Humanities desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11[edit]

When will China make Guangdong, an all agricultural and tourist province like Hainan?[edit]

Hainan Province's economy based on tourism and agriculture exports. Guangdong Province has tourism places and warmer climate too to grow fruits and vegetables all year-round so it can feed China's huge population. Factories are polluting the land of Guangdong now. Will the Chinese government designate Guangdong Province like Hainan Province? Is the Chinese government enforcing manufacturing companies to move to northern coastal provinces? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly understand your assumptions. Guangdong has hundreds of years of mercantile tradition (see "Canton"), over ten times the population of Hainan, and is basically 5° of latitude further north of the equator than Hainan. I don't understand why anyone would expect the Chinese to de-industrialize the hinterland of Hong Kong... AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way we can know if or when the Chinese government will do anything. Rojomoke (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Economy of Guangdong, you’ll rapidly come to the conclusion that the Chinese leadership would be insane to tinker with its most successful economy, the source of over 10% of its national GDP and something like one-third of its exports. Agriculture and tourism don’t generate standards of living akin to those Guangdong currently enjoys. As for relocating factories inland, that is primarily focused on high-labor content and more polluting industries. Finally, the majority of Guangdong's exports are by foreign-invested firms (also true for China as a whole), which would mean compensation on a scale that would make no sense at all. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOR (HK), I didn't say relocating factories inland. I said relocating manufacturing companies to northern coastal province like Jiangsu for example. Read my comment carefully. 173.33.183.141 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And, if you read Economy of Guangdong, you'll better understand my response. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic and the White Star Line[edit]

Hi everybody, I was wondering just how damaging the sinking of the RMS Titanic was to its owners, the White Star Line. Specifically:

Did they have to pay compensation to the people who were severely affected by the sinking, specifically:

- The families of those who had perished
- Those who had survived and whose possessions had been lost
- The Royal Mail who had lost millions of items of mail

Did the paying public, and other interested parties, like the Royal Mail, lose faith in the compan
Was the ship insured and did they receive a payment. I could envisage that an insurance company would argue that negligence on behalf of the White Star Line, as a result of the captain repeatedly ignoring iceberg warnings and travelling too quickly, would have refused to pay
Did it seriously affect the viability of the company, they had lost a major investment and must have suffered financially

I know there are a lot of questions here, and thanks in advance Andrew 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says here that the tickets said the company was not responsible if the ship's navigation was negligent. People sued anyway, and after the first claimant was awarded £100, most of the cases were settled out of court. As for the loss of the ship, yes, it was insured through Lloyd's of London and yes, the insurance paid £1,000,000. Don't know about the other matters, but White Star continued operating for more than 20 years afterwards. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thank you. £1 million wasn't very much was it when the ship cost over six million to construct! --Andrew 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're getting the £6 million figure. The common figure cited is £1.5 million (£3 million for both Titanic and Olympic). In that context, £1 million payout is very reasonable.No longer a penguin (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found our United States admiralty law article which says that it enables shipowners to limit their liability for losses that are outside their control. "Even though the Titanic had never been to the United States, upon her sinking the owners rushed into the federal courts in New York to file a limitation of liability proceeding". See Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. "After the Titanic sank, the only portion of the ship remaining were the 14 lifeboats, which had a collective value of about $3,000, and the "pending freight," bringing the total to about $91,000. The cost of a first-class, parlor suite ticket was over $4,350. The owners of the Titanic were successful in showing that the sinking occurred without their privity and knowledge, and therefore, the families of the deceased passengers, as well as the surviving passengers who lost their personal belongings, were entitled to split the $91,000 value of the remaining lifeboats and pending freight". Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up "pending freight" (I'll add an explanation to the article). It's explained on page 44 of this magazine as "the total earnings of the vessel for the voyage, whether for carriage of passengers or goods." --69.158.92.137 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]