Smashing Particles--Vanity or Good for Humanity?

[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]

Re: Smashing Particles--Vanity or Good for Humanity?

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.