Humanities desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12[edit]

The quality of democratic leaders[edit]

Many believed that the quality of post-WWII world leaders are in a constant decline. How do you compare recent world leaders against all historical leaders? I mean early democratic leaders elected by only a fraction of the population and non-democratic leaders having "unseparated" and "unrestricted" powers.

I tend to believe that historical kings, queens and emperors were generally at least slightly above average. They were controlled by their own men. Sons of a Chinese emperor may receive liberal and physical education for up to 340+ days in a 360-day lunar year for decades. We all can name a number of miserable kings. But how many historical leaders were so bad in their jobs or so uncontrollably abusive?

I think the separation of powers does not automatically lead to disciplined use of a particular power that's in your hand. Discipline, in my opinion, is generally associated with elitism. You do not expect people to drive with some sort of "driver's honor" if everyone has a car.

Some may argue that public elections guarantees peaceful transfer of regimes. The advancement of modern technologies results in abundance of nearly all kinds of resources that allows conflicting groups of people to co-exist without fighting a civil war. Without this abundance, I guess, no modern democracy can exist. -- Toytoy (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article you are trying to find or a question you want answered, or are you just trying to start a discussion? Cuz the refdesk is not a place to start general discussions.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to think that modern democracy requires abundance. I also see no real reason to believe the post-WWII leadership is in decline; those who believe that either have an inflated view of pre-WWII leadership or an unrealistically harsh view of post-WWII leadership. There were plenty of mediocre US presents pre-WWII. The sheer number of presidents before rather than after WII means that the raw number of "good" ones will outweigh the postwar ones, but that doesn't mean a thing. And I think you misunderstand separation of powers. It has nothing to do with independent actors, it has to do with overlapping powers that keep each other in check. If the President can't fund a thing without Congress's help then he/she is bound to pay attention to what Congress wants, to some degree. If Congress can't pass a thing without the President's OK then Congress has got to pay some attention to what the President wants. The car analogy is wrong in every respect. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you even judge post WWII leaders? The consequences of their decisions may not be apparent for decades if not centuries. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganges River Water[edit]

Is the water of the Ganges River come from the snow of the western Himalaya mountains or is its water come from the Tibetan Plateau area? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Ganges describes the headwaters of the river in detail. You may want to start there for your research. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The water comes from Shangri-La, of course. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, aren't you the Leader of the Pack! 86.4.190.210 (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The headwaters of the Ganges are fed by the snow and glaciers of the western Himalaya. Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Eve Celebrations[edit]

What is the history behind celebrations at New Year? Articles mainly refer to current celebrations. There seem to be few historical or ritual observances made, apart from a few songs that don't date back very far. What have people historically done? I am referring to Western traditions, obviously. FreeMorpheme (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winter solstice, Hogmanay and New Year might help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the year is around 365 ¼ days long, and the nearest "nice round number" is 360 (being divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc.), this leaves 5 ¼ days at the end of the year which "don't fit". Some cultures used this period for their celebrations, sometimes wild, as "normal rules don't apply" to time that "isn't part of the normal year". StuRat (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely certain, but my memory is that New Year's Day wasn't even a public holiday in England 40 or 50 years ago. It was in Scotland, where they didn't have Boxing day as a holiday; but I think New Year was little celebrated here, and the custom came in from the US some time in the 70's. --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Colin - I think it was in the 1980s that the National New Year's Day holiday came in in the UK.--TammyMoet (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving Present Day Depression[edit]

Ok, this might sound too ignorant or idealist as I am not financially literate, but I had one idea. Hypotheically, couldn't the major US banks get together and say pretty much to each other "F*ck it all to hell and let's do something daring and risky! Let's starting lending more"? (I mean within reason, not like how they got into the Subprime Mortgage mess) Meaning "I will if you will" mentality thus unfreezing the hordes of money that they have and jump starting the economy? Please, go ahead and poke holes in this. Thanks! --Emyn ned (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They could. But, this is not a question for a REFERENCE that belongs in a REFERENCE desk. It is a request for a DISCUSSION that belongs in a DISCUSSION forum. While you are at it, ask "What if worms had guns?" or "What if people had wings?" There are many "What if" questions you can spend time discussing on discussion forums. -- kainaw ™ 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, whether it would be in their self-interest to do so, or more specifically, if it would be in the CEO's self-interest. To determine this, we need to compare with the alternatives. If those include the bank getting a taxpayer sponsored bail-out, with few or no rules on how they can spend it, then waiting for the easy cash seems a better alternative. This applies to large banks. For small banks, however, they can't count on a bail-out if they get into trouble, so are best to "circle the wagons" and wait for the crisis to end, before lending any money they might not get back. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If worms had guns, they'd take out the moles which are wrecking my lawn. A person can dream...--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be treated as a Reference Desk question, and not just a subject for a discussion forum. In essence, big banks don't do this because it's too risky. Even if all the big banks got together and agreed, that probably would not be enough to end the recession and, in any case, the effect of the increased lending would be delayed, so the bank might experience large losses before a turnaround took effect. Banks are already worried about their ability to stay in business; further increasing their risk seems like an extremely dubious proposition. John M Baker (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And banks have very stringent capital ratio requirements (the ratio of money that was invested by actual investors to the value of the banks' assets (adjusted for riskiness)). The more risky assets (loans) the bank holds, the worse those ratios are. Many US banks are getting very close to that limit. Because the stock market is so bad, those banks wouldn't be able to sell more stock to improve those ratios, so they'd be forced to sell assets. When you're forced to sell assets pre-maturely, you never get the best price for them.

As a side note, I know we hear constantly from congresspeople and pundits that "banks aren't lending", but (being one of those guys who watches CNBC every day) I've noticed that many of the analysts who follow credit markets specifically keep saying that banks are willing to lend (commiserate with low short-term rates), but there is just lower demand for credit. This makes sense, since no company wants to make business investments, increase inventory or increase production in the face of a recession (many are performing layoffs). Some support for this idea centers around the biggest regular use of credit for business: Q4 retail. Because retailers tend to increase their inventories VERY significantly in the fourth quarter, but don't want to keep the cash around all year long to make those purchases, they typically tend to do most of it on credit. Most of the retail Q4 reports have already hit, and in none of them was "lack of credit availability" a major theme. NByz (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a lower demand for credit, I hear lots of anecdotes about people and companies who want to borrow but can't because lending standards have been tightened. But it was loose lending standards that got us into this in the first place, so that sounds right to me. As I have said before, this is at root a solvency crisis as much as or more than a credit crisis. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventories[edit]

Why do retailers increase their inventories in the fourth quarter? Is it because of the US holiday season? --Emyn ned (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, it is because of the US holiday season. Elsewhere, the US holiday season has rather less effect than the local holiday season (or 'Christmas' as we call it), which by a remarkable coincidence occurs at the same time as the US holiday season. --ColinFine (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And in other countries, just the holiday season. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long have deities encouraged the people of the earth to pursue the elegant, noble and religiously pure tradition of trying to make up sales before the fiscal year end. NByz (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that outside of the Western/Christian world other seasons may be more important. For example in East Asia other then Japan and in parts of South East Asia, I'm betting the pre-lunar new year season (i.e. first quarter) is more important particularly for clothing retailers Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon seating plan[edit]

Is Lebanon the only Arab nation to have a seating plan based on religious sects and the districts they live in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A seating plan where? Surely not for the whole nation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be awkward at sporting events but at least you would always be guaranteed a seat. Perhaps they mean in government? Lanfear's Bane | t 21:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably means in the Lebanese parliament... AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume so, in which case the answer would be yes. Of the Arab countries Syria, Saudi Arabia and UAE don't really hold elections. Palestine, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Oman, Morocco and Tunisia do to hold elections, mostly based on district systems, but none based on religious sect.

The Lebanese system is a unique one resulting from Western concern for/interference on behalf of the Christians in the territory that was to become Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a melding of the old Ottoman millet system with a form of electoral democracy... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is talking about Parliament of Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.156 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the punishment for piracy in the modern era?[edit]

I'm referring to piracy of the sort that involves attacking merchant ships in shipping lanes, not the copying and distribution of copyrighted media. I would imagine that it's different depending on which country captures the suspected pirates, but assuming that corporal/capital punishment isn't exacted on the spot, how are these people typically handled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.169.47 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little information at piracy#In international law. Algebraist 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]