Humanities desk
< August 3	<< Jul | August | Sep >>	August 5 >

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.

Who was the 1st published afro-american female to be published??? conflicting entries in wiki sem to identify both Lucy Terry and Phyllis Wheatly```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.24.29 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't conflict, just the wording could use some reworking.

• from Lucy Terry: Lucy Terry (c.1730-1821) is the author of the oldest known work of literature by an African American. ... Her work, "Bars Fight", is a ballad about attack upon two white families by Native Americans on August 25, 1746. ... The poem was preserved orally until it was finally published in 1855.

• from Phillis Wheatley: Phillis Wheatley (1753 – December 5, 1784) was the first published African American poet and first African-American woman whose writings were published. ... The 1773 publication of Wheatley's Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral brought her fame, with figures such as George Washington praising her work.

So, Lucy Terry's work was around 1746, however it wasn't published until 1855. So, Lucy's work is older - but wasn't published until much later. Phillis Wheatley's work was published in 1773, so she was the first to be published, though other works by African-Americans are older. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:46, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading a Wikipedia article about an investor who saw a mathematical flaw in the way the winnings of a certain lottery (Maybe in the UK?) was calculated. According to his calculations the expected value of each lottery ticket was actually slightly higher than its cost, making it actually profitable to play this lottery. In order to minimize his risks (2% chance of getting $100 isn't necessarily better than $1), he needed enough money and manpower to corner all the available numbers so that the investment becomes essentially risk-free. He then gather a small group of private investor and together they hired workers to buy hundreds of thousands of tickets. Eventually the lottery commision caught on and disabled some of the automatic machines, but it was too late. In the end the group made a sizable profit without breaking any laws or taking any risks. After this incident the lottery winning rules were updated to close the loophole.

I can vividly recall the details of the plot but can't for the life of me remember his name or which lottery it was. Can someone please help me out here? Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just found it National_Lottery_(Ireland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous.translator (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see a recent story from Massachusetts - "Cash WinFall". [1] Sigh... how incompetent does a government have to be to run a casino where the house doesn't always win? Wnt (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The house still wins, they get their cut when the tickets are sold. This just has to do with how the winnings are distributed, i.e. to a large 'jackpot' or many smaller prizes. The house cut and the prize cut are still the same, similar to a casino taking a rake from a poker game. In fact, the state may have made more money by people buying the extra tickets to exploit the payout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.170.174 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back, a Canadian lottery (can't recall which one) deliberately paid out more than it took in for its first drawing and advertised it to drum up interest. I personally spent a few hundred dollars on it, but unfortunately, it wasn't enough for the law of large numbers to really come into play. However, some guy did "invest" tens or hundreds of thousands and made a tidy profit. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done a few times with state lotteries in the United States. The key factor that makes it possible is that lottery jackpots roll over: if there's no winner in one drawing, the prize money becomes part of the jackpot for the next drawing. Eventually, the expected value of a ticket becomes greater than 1, and occasionally a group of people will buy a complete set of all possible ticket numbers (and hope that nobody else also gets a winning ticket). The house still wins, though, because the expected value of all tickets sold to all drawings since the last time there was a winner is around 0.5. --Carnildo (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading sides up and down about knights, barons, counts, nobility and articles regarding feudalism and fiefdoms for some time, here on Wiki and on the net in general, but they all fail to explain (or maybe sometimes I fail to see) how knights differ from barons etc. in certain aspects.

I always thought that a knight would almost without exception be a high-born, and I do still, but perhaps contrary to what I have believed before knights did not necessarily need to be actual barons or counts themselves, but perhaps just members of a noble family, like a son or nephew perhaps of a noble lord. Because obviously, boys were sent away early to be pages and then squires, starting at seven usually if they were to become knights.

So far, I think I've got it spot on but I still have many questions unanswered :

1) Was it often or rare that an actual heir to a barony/county/earldom would become a knight as a young man, thus in the end both holding a noble title AND being a knight at the same time when he inherited his father's land and title? Or would these oldest sons of a lord have to be content with the knowing they one day would inherit their father's land, and then perhaps younger brothers and possibly nephews and such would aspire for knighthood instead? I know not on what criterias a boy was chosen to be sent away to start knight-training, so I'm uncertain about this.

2) What kind of land would a knight hold, compared to a baron (Barony) and a count/earl (county/earldom) ? The land these landlords would hold would vary on many things I suppose; size, richness of the land/soil and location of the land, but a knight would have to be able to fend for himself and hold men-at-arms which was vital of course for a knight, as well as for barons and counts. So would knights have as big a land as barons or would they have smaller ones with a purpose of providing for as many men-at-arms as possible? Last but not least, what would a knight's land be called? As I have understood it, Barons and counts were supposed to hold land more "permanently" than knights, who instead actually rented land from the king, sort of... Or so it is sometimes vaguely explained. It's hard to grasp the difference here sometimes - especially since many articles often refer to EVERYONE with their own men-at-arms as barons. It can be kind of unclear and confusing.

3) How many men-at-arms would a knight basically have, and how many would a baron and count/earl have? I'm interested to learn if there was any particular difference here between the three. Once again, size, richness of the land and how many people lived on and worked the land would certainly be a very deciding factor. But roughly? It's very hard to find any info about this. Would they hold 20 ? 40? 100? more?

I have left duke out of this since Duchies would sometimes be sovereign and independent, more or less, especially grand duchies, so it might be difficult to compare duke with barons, counts/earls and knights.

85.165.122.165 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Knight particularly Origins of medieval knighthood. Knighthood is generally granted by a head of state to selected persons to recognise some meritorious achievement. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to remember is that Knight was also a military rank and a military unit: A knight was first-and-foremost a unit of heavy cavalry; because of the extreme expense in maintaining horses and armor and being trained for the use therof in battle, knights became a privileged class. Knighthood was really distinct from the ranks of nobility (like Duke, Earl, etc.) which were hereditary ranks and which were primarily administrative in function. Originally, Dukes and Earls/Counts, Marquises/Marcher Lords etc. were awarded those titles to give them a sort of "governor" status over land. Of course, by the age of bastard feudalism all of the titles became sort-of honorary as the actual means of fighting wars changed. If you want to get to the origin of the different titles, think of the title of "knight" to be more like a military rank (like Captain or Major or Colonel) and the titles of nobility (like Duke, Earl, etc.) to be more like political offices (like Governor or Mayor or something like that). It is far from a perfect analogy, but it helps to understand the very different origins of the terms and offices. --Jayron32 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to factor in... the status (and function) of a Knight changed over time (the "Middle Ages" is a very imprecise term that covers several hundred years), and it differed from one region of Europe to another. So, are we talking about Knights in the year 1000 AD, 1200 AD or 1400 AD? And are we talking about England or France or Germany (etc.)? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the meaning of knighthood changed over time. In modern British usage, knighthood is an honor bestowed by the monarch. (You can see from my spelling that I'm not British.) However, before the late Middle Ages, it was essentially an occupation, with an associated rank. Generally, knights were the lowest level of the landed feudal elite. Typically, they controlled an estate containing one to maybe five or six peasant villages. (Most would have had no more than one, often small, village.) This estate provided them with the income needed to support them, their horses, armor and often one or more attendants, during potentially long periods at war. Until the late middle ages, all nobles, even monarchs, were expected to master the military skills needed to be a knight, and young heirs to baronies or counties might act as knights in battle, but their status was distinctly above that of mere knights, because they were heirs to a set of territories that would include several or many knights who owed allegiance to them. A knight need not command any attendants or men-at-arms. For that matter, a knight was himself considered a man-at-arms. Different levels of the feudal hierarchy were not associated with specific numbers of men-at-arms. There was a rough correspondence between the size of a fief or an estate, the number of men-at-arms that the estate could support, and the position of its lord in the feudal hierarchy, but it is entirely possible that a mere knight with an unusually large estate might have more men-at-arms than a baron with a very small barony, or that a very powerful baron might have more men-at-arms than a lowly count, though those would have been exceptions from the norm. I don't have enough expertise to offer specific numbers of men-at-arms that each rank would typically command. Those numbers would certainly depend on the region and the time period. Marco polo (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it a bit clearer; knighthood was not a rank which confered an estate onto its recipient, that's actually about 180 degrees backwards: the status of being an estate lord was generally a prequalification for becoming a knight. It wasn't as though some poor kid picking turnips in the field would ever one day be able to aspire to becoming a knight; the best he could hope for was to become an unarmored infantryman carrying a spear or something like that. Knighthoods were specifically awarded to the estate-owning class, and were not a means of social mobility or anything like that. If you owned land and served as a lord of a manor, then it would be expected for you to serve in defense of the realm as a knight or equivalent. This sort of thing is ALSO distinct from titles of nobility; again you had to be a member of the land-owning class before you could be awarded awarded a Duchy or an Earldom; some estates became themselves attached to a title but the origin of the system was not as a means to give land to people; Duchies didn't ever get awarded to landless peasants; they were given to scions of important families and provided the family with additional lands and rights.

• It can get confusing, because these terms end up being applied to the same people (thus John Doe would own estates, have a baronial title, and serve in the armored cavalry, so he can be considered a manorial lord, a member of the peerage, and a knight all at once). But they really began as seperate concepts with seperate purposes. The land-owning class was a product of Manorialism, which was the socio-economic organization of society during the middle ages: if defined ones social class, and also determined the economic organization of society; the source of wealth (being land), who had access to own that land (the upper class) and who worked the land (the peasantry).
• Of seperate concern of this was the system of peerages and noble ranks (Baronies, Earldoms, Duchies, etc.) These were primarily titles associated with the apparatus of the state (what is in the U.S. known as "the Government"). Estates were given to people when titles were confered to them, but as land (rather then currency) was the primary form of wealth during this age, you can think of this land as being akin to the "salary and benefits package" that, say, a civil servant is given when they are employed by the government. The titles were heritable, but they also confered certain responsibilities: owners of a title often had administrative responsibilities over territories (like the responsibility of the Marcher Lords to police and control the borders) and stuff like that.
• The responsibility of the Knight was defense of the realm: this was a responsibility as a soldier. His job was to carry arms and fight wars for the King.
• The way these get to be tied up is through the system of feudalism, which sits on top of the manorial system. In order for the right to be a lord of the manor, the lord had to pledge to defend the realm in times of war: this relationship defines feudalism: the awarding of landholding rights in exchange for military service. However, when it is explained like this, it sounds like any old peasant could agree to serve in the army, and then viola, they were granted land and became part of the aristocracy. It didn't really work like that: The land owners were just expected to also serve as knights; it was an established, entrenched system which wasn't open to change or question or social mobility. If you were born the son of a manor lord, you inherited his estates, and his responsibilities to serve as a knight. Because all manor lords were also expected to right horses and wear armor in battle (thus, serve as the military role of a knight) that title became a shorthand, and later official title, as the default title for any member of the landed class who was otherwise untitled. That's why you usually see "Knight" listed as a rank underneath say "Baron". It generally meant "any member of the upper class who had no other title of his own".
• When modern "knighthoods" are awarded as an honorary title, what is literally happening is the recipient is being inducted into an "honorary" military order; if you look at the language of the titles granted with honorary knighthood today (like the Order of the British Empire) they have ranks like "Knight", "Commander", "Officer", which reflects this military past. --Jayron32 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys ! I got much out of that. Having learned much already, but much of your helpful input helps fill in some blanks and make me see things in a clearer light. Always impressed to see how many fellow wikipedians share so much knowledge and so many viewpoints with each other :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.122.165 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answers you already have are great, but if I may add a bit more, Marco Polo is definitely right that the answers depend on time and place. The popular image of a chivalrous knight is mostly from, let's say, the fourteenth or fifteenth century, and from places where knighthood was already well on the way to becoming an honorary title (England, Burgundy perhaps). At that time they still followed their lords into battle, but by then governments were more centralized and lesser landowners did not usually have any sovreignty. If you go back a few hundred years to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, it was different (you can go back even further, all the way to the Roman Empire, but I'll stick with the 11th-12th centuries since I know more about that). In the territory of modern France, for example, in the eleventh century there was a "King of France", who theoretically was the sovreign over all the counts and dukes and lesser lords in France. This had been true in the 8th and 9th centuries under the Carolingian kings, but in the 11th century it was not - the King of France ruled the Ile-de-France but had little or no influence anywhere else. There were some large dukedoms and counties that had just as much power and prestige as the king - most notably Normandy, Flanders, Champagne, Burgundy, Toulouse, Aquitaine, Anjou, and Brittany. The Dukes of Normandy were also Kings of England and later on also inherited Anjou and Aquitaine, so for awhile the King of England owned more territory in France than the King of France (and claimed the Kingship of France too, leading to the Hundred Years' War, even though the Kings of England were technically supposed to be vassals of the King of France in their role as Dukes of Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine...it's a little confusing!).

So while the King of France is doing whatever he is doing in Paris and the relatively small Ile-de-France, the others were independent. The King of France had vassals in the Ile-de-France who owed allegiance directly to him, but so did the others. The Count of Toulouse (for example) was essentially king in the south in all but name, and as the sovreign of his territory, he also had his own vassals, just like the King of France. The vassals could be other counts, or viscounts, or minor lords (barons or seigneurs) who owned only one town or castle. Down to the level of the smallest seigneury, the seigneur of the town/castle would certainly be a knight, and he would probably be related in some way to his sovreign, as pretty much all the landowners in France descended from Charlemagne in some way so they were all distant cousins. Even the most minor seigneur would be a knight because of his birth and upbringing, and may or may not have gone through some kind of ceremony as a teenager to officially become one (this depends on time and place too, but normally that happened around age 13 or 15). But it was also a matter of wealth and bearing afterwards. A knight by definition was wealthy enough to equip himself with arms and armous, and own and equip his own horse (the luxury car of the Middle Ages - if anyone else rode anything it was a donkey or mule, or if you were really unlucky maybe a very large dog, and otherwise you walked everywhere). Where did they get that money? Well, even in a very small village, there were hundreds of people farming the fields, growing crops for the village and for the seigneur, and paying all kinds of taxes to the seigneur, whether in goods (a portion of the harvest, for example) or actual money (a tax to use the roads, a tax to use the ovens, a tax to get married, a tax on tax, a tax on whatever the seigneur wanted to tax them for...and that was probably on top of whatever else they owed to the local church). So if this seigneur wanted to finance himself and his horse to go out and fight in a war alongside his sovreign (the count, or the duke, or the king, whoever it was), he paid for it from the money and goods he had been collecting from the inhabitants of his village. Those inhabitants were likely peasant farmers, maybe craftsmen and merchants in a larger town, but they were not knights. But just as this seigneur owed military service to his sovreign (as part of his feudal service), the seigneur could bring his villagers and peasants along with him as a fighting force. They wouldn't have horses or swords, but they could bring whatever weapons they could find. The seigneur could also have family members who were knights who would accompany him (sons, brothers, cousins, etc).

There are some existing lists of places and the number of knights they owe to their sovreign; the one I know best is not from France, it's from the crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (although for these purposes let's assume Jerusalem was essentially just a French colony in the Near East). The list for Jerusalem has hundreds of knights, broken down according to fief; one particular count owed 24 knights, and then that was further divided among that count's personal territories, so one of his own vassals owed six knights out of the 24 (possibly those six were divided further as well but the list doesn't go that far down). For each of those knights, they would probably bring a handful or maybe a few dozen people who weren't knights, who fought on foot with whatever weapons. In a list of 600 knights, there might be ten times that amount of non-knights in the actual army of the entire kingdom.

And now that I've mentioned the crusades, I should also mention that going on crusade was extremely expensive for the kind of minor seigneur that I've been describing here. Many of those crusaders, and even many of the major ones, even dukes and counts, had to sell all their land to someone else to raise money for the journey (this is, in fact, one of the ways in which the King of France started to increase his territory in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, buying the land of people who were going on crusade). And along the way, since it was a very long way, it often happened that they spent all their money, or their horse(s) died, and they had to walk like the peasants who never had horses in the first place. This was a huge shame for them, because being a knight was more than a knighthood ceremony, it was status, and it was being seen as a knight with armour on a horse. What made them a knight if they had to walk?

In the end, as states like France became more centralized, being a knight became an honorary title. And for a place like England, which was already far more centralized as early as the eleventh century, or a place like the Holy Roman Empire which was almost chaotically uncentralized, it didn't really work like this at all. Hopefully this makes sense, I didn't realize it would end up so long... Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would the UK vat number consisting of 8 digits (45234133 as a fictive example) be used as the EU VAT number as well? Or would the company have to do something special? Thanks. 89.135.188.193 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best bet is to consult an accountant, I think that a UK VAT registration is all that's needed as HMRC take care of the extra-national transactions. fwiw I only have a UK VAT registration and can use it for mainland europe transactions.

ALR (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Value added tax identification number article says "The full identifier starts with an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code", and lists the various formats employed by differing systems. So you'd use GB45234133. -- 87.115.147.37 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get the contacts of some teachers in Abia state in Nigeria government secondary schools through this web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godson chibuzor (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article List of schools in Nigeria, and a surprising number of Nigeria government secondary schools come up if you search the site. Some of the schools have websites listed which you might get information from. Unfortunately Wikipedia is officially "not a directory" so finding contact information here will be hit and miss, mostly miss. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour all :) When I was little my mother tried to introduce me to good cheese but I wasn't very interested at the time (and let's just say her sense of good cheese was... not mainstream). I would now like to try cheese again, but my cheese-eating friends all warn me not to start too strong or I'll be turned away from the stuff again. They say Brie is generally the "gateway cheese", lol, but I find its ammonic taste and smell disagreeable. I'm looking for a French cheese that's not too strong but has an interesting and pleasant flavor (to set it apart from the plastic they put on sandwiches in the States), and is not too strong. I thought at first to just go out and buy a bunch of random French cheese to try but there are so many, I don't know where to start. Does anyone have any suggestions from their personal experience? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.98.102.189 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out our article Types of cheese for an overview of the subject. Many different types of cheese are produced in France. It sounds as if you don't like (or don't yet like) soft-ripened cheeses such as brie. A mild cheese that you might like could be Port-Salut. Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I find most bries to be mild, unless it is over ripe - ie almost past its best & runny. Also, the taste is milder if the cheese is still at 'fridge temperature - the taste increases as it warms up. CS Miller (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you asked about french cheese, but there are also many British cheeses: see List of British cheeses. White stilton is my favourite, followed by Wenslyedale. I do not like the blue cheeeses. 92.24.140.101 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roquefort is fairly industry-standard for a French Blue. It would likely be a good introduction to blues. --Jayron32 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stilton cheese, at least the well-known kind of Stilton, is a blue cheese. I think it, like other blue cheeses, is a bit strong-tasting for someone who does not like strong cheeses. Still, if you are going to try a blue cheese, in my opinion, Stilton is the finest, and relatively mild. In fact, most British cheeses have a fairly sharp (acidic) flavor. This is not a flaw, but maybe not the best feature for someone who does not like strong cheese. If we are going to extend our range beyond French cheeses, I would recommend that this person consider Dutch cheeses, which tend to be mild, such as Edam or young Gouda. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White stilton is not blue, that that's why it's called white stilton. 92.28.252.178 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another delightful mild cheese from outside France is Bel Paese, from Italy. Marco polo (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid Casu marzu until you have more experience. Or if you are gearing up for a performance on Fear Factor. Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Petit Basque. I serve it at parties and everyone likes it.--Fran Cranley (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the French equivalent of cheddar (at least in ubiquity, although not really in taste), you could try Emmental. It's not really French though, it's actually the stereotypical Swiss cheese. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gruyère is also Swiss, not French (but at least it's from the French-speaking part of Switzerland!) and is very tasty IMHO. It's sharp like a well-aged Cheddar (but not too strong, as the OP asked for twice), but it's not smelly or ammonia-y. Pais (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but the Novels and Literature wikiproject pages seem to be mostly un-monitored, so I'm not sure I'd get an answer there. Anyway, on Moonrise (Warriors), ref 15 requires a page number. However, the link given requires a subscription, and I don't have one. I'd therefore like to ask if anyone can find the page number for me. The review in question is from School Library Journal, Volume 49, Issue 5, May 1, 2003, on Warriors: Into the Wild. Thanks, Brambleclawx 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better off asking on the wikiproject library&resource exchange page - the folks over there will borrow the journal if it is available at their local library, and get back to you with the reference. CS Miller (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page number is 154. Let me know if you would like a copy of the PDF. --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States Congress, here have been lots of occasions where Congressmen seeking to kill a bill that might otherwise pass add amendments or riders to it that are calculated to guarantee that the original bill will be rejected. This has been on display quite a bit lately, but in particular I have in mind the case described here.

I'm a bit rusty on my civics courses. How does a member of Congress (Senate or House) get an amendment approved to go onto a bill? Is it done by committee, or something voted for by the whole? It strikes me as a particular devious way to tank legislation. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditionally legislative bills start out as proposals that are sent to committees for approval or dis-approval. Once a bill successfully passes out of committee, lawmakers frequently amend it with a rider" ([2]). Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bills can be changed in committee or on the floor after approval by the committee. The kind of amendment you're talking about is called a "poison pill."

Would America suffer a drop in living standards or even collapse if it decided to cease trading with the rest of the world, as Japan did in past centuries, according to economic theory? 92.24.140.101 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, undoubtedly. It would be disasterous, given how interconnected we are to the rest of the world. --Jayron32 19:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most mainstream economists would agree with that, yes. Our article Isolationism has this: "All the First World countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy, and experienced an expansion of the division of labor, which generally raised living standards. However, some characterize this as 'a wage race to the bottom' in the manufacturing industries that should be curtailed by protectionism. Some argue that isolating a country from a global division of labor—i.e. employing protectionist trading policies—could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example." Recury (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few decades back, when the United States was self-sufficient in energy, and trade made up just a small percentage of its GDP, isolation might not have had a huge impact on the US economy and living standards, though even then it would have had a negative impact. However, today, when the United States is dependent on imported petroleum and lacks the industrial capacity to meet its own demand for so many basic goods, a trade cutoff would result in what could only be called an economic collapse. Marco polo (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who propose these types of magical "solutions" often forget the other side of the equation, which is the benefit from exports. For example, a significant proportion of U.S. agricultural production is for export. Economic isolationism would destroy those sectors of the economy. Living standards would fall significantly before adjustments could be made to turn this production towards domestic needs (something which may not be possible in all sectors). --Xuxl (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of raw materials that are not produced in the US or not in great volume (coffee beans or tin, for example). And there's a lot of stuff that isn't made here anymore, such as TVs and silverware. It's possible that eventually America would find a way to make that kind of stuff again, even without the same raw materials, but the costs would be huge. Without Asia to import from, you can forget about a $20 toaster. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There's a false idea that the standard of living in the U.S. would magically go up if we stopped shipping manufacturing jobs overseas, forgetting that if the U.S. built all that stuff locally it would make everything so much more expensive that our relative standard of living would be lower since our wages wouldn't be able to buy as many goods. --Jayron32 03:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article on petroleum (and its links) shows a massive disparity in the quantities of oil consumed and produced in the USA. It would not require a crystal ball to forecast massive changes to the US transport system (and thus to society at large). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US is lucky in that it has supplies of most of the metals and fuels required by industry (oil, natural gas, uranium, copper, iron ore, coal, gold, silver, rare earths, etc), as well as significant untapped resources for solar power and geothermal. However it would have to massively increase extraction/production, with huge investment required (i.e. massive spending - not just on machinery, fuel, and land, but on research, training, skilled workers, etc) and major shortages until it came online. Only if the US's disengagement was very gradual could dramatic upheavals, chronic shortages, massive price hikes, etc, be prevented. While it would be possible for the US to survive in isolation, it is unlikely to bring benefits: there are many places in the world where it is far cheaper and easier to extract resources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US does not have the capacity to produce anywhere near the amount of petroleum that it consumes. A strong case can be made that the US does not have the capacity, even if coal production and renewables were expanded, to supply its current energy consumption from domestic sources. Meanwhile, the US has a vast agricultural output, much greater than its domestic market requires. Given this, it's difficult to see how it is to the advantage of the US to stop selling food in exchange for fuel. (Because I think that the classical economic theory of comparative advantage assumes away too much of the reality of today's world, I can see a convincing case being made for a tariff on industrial imports but not for a total trade ban.) Marco polo (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are many options between absolute isolationism and unrestricted free trade. For example, the US could decide on a type of reciprocal trade agreement where, if the balance of trade was too far off with any given nation, like China, then stiff tariffs would apply to imports. This would likely require withdrawal from the WTO, and would also result in increases in the prices of heavily imported items, like petroleum, clothing, and electronics. In the long run, however, this might encourage some good trends, such as increased domestic production, development of alternative sources of energy, energy conservation, and development of industry in nations which currently have none, like some in Africa, where the balance of trade is currently against them. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could buy such an arguement for petroleum, but it simply doesn't make sense for manufactured goods for which there is no other alternative. If petroleum gets to expensive, it would force the U.S. to make better use of other power sources. If TVs get too expensive, people stop buying TVs. The extra cost of production for goods made in the U.S. gets passed onto U.S. consumers unless the U.S. can find people around the world who can buy those goods at the higher price. What good are higher wages for U.S. workers when those wages cannot buy as many products? Throw some numbers at it: If I make $100 per month, but it costs me $50 per month to meet all my needs, how am I better off making $1000 per month if it then costs me $750 per month to meet all my needs? Don't get caught up in thinking in absolute terms: the most important factor is the ratio of wages earned to cost of living, not the absolute numbers in terms of dollar bills in my hand, but the relative amounts of my wages to my costs which matter. Isolationist policies which increases both wages and costs, but increase costs faster than they increase wages serve no ones best interests. --Jayron32 16:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you think wages would increase slower than prices ? Also consider that people would move to less expensive alternatives. In the case of TVs, maybe keeping the old one rather than buying the latest top-of-the-line TV is a viable alternative. It certainly would be better for the environment and balance of trade. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the low cost of imports is a function of a structural current account deficit, with the corollary of a steadily and unsustainably growing external debt. This structural imbalance threatens to lead to a serious debt crisis for the United States. For now, foreigners are still buying US debt, but what happens when it is 150% of GDP? 200% of GDP? Market forces, unrestrained, tend to produce bubbles that burst and states of growing disequilibrium that lead to disorderly reversals. When funding for the US current account deficit dries up, the dollar will collapse, most likely in a sudden panic, which will have the same effect as the sudden imposition of steep import tariffs. True, this would benefit export-oriented sectors of the US economy, such as agriculture and a few specialized manufactures, but these sectors employ a small share of the work force, and millions would be thrown out of work at a time of rising prices. Better to try to bring a controlled and gradual end to the imbalance before it leads to a catastrophic reversal by imposing calibrated and targeted tariffs, mainly on industrial goods imported from countries that are not important export markets. These would gradually rise until the current account begins to move toward balance and could be eliminated if the current account went into surplus. Such tariffs have been used by East Asian countries to promote domestic industries that went on to become powerful exporters, and the United States could benefit from a similar strategy. Marco polo (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sovereign debt issue is largely a function of the U.S. government being unwilling to come to terms with the need to balance its accounts by raising revenue and/or cutting services. If the U.S. government is depending solely on the whims of the economy to balance its books, its fooked no matter what it does. Instead, there needs to be the political will to simultaneously raise revenue by placing greader burdens on the parts of society which are most able to bear it, and to cut spending by reducing inefficiencies which are rife in the system. There's little evidence that protectionist tarrifs do much to raise revenue for the government, and they certainly don't cut expenditures in any meaningful way. In the U.S., sensible compromise is impossible given the political system of the day; it doesn't make any sense for members of either party to compromise as compromise doesn't win elections. What wins elections is demonizing ones opponent and taking a hard stance and refusing to budge. So one party says "tax the rich and cut no services" and the other party says "raise no taxes at all and cut services until we stop losing money" and neither side has any incentive, in terms of political capital and the ability to be re-elected, in reaching a reasonable middle ground with a combination of increased taxes and lower spending. The sovereign debt issue is a red herring in this arguement, it exists and presents real economic problems which you accurately describe, but the sovereign debt is not caused by, nor can it be solved by, trade issues as you describe. --Jayron32 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the current account imbalance, of which the dependence on external lending is just a symptom. Incidentally, this is not just a matter of sovereign debt, though that's an important part of it. It is also a matter of private sector (commercial, financial, and household) debt. If it weren't for Chinese support for US Treasury bills, for example, interest rates would have been higher for mortgages, discouraging the cash-out refinancings that paid for so much consumption before the present recession. A steady flow of foreign capital to the United States is required to finance the current account deficit. Our current account and capital account articles explain this reasonably well. Marco polo (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know little of the market, but given the turbulent time in the Eurozone at the moment, I thought I'd look at UK government bonds to see what was happening (just for curiosity). I found today's rates here. Now, could I get some things straight? 100 appears to be the price paid, so "99.88" would only be a profit if the "0.54" (yield) is included. Is that how it works? Secondly, why such a variation between 9 year (117) and 10 year (108) bonds? Is it something to do with the round nature of 10 years? Why does the price then rise for 15 years then go down? I would have thought such things would be related to the economic predictions for the relevant periods, but surely the statistics so far in advance won't tell you much? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the price of a bond goes up, the yield goes down. Say you have a bond that pays a coupon (interest rate) of 1% at a par (base) value of 100. No matter who owns the bond or what he or she paid for it, it will pay a coupon of $1 for every bond. Let's say you buy it at 110. Now you're not really getting 1%, because $1 is less than 1% of $110. So the yield for someone who buys it at 110 is 0.91%. As for why there would be a price difference between the 9 and 10 year bonds, I don't know, other than that 9 year bonds aren't that common and so probably have less liquidity (trade less often) and there are bigger jumps in its prices. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coupon is quite a bit higher for the 9 year bond than for the 10 year bond -- meaning that the periodic payments received by the bondholder are higher. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've got this. I buy the bond £99.73 now and get £100 for the six-month bond. In the case of 1 year up, I'm paying more than £100 because I also get the "coupon" value - is this paid yearly (like a dividend) or at the end? "Yield" would presumably reflects this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it works. The government wants to borrow $100 for five years, so it issues a (say) 5% coupon bond with a 5-year maturity and par value of $100. (I don't have the pound symbol on my keyboard.) You pay the government $100 and get a piece of paper back saying that it will pay you $2.50 every six months for 5 years and then give you your $100 back. A couple years pass and your company is having hard times, so you decide to sell your bond. Unfortunately, it's also just come out that the government of this country was faking its books or something, so I won't buy the bond for $100. You agree to sell it to me for $60. Now the government will pay me $2.50 every six months instead of you until the bond matures (or the government defaults). Since I'm only paying $60, but I'm still getting $5 a year, I'm in effect getting more than 5% interest a year. I'm getting 5/60 or 8.33%. That's the "current yield." But you've also got to consider that I'm also going to get $100 back at the end of the 5 years, even though I only paid $60. Plus I can take the $5 a year you're getting and reinvest it in something else. So the "yield-to-maturity" -- which takes those things into account and is the yield I really care about -- is going to be higher than 8.33%. Does that make sense? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]