Humanities desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

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.

July 24

Kevin B Macdonald

How much truth is there to his claims in 'The culture of critique' series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numerologician (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some links: Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique series. -- ToE 02:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, I don't know that we will be able to give you more than is in The Culture of Critique series#Criticism. -- ToE 02:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Matthews author Red Sparrow

Does Wikipedia contain an entry for Jason Matthews the author or his novel Red Sparrow? Is there a reason?66.168.198.148 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an article for Jason Matthews or for the book. The reason is that nobody has created one yet. Based on this NYT review both could meet WP:GNG but that is just my opinion. Looks like a good project for anyone who is interested. MarnetteD|Talk 19:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are thinking of writing such an article, IP user, please read your first article carefully. Well-written and well-sourced articles on notable subjects are always welcome, but it is not easy to write one. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's a fair trade for Detroit? (as is, no warranties, no refunds)

This would never happen but what's a fair trade for giving Canada the contents of the city limits of Detroit with a reasonable amount of connectivity services? (they wouldn't have to build pipes/wires to old Canada or plants to feed them if they get it from new US at fair market price, if more road or rail connections to original Canada are needed we can pay half or proportional to GDPs). Could the US get any land or water for this (all of British Columbia south of the 49th parallel?) or is this actually something you couldn't give away for free (but Canada can try to improve Detroit so it's worth something in the future). They may need to keep the border crossings like Hong Kong, in this case to keep all the illegal handguns and problems out of Windsor. There's apparently a two small incorporated ~~city~~ cities in the middle of it so ~~that has~~ they have to go, too. Congratulations, you are now Canadians. (not a bad change actually) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean how much would the US have to pay Canada to take Chicago off our hands? See: Detroit bankruptcy. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:98E7:59EE:3480:3C03 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm assuming the part of Minnesota north of 49°N is not even a down payment? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Aka: Northwest Angle, presumably) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:98E7:59EE:3480:3C03 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada might agree to take Detroit if the US agreed to take Quebec (the Province, not just the city). Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. tried twice, once by asking nicely] and once by asking not so nicely. --Jayron 32 22:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the third time, which also was not so nice. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think Canada would have no interest in acquiring Detroit, except for one possible reason. They are quite interested in building the Gordie Howe International Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, to supplement the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. However, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, Matty Maroun, is trying to block construction by buying up Detroit property and then refusing to sell it to allow for the new bridge construction. If Canadian law would expedite taking that property from him under eminent domain (or whatever they call that in Canada), then they might like that. The new bridge will presumably increase trade with Canada's largest trade partner, so it's a big deal for them. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we might be interested in certain assets, but not the whole shebang. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia and US Treasury Securities

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html http://247wallst.com/economy/2016/04/18/can-the-us-treasury-market-absorb-a-750-billion-saudi-arabian-fire-sale/

Can somebody explain why drop of treasury securities of 0,750 trillion scared Obama? I mean what consequences could such act have? And why can it cause global crisis? Such act can decrease price of securities, but only non-matured. Should US Treasury buy non-matured bonds if no one else can?

72.19.61.71 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I vaguely understand it, the issue is that if Saudi increases the supply of securities, then their price falls, but their return increases (because the return rate is a fixed percentage of the nominal price, whereas the actual price may be lower than nominal) and so to compete for funds, the US Treasury has to increase the returns it offers on new securities. The fix for this, were one required, is probably quantitative easing, which is pretty much printing money in exchange for bonds - something that seems to be less harmful than once it would have been in these times of low inflation & low interest rates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to try to explain it a bit more thoroughly, the important thing to remember is that Treasury securities are loans to the U.S. government. The interest rate, or yield, the U.S. government pays on those loans is determined by the bond market. The yield on a bond moves inversely to its price. This is just a fancy way of restating the law of supply and demand; the fewer the people who want to lend to you, the more you will have to pay them in interest. So, if you own a bunch of Treasuries and want to try to stick it to the U.S. government for whatever reason, you can sell them all on the bond market. A larger supply of bonds on the market means their price goes down and their yield goes up. A big fire sale of Treasuries will also inevitably cause short-term volatility in the Treasury market, as prices and yields will move significantly. Treasuries are a cornerstone of the world financial system, so this has the potential to cause disruption beyond just making it harder for the U.S. government to borrow. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A larger supply of bonds on the market means their price goes down and their yield goes up.

Ok. According Tentative Auction Schedule of U.S. Treasury Securities next auction of 30-Year BOND will be on Thursday, August 11, 2016 . If US government will see huge amount of securities flooded the market, why cannot it just cancel auction and wait while all redundant securities will be sold.

72.19.61.71 (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the U.S. government is running a deficit, which means it needs to borrow money to operate. If it can't borrow money, it can't pay its bills, and uh-oh, the world economy just collapsed. This is why people were making a big deal about the "debt ceiling" a while ago. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government must have some buffer. It can take money through mechanisms different from issuing bonds. E.g. by IMF credit tranches, selling gold, selling securities of other countries. Cannot it? And when situation with bonds will become stable, government can issue bonds again (with usual interest rate) and take gold back. 72.19.61.71 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMF loans have many strings attached and are generally designed for poor countries. A desperation sale of assets like gold reserves would result in the seller getting a lot less than they could by gradually selling them. Also the country may not wish to sell off said assets for political reasons. And in the specific case of the U.S., I don't think the U.S. government has any substantial holdings of other countries' debt. I should have pointed out earlier that there's no reason for a government with monetary sovereignty, like the U.S., to default. If no one wants to lend to the government, the central bank can just print money. Of course this can lead to high inflation. All this stuff about threatened sales of Treasuries and such is really about politics, not finance. Governments hint at threats to extract concessions. It's how the game of international politics is played. The implied threat behind countries selling off Treasuries is not really about trying to bankrupt the U.S. government; it's about potentially knocking the U.S. dollar off its pedestal as the predominant reserve currency, which in turn could diminish the U.S.'s global influence. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Qin_Shi_Huang

When people found his tomb did they find a mummy and was there a legend about the tomb being cursed? I ask because he was featured in The_Mummy:_Tomb_of_the_Dragon_Emperor he is depicted as a mummy. 50.68.118.24 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was Bruce Forsyth. _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as is known, the tomb has never been unsealed since he was interred. See Qin Shi Huang#Tomb.--Jayron 32 22:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 July 24

Contents