March 18

so nowadays you see people like matt stone and trey parker being compared to other satirists throughout history as a "contemporary swift" and whatnot.

my question is whether it's a unique phenomenon for a satirist to be compared to his predecessors, or if it's something that is always realized in retrospect. did people call swift the contemporary voltaire? voltaire the contemporary chaucer? chaucer the contemporary aristophanes? or is this a newer phenomenon? Jasonberger (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

have any politicians or philosophers written anything on employment regarding the actual value of a job in society? i find there is a focus keeping unemployment low but if there are no good jobs out there, what good comes out of people working? telemarketing, door men, greeters, people dressed in costumes outside wings restaurants. while these people are employed, their jobs arguably do nothing constructive and only exist because they push money from one business to the other without actually generating a product or service. any wiki articles on value of work and the positive sides to unemployment (if there are any true benefits)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.149.102 (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two quite different concepts you might be asking about:

1) Does the job provide workers with self-esteem ? That classic government "busy-work" jobs like moving a mound of dirt, then moving it back, day after day, might be an example of rather futile jobs. However, even then the exercise, fresh air, and having somebody only pay you when you show up and work can do wonders for morale. Obviously a job where you feel you accomplish something is better, though.

2) Does the job create wealth for the society as a whole ? Here some jobs are clear-cut wealth builders, like agriculture, construction, and manufacturing, as almost everyone considers themself wealthier when they have food, a house, and a car. Services are trickier. Some make you feel wealthier, like having maid service, and a doctor, while others do not, like having telemarketers hounding you. Which goods and services can be exported for cash to improve the balance of trade is another, related issue. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Well, the most obvious good is to the people themselves ('society' is composed of people), because they can, more often than not, live better on a wage or salary than on what (society-funded) Government welfare/benefits may be available, and beyond material advantages usually enjoy enhanced personal self-respect and satisfaction by supporting themselves through providing even optional services to others (though I would exempt telemarketers from the latter point). I disagree with your "without actually generating a product or service" since - some charitable activities aside - no business pays people to do things not of expected eventual financial value to itself.

Secondarily, there is a good to the economy as a whole, because every person employed will (beyond various complicated benefits thresholds depending on locality) be able to make a net contribution to the tax base and thus help to fund their society's costs, rather than being a net drain.

Your deeper query verging towards national level economic theory is beyond my scope, but you might find something of interest at Productive and unproductive labour.

To obviate possible ad hominem arguments, I should disclose that I myself currently am, following redundancy, entirely dependent on benefits. 90.197.66.165 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To translate that last sentence for Americans: "He's been laid-off and is on Unemployment Compensation". StuRat (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the McJob article interesting. Astronaut (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These jobs are forms of advertising, which is itself a form of persuasion and ought to be a form of rational argument and therefore beneficial. (Forms of advertising which use anti-rational methods, like deception and the bullying variety of hard sell, tend to be outlawed.) So I suggest that most of the criticism of advertising lacks merit, and it does good by encouraging discussion of the value of one product over another. You mention "there is focus keeping unemployment low", though, which puzzles me. Whose focus? (The perils of the passive tense!) Usually this kind of phrase refers to government policy, and usually governments don't employ people to dress up as chickens, so something about your question doesn't seem to add up. 81.131.16.236 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might, indirectly, say by lowering minimum wage so that KFC can hire more dancing chickens. As for deception in advertising, that seems to be completely legal in the US, unless the deception rises to the level of an outright lie. Even then, they may still make more money from the lie than the minimal fine they get, if any. Have you seen the pictures of fast food in advertising ? It bears little resemblance to the actual "food". Advertising rarely tries to convey facts, but typically tries to confuse people into buying a product that it isn't in their interest to buy (if it was, ads wouldn't be needed). The only thing good I can see in ads is that some of them are funny. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camus' Myth of Sisyphus is tangentially related to what the OP wants. Sisyphus was condemned to pushing a rock up a hill for eternity - a pretty meaningless activity - but Camus concludes "one must imagine Sisyphus happy". 129.67.186.200 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is willing to pay you to do something, it must be worth something to them at least. And if it's worth something to them, it is almost certainly creating value for them.124.148.51.38 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab League apparently voted to ask the UN for a no-fly zone over Libya: [1]. I would have expected them to want to protect national sovereignty above all else, since they may be in a similar situation if revolution spreads in their direction. So, why did they vote that way ? StuRat (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that they made the move because they fear their people's reactions if they don't appear to stand for the people and against tyranny. Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal sense is that other Arab leaders kinda tolerate Gaddafi for various politically and economically expedient reasons, but that they also know what others know; that he's batshit insane and that if things went bad, the more rational and clear thinking Arab leaders wouldn't hesitate to throw him under the bus if necessary. In terms of the dictator continuum, hes definately on the Kim Jong Il side of it, if you catch my drift. His relations with Egypt, for example, have always been quite tense, even flaring into open warfare for a short time in the 1970's. His Islamic Legion was a HUGE destablizing effect on his neighbors, the Sudan and Chad, and I'm not sure other arab leaders are terribly proud of what's gone on in those countries under his influence. The entire Darfour mess has been greatly exacerbated by the Islamic Legion directly. If you read through his article, his closest allies read like a who's who of the batshit insane dictators of the last 40 years, without regard for religion or location. He had close ties with both Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic, and I'm not sure either endeared him to the rest of the Arab world. If you read Muammar_Gaddafi#Ideology, it contains the statement "Gaddafi is known for his extremely erratic statements, and commentators often express doubt whether he is being sarcastic or just incoherent. Over the course of his four-decade rule, he has accumulated a wide variety of eccentric and often contradictory statements." That probably captures him well. As recently as 2009, he's blasted other Arab leaders in the Arab League, see [2] where he insults King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He's not been a great support of Pan-Arabism, but instead has been one of Pan-Africanism, see United States of Africa of which he is a big supporter. So, in summation he's a) batshit insane dictator without a coherant political philosophy b) he has historically bad relations with other Arab states, and has been an obvious destablizing effect on his weaker neighbors. There's bound to be a point where the other Arab states have to say "enough is enough." They may have reached it. --Jayron32 03:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi was a great supporter of Pan-Arabism, until he realised that other Arab states would not permit him to have a leading role in any meaningful union. Only then did he switch to advocating African unity. Warofdreams talk 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's transparent that Gaddafi is a great supporter of Gaddafi and little else; yet another reason that no one, even those culturally close to him, are coming to his defense in his hour of need. He's spent decades making his bed, and now he's finally having to lie in it. --Jayron32 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that many Arab and Muslim countries supported the 1991 Gulf War, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. Solidarity only goes so far when you've someone like Gaddafi or Saddam in your midst. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He also looks like Michael Jackson. Honestly, why would someone like him? He's also a openly sponsor of terrorism, and no, Arab leaders do not endorse that. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that he has also been openly dismissive of the Palestinian cause (and has treated Palestinians in Libya very poorly) and that is also seen as a very negative point in other Arab countries. --Xuxl (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that was only after the other Arab states spurned him, as Warofdreams and Jayron mentioned (like when he tried to latch onto the Egypt-Syria union). He was greatly concerned with the Palestinians in the 60s when the Libyan monarchy didn't care... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the late '70s/early '80s everyone thought Ghadaffi was a dangerous lunatic. Then, once he consolidated power and had little to fear (and after Lockerbie died down), no one seemed to worry too much about him. There was a bit of a reassessment in the West; lots of folks thought he was a dependable player who could be useful as an intermediary. Now that his power is threatened, he's a lunatic again.

I'm not saying he's not a bad guy. Just that he's a lot more trouble when his power is uncertain. So if you're going to pose a threat to that power, you'd better make sure you finish the job.

It reminds me a bit of a Hugo-winning story, Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones, where there was a law-enforcement agency that tracked, not criminals' nuisance value per se, but the first derivative of that nuisance value. Established hoods they left alone; they went in after the up-and-comers. Ghadaffi was an established hood for a long time. --Trovatore (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have read that traditionally in English law, a married woman was the property of her husband.

• Am I mistaken? Was she his property or something else?
• To what extent (if any) was she his property?
• Since exactly when has a woman not been her husband's legal property? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.76.175 (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is relevant information at Wife selling (English custom). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not answer your question directly, but still: Before the Married Woman's property act in 1882, a woman's property was passed to her husband when she married [3]. Though this does not mean that the woman herself was the property of her husband in a literal sense, it goes a long way in suggesting it.--DI (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading the article on coverture--DI (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and see Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882.--Wetman (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

75.24.76.175 -- She was not his property in any meaning of the term comparable to chattel slavery or similar, but the woman's legal identity was submerged in the husband's legal identity -- see Coverture. (As for "wife-selling", that was actually an unrecognized and illegal method of divorce.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - please find below the correspondance I have been having with yoursleves about "Baby Face Nelson" - any comments on this would be greatfully appreciated - thanks

Dear Frances Hornal,

Thank you for your email. I'm glad you enjoyed the article on Baby Face Nelson, and I appreciate your sharing your memories of the stories you were told in your youth.

I'm afraid, though, that the authors of the article don't actually work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Articles on Wikipedia are written by the public; anyone may volunteer, although there are certain policies in places to try to keep articles accurate and unbiased. This particular article is the result of collaboration between dozens of people, who have been working pretty steadily since 2005.

Wikipedia does, though, have a place where volunteers may be able to see if they can find something similar to the stories you were told. It is a web based forum staffed by volunteers, called the Reference Desk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk>. Though there is no guarantee that they can provide an answer, they are pretty good at research. If you tell them your story and ask them if they can look into it, they may be able to tell you if they can find anything to confirm it.

Yours sincerely, Maggie Dennis

02/17/2011 14:37 - Frances Hornal wrote:

Hello - after reading your interesting article on Baby Face Nelson - I would like to let you know the stories we have always been told as children

My Grandfather (Charles Leith) whose mother was (Jessie Leith nee Robertson) had a sister (Mary Ann Robertson) who came from the small Island of Bressay on the Shetland Islands, Scotland - Mary emigrated to Either America or Canada in the late 1800's - she married a eastern European at some point and she was the mother of Baby Face Nelson - I also believe that Mary and Jessie's mothers maiden name was NELSON and that is the name Mary and her Husband took as having a foreign sounding name in America in the early 1900's was not an advantage - we actually have a photo of young Mary and the likeness to the pictures you see of Baby Face is striking. I just thought you might be interested and wondered if you had ever heard of anything resembling this story before

- thanks

Best Regards

Frances Hornal

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.152.74 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frances. I'm not exactly sure why the letter you received from the Wikimedia Foundation sent you here. This is a reference desk for general knowledge queries. If you have a particular question about Baby Face Nelson which is not covered by the article, feel free to post it here. If the biographical information you gave in your letter can be verified by independent sources, feel free to add it to the article – it sounds like it could be an interesting addition. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored your email to remove the annoying ">" characters inserted by your email software and which were interfering with my ability to read your email clearly. I've also removed your contact details. Unfortunately, this page is highly visible across the internet and is a natural target for spam-bots looking for contact details so they can subsequently deluge you with unwanted emails. Astronaut (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to address your question is really Talk:Baby Face Nelson. However, I can imagine people will ask for proof that your great-aunt really was the mother of Baby Face Nelson - preferably proof that has been previously published in what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source. Astronaut (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other questions on the same theme got me thinking about this one. A certain Australian politician, who shall remain nameless, came up with one of the most inventive pieces of reasoning in recent years. Someone wanted to give poorer families four times as much money for child support as rich families, and the said politician opined that they were saying the children of poor families were four times as important as those of rich ones. I admit it may not have been exactly that, but it was definitely along those lines, and involved the judgement that a policy allocating four times as much money for some set of newborns implied an attitude towards the value of the children themselves. Is there a name for it, and are there any other good examples of such farcical thinking? It's been emotional (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a Hasty generalization. See List of fallacies and browse for yourself and see if there's one you think fits better. Schyler! (one language) 14:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an example of affirming the consequent. There is a valid principle that if something is viewed as more important, then it will get more money -- but it is incorrectly being used in reverse. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and specifically, he's ignoring that relative need is also a consideration when allocating money. For example, if you allocate more money to repairing bridge A, which is in imminent danger of collapse, than bridge B, which is in excellent shape, that doesn't mean bridge A is more important, just that those repairs are more urgent. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another fallacy seems to be that he is only considering one source of child support (the government), while the rich kids presumably have other sources, such as their families, making the total amount spent on them more than the poor kids. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply call it politics. He no doubt lives in and gets voted in by a relatively wealthy demographic, so he is pandering to the greed of those voters. Remember that politicians don't necessarily believe what they say. They say what they think the most important part of the the audience (to them) wants to hear. That's politics. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes it's definitely just politics, on a practical level, but as far as naming it theoretically, I think it fits pretty well with affirming the consequent. Of course we are imposing a logical structure on a rather way out populist comment (though I think perhaps too populist even for his followers), but I expected that would be required. It's been emotional (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, affirming the consequent looks like a good descriptor. I like it especially because it doesn't require the person presenting the argument to necessarily believe it. He could simply be hoping that enough of his electorate believed it. (Now, all I need, as a fellow Australian, is to figure out who that fine, caring politician was.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy that best describes this reasoning is the fallacy of division. I.e. just because something is composed of constituent parts does mean that all the properties of the parts are also properties of the whole. The attempt is to make a statement on the importance of particular persons based on the groups they are in. The concept of human worth and tax dollars doesn't work that way.

I'll give you a perfect example: A flat tax is immoral, not fair just because it is supposedly equal. A rich person is able to light their cigar with a dollar bill, whereas a poor person needs the dollar bill, and it is a meaningful unit (e.g. a known and measurable percentage of the poor person's monthly rent). The dollar bill simply doesn't have the same value to a rich person and a poor person. Therefore it is immoral to have a flat tax. The property of value doesn't apply equally in the two cases. This is why we have the concept known as equity.Greg Bard (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know... adding "therefore" doesn't really prove your argument as well as you seem to think it does. Hyperbole doesn't help either. The underlying point you're making, badly, is that there's a marginal value of money... that human happiness increases much more quickly for those first few dollars than it does for the latter ones. That argument has merit, and parameters, and is open for debate. Another question I ask... is the Australian government "giving money" to rich families, who are presumably paying taxes for that money? I realize complex tax systems do this all the time, but are we to be especially astounded at this version of it? Shadowjams (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A less-than-perfect example, more of an argument against the fairness of a per capita tax than that of a flat tax. A flat tax doesn't take $1 from the beggar and $1 from Croesus. That is, a flat tax doesn't take equal amounts from people, it takes equal percentages of their income, which already factors in the ability of the rich to afford to have more taken from them. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like the term "flat tax", when they really mean a "flat rate tax". The first should really mean a set fee everyone pays, while the second clearly means that the percentage tax is the same. A true "flat income tax", say where everybody paid $10,000 in taxes each year, is so absurd that nobody even considers it (you would have millions of people unable to pay, have others driven to starvation and homelessness by it, and the government wouldn't get nearly enough income to operate, either). A "flat rate income tax", on the other hand, could work, especially if you had large personal deductions (which would effectively make it a progressive tax). Note that, if we are talking about taxes other than income, then a true flat tax may be possible, such as a fixed fee to register your car or pick up your garbage. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a flat rate tax also places a disproportionally high burden on the poor. At first glance, it sounds really fair, since everyone pays the same amount, say 10%, so if a person has a $20,000 a year income, they pay $2,000 and if someone makes $2,000,000 per year, they pay $200,000. Except that expenses don't necessarily scale with income. If someone is making $20,000 per year, and the minimum they can live on and still meet all their obligations for food and rent and utilities; is $19,000, then even the flat-rate tax screws them. They're short $1,000 per year, which is a huge portion of their income. The person making $2,000,000 per year is living no where near the limit of survival, indeed the 10% of their income makes a much smaller impact on their standard of living than does the person making $20,000 per year. The flat rate tax therefore places an undue burden on the poor people, and lets the rich people off comparatively light. Progressive tax schemes place a higher burden, in terms of tax rate, on people who can absorb the higher obligation without substantially reducing their standard of living. In the example I gave, the flat tax rate would cause the rich person to, say, purchase one less new Maseratti that year. That exact same tax rate causes the poor person to be evicted from their home, or to go hungry. That's why it doesn't work. --Jayron32 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but with a high flat tax rate and a high personal deduction, you can make a flat tax rate, for all practical purposes, into a progressive tax rate. Consider a 50% tax rate with a $20,000 personal deduction:

INCOME   TAXABLE INCOME   TAX     EFFECTIVE RATE
------   --------------  ------   --------------
 $20K          $0         $0.0        0.0%
 $25K          $5K        $2.5K      10.0%
 $30K         $10K        $5.0K      16.7%
 $40K         $20K       %10.0K      25.0%
 $50K         $30K       $15.0K      30.0%
$100K         $80K       $40.0K      40.0%

So, you could have a simple, yet still progressive, tax system. StuRat (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the point here is that fallacy of division is the more appropriate fallacy, rather than affirming the consequent. I see that I have struck a nerve with the argument on the immorality of a flat tax. The more simple argument for the flat tax is that rich people do not merely owe more money in raw terms (which a flat tax accommodates as observed above), but rather they owe more of a percentage because the society and economy that our tax dollars supports makes it possible for them to ever be rich and stay rich in the first place. They owe more to society than poor people, not the same because they have more. We don't pay a flat insurance rate do we? No, rich people pay more to insure their property because they have more value to insure. So too with preventing a collapse of society by paying our tax dollars. It prevents them from losing everything, and they have more to lose. Greg Bard (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Scrubs, why does the Todd become opposed to high-fiving in the hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.250.255 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode My Full Moon, the Todd bans other people from high-fiving because that's his "thing". Is this what you're referring to? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"His thing"? What, like he invented it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. That expression means it's something that only he does, among his circle of friends/coworkers. Or, in this case, he would like to be the only one who does it, among that group. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, giving high-fives is his "thing", not banning others from doing so. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.250.255 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Sanskrit is Hindus' ancient language and Pali is Buddhists' ancient language, but what about Jains? What is their ancient language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.65 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was sort of Sanskrit or Sanskrit descendants in general, but check out Jainism#Jain_literature, they wrote in all sorts of languages. And also, Pali is one of the descendants of Sanskrit. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, I have a question.

I've read up on the US health care debate, and am quite perplexed. I noticed one argument that was not fleshed out for me: Donald Barr, seemingly opposed to the status quo of 2000) claimed that [t]he money paid in payroll taxes into the Medicare Trust Fund is not put aside to pay for the care of current workers when they retire. Instead it is used to pay for care of people already retired. - and that this was problematic. Ie, it was implied that the US system (only) did this; that it would somehow be different elsewhere. Don't all European countries do this? As far as I understand, only your pension (Social Security in the US) is 'paid' by you, the individual, in that your work is a factor in deciding its eventual size. However, all your (European) taxes otherwise contribute to what is (although not entirely commensurate) the equivalent of your own, universal Medicare. This was the book "Introduction to US Health Care". Am I confusing something here?

I appreciate your help, as always. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a practice can be widespread and still be problematic, especially when the problems only appear years later, like smoking. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing something here? I see your reply only tangentially related to my question, unless I misunderstood you. I am first and foremost asking whether the assessment that American taxes to medicare are distributed, or the funds used, differently from other (European?) systems, is correct - see my third last sentence in the main body above. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appeared to be the argument:

1) US Medicare has current workers pay for health care of retirees.

2) This is problematic, economically, in the long term.

3) Therefore, this problematic practice must not be widespread, but limited to the US.

I was disagreeing with point number 3. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europe does not have a general system and not all European countries have universal health care (Germany, for example, does not have it). 212.169.189.21 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data point: Sweden's system is just like the one described above, i.e. there is no personal fund for your future health care, nor is money put aside for future use by your age group. The taxes paid in one year pays for the health care produced that year, more or less. Sjö (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany [does not have universal health care] is at best misleading. Germany has a system of public health insurance open to all. Yes, people above a certain income level can opt out, and self-employed people have to explicitly opt in (if they don't buy coverage elsewhere), but overall the system is pretty universal. And if you legitimately cannot afford health care, you still get treated at the same level of care at the public's expense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no government in the world that puts aside funds for future health care (though individuals and insurance companies do so). There might be the odd exception somewhere, but almost all governments fund current care from current taxes etc. Perhaps someone knows if there are exceptions? Dbfirs 07:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong does. The government holds sufficient reserves to pay for healthcare for everyone many times over. The total is about 3.5 time annual payment for all government services, not just healthcare.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem with such a system is that there would be an immediate cost, yet no immediate benefits, and thus the unmet need for health care (which presumably would have driven the creation of the system), would remain unmet, possibly for decades. That's not politically viable. Perhaps a system which gradually transitions from the type we currently have to the more sustainable type might work. StuRat (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"don't all European countries do this?" was a horrible simplification for me to make, making it more likely that the distribution of money be conflated with the general health care policies.

That aside, I think I should read between Barr's lines: Maybe he is saying that the current policies are/were unsatisfactory because of this economical rule as it were. Ie, one should never depend on the workers's tax output to adjust depending on the ratio of workers and elderly to support. Now, that enables me to ask a question: How, in general, do the European welfare states accomplish this? Are they simply good at keeping their medical costs down, meaning the reduced amount of workers paying £££ and the increased amount of elderly people is a problem, but not as big a problem? Or is the movement of funding drastically different, with perhaps taxes amounting to a smaller part of their budgets?

I think I will ask a new question on US health care below, after searching through the archives for a bit. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nations most successful at containing costs implement price controls. That is, they set the prices that can be charged for medical equipment and procedures, set the pay rates for medical professionals, etc. This means that everyone in the medical field is paid less. The US, on the other hand, relies on competition to keep prices down, which doesn't work, since very few people needing urgent medical care are in a position to shop around for the best price. (Competition does work fairly well for optional medical procedures, provided that all the relevant information is made available to the consumer to enable wise choices.) Once hospitals can no longer pass on their costs, they find ways to save money (hopefully not by cutting anything necessary). Another way to limit medical costs is by rationing, essentially refusing to pay for expensive procedures with little hope of success. Then there's elimination of for-profit companies, such as insurance companies, who all take a "piece of the pie". StuRat (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning that the US spends the most on healthcare but doesn't get the best care for all that money (see: this Reuters article). The table on Health care system#Cross-country comparisons make for interesting reading. Astronaut (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question moved to "Finance Question about Bond Prices and Compounded Interest Rates)" on the Mathematics desk. -- OP, 68.75.28.230 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

On the news I always hear about countries and the massive amounts of debt that they have. The US in in debt, the UK is in debt, Ireland, Greece and so. If everyone is in debt, who are they in debt to? Postrock1 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China and corporate and private bondholders, mainly. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all countries owe other countries money, and almost all countries are owed money from other countries. Other countries have made a debt against themselves. Still others owe debts to organizations that they are a member of, like the United Nations or the African Union. Albacore (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the holders of U.S. governent debt are American individuals and institutions. If you own a savings bond, you own a part of the national debt. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private individuals mostly. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To use a specific example, this article offers a rough breakdown of the holders of UK government bonds. In order: insurance and pension funds, then overseas investors, then British banks, then other "financial institutions", then building societies and private investors right down at the bottom.

"Overseas" isn't defined, but looking at the equivalent data for the US, just over a quarter is held by China, 20% by Japan, 6% by the UK, 4% by Brazil, and a long tail falling off after that. Note that this doesn't automatically mean those governments hold the debt, just that someone in that country does; in some cases it might be private financial institutions, in others sovereign wealth funds. Shimgray | talk | 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]