Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 3

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.

October 3

have there ever been studies of large numbers of people doing something for a very short time?

have there ever been studies of large numbers of people doing something for a very short time? For example, 11 times 45 minutes is 8.25 hours. But is it the same as one person working for 8.25 hours, or worse/better in some way?

Imagine something like building a web app or programming. Any chance 11 programmers can do in 45 minutes what 1 can do in 8? How? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to piecework or an assembly line or division of labor? μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: You cannot get a baby in one month by impregnating nine women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding programming, see The Mythical Man-Month. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In terms of computer programming, Brooks's law and The Mythical Man-Month bring up an important point that the available work effort increases linearly with the number of people (so doubling the number of workers doubles the available effort), but the effort involved in coordinating between people increases as the square of the number of people (double the number of workers, and they'll spend four times as long coordinating).

In general, studying this falls under the discipline of operations research, and in general, unless the task is the sort that programmers would describe as embarrassingly parallel (something that breaks down into small pieces that can be done with little or no coordination between workers), a small number of people working for a long time will be more productive than a large number working for a small time. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, Distributed computing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some tasks which can be nicely done in parallel, though, like picking fruit. So, 10X as many people can likely pick the fruit in an orchard about 10X as quickly. There are even cases where you get a more than linear return. For example, if you want to push a car, and one person just can't do it alone, but several can. There are also tasks which are done in series, but where the coordination needed at each step is so simple that it's not a problem. A bucket brigade is one such case. StuRat (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What does Barack Obama drink?

Hello, just for interest, what is in the bottle on this photo or what bottle is it? https://www.google.com/hostednews/getty/media/ALeqM5g6VdGQS2h3cb1LPVBz_hgPhXh7KA It is posed on the frame of the table as like it should not be on the photo. Regards. --Pyfisch (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bottle of tea. I recognize the bottle but not being a tea drinker, I can't recall the exact brand. Dismas|^(talk) 09:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Green Dragon Tea. You can read it on the side of the bottle if you zoom in. --Viennese Waltz 10:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Drinking a bottle of tea with dragon in the name clearly indicates that he is a secret agent working on behalf of the Chinese government, and should thus be impeached and removed from office immediately." - next Tea Party campaign. :-) StuRat (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for finding this out. @StuRat: :-) And all Tea Party members stop drinking Green Tea. --Pyfisch (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's orange, not green. (I guess that at least proves that he's not Catholic.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Drinking green tea would also indicate he is a secret member of the Green Party, which might be even worse than being a Chinese plant, to the Tea Party at least. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was me that got the right answer, not "all of [us]". I wouldn't want StuRat to think he had helped in any way :) --Viennese Waltz 14:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For you as a thank you I will give you a bottle of tea if you visit me - Green Dragon Tea. :-) --Pyfisch (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bottled tea? Astonishing. Tea comes from a tea pot in these parts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I've never tried making tea from pot before. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you? It's quite a common usage in the UK... --TammyMoet (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The bottled stuff is served cold. The majority (85% according to our article) of tea consumed in the US is iced tea. Katie R (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Each to their own I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Iced tea is a great summer refresher in America. I expect the summer in places like England is not long enough or hot enough to warrant a cultural demand for iced tea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, it is a widely held belief that a hot cup of tea will cool you down on a warm day (we do have a few during most summers - 33.5C (92.3F) this year! [1]). The truth behind this article of faith has been the subject of much academic research, which has yielded results both confirming [2] and denying [3] the hypothesis.

Don't forget that until recently we had an Empire encompassing some of the hottest places on earth, the whole organization lubricated by infinite gallons of hot tea. During the North African Campaign, British troops made frequent stops to "brew-up" (ie make hot tea) on improvised petrol stoves called 'Bengazi boilers'; "Thus did half-a-million men / Make their daily brew, / From Daba back to Alamein, / From Fuka to Matruh, / In the good old days, / In the good old ways / All we Desert Rats knew." [4] All British tanks now have a built-in kettle to speed up the process. [5] Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's cabinet

Could someone please annotate this image so that the cabinet members' faces are associated with their names? I tried but failed to compare them with the pictures of the people whom Presidency of Jimmy Carter says were cabinet members in 1977. 2001:18E8:2:1020:2DD4:C6E0:8CE4:DBDA (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about Hamlet

In the play Hamlet, King Hamlet has died (and appears as a ghost). Subsequent to his death, Claudius becomes King of Denmark.

My question is: how is it that Prince Hamlet himself did not become the king upon the death of his father? Would not the son of the king (i.e., young Hamlet) be next in line to succeed the king upon the king’s death? How did Claudius "leap frog" over Hamlet in the line to succession?

I understand that Claudius (eventually) marries Gertrude. But that marriage did not happen for a good month or two, so there was plenty of time for Prince Hamlet to ascend to the throne.

Also, did Claudius become king because he was King Hamlet's brother, or because he was Queen Gertrude's husband (or both)?

Any insights?

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The principle of succession was not nearly as solid during the Middle Ages as is often believed, especially when the son was a minor and was not present when his father died. Also note that Shakespeare took his story from the tale of Amleth, which was set during the early Middle Ages. He altered some of the details but left that aspect of the story unchanged. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "In sixteenth-century Denmark, the king was elected by the Council, consisting of the major nobles of the land, a choice then ratified by representatives of the common people. The reigning monarch played a substantial but not decisive role in scripting the election of his successor..." from Julia Reinhard Lupton, Thinking with Shakespeare: Essays on Politics and Life, University of Chicago Press, 2011 (p. 78). Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This has cropped up once or twice on the Talk:Hamlet page. Denmark was an elective monarchy at the time. In Act V scene 2 Hamlet states that Claudius "popped in between the election and my hopes", but the play gives no further details about why the council of electors chose Claudius over Hamlet. This essay explains the context [6]. The play, BTW, never gives any clear indication of when in history events are supposed to occurring. The cultural references, including the elective monarchy, are generally contemporary to Shakespeare, implying that's it's set in a version of "the present", but the original story of Hamlet is supposed to have occurred in the 7th century. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's worth adding that the original version of the story has Claudius (originally called "Feng", a suitably villainous sounding name) killing Hamlet's father and taking over in a straghtforward coup. Everyone knows Feng did it, and Hamlet has to pretend to be mad to avoid being killed too. In Shakespeare's version the murder is secret, so that Claudius, as it were, worms his way in by legitimaste consitutional means. This sets up a very different dynamic, with Hamlet's initial refusal to accept the situation seeming like a form of irrational petulance to people around him, and Claudius looking like the sensible choice of king. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Joseph, it was less than a month between the death of the king and the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude. "Nay, not yet a month ... The funeral baked meats did freshly furnish forth the wedding table". Exactly how much less, we're not told. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. But, we can also infer that there was some considerable passage of time (i.e., that it was not a matter of only a few days). At one point (or several?), Hamlet says that it's been two months. Then, in your quote above, he corrects himself and says "less than a month", after he gave it more thought. My point is that it was not immediate (within a day or two), so I assumed that there was plenty of time (relatively speaking) for Hamlet to ascend the throne (if there was indeed a hereditary monarchy in place). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How did parents toilet-train their kids before the invention of flushy toilets?

How did parents toilet-train their kids before the invention of flushy toilets? In other words, how did little children learn where to go when they have to go? 140.254.136.151 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Flushing toilets isn't a requirement for "toilet" training. They didn't poop just anywhere; there were still designated places to do the deed. Outhouses, chamber pots, back alleys... Mingmingla (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So, did parents potty-train their kids then with chamberpots? 140.254.136.151 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's why they call it "potty training". It's is essentially about teaching kids to hold it in until they get to the right place to do it. We also train dogs and cats to do the same thing, but generally don't expect them to learn how to use a flush. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's a flushing dog. In this case it does it instinctively. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean UR (unconditioned response) for "instinctively", then you are incorrect, OsmanRF34. As a matter of fact, the flushing dog, as the article mentions, is trained to do this job. How do you train dogs? Animal trainers mainly employ operant conditioning, specifically shaping (a technical term) the dog's instinctive behaviors to do what you want it to do. 164.107.146.249 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Observe this is an example of Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. :) Wnt (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Asian Americans in government and politics

What does it mean to be a "Republican Jew"? Is this generally a good thing or a bad thing? (When I say "Asian", I mean anybody that has ancestry or place of origin in Asia.) 140.254.136.151 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a definitional mess. I'm glad our OP at least gave his definition of "Asian" - from anywhere in Asia. Unfortunately, it's not the same as the one used in the article Asian Americans in government and politics. That refers to Asian Americans, which says they are people from "the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent". Trouble is, it also links to Asian people, which seems to have around at least twenty attempts at a definition, some going back to close to the OP's definition, but some being much narrower. I know that most Americans, like Australians, use the word Asian to refer to "people with slanty eyes", i.e. looking like they come from China. Yes, that's sloppy, but it seems to be the reality. Where Jews fit into this I have no idea. That term "Republican Jew" is supposed to be a synonym for Asian Americans. It's explained towards the end of the article that tells us Asians are from "the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent". This is clearly a good thing. (Was that the question?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This phrase is influenced by American Jews' general preference (through many years) for the Democratic Party. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Canadian-USA Border Laxity?

wrong place for this question

Strange question: I'm in the US (with a 10-year B2 visa). I've applied for a Canadian visa but it's going to take 60 days. I heard 1 story that the Buffalo border is usually lenient in letting people through. Is there a place I could try to drive / walk into Canada where: 1) They may not check for a visa, or 2) They may be lenient and then grant me a visa I have all the documentation from my Visa application (invitations etc). Thank you! Asked by: 76.88.25.23 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's on the fringe of legal advice. 2) is asking for legal advice for sure, at least. For 1), I fail to see why this is a good idea. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm hoping at least someone can add some anecdotal evidence. Maybe at Buffalo they don't check everyone? It's going to be complicated and expensive for me to fly to Buffalo just on a long-shot that I won't be screened, so it would be nice if anyone had some stories that would back this up. Thanks 76.88.25.23 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reference desk is not all about anecdotal information or speculation. The question is our of range. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember you have to get lucky twice, going out and coming back. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of pure curiosity, could you explain why you, being in San Diego and all, want to travel to the other extreme across the US just to go to Canada (and not wait the 60 days)? OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I am in San Diego with my parents and brothers visiting family, then we go to Canada for the main purpose of our trip: my cousin's wedding. They are all Australian Citizens (ex-South Africans) and have Australian passports. I am not yet an Australian citizen (I spent some time back in South Africa) so I'm travelling on a South African passport. Australians don't need visas to get into Canada. I have gone to great lengths now to expedite my Canadian visa application including the 2-hour train to the Los Angeles embassy and they turned me away. You cannot even speak to anyone about your visa because they insist you email and the standard response time by email is 30 days. Apparently they are striking. It has been one complete nightmare! 76.88.25.23 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, what I can tell you is to check [[7]] for alternative consulates. Maybe Pretoria or Mexico City could be an option. Probably you'll need an address in any of these countries, but both have a shorter waiting time. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about this issue, but I remember reading the sorry story of some Canadians who tried to cross the border into the U.S. but were stopped because, despite having various identity documents, they hadn't brought a utility bill with their address on it from their home some 800 miles behind them. The crossing personnel helpfully told them they could try their luck at another crossing ... at which they were promptly officially banned from trying to enter for 10 years for trying to evade enforcement by trying more than one crossing. I couldn't find this story on the web just now but did find mention of a similar thing (only a threat in this case) for people going into Canada [8]. Wnt (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the purpose of a lax border to make it all the easier for us to invade, should Canada ever try to declare its independence from the US? μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Financial and economic costs of anti-gay efforts?

I am wondering about the financial and economic costs of anti-gay efforts - both the amount of money that goes into persuading other people to be anti-gay and the economic costs of unhappy-therefore-unproductive gay employees and students in gay-hostile environments. 140.254.136.168 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's like asking "How much does it cost to keep the sun shining every day? Well it's going to shine anyway, once you realize how big a place the world is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.149.160 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense to me, 71.246... What's the problem of simply putting a price tag on how much money people waste discriminating gays? Answering might certainly be a back of the envelope kind of calculation, but some people might come up with a figure. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Homophobes probably don't consider such spending "wasteful", but rather a "cost of doing business". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if it makes the homophobes feel better, they could become more productive. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

-phobes and antis are not synonymous. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 23:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti-gay is not the same as homo-phobe? Etymologically, you are right, but aren't both words synonymous? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No it's more than etymologically. It's human. You may wish to search google for LGBT individuals who are either not involved in the "movement" or who are actually in major disagreement with it and actively working against it, those individuals could never be classified as -phobic. Is the Pope -phobic? The Church's position is that of anti but not -phobic. If we start blurring lines then anyone with any political view is at risk of being mislabeled. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is etymological rubbish. Anti-gay = homophobic = anti-gay. They mean the same thing in modern, common usage. That's why nobody uses the term anti-gay in common speech. There's another, far more common word that means precisely the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems the consensus has disagreed for some time, perhaps this may be a good discussion for the talk page of Anti-gay, that and 321,000 results on a google search for the term. Overlap exists but they are very different things. To echo μηδείς below, definitions matter. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that a joke, or incompetence? Anti-gay is the disambiguation page for Anti-LGBT, listing many things. By far the most common of those things is homophobia. Many of them are neologisms for things we didn't have words for 40 years ago. Again, in by far it's most common usage, Anti-gay = homophobic = anti-gay. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So wikipedia is a joke for having several definitions? If you want to call hard working editors incompetent then post your opinion to the Anti-Gay talk page since it opposes your narrow definition. Why do you keep asking the same question & expect a different response, unless you're not reading the whole response, which also is defined as incompetence, or is that only what you say it is? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah. That's a cop-out. For all practical purposes here, anti-gay means homophobic, and both make for very unattractive behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothings stopping you from correcting said "cop-out" at that wikipedia talkpage, nor contacting google. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But only you seem to think this is a problem. Most of the rest of us are content with the usage that, whatever the etymology, 'homophobic' carries the meaning 'anti-gay'. You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding people here in order to push your own point. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Never edited that page, but I did read it, so those points must belong to others. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

AlexTiefling & HiLo48, per "cop-out", "unattractive behavior", "only you seem to think this is a problem", "wilfully misunderstanding people...to push your own point", "by far it's (sic) most common usage", "Is that a joke or incompetence". Please refer to The reference desk process helps the growth & refinement of Wikipedia by identifying areas that may need improvement. If an article that could answer a question is lacking the relevant information, look for a way to work the information into the article. This provides a lasting value to the project...The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions. Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources...responses must not intentionally skew answers to reflect only one side of a material dispute...The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects. Respondents should direct questioners to relevant information and discussions, but should refrain from participating in any extended, heated debate...We should in all cases strive to exceed the minimum standard of civility. Assume good faith, and don't make the mistake of confusing an editor's poor English with intentional rudeness. Remember that all Reference Desk staff are volunteers and deserve to be treated courteously...answers must be verifiable, that is, to the extent the questioner wishes to verify that the answer is not fabricated, there should exist a reliable source (or sources) that would give the same answer. Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate...Make a serious effort to locate supporting sources, as you would in an original answer. Or in short what I replied above, specifically and repetitively: "perhaps this may be a good discussion for the talk page of Anti-gay, that and 321,000 results on a google search for the term. Overlap exists but they are very different things. To echo μηδείς below, definitions matter." 01:37, 4 October 2013. Thank you. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 12:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In both cases it's a cost that could be measured or estimated. It could also be the case that they earn money by discriminating others. If others are limited by a glass ceiling, it's a privilege for those not affected. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Give some examples. Define some terms. I have had plenty of employers not be personally comfortable with the fact when they found out I was actively bisexual, to the point of nervous teasing with two, but except for one case it never mattered. In the other case, I ended up getting fired once on false pretenses by a boss who was going through a divorce due to "identity issues". It certainly didn't cost that employer anything (although I could have sued or claimed unemployment at the least) but that happened on the same day I went to give notice because I had gotten hired to work at a gay magazine. How in the world would such things be quantified? Answers could range from not having to pay for a sick lover's health insurance to firing Alan Turing. This sounds like social science at it worst. μηδείς (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • How was your personal life any of your employer's business? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would expect that the main economic effect of anti-gay activism would be just to shift dollars spent by gay people to other communities, where they feel more welcome. StuRat (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking back to Econ 101, every dollar spent or not spent has a positive or negative (respectively) impact on the overall economy. So, in theory, every dollar spent on activism of any kind helps to stimulate the economy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because that's a dollar which won't be spent somewhere else, or saved in a bank which would use it for investments (they can't use their government bailouts for investments, as that money is all slated for bonuses to reward their incompetence). StuRat (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If I spend a dollar on activism, or on anything, someone will receive that dollar, and then they can spend it somewhere else, and so on, and that helps the economy. If I put that dollar under my mattress, it hurts the economy. That's basic Economics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs' claim that every dollar spent helps the economy is an example of the broken window fallacy. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to my college Econ teacher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

...and that would be the reason they are teaching college econ, rather than working as an actual economist. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an old adage: Those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, become WP Ref Desk editors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jakob Lorber museum?

Hi, everyone - I'm writing about Jakob Lorber, and a friend is currently in Austria, and has offered to go to Ganz, which seems to have been Lorber's home town, in case there's a museum or library or something of that sort there. Does anyone know if there is? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, no results for any museums or libraries focusing on or dedicated to Lorber, however did find that his house is marked and preserved here, potentially there may be additional resources inside. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, MarketDiamond - yes, I couldn't find anything either, but the house might be a lead to something, as you say. Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it’s Graz, not Ganz? There are several museums in the town: [9] of which the most likely seems the Stadtmuseum (ie focused on city history) and the biggest seems the Universalmuseum Joanneum. Taknaran (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the error - and thank you! - i will check it out Adambrowne666 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What happened after the other financial bubbles?

It makes sense to expect a wave of low consumption paired with lots of defaults on loans (mortgages and similar stuff)? It makes intuitively sense, but do historical data corroborate it? Economic_bubbles#Examples_of_aftermaths_of_bubbles seems to provide some random information. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's qualitatively right, but a key aspect of the most recent bubble is that it involved real estate. Everything about real estate is slow. When you have a real estate bubble, you get a long slow crash and then a long slow recovery. Most bubbles haven't involved real estate, so they didn't have nearly as many mortgage defaults. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all financial bubbles are created equal. Many have said to understand our current one that 1873 is actually more similar. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)