Smashing Particles--Vanity or Good for Humanity?

[swede]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/large-hadron-collider.htm

It has no practical applications, only theoretical ones. Like when we were kids and we tried to wreck stuff in different, creative ways.

Perhaps the billions could be better spent helping abandoned souls like George Obama improve their lot in life. Lord knows his brother won't help. Personally, instead of blowing up my sister's Barbies with firecrackers I should have invested my energy in mowing my grandma's lawn. It's all about resources and how we use them.

Or will this heroic machine, harnessed into the ongoing quest for knowledge, inevitably result in something useful that will surely benefit mankind in some unforeseen way?

Or are you completely uninterested in physics crap?

[swede]

Half-brother. Sorry.

[texaspackerbacker]

Is this the same thing as the huge Particle Accelerator project between Dallas and Waco that fell through a few years ago?

They said about that, it had no DIRECT practical benefits, but that the theoretical stuff could lead to progress in a lot of other areas.

Economics is my field--not Physics. So let me say this about that:

According to Lord Keynes, the mega-billions spent for this--or other domestic projects--is money injected into the economy. That money translates to jobs, capital investment, income, demand, production, more jobs, more income, still more demand, still more production, income, etc. All of that income gets taxed and ultimately, more than pays the original cost of the project.

Does any of that trickle down to half-brother George? Hell yeah--if he comes to America and moves in with his half-brother. Not so much, though, over there in Kenya or wherever the hell his shack is.

[mraynrand]

According to Lord Keynes, the mega-billions spent for this--or other domestic projects--is money injected into the economy. That money translates to jobs, capital investment, income, demand, production, more jobs, more income, still more demand, still more production, income, etc. All of that income gets taxed and ultimately, more than pays the original cost of the project. .

So if they spent the money on a gigantic Cabrini Green, you're saying that would be equally good for the economy? Where does that money come from? What would it be spent on if not a particle accelerator/housing project?

[texaspackerbacker]

According to Lord Keynes, the mega-billions spent for this--or other domestic projects--is money injected into the economy. That money translates to jobs, capital investment, income, demand, production, more jobs, more income, still more demand, still more production, income, etc. All of that income gets taxed and ultimately, more than pays the original cost of the project. .

So if they spent the money on a gigantic Cabrini Green, you're saying that would be equally good for the economy? Where does that money come from? What would it be spent on if not a particle accelerator/housing project?

The obvious answer is that it comes from the Treasury--revenue from the Federal government. And that money, of course, comes from taxpayers. However, that is only the beginning of the answer.

If the total tax base--the income that is taxed--is X, and the tax rate is Y percent, then total tax revenue to the government is Y percent of X.

I hope no explanation is necessary of the fact that money injected becomes income for SOMEBODY. And those SOMEBODIES spend or invest that increased income. That spending or investment creates demand--which is met by more production--which in turn produces more jobs and more income. All of that additional income results in more tax money for the government--Y percent of (X + A + B)--A being the additional income produced by the original spending and B being the extra income produced by the Multiplier Effect--income caused by demand, production to meet that demand, etc. Keynesian economists generally estimate the B figure to be at least five times the A figure. Thus, the assertion that the spending--whether it is a Particle Accelerator or a housing project or whatever--comes close to paying for itself is reasonably accurate.

There are a lot of other reasons for opposing government social engineering, disrupting inner-city housing, etc. than the economic aspect--as the history of Cabrini Green and failed Great Society poverty programs proved.

[mraynrand]

But, Tex, what would happen if that money remained with the taxpayers? Wouldn't that be far better for the economy - in investment and spending - that having the government take it, even assuming a multiplier.

For example, Obama wants to spend 150 billion over 10 years on green technology. Jimma spent close to 20 billion on synfuel (otherwise known as Sin Fuel). We got jack squat out of synfuel. Where was the multiplier there and where will the multiplier be in 'green jobs?' Won't it have to be much less than the far more efficient free market - where bad ideas get exterminated far more rapidly than government boondoggles?

[HowardRoark]

According to Lord Keynes, the mega-billions spent for this--or other domestic projects--is money injected into the economy. That money translates to jobs, capital investment, income, demand, production, more jobs, more income, still more demand, still more production, income, etc. All of that income gets taxed and ultimately, more than pays the original cost of the project. .

So if they spent the money on a gigantic Cabrini Green, you're saying that would be equally good for the economy? Where does that money come from? What would it be spent on if not a particle accelerator/housing project?

The obvious answer is that it comes from the Treasury--revenue from the Federal government. And that money, of course, comes from taxpayers. However, that is only the beginning of the answer.

If the total tax base--the income that is taxed--is X, and the tax rate is Y percent, then total tax revenue to the government is Y percent of X.

I hope no explanation is necessary of the fact that money injected becomes income for SOMEBODY. And those SOMEBODIES spend or invest that increased income. That spending or investment creates demand--which is met by more production--which in turn produces more jobs and more income. All of that additional income results in more tax money for the government--Y percent of (X + A + B)--A being the additional income produced by the original spending and B being the extra income produced by the Multiplier Effect--income caused by demand, production to meet that demand, etc. Keynesian economists generally estimate the B figure to be at least five times the A figure. Thus, the assertion that the spending--whether it is a Particle Accelerator or a housing project or whatever--comes close to paying for itself is reasonably accurate.

There are a lot of other reasons for opposing government social engineering, disrupting inner-city housing, etc. than the economic aspect--as the history of Cabrini Green and failed Great Society poverty programs proved.

Can't I just do my own injecting without the middleman?

[mraynrand]

According to Lord Keynes, the mega-billions spent for this--or other domestic projects--is money injected into the economy. That money translates to jobs, capital investment, income, demand, production, more jobs, more income, still more demand, still more production, income, etc. All of that income gets taxed and ultimately, more than pays the original cost of the project. .

So if they spent the money on a gigantic Cabrini Green, you're saying that would be equally good for the economy? Where does that money come from? What would it be spent on if not a particle accelerator/housing project?

The obvious answer is that it comes from the Treasury--revenue from the Federal government. And that money, of course, comes from taxpayers. However, that is only the beginning of the answer.

If the total tax base--the income that is taxed--is X, and the tax rate is Y percent, then total tax revenue to the government is Y percent of X.

I hope no explanation is necessary of the fact that money injected becomes income for SOMEBODY. And those SOMEBODIES spend or invest that increased income. That spending or investment creates demand--which is met by more production--which in turn produces more jobs and more income. All of that additional income results in more tax money for the government--Y percent of (X + A + B)--A being the additional income produced by the original spending and B being the extra income produced by the Multiplier Effect--income caused by demand, production to meet that demand, etc. Keynesian economists generally estimate the B figure to be at least five times the A figure. Thus, the assertion that the spending--whether it is a Particle Accelerator or a housing project or whatever--comes close to paying for itself is reasonably accurate.

There are a lot of other reasons for opposing government social engineering, disrupting inner-city housing, etc. than the economic aspect--as the history of Cabrini Green and failed Great Society poverty programs proved.

Can't I just do my own injecting without the middleman?

Why don't you go do something useful to stimulate the economy and break some windows or something?

[HowardRoark]

Ha....you beat me to it...I was cutting and pasting....


"The Broken Window Fallacy"
_________
-
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye

[HowardRoark]

One more thing Tex......start reading Milton Friedman.

I haven't given up on you yet.

[texaspackerbacker]

But, Tex, what would happen if that money remained with the taxpayers? Wouldn't that be far better for the economy - in investment and spending - that having the government take it, even assuming a multiplier.

For example, Obama wants to spend 150 billion over 10 years on green technology. Jimma spent close to 20 billion on synfuel (otherwise known as Sin Fuel). We got jack squat out of synfuel. Where was the multiplier there and where will the multiplier be in 'green jobs?' Won't it have to be much less than the far more efficient free market - where bad ideas get exterminated far more rapidly than government boondoggles?

If taxes are CUT, yes, then you have MORE money in the hands of people who will spend or invest it, and the Multiplier applies to that also.

If you don't cut taxes, though, merely avoid the spending, then you have Y percent of X taxation/government revenue. With the A amount NOT spent, then the situation is revenue neutral from the government's point of view. What you DON'T HAVE, though, is 1. the benefit--however dubious it might be--from the project and 2. the massive secondary income--B in my model--from money spent, production, more income, more demand, more production, still more income, etc.

Therefore, even a complete boondoggle--no redeeming virtues at all to the project--is moderately beneficial, and if you spend it for something that DOES do some good--as this Particle Accelerator/Smasher might, then the benefit is even greater.

[HowardRoark]

But, Tex, what would happen if that money remained with the taxpayers? Wouldn't that be far better for the economy - in investment and spending - that having the government take it, even assuming a multiplier.

For example, Obama wants to spend 150 billion over 10 years on green technology. Jimma spent close to 20 billion on synfuel (otherwise known as Sin Fuel). We got jack squat out of synfuel. Where was the multiplier there and where will the multiplier be in 'green jobs?' Won't it have to be much less than the far more efficient free market - where bad ideas get exterminated far more rapidly than government boondoggles?

If taxes are CUT, yes, then you have MORE money in the hands of people who will spend or invest it, and the Multiplier applies to that also.

If you don't cut taxes, though, merely avoid the spending, then you have Y percent of X taxation/government revenue. With the A amount NOT spent, then the situation is revenue neutral from the government's point of view. What you DON'T HAVE, though, is 1. the benefit--however dubious it might be--from the project and 2. the massive secondary income--B in my model--from money spent, production, more income, more demand, more production, still more income, etc.

Therefore, even a complete boondoggle--no redeeming virtues at all to the project--is moderately beneficial, and if you spend it for something that DOES do some good--as this Particle Accelerator/Smasher might, then the benefit is even greater.

Why not just give the unspent money back? I can do my own boondoggle.

[texaspackerbacker]

But, Tex, what would happen if that money remained with the taxpayers? Wouldn't that be far better for the economy - in investment and spending - that having the government take it, even assuming a multiplier.

For example, Obama wants to spend 150 billion over 10 years on green technology. Jimma spent close to 20 billion on synfuel (otherwise known as Sin Fuel). We got jack squat out of synfuel. Where was the multiplier there and where will the multiplier be in 'green jobs?' Won't it have to be much less than the far more efficient free market - where bad ideas get exterminated far more rapidly than government boondoggles?

If taxes are CUT, yes, then you have MORE money in the hands of people who will spend or invest it, and the Multiplier applies to that also.

If you don't cut taxes, though, merely avoid the spending, then you have Y percent of X taxation/government revenue. With the A amount NOT spent, then the situation is revenue neutral from the government's point of view. What you DON'T HAVE, though, is 1. the benefit--however dubious it might be--from the project and 2. the massive secondary income--B in my model--from money spent, production, more income, more demand, more production, still more income, etc.

Therefore, even a complete boondoggle--no redeeming virtues at all to the project--is moderately beneficial, and if you spend it for something that DOES do some good--as this Particle Accelerator/Smasher might, then the benefit is even greater.

Why not just give the unspent money back? I can do my own boondoggle.

That would, in effect, be a tax cut--or if you prefer, a disbursal by the government. Either way, the Multiplier applies, and it's a good thing. Trouble is, how likely do you suppose it is that something like that would ever happen? All I am saying is the realistically most likely scenario--government money spent for whatever--is NOT an economically detrimental thing--and if it's socailly detrimental or goes against your grain of fairness, or whatever, fine. That's worthy of discussion. It's just NOT valid to oppose social boondoggles or whatever on economic grounds.

And Howard, I have read a lot of Friedman stuff, but Keynes makes more sense to me. Actually, a lot of this--the Supply Side aspect/tax cutting is pure Friedman. He just doesn't apply the same to spending.

[HowardRoark]

a disbursal by the government.

Interesting.

[ThunderDan]

Ha....you beat me to it...I was cutting and pasting....


"The Broken Window Fallacy"
_________
-
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye

Of course now the glazier can buy a new suit which he couldn't before the window was broken. Seems like a zero sum game to me. The only difference is who is going to spend the $250 for additional goods.

Then you need start thinking about if the baker or the glazier is more likely to save the money or spend it. Is one in debt and they are just going to pay off a credit card company. Stories like this simplfy the problem kind of like Reagan's trickle down economics of the 80s and 90s. Nice talking points but the rich really got rich during that decade.

I am happy I was in the market back then.

[HowardRoark]

Tex. I hate to break this to you, but you are an advocate of redistribution of wealth, Just like Barack.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex. I hate to break this to you, but you are an advocate of redistribution of wealth, Just like Barack.

Ty fears for your safety. Men have been killed by tex for far less.

[red]

without getting into any political bullshit, i'l answer one question

yes tex, this is just like the one in texas, just bigger. i didn't know though that it went belly up

there is also a smaller one outside of chicago called fermi lab thats also been doing this same stuff for decades

edit. my bad, the one in texas was suppose to be bigger then the new one in geneva. and i swear i thought it was up and running. i never heard it was canceled until you said so

[texaspackerbacker]

without getting into any political bullshit, i'l answer one question

yes tex, this is just like the one in texas, just bigger. i didn't know though that it went belly up

there is also a smaller one outside of chicago called fermi lab thats also been doing this same stuff for decades

edit. my bad, the one in texas was suppose to be bigger then the new one in geneva. and i swear i thought it was up and running. i never heard it was canceled until you said so

The one in Texas was never built, but it was supposed to be a huge underground oval track of some sort in the Waxahachie area--something like 20 miles by 15 miles. Is this one actually bigger than that?

[HowardRoark]

Seems like a zero sum game to me. The only difference is who is going to spend the $250 for additional goods.

I'm O.K. with this, but if the $250 was earned on the sweat of my brow, I think I should also be the one to spend it on whatever I please.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, Howard and ThunderDan. First of all, if what I'm talking about is some leftist bullshit conspiracy, it's interesting that our fine forum leftists haven't chimed in favoring the idea--NOT condemning government spending--for whatever purpose on economic grounds.

The GLARING FLAW in your little broken glass example is that it is an UNEXPECTED EXPENSE--an INCREASE in outflow of money from your shopkeeper--who represents American taxpayers/consumers. Therefore, the broken window expense becomes the equivalent of A TAX INCREASE--not at all analogous to spending for a physics project or social program or highway or welfare handout--whatever you want to compare it to.

Howard, in your previous post, you mentioned Friedman, and you asked, what if the government did NOT spend money and just returned it to the taxpayers. Well, your own example shows the flaw in Friedman's thinking compared to Keynes. Would you agree that in your example, the result is exactly the same whether you call the money a "tax cut" or whether you call it a "government disbursal"? After all, in your example, the government first collects the money, and then dollar for dollar returns--disburses--it to whoever it came from. Friedman's Supply Side concept acknowledges the benefit if you call this a tax cut, but denies the benefit for the exact same transaction if you call it a government disbursal. Keynes, on the other hand, doesn't differentiate between the two. Either way, it is money injected into the economy, hence, subject to the Multiplier.

The only difference is fairness--and fairness, while a valid consideration, is NOT an economic concept.

[Zool]

I say smash the shit out of those particles. If we can come up with a viable solution to fission, its well worth the .0000000001 chance that a black hole will show up. And if a black hole does engulf our solar system, it will be so fast no one will know the difference anyways.

[red]

without getting into any political bullshit, i'l answer one question

yes tex, this is just like the one in texas, just bigger. i didn't know though that it went belly up

there is also a smaller one outside of chicago called fermi lab thats also been doing this same stuff for decades

edit. my bad, the one in texas was suppose to be bigger then the new one in geneva. and i swear i thought it was up and running. i never heard it was canceled until you said so

The one in Texas was never built, but it was supposed to be a huge underground oval track of some sort in the Waxahachie area--something like 20 miles by 15 miles. Is this one actually bigger than that?

no, i was mistaken, the one in texas was suppose to be much bigger

the new one at cern is 17 miles around. the one in texas was suppose to be 57

[Harlan Huckleby]

It has no practical applications, only theoretical ones. Like when we were kids and we tried to wreck stuff in different, creative ways.

practical applications always follow theoretical advances. There might be a 20 or 30 year lag time, so it is not always easy to make the connection.

If you look at theoretical physics from the 1920's, quantum dynamics, wave-particle duality, etc. ALL of it has been necessary in solid state physics of last 30 years, which built the electronics industry.

Same thing will happen in future with the seemingly abstract theories of today.

[MJZiggy]

Today is Thursday and I'm still here. Remarkable...

[SkinBasket]

Today is Thursday and I'm still here. Remarkable...

The opponent I read said nothing would happen for a number of years, and then shit would start getting freaky. So you've got some time.

[hoosier]

I say smash the shit out of those particles. If we can come up with a viable solution to fission, its well worth the .0000000001 chance that a black hole will show up. And if a black hole does engulf our solar system, it will be so fast no one will know the difference anyways.

If the chances of making a black hole show up are that remote (I'm taking your word for it), I say tell to hell with the project. Why would I invest my hard-earned money in something that has so little chance of success?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Save yourselves! a black hole has appeared.

http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/oj_simpson_narrowweb__300x4720.jpg