Humanities desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

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

December 4[edit]

Donald Trump's presidency and a mathematical coincidence[edit]

Either Donald Trump (the forty-fifth president) will succeed again for the 2020 United States presidential election, or he won't. If he does, then he would continue to be a president until 2025 (which, coincidentally, equals 45²), and the next president might either be a one-term president serving until 2029, or a two-term president serving until 2033. Otherwise, Trump would continue to be a president until 2021, and the next president would then be either a one-term president serving until 2025, or a two-term president serving until 2029. So, will the forty-fifth president really serve until the year forty-five squared? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politics do not depend on that kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that Donald Trump being reelected doesn't guarantee he will serve until 2025 and likewise for any of the other ones and dates. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fake math! Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious percentage in Iraq[edit]

As religion in Iraq and islam in Iraq only provide current information, does anyone know the distribution of sunni vs shia in Iraq around 1980? Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, but this article dated from 1985 looks promising. --Jayron 32 12:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Progressive® have low enough conservative sales to notice?[edit]

From enough conservatives disliking the name enough to affect the insurance they chose even though it doesn't mean anything? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you think that "conservatives" would avoid buying insurance from the company? Because the name of the company is "Progressive Insurance"? Can you point us to somewhere outside of your head, where we can read about this phenomenon or is it just something you made up to ask this question? --Jayron 32 17:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have several varieties of insurance, and never have I been asked what my political leanings are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do liberals boycott going to concerts at Shepherd's Bush Empire because they don't like the idea of promoting the ideals of a perceived imperialist President?--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot more of a stretch. Especially since it's in fucking England. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not significantly more of a stretch than your odd hypothesis.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Insurance advertises on Fox News a lot so they must find an audience there. I don't think politics really figures in. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? But that means they give money to ... to... The evil network?!!! Boycott! Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One characteristic of true conservatism is thriftiness. A true conservative isn't going to care much about an insurance company's name - they're going to care about the soundness of the company's finances and the reasonableness of their rates. They might hesitate if was called "Communist Insurance" but I don't think we have one of those. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, exactly what is a State Farm? Sounds collectivist to me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles on State farm (a.k.a. Sovkhoz) and State Farm...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every conservative's a true conservative. Not every true conservative is more into fiscal than social/religious. And if branding and name association and informationless marketing bullshit never worked ever then there'd be no point in focus groups and marketing surveys when naming things and repeating things like radical socialist Democrat, socialized medicine or either it's optimum® or it's not. How significant or insignificant the fraction of people who are swayable by nonsense like this is I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one brand element which did cause a major company harm -- the persistent rumor that the Procter and Gamble moon and stars logo was occult or "satanic" -- was based on something which would seem more innocuous than the word "progressive"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite any harm from that hoax, they still seem to be in business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were annoyed enough by it to launch lawsuits and change their logo (see Procter & Gamble#Logo myth. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors were spread by Amway? What a surprise... 93.142.93.173 (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if more profit is gained from progressives swayed by the name, no matter how few, (and if I remember right there were commercials where they say their selling point(s) then say "that's Progressive®" at the end with the same tone of voice as "that's advanced" like a left wing dogwhistle), than is lost to right wingers then that's not hurting Progressive® at all. The cute animal and funny niches are apparently full enough with GEICO and possibly Aflac (does Progressive have hurt and can't work insurance?), the jingle niche with Nationwide and State Farm, Farmers takes the self-deprecatingly cheeky niche, Metlife does cartoon characters and the especially appeals to down-to-earth people niche is chose by New York Life, "That's Allstate's stand" and State Farm (at least in the past). It's product differentiation! And surely their Fox News ads have more of their hot white chick niche which is already proven to work on the actual shows and less liberal dogwhistles than their ads on like CNN. _{^{I haven't watched TV ads in years, might be outdated.}} Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sort of "Chevy No Va" effect is overestimated. Over here, to name just one example, there's no shortage of Ford Kugas on the streets even tho "kuga" means "bubonic plague" here. 93.142.93.173 (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

too much money[edit]

Is there a recognized concept of an organization having too much money to be fit for purpose? Example: if your local police department is underfunded, there is excessive crime, poor officer morale, slow 911 response, etc. If it is adequately funded, the officers are paid well and happy, crime patrols are enough to keep good order, 911 response meets reasonable expectations, etc. But if it is overfunded (e.g. someone writes it a $1B check for whatever reason) you get a militarized police state that is no longer a public service organization. Are there other known situations where this kind of logic applies? (If anyone cares, I'm thinking of the WMF.) 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who says an "overfunded" police department becomes a "militarized police state"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you played SimCity? The sim citizens like some police protection, but not too much. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs: Radley Balko, Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America and The Rise of the Warrior Cop. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust the writings of a guy who thinks drunken driving is just fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand on that? —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Balko has advocated the abolition of laws criminalizing drunk driving, arguing that the 'punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer.'" He's dead wrong, and hence can't be trusted on other issues either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't distinguish between "does not agree that it ought to be separately punished" and "thinks it's just fine", I won't trust your reporting of other people's opinions, nor your judgement that this opinion discredits him in other matters. —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that he's being paid for his bad advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the author actually identify "overfunding" as a key cause? Nothing in The Rise of the Warrior Cop or the author's page suggests to me it's their view. My impression from stuff I've heard before about the militarisation of police is that blaming overfunding for it is at best overly simplisitic. For example our article mentions how the Ottawa police bought a Lenco BearCat. But the price given is about 1/1000 of their budget [1]. Or to put it a different way $340,000 may seem major waste of money but it's also only about the annual salaries of maybe 7 police officers, or one police officer over 7 years. There will be additional running, maintenance and training costs for using this BearCat and these will likely add up to a fair bit, but still it's only likely a small percentage of their budget.

And about that $340,000, I don't know the details over this particular purchase, but as our article mentions a fair amount of military gear is also given to police by the military or sold at a reduced cost as surplus equipment to their needs. This can of course mean pressure to take equipment from various parties because it's free or cheap, completing ignoring the other costs as well as whether the equipment is actually needed. Further police may receive funding specifically intended for such equipment.

In other words, I think there are good reasons that simply thinking this is a problem of overfunding is a mistake. It's about priorities and perceived needs or utility coming from police management and politicians. If you got the impression it's only overfunding from Radley Balko's work, maybe look into more diverse work. E.g. [2] is a short video which may get you started. I strongly suspect you'll find many who argue that the current level of police funding even in militarised police forces at least in the developed worlds is actually about right, or even too little. It's simply going to the wrong places.

There are also many sources e.g. [3] [4] which talk about funding due to a recent study. To be fair, the PBS report is maybe a little misleading. The actual study, didn't say that it may lead to perceptions the police are overfunded AFAICT [5]. Instead it found that police militarisation leads to reduced support for police funding as it gave the perception that the police is already well funded.

There are also others e.g. [6] which may be of interest. This one [7] which does explicitly mention overfunding only seems to be specifically referring to programmes transferring military equipment from the US DOD to the police. Even this one [8] which is extremely critical over some highly funded programmes doesn't seem to be specifically saying the police are overfunded but rather those specific programmes are. It includes a quote from someone “If you want to fund emergency response, fund emergency response. We do not believe UASI is intended for that at all.”

Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found [9] which does mention overfunding in relation to protecting wildlife parks. I don't know if you'll actually get much disagreement overfunding can cause problems, although as per my other answer, I think you'll get a lot of disagreement about what is overfunding, as well as whether it's overfunding per se, or simply overfunding or prioritisation in the wrong areas. It will also depends a lot on what you mean by overfunding. E.g. for a country or charity to simply throw money or aide at another government or local partner, this may be a problem which could cause problems. But you'll likely get disagreement over whether it's actually too much money or simply the way it is being handled(or maybe the sudden increase that is the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The occasional report of police malfeasance often blames insufficient training, which would suggest under-funding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the ongoing expansion of the worldwide Market capitalization alone it becomes clear how bloated financial markets have gotten now. So why not pick that and start reading about/looking for problems there? --Kharon (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a recognized concept of an organization having too much money to be fit for purpose?" -coff coff- WMF -coff- Herostratus (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That just means that "I, as an individual who is not an actual member of that organization, disagree with the purposes that organization has set for itself". That doesn't mean they have too much money, that means you don't agree with their purposes. --Jayron 32 13:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP already said they were thinking of the WMF so I'm not sure if this adds much to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I thought it was about the police or something. Herostratus (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably find a lot more looking for Pentagon, or USDA over funding. Many have approached the issue from another direction for the public sector: Parkinson's Law, Anthony Downs, William Niskanen, budget-maximizing model, public choice. Not saying anything there is appropriate, you can decide for yourself.—eric 14:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For nonprofits, Bowman, W. (Spring 2007b). "Organizational Slack (or Goldilocks and the Three Budgets)". The Nonprofit Quarterly: 16–22., has at least a catchy name and good bibliography. "organizational slack" from A Behavioral Theory of the Firm is a good search term.—eric 14:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars prequel trilogy? Much has been written about how more limitations on Lucas would've made for better films. A lesser budget for special effects may have nixed Jar Jar Binks. In general, it should be possible to find good sources for particular examples of filmmakers or specific films where bigger budgets made for a worse film. Staecker (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try to imagine how much better Ed Wood's films could have been with a large budget. (Enough to at least hire better writers and a better director.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Monty Python have said (iirc) that Grail is better than their other movies because, with no money for elaborate sets or special effects, they had to fill the time with jokes. —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting tangent for humanity writ large is the concept of a post-scarcity economy which itself presents challenges that need to be addressed going forward, if we ever get there. --Jayron 32 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science-fiction writer Frederik Pohl wrote a satirical short story "The Midas Plague" about post-scarcity economy / "too much money"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The story assumes that management does not respond to demand; which, for a socialist, is plausible. —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]