buffet or Berkshire Hathaway gets "30%-50%" every year. His 2010 newsletter http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2010ltr.pdf says BH shares rose by 20.2% compounded per year, compared with 9.4% for the S&P 500. Sometimes BH shares make an absolute loss, and more often they make a loss compared to investing in the S&P500 - as in 2009 and 2010 (lucky run ending?). Inflation was greater in the past than it is now, so in real terms the return would be even less.

Somewhere he says that they invest in businesses, not in the stock market - a significant point. They are not stock market traders - which would not work if the EMH is true - but a company that buys up other businesses, and which happens to be itself quoted on the stock market. That does not violate the EMH as far as I can see. Back in the 1960's he acquired companies that gave high-cash flow, and this money was and is reinvested in buying more businesses. No wonder the company grows. 92.29.113.29 (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As a political economist, I believe the biggest reason is that in advanced market societies such as the United States, people and firms with enough money are able to collude with the state in order to give themselves more market power and shift their risk to others. The ideas of economics still apply: that outcomes are the result of rational actors seeking to maximize their self-interest under the constraint of circumstance and the likely behavior of other actors. The difference is that the mutual pursuit of self-interest does not lead to economic efficiency in these cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.92.26 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

79.122.16.169, I am interested in your proof against the efficient markets hypothesis. Contact information is on my user page. John M Baker (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of misinformation (aka "making stuff up") in the above discussion of the EMH. Look it up before you describe it via your imagination.76.218.9.50 (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Very simple answer: If I make a trillion dollars profit on one transaction, someone (many someones) else will jump in and try to duplicate my achievement, or take away some of my market. That's an out-sized profit, and it should attract sufficient competition to make it nearly impossible for me to do it again. HOWEVER, if I make one dollar profit a trillion times, it may well be that no one else is going to be interested in challenging my hold on this particular market. My profit is NOT out-sized, just duplicated an enormous number of times. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)