Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 24

"Retirement age"

I'm a little confused by all of the hubbub over France raising the retirement age to 62. What, exactly, do they mean by "retirement age?" In America, you retire whenever you want. Usually, you get Social Security payouts starting at 65, but Social Security makes up less than half of most retirees' income, with the rest coming from company pensions, tax-favored retirement accounts or just normal savings.

Unfortunately, even the French Wikipedia isn't clear about this. It says there are really three retirement ages in France: a "maximum" of 70, after which a company can force you to retire; an "age of retirement at full pension" (65, proposed to rise to 67) and a "minimum" age of 60 at which you have the "right to retire." Only at 65 do you get a pension equal to 50% of your working wage. (It's not clear whether that comes from the government or whether the company is obligated to pay it.)

So what happens when you turn 60? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You can simply request an early retirement when you turn 60 (doesn't matter if you are still fit or not - you can retire if you wish to: in France you have the right to retire at 60). You won't get a full pension, but you get a part of it. It seems to be enough for many (perhaps even most) French citizens. At 65 you can retire with a full pension. At 70 you can be forced to retire by your employer. I believe that you get a medical/extraordinary retirement if you're crippled or otherwise. I believe that France is one of the few countries of the world where you can retire at 60 (simply no longer affordable). The protest is due to the government's plan to raise the early retirment age to 62. The unions are against this raise (which seems to have passed the French senate - see here). Notice that the average European retirement age (excluding France) seems to be more or less at 65 (and the German goverment is considering to raising the German retirement age to 67). Flamarande (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So if you retire at 60 (or 62 now), you get what, a portion of your pension? What portion would you get? Buddy431 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My French is far from perfect but IMHO this French article seems to indicate the following:

Pour un fonctionnaire, le taux plein est de 75% de l'indice de rémunération détenu six mois avant la cessation d'activité (les primes et autres accessoires qui représentent souvent 20% de la rémunération de l'agent sont exclus du calcul).

(My own very short translation - might be mistaken) A public employee gets 75% of his salary (which is calculated upon his salary of his last 6 months). Notice that subsidies, bonuses and extras which sometimes make up 20% of the regular wage are not included in the calculation of the pension. But don't worry: if he gets a promotion shortly before his retirement he gets a larger pension - don't laugh but I know that in Germany public employees are regularly promoted at the end of their career on purpose - and you can bet that this happens in many countries, including France).

Pour les autres travailleurs le taux plein de la retraite est de 50% de la rémunération (tous éléments inclus, y compris les primes) des 25 meilleures années de travail.

(Again - I might be mistaken) Private employees get 50% of their salary (which is calculated upon his salary of his best 25 years - best meaning highest salary). Regular subsidies, bonuses and extras are included in the calculation. Flamarande (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That article refers to "retirement at full pension" -- that is, age 65, not 60. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes the French system different from that of most other western countries is that few people have privately funded pensions. They rely on a) a basic government pension, comparable to Social Security in the US, and b) industry-wide pension schemes workers are forced to buy into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you're mistaken. Most people in Western Europe rely and have relied on government pensions and only recently have begun to invest in private pensions. France is not an exception in this aspect, but an example of the rule. Flamarande (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right Flamarande but there is a difference between the UK and France. In the UK many people have occupational pensions, organised by their employers, that are separate from the State pension. Really big schemes include the civil service scheme, the local government scheme and the teachers' scheme. They are essentially compulsory for those who work in the related fields; strictly speaking you can opt out completely but you would be crazy to do so and a financial adviser would be breaking their code of conduct advising you to do so. You can always take out a private pension on top, in which case you would have three separate pensions - and potentially three different ages at which you are entitled to claim. In France, the occupational pensions were gradually sbsorbed into a unified state scheme. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blame the French governments who planned it, and the unions who took the deal. I'm all but certain that even in France you can nevertheless make your own personal private pension plans. Flamarande (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

First Recorded War/Event

When was the world's first recorded war or, if difficulty arises, the world's first recorded event? 99.100.97.253 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC) (schyler)

Schyler, since you're a regular here yourself, could you help us narrow down the sort of answer you are looking for by providing an example of what you might consider a possible answer to that? Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"The documentation of military history begins with the confrontation between Sumer (current Iraq) and Elam (current Iran) c.2700 BCE near the modern Basra, and includes such enduring records as the Hebrew Bible. Other prominent records in military history are the Trojan War in Homer's Iliad (though its historicity has been challenged), The Histories by Herodotus (484 BC - 425 BC) who is often called 'father of history'..." —from our Military history article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The roughly 5,000-year-old Narmer Palette may show the unification of Ancient Egypt. It also shows some kind of military victory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment in our military history article may refer to Eannatum, king of Lagash. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Street in Bratislava

There is a street in Bratislava named after Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, what is it called? It is supposedly located near a street named "Belopotockého". Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Its name is apparently "Björnsonova". It's the (roughly) north-south street at 48.1558°N 17.1147°E / 48.1558; 17.1147, running into Belopotockého at its southern end. Deor (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

North Africa in WW2; petrol; amount of people and equipment wins battle?

1) Why did the Allies and the Axis bother to fight over North Africa during WW2? Wouldnt they have done better to put their resources to work in Europe?

2) Where did the Germans get their petrol from during WW2?

3) In battles, is it almost always the side with the most men and most resources (at the place of battle) that wins? 92.15.31.47 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As to your last point, it wasn't the case in 1415 at the Battle of Agincourt. The French were numerically superior with better equipage; However, the trusty Welsh longbow won the day for Henry V and the English. Cry God for Harry, England and St. George!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"more shiny" does not equal "better". Apparently "the trusty Welsh longbow" was superior to 60 pounds of metal distributed around ones person. And the same applies to the shepherd with the sling - as Agatha Christie observed after seeing slingers in Palestine, "that Goliath boy never stood a chance" (or words to that effect)... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell it to Charles d'Albret!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, he knows! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first question, the article Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II states: "Benito Mussolini was anxious to link Italian North Africa (Africa Settentrionale Italiana, or ASI) with Italian East Africa (Africa Orientale Italiana, or AOI). He also wanted to capture Egypt, the Suez Canal, and the Arabian oilfields.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Germans also got oil from the Ploesti oilfields in Romania (see also Oil Campaign of World War II) and, by using the Fischer–Tropsch process, created oil from coal within Germany. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What would have been the effect of either side deciding to leave North Africa and deploy their resources to Europe? It seems rather pointless fighting over empty desert. 92.28.246.6 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Your question makes no sense. The control of the Suez Canal is of vital importance. IMHO most of the ships coming from Araby (filled with oil), India, Australia, New Zealand, etc (filled with supplies and recruits) probably came through the Suez Canal (might be mistaken here). Losing control of the Suez Canal would be a major setback (forcing all ships to go around the whole of Africa - which would cost a couple of months). Flamarande (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And of course Africa eventually provided a route for the Allies to launch their invasion of Italy, as well as the less known "Operation Dragoon" - the invasion of the South of France. the wub "?!" 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

North Africa is not entirely empty desert. The Sahara is quite far away from the Mediterranean. And why has anyone ever wanted control of North Africa? Why did the Phoenicians want it? The Greeks? The Romans? The Arabs? The crusaders? The Ottomans? Napoleon? Britain? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vichy French Navy had much of its forces at Mers El Kébir, they had been attacking Allied ships, it was important to put them out of action. Corvus cornix_talk 05:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wonder if concentrating all British forces in Europe rather than also fighting in the far east would have been a better strategy. The delay of a couple of days when the Suez Canal was lost does not seem worth the division of forces, particularly since any traffic through the canal had to go through a hostile Meditteranean as well. 92.15.6.117 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Concentrating all British forces in Europe before the Invasion of France would have ended in the greatest German victory ever. IMHO the British army was simply unprepared and totally surprised by the new way of war (recent analysis suggests that our notion that German army had an full-fledged official Blitzkrieg doctrine is wrong). However the German army was de facto simply better in the early years (better officers, better equipment - like a radio for every single tank, new ways of using it, way less interference by Hitler). IMHO it would have crushed the whole British army. Notice that the Invasion of France ended with the British expeditionary force forced to retreat, losing most of its equipment. Have no doubts that without the safety provided by the English channel (guarded by the RAF) the German army would have pursued and destroyed it.

AFAIK most of the British army (the better part) was concentrated in Europe and North Africa. However you seem to forgetting that reinforcements and constant supplies are vital factors in a war. Your factories (which produce new tanks, planes, ships) need enormous quantities of oil, iron, etc. Your military constantly needs new recruits, oil, etc. You have to feed your population and soldiers (and the British Isles are too small to grow enough food to feed its population). AFAIK the larger part of the supplies came from the Americas but a substantial and important part came from the other parts of the empire (India, Australia, New Zealand, etc). 13:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the British Isle is still capable of feeding itself in a war situation. A lot of marginal land would be put back into production. 92.15.6.252 (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

One of us is wrong (and I don't think it is me who is mistaken). Either the British Isles were/are capable to feed its population or not. Flamarande (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Pride before a fall. See http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/CanBritain.pdf The answer is that Britain could feed its current population if it had to. Britain imports food because it has a taste for the exotic, and because it is cheaper. In recent times it has often produced more of some foods than it consumes and exports the surplus, such as cereals. Surprisingly, it is more self-sufficient currently than it was in the 30s and 50s, according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8189549.stm I expect that modern farming methods have increased yields considerably. 92.28.255.58 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised. I remember reading that during WWII food was strictly rationed in the UK and that the reserves were at one point critically low because of the U-Boots (I vaguely remember reading something about "only enough for a couple of weeks"). The article Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) vaguely states that the UK needed a million tonnes of supplies per week during WWII (the article fails to provide a source for the statement and supplies can mean a lot of things). So even IF the British Isles were/are capable of feeding its population it was/is unable to produce enough raw material for its factories (but then which country was/is truly capable of doing that on its own?). This site clearly agrees with this view/judgement. Flamarande (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Can feed" is not the same as "is prepared to feed itself right now, in February, with no warning". Moreover, the rationing system was to ensure that everybody got his fair share - there is quite a gap between "a reasonably healthy and complete diet" and "all the food I want". Apparently, no nation was ever, as a whole, fed as healthily as the British during WW2, as rationing essentially forced what was then considered "best practice" (and what probably is not quite what we think is optimal today, but is a lot better than what we actually do east against better knowledge) onto nearly all of the population. See [1], [2], [3]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The British didn't have the means to get an army ashore in Europe before 1944. Even then, success wasn't guaranteed. Actually, the supply route from the east was round the Cape of Good Hope as getting convoys accross the Med was a nightmare (see Malta Convoys). It was the only theatre where Britain could take on the Axis on land, and we were astonishingly successful at it before the arrival of the Afrika Korps. Point 3 about the side with the most men and resources winning was NOT true of the early battles against Italians who had 215,000 against 50,000 British and Commonwealth troops (see Operation Compass where 130,000 Italian prisoners were taken against 2,000 Allied casualties). "Never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few" (Anthony Eden). The boot was on the other foot when the Germans arrived, and they put the numerically superior British into retreat until their supply line gave out. If they had taken Egypt and Palestine it would have left the Middle Eastern oilfields wide open, cut our supply line to the USSR through Iran and may have eventually threatened British India - a 1941 German inspired revolt in Iraq against the pro-British government there was nearly successful. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that we can agree that the Italian army was third-rate at best in terms of quality and leadership (quantity alone without any of the other two is simply not enough). They were trashed even by the Greeks (read Greco-Italian War). Flamarande (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the OP's second question, the Wikipedia article on gasoline states that Germany received most of its petrol from Romania, which was an ally of Germany.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it could have done with a lot more; as a result they had to make petrol out of coal. Also, the Battle of Stalingrad originated in the drive to capture the Caucasus oilfields. Alansplodge (talk)

Actually I read an alternative history novel in which Germany emerged the victor of WWII after having defeated the Rusians at Stalingrad and capturing the Caucasus oilfields.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if they'd just gone AROUND Stalingrad, they would almost certainly have been successful. This was pointed out to the Fuhrer, but being a military genius, he wasn't given to accepting advice. Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

According to William Shirer in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, had Germany not become embroiled in the Balkans, they would have begun their Russian campaign earlier, therefore avoiding becoming bogged down in the notorious Russian winter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For the third question, the answer is obviously no. It is often the best equipped, best trained and best motivated, not the most numerous. Examples range from the recent Iraq and Gulf Wars, to Battle of Rorke's Drift in the Anglo-Zulu War. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Include the Battle of Cannae. Flamarande (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

do church services cause epileptic seizures?

how often and how severe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.229 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 October 2010

There is no reason to believe they would, and no real sense to this question. sorry. --Ludwigs2 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

this is a serious question. worship can be really loud and with blinking lights and all that. heard that aspies can get sensory overload from that. what about epileptic seizures for epileptics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.229 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 October 2010

Some evangelical Christian forms of worship do see people apparently slipping into states similar to a seizure, but I don't know about any scientific analysis of this (including EEG measurements). However even if they are real seizures, they are most likely to be of the psychogenic non-epileptic kind.

I did find a fantastic case study: Musicogenic Epilepsy Caused Only by a Discrete Frequency Band of Church Bells This sounds like a very rare and unusual case though. the wub "?!" 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Many years ago I saw a "Horizon" documentary on the BBC, which claimed that religious experiences were down to a form of temporal lobe epilepsy. This study for example. However, I don't think that's what you're after. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Holy Roller is a somewhat derogatory term for [[4]], due to their tendency to fall to the ground and speak in tongues. It's difficult to say what's actually going on here, but I'd speculate the true epileptic seizures are rare in these situations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What school recently made D grades failing?

What U.S. high school just made a D grade failing? It was on the news the other week. I was listening to the morning show on NPR in the car, and they did a story about it. I found it interesting, but I didn't bother remembering the school's name. Of course, now I'm working on an article where I want to refer to the school... Anyone have an idea of the name of the school? I've tried googling to no avail. Thanks in advance! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if this question's better suited for the "miscellaneous" reference desk, I can move it there --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's schools in the Mount Olive Township School District of New Jersey. Here is the NPR story. the wub "?!" 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Out of curiosity, how did you mange to find that? I searched using the terms "D fail school" and searched through about 20 pages of news stories without finding anything. Thanks a ton! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It took some experimenting, but the trick was using "pass" instead of the more obvious "fail". I think the search was something like "grade D pass school" on news.google.com, and filter to the past month. the wub "?!" 22:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Another way to find it quickly would be to go to news.google.com and type in "d grade" with quotes. Links to the article come up on the first search page. -- kainaw™ 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought I'd tried that, but I guess not. Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Giving work any grade is largely arbitrary. People rarely use or understand standard score-ing. 92.15.6.117 (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to you, Cymru lass, for endeavouring to improve your googling skills. It's appreciated! Steewi (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Monetary value of framed reproduction of La Fragua De Vulcano Velazquez,Museo Del Prado

Is there any monetary value in this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.73.9 (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, unless a reproduction (as opposed to a print) has been painted by someone famous, it seldom has much value, though the frame may have some value. Bielle (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

New Hamborough

If one were born in New Hamborough, Upper Canada - where would one be born at?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to as David Petersen. Out of the first 100 or so mentions of New Hamborough on a Google search, every single mention is a reference to a web page written by David Petersen. His web page doesn't mention where he got that name from. -- kainaw™ 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Got an e-mail sent off to him. Also this large Detroit cemetery uses the same name.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I has the bright idea that it must be an old or variant name for New Hamburg, Ontario, with the German suffix anglicized. But it turns out that Wilmot Township itself was only settled starting in 1824 and the name New Hamburg only dates from the 1830s, whereas someone was born in New Hamborough in 1811. So that idea is definitively wrong, and I need not have mentioned it. --Anonymous, 04:33 UTC, October 25, 2010.

I thought that maybe it was a misspelling of "Newham Borough", which is in London, and could conceivably been the source of an Upper Canadian place name (like London itself). Unfortunately that seems to be incorrect as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the name "Newham" was invented in 1965 when the Municiple Boroughs of East Ham and West Ham were merged at the creation of the Greater London Council. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did find a book printed in 1882 with E.B. Ward's bio - the person supposedly born in "New Hamborough, Upper Canada." All it says is: He was born in Canada in 1811. This bio would have been done just 7 yeaars after his death. Hopefully Dave will answer my e-mail and solve the mystery as to where he got that name.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In All Chronography of notable events in the history of the Northwest Territory and Wayne County by Fred Carlisle in 1890 it says Eber Brock Ward, the only son of Eber Ware and Sally Totten Ward, was born in New Hamborough, Upper Canada, December 25th, 1811. Some of the entries in Ancestry have either New Hamborough Ontario, Hamborough Ontario or Applegaths Mills Ontario. If any of that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Great clues, thanks. Turns out New Hamborough is near Dungannon, Ontario per this genealogy PDF under "Financial Disputes".--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It might even be New Hamburg, Ontario - the German spelling being New Hamborough. I'm looking into that.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It can't be New Hamburg, because that place didn't exist until the 1830s, and Eber Brock Ward was apparently born in "New Hamborough" in 1811, as Anonymous pointed out above. It was also almost certainly not Dungannon, Ontario, which lies in an area not settled until the 1820s. The PDF you reference above refers to Dungannon in Northern Ireland, not in Canada. The best clue I can find is this site, which refers to a "Hamboro" near Dundas, Ontario. This was one of the few parts of present-day Ontario west of Toronto that did have white settlers by 1811. Dundas also would have been a plausible stop on a journey from Vermont to Michigan, which was apparently the context of Ward's birth. "New Hamborough" could have been the name of a farmstead that was long ago sold, subdivided, and forgotten, if in fact it existed. If you really want to track down this location, I would contact the authors of this site and ask them for their sources. I would try to track down the original source of this fact and assess its reliability. The next step might be to try to find very old maps of the Dundas, Ontario, area, or look up accounts of its earliest history, perhaps at the Hamilton Public Library branch in Dundas, which might include mentions of this place. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Marco polo. I am following up on your suggestions now. Perhaps I will ultimately solve the mystery.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional clues I just recently discovered shows that Eber Brock Ward was born in New Hamburg, Ontario in the book History of DETROIT by Paul Leake on page 1234.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But maybe the author of that book just assumed, as I did, that New Hamborough must be New Hamburg. Unless there's a bibliography with a cite for that specific fact... --Anonymous, 10:59 UTC, October 26, 2010.

Good point, Anonymous. I have several e-mails in the works already to various people that may know and for biographies on Eber Brock Ward. I'll let you know IF I do find out something definite.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep this in mind also - the book linked to was written in 1912. Paul Leak, the author of the book wrote several other books and seems to be an authority for history of this time period of the nineteenth century.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Below is one e-mail I have received back so far:

Doug Coldwell, thank you for contacting the Hamilton Public Library.

I checked three sources for historic Ontario town names and could find no listing for ‘New Hamborough’ or ‘Hamborough’. I did find a listing for New Hamburg, originally called Cassel by German settlers in W. Ontario near Kitchener-Waterloo, in 1851 it became known as New Hamburg.

If you need more information about New Hamburg I suggest you contact the Kitchener or Waterloo Public Libraries.

Best regards, Robert Oldham, Hamilton Public Library, Ontario

I have followed this up with an e-mail to the Waterloo Public Library.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:07 AM - Good Morning Mr. Coldwell,

Thank you for your inquiries. Your request has been forwarded to someone who will possibly know the answer. However, she is currently away on a family emergency and will get back to you as soon as she can. Thank you for your interest in the Region of Waterloo Library, Sincerely, Melissa Barraclough, Library Clerk, Region of Waterloo Library

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I was at the Toronto Reference Library and visited the map department, where I browsed reproduction maps of Upper Canada from about 1807 to about 1830. I tried to go slowly and read every place name on all the maps and I did not see anything resembling "New Hamborough". Of course, this proves nothing; I could just have missed something, or it could have been a local place name too small to map. (I'm wondering now if it could have been the name of a farm or something like that.) There was one gazetteer that included older place names (sorry, I only had time for a quick look and didn't take note of the title); it said that New Hamburg also used to be spelled New Hamburgh, but there was no entry for New Hamborough. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, October 29, 2010.

Marxian economics

I remember being taught that the Father of modern economic theory is Adam Smith when I was in high school (this was during the Cold War). Now, my son is being taught that it is Karl Marx, along with a few others who pioneered the practical side of economics (Smith is not included). I found this a bit strange. My question is, speaking of their respective descriptive views of economics (not prescriptive, as in what needs to be changed, because exactly zero countries actively pursue Communism anymore), who has been more influential on the modern economic theory of the world overall, Marx or Smith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx himself drew heavily on the work of Adam Smith, so it is a bit crazy to describe Marx as the father of economic theory. Marx is of course the father of Marxian economic theory, but not of the field as a whole. Marx has certainly been influential, even on non-Marxian economists, but they tend to reject his theories as a whole, whereas they acknowledge their debt to Smith, so, even though I am something of a Marxian myself, I would have to say that Smith has been more influential. Marco polo (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, it's like this: Adam Smith set out the original principles of capitalism as a system (though he was largely theorizing from observation, so he can't really be said to have 'invented' capitalism). However, his capitalism was a simplistic form of free-market capitalism, which made a number of unrealistic assumptions. (segue past a number of intervening theorists who played with Smith's ideas and expanded on them somewhat philosophically, but not in any important ways). Karl Marx created the first major revision of capitalist theory, in which he began discussing a number of ideas absent from Smith: the impact of social and class distinctions on economic, the relationship between economics and the state, an analysis of the underlying principles of capital and of the overarching social interaction that drives the system, the effects og technology on production. From Marx's theories, directly or indirectly, we get things like:

• marginal economics was framed in disputes with Marxist theory
• Keynesian economics (where - loosely put - the government intervenes in the market to stabilize it) is based on Marxist conceptions and is widely used. every time the Fed adjusts interest interest rates you see Keynesian economic principles in action
• Trade and labor unions all stem from marxist theory, as attempts to create a unified class front against capitalist employers
• many, many social welfare policies (from medicare to welfare to workplace affirmative action) are based on similar class-equality models.
• To this day, Marxist theory offers better explanations of economic behavior than classical capitalist theories do (both the US housing market crash and the subsequent bailouts are largely inexplicable from a classical perspective, but are precisely the kinds of actions expected under Marxist precepts).

So really, yes... Smith should probably be considered the grandfather of modern economics, because most of modern economics traces itself (one way or another) back to Marx. --Ludwigs2 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Keynesian economics is NOT "based on Marxist conceptions." It's really infuriating to see such a profoundly ignorant and inaccurate statement presented as fact on this desk. Stop believing Republican propagandists and do some freaking RESEARCH. 63.17.75.239 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs - on almost all of that. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice try...Piero Sraffa may have found a way to save Marx reputation as an economist, but I'd be surprised if anybody else in economics takes Marx' theory of value or his Verelendungstheorie (the poor must get ever poorer in the long run) seriously. The uselessness of mainstream economics in predicting the future is a completely different matter. To my mind Marx was only one of a number of interesting philosophers of the School of Hegel, Castoriadis likes his use of Aristoteles. Marx also was a kind of early pragmatist and follower of Feuerbach. He also was a great essayist, that's about it.--Radh (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, no one takes Freud's theories seriously anymore, but he's certainly the basis of modern Psychoanalysis. And Charles Darwin's theories aren't considered accurate either, but are the basis of modern Genetics. So, it's not a stretch to say that Marx's work is the basis of modern economics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx might be many things, but AFAIK he isn't considered the father of modern economics. Adam Smith, with his masterpiece The Wealth of Nations, holds that honour. Flamarande (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx was a philosopher, not an economist (at least not an economist in the sense that we think of them today). Basically, "Marxian economics" is to economics what "intelligent design" is to biology. Wikiant (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The labour theory of value may not be taken seriously today by mainstream economists, but it is incorrect to refer to it as "his" (Marx's) theory. It was suggested by Smith and endorsed by Ricardo. Present day economists argue that neither of them "really" advocated it, and you can find parts of their writings that suggest opposing concepts, but if you read the texts you will be in no doubt where the idea originated. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as more people are Marxists than Ricardonians [?], it is known as Marx' theory. The context of the economics (the systems of Smith, Ricardo or Marx) is also different, as Marx himself stressed.--Radh (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx pioneered study of Effective demand and criticized Say's Law, among other things. Working in the Marxist tradition Michael Kalecki anticipated much of Keynes work. As Joan Robinson says in a quote on MK's page here, she and her colleagues of the 30s were greatly cheered up by the fact that 2 guys coming from completely different traditions arrived at much the same theory. Keynes did not credit Marx much at all. Practically speaking, this was a good thing. Keynesianism had plenty of McCarthyite opposition in the USA, which had the negative effect of watering down Keynes for the US in a way which made it more vulnerable to attacks from the mountebanks who have ruled the roosts of academic economics since 1980 or so, with disastrous effects. On the OP's question, I agree pretty much with Marco, as usual, with the proviso that Marx's influence is/was not always acknowledged. Smith & Marx made major, lasting contributions to human thought, deserving the title of (worldly) philosopher, far more than, but inclusive of, "economist".John Z (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Joan Robinson, who said North Corea was ans was going to be way superior to the South economically? I am all for taking Marx seriously as a philosopher, but the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Maoist China were some of the world's most successful economic desaster areas for decades.--Radh (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)