Humanities desk
< November 1	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 3 >

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.

November 2

RAF officers in Pakistan 1954-1961

I’m looking for sources of information on RAF officers who were seconded to the Pakistan Air Force between between 1954 and 1961 - particularly to East Pakistan. Any information would be most welcome. Farawayman (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little outside of the time period you're asking, but just post-partition, many of the members of No. 303 Squadron RAF joined the Pakistani military; they were Poles who joined the British forces after escaping the invasion of Poland, and didn't want to return to their country after the establishment of the Iron Curtain. This article describes some of them. --Jayron 32 14:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farawayman, I didn't find much using Google; you might have more luck posting your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, where you are more likely to find someone with access to specialised records. D'oh! you've already done that! Alansplodge (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farawayman, I find a bit of snippet from 1979 Battle for Pakistan: The Air War of 1965 p. 26 - "Original plans were for the establishment of Chittagong as the main RPAF base in East Pakistan , but the proclivity of the area towards tidal waves and cyclones resulted in the alternative decision to develop the airfield of Tezgaon , in the Eastern capital of Dacca , instead . There were also a large number of World War II airstrips available for emergency use in East Pakistan . . So in the early 1950s , the RPAF was evolving as a small but highly - trained and efficient organisation , retaining close associations with the RAF . The first British Commander - in - Chief , Air Vice Marshal A. L. A. Perry - Keene , who had served from August 1947 to February 1949 , was suceeded by another seconded RAF officer , AVM R. L. R. Atcherley , for a further two - year stint . Atcherley , who created as much of a reputation during his stay in Pakistan as he had during the early days of the RAF , had the assistance of mostly British senior staff officers when he undertook a major reorganisation of the RPAF in 1949. He completely reshaped Air HQ , which in mid - 1948 had been transferred from Peshawar , in the extreme north of West Pakistan , to Karachi ( Mauripur ) , and formed separate Administration , Air and Maintenance Branches rather on the..." Perry-Keene is Allan Perry-Keene, Atcherly is Richard Atcherley. --Soman (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soman - this is good stuff!! Thanks! Farawayman (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fractional reserve banking

This is sort of an econ 101 question based on something I saw in a blog comment somewhere. If I borrow $1000 from the bank, as I understand it, the bank basically performs a database update where they add $1000 to my bank account balance. They create a record somewhere saying I'm supposed to pay it back (it is a receivable for them), but otherwise there is no offsetting debit from some other account. The total amount of deposits in the bank, and in the economy as a whole, has just increased by $1000. The $1000 has been created basically out of nowhere. That is the story of money creation, so far so good.

Now what happens if I pay back the $1000? I write a check to the bank, the $1000 is debited from my account, but where does it go? Is it credited into some account owned by the bank, so it stays in existence? Or does it simply retire a receivable so it is destroyed in the opposite process of its creation? That is what the blog comment said. It makes sense, but I had not thought of it that way before.

The blog comment further says that the recent Fed rate hikes are causing a bunch of loans to be repaid instead of being allowed to revolve. So this is removing money from the economy, not in the sense of transferring it to the banks, but in the literal sense of destroying it, as if loans and repayments cancelled like matter and antimatter.

1) is the above correct, that the rate hikes literally shrink the economy (one of the M-something money supply numbers gets smaller), 2) is that deflationary in principle? 3) If yes, is the deflationary effect in the current situation large enough to be noticeable in practice?

Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a loan is paid back, disregarding interest, it is as if there had never be a loan. The money exits the economic scene and returns to the potentially infinite well of uncreated money. By the original definition of "deflation", a shrinking money supply, this is deflationary. Whether the effect on the US economy is large enough to decrease demand, leading to lower price levels, remains to be seen. In spite of the confidence with which many economic pundits pronounce their opinions, it is generally impossible to predict economic trends (and often hard to ascribe observed economic trends to specific causes) with some level of certainty. --Lambiam 07:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under US rules, each lending institution has a certain minimum cash holding, and various safe-and-liquid but non-cash holdings that together comprise the ‘reserve capital;’ it may not be lent out. Above that amount, credit may be extended. Repaid capital goes back into the (surplus) lending pool, and interest received goes to the banks’ profit account. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the names of the school(s) of economy that believe that printing enough money (and spending) to be 100% sure price inflation always happen, is a bad thing?

What are the names of the school(s) of economy that believe that printing enough money (and spending) to be 100% sure price inflation always happen, is a bad thing?
PS: Those schools must also believe that creating a tax that everyone with the currency X will pay (so people don't lose value by keeping money and money lose value, they lose value by money keeping value and they losing money) is a BAD idea too. 177.63.89.154 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing rings a bell for me, but you might find what you are looking for by exploring the article titled Schools of economic thought. I would explore the various links from that article and see if anything reminds you of the particular school of thought you can't remember the name of. --Jayron 32 15:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like those who are deflation-friendly and creditor friendly (as opposed to those who favor moderate inflation and are debtor-friendly). Not sure there's a formal name for such a tendency, but during most of the 19th century, gold-linked currencies had a long-term overall slight deflationary trend, as gold discoveries failed to keep up with economic and population growth. During the late 19th-century, deflationists supported keeping the U.S. dollar strictly on the gold standard, while those who favored the interests of debtors supported a slight relaxation of the gold standard which would lead to the expansion of the money supply. This led to William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech in the 1896 presidential campaign, which was extremely famous at the time (and for decades afterwards). AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of economic thought that historically opposed Keynesianism (specifically its recommendation to use government spending to mitigate economic downturns using fiscal policy) and favoured monetarism (specifically its recommendation not to let the money supply grow faster than economic demand and supply) were the Austrian School, with as its most prominent exponent Friedrich Hayek, and the Chicago school of economics, with Milton Friedman leading the charges. Today, echoes can be found in pronouncements by several neoliberal economists, but I don't think you can call this bunch a school – although, if academics, they tend to belong to the "freshwater school". --Lambiam 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening of 'Jhulto Pul' bridge

Various sources give differing dates for the construction/ completion/ opening of Jhulto Pul, the bridge in the recent 2022 Morbi bridge collapse. Can anyone find a contemporary source that will confirm one? So far, I have drawn a blank. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus appears to be 143 years ago - the circumstances are in [1]. 92.19.172.198 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but as I said sources differ, and that one seems no more authoritative than any of the others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a contemporary source, not for a source that beats conflicting sources as to authoritativity. --Lambiam 08:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His point is that a contemporary (dated) source, i.e. one that reported on the opening of the bridge at the time, would by definition beat conflicting later sources. --Viennese Waltz 09:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, vol 8, listed it as "being built" at time of writing, with the foundation stone laid in Feb 1879. The volume is dated 1884 but the text seems to be up to date as of 1882, so presumably it was not yet completed by that point. I wonder if a long-running construction period might explain most of the discrepancy between sources? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray: Thank you, but that seems to be a different bridge (presumably one of the three in close proximity, just to the north of the one that collapsed) with 15 spans. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]