Philosophical Fred

As this matter is controversial, please include details in your answer about the source of your information.

I am going to ask the reverse question in order to try to avoid any bias.

In the Phoney War of 1939 - 1940, the French army, disastrously, defended behind the Maginot LIne after token advances in the Saarland in September 1939.

If the French politicans and top commanders had wished to attack in Spring 1940, before Hitler did in May, to get far they would have had to cross the Rhine. Was this possible with their resources and military skills?

The Rhine was the front line in the South, between Strasbourg and Basle. The German side is forest. An attack further North would entail crossing the industrial Saarland or the Ardennes Hills, which would lead up to the Rhine Gorge or to the industrial area of the Rhineland around Cologne and the Ruhr. Finally, an attack in the North would go through Belgium and Holland, with accompanying political problems as well as creating additional military enemies.

The allied Rhine crossings in 1945 used methods not available in 1940.

I'm interested in what was technically possible, not what should have been done.

There is currently a petition on Tony Blair's new petitions website about the Armenian Massacres of 1915. I am aware in general that these killings were appalling, but would like more information about the events to which this petition refers.

I know there is an entry for this ship in Wikipedia, but want to see if people know other things about her. She was the largest liner for the trade between Europe and South America, but caught fire in 1933 and was subsequently scrapped.

Both in terms of his own life and of depictions of Canterbury in his works.

Both in terms of his own life and of depictions of Canterbury in his works.

Conventional, and generally accepted wisdom is that increasing interest rates cuts the supply of money and therefore reduces inflation.

But:-

1. If the price of money goes up, why don't suppliers of goods and services INCREASE their prices to compensate for the increased cost of their capital, hence INCREASING inflation?

2. Inflation rates themselves only affect the cost of money. Prices depend upon the decision-making processes of actors in the economic market. To understand the effect of interest rates on inflation you need an explanation of how individuals think in realtion to such policy decisions.

3. In the UK today, inflation rates vary hugely between different sectors of the economy e.g. prices of goods as opposed to house prices. How can you control such complex phenomena by adjusting a global interest rate?

Economists historically got it spectularly wrong in relation to exports (C18 mercantilism). and to balanced budgets in early C20. Have they got it wrong again?

I believe that "Pony" is such a term, and that "Archer" stands for £2,000. Is there somewhere I can find a list of the terms for differents amounts of money (or can you supply such a list!)?

I want to know in connection with a creative writing exercise, not for gambling purposes!

At Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday I recollect a Cornish MP pointed out that second homes in Cornwall, as in many parts of England, prevent local people on ordinary earnings from getting onto the house purchase ladder.

I think Blair waffled about various means of subsidising new homes, within limited reources. But surely Government subsidies will never be enough in current cirumstances to address the housing shortage? The one thing Blair did not mention was taxing second homes and particularly expensive homes. Do you agree that this is essential if the British housing market is to be brought back under control?

One may remark that most British MPs have second homes. Most British electors don't. So how do ordinary voters make the MPs listen on this?

In 1997 New Labour immediately gave the Bank of England independent control over interest rates. All three major parties now seem to agree on this

I cannot see how it makes sense to separate one mechanism of economic regulation from others, e.g. taxation and government regulation. I think that Government should only regulate lightly, but it should control all the mechanisms to do so.

Giving control of interest rates to the bankers and economists leads to its use for the interests of the financial and commercial sectors, which benefit from high rates, as opposed to manufacturing which needs low rates for investment. Also, high interest rates and low inflation benefit the rich compared to the poor.

The bank is using high interest to largely to prevent house price inflation despite other negative effects of this policy. It would be better to hit house prices selectively by taxation.

Do you agree that these are reasons to give control of interest rates back to Government?

The Nicene Creed was introduced by the Church after t had become the official Roman religion, and was framed deliberately to distinguish its beliefs from other Chistrian sects that interpreted the Bible differently, and indeed had different views at to the textual basis of Christianity. Official Christianity then censored alternative views and documents. Modern discoveries of ealry Christian documents like Gnostic Gospels means we have once-suppressed material. Do any Christians now accept organisationally this material?

I suspect many liberal Christians in old established Churches do not take the Nicene Creed very seriously. That is a different matter.

I would be interested in any recollections by Yahoo users able to remember travelling on a Pullman Train. Or in information about what they were like.

This is a serious enquiry, not about jokes about Pullman trains like the only "Similar Question" that came up when I was writing this.

Several recent incidents in which dogs have mauled or killed children have highlighted the irresponsible way in which some people keep vicious dogs.

Before people keep dogs, they ought to be trained. We train people, and then require them to pass a test, before they drive a car. Surely keeping a dog is at least as much a responsibility?

Owners could be required to microchip and register their dog. There could be a Dog Owners' Code, e.g. identifying what dog is suitable in a given house and for a given purpose. Contravening the Dog Owner's Code would be an offence, and punishment could include revoking the Dog Owner's Licence. Dog wardens or the police could impound, and if necessary shoot, unlicenced dogs or ones out of control.

The scheme would be self-funding from licence fees.

In general I want fewer, not more, regulations; but surely children have rights not to be attacked by dogs and we all have a duty to ensure that the dogs themselves are properly treated.

The recent history of telephones of course includes telecommunications generally.

I am particularly, but not only, interested to know about the development of telephones between 1918 and 1939.

When times get very hard, as they did in Germany in the early 1930s, people look around desperately for a change from failed political parties. Perhaps this may lead them to vote for parties massively against their interests - a Jewish person voting for Hitler would arguably be the ultimate example.

It would be of contemporary help to know the answer to this question because of cases where politicians deny being racist by instancing people from ethnic minorities who say they have voted for the extremist party concerned.

I think civic participation is a good thing, although not encouraged as much as it should be. Why are people not interested in asking questions about civil participation?

By economic liberalism I understand the freedom of the individual to make his or her (or its in the case of corporate entities) own decisions concenring the acquisition of goods and services, including things like health care. By social liberalism, I understand the freedom of the individual to do whatever he or she likes providing it does not interfere with others. Please correct me if these definitions are inadequate.

Economic liberalism would appear to enable those who already have resources to use them to gain more, hence generating ever increasing inequality. Given human nature, I would have thought that it is also likely to result in short-term decisions that deplete essential resources in the long-term.

The English Channel is a drowned river valley. Until a few thousand years ago there was dry land between England and France. So even today nowhere in the Channel is much more than one hundred feet deep (even with rising sea levels due to global warming it would not be much more than 150 feet). And many dams are higher than that. So could the Channel be reclaimed like much of the Netherlands? Perhaps it could be used for overspill housing for London as well as transport.

Presumably one could provide a ship canal. Also discharge facilities for the nuclear reactors at Gravelines and Dungeness.

As well as technical feasibility (I would like to know details of how the damming would be done) perhaps your answer could consider:-

1. How long the engineering would take.

2. What might the cost be.

3. What could the environmental effects be.