mississippichem

"Miami Brad",has is occurred to you that you are presenting a unified string theory without one single reference to Lie groups, manifolds, quantum mechanics, relativity, calculus, or even any math above elementary school arithmetic? This doesn't fully falsify your hypothesis in the strict logical sense, but it sure brings up questions about the legitimacy of your assertions when they are compared to the finesse and complexity of modern theories concocted by authorities in the field.

-Anyone care to discuss the effect of taxes on Markets? I specifically mentioned equities in the OP. GDP is a non sequitur in a discussion of tax effects on Wall Street. (Though I do agree with the post by Jackson 33 directly above.) _________________________________________________________________________________ The Financial Review, spring 1980 Notice the quantitative analysis on page 3. These are the kind of arguments I'm looking for, from peer reviewed sources involving calculations and statistical analysis. Good luck arguing this one, you'll pretty much have to prove that algebra is a conservative propaganda machine incited by Rush Limbaugh. page 66 Inow, you've yet to fully address this evidence above. I think it shows very clear correlation between market rallies and lower taxes. Please take the time to read it carefully. Also please attack back with peer-reviewed sources. News articles and punditry don't present convincing arguments, their numbers have not been fact checked by experts in the field. Plus if I were to cite Fox News I would be crucified, and rightfully so. So don't site "the Politico" as I think many would agree it is viewed as somewhat of a partisan source.

iNow and myself were having a discussion about the effects of the Bush Tax Cuts inside a thread about modern American conservatism. Our discussion got outside the realm of the thread. We could have moved to the already existing Bush Tax Cuts thread, but I decided I would rather enjoy discussion about the broader topic of the effects of tax policy on general market performance, namely equities, derivatives, and complex financial instruments. I conjecture that higher taxes propagate market uncertainty, reduce trade volume, and generally choke the efficiency and self-sustaining value system of the market. I will even "go out on a limb" and extrapolate that tax reduction, or sustaining of already existing cuts serves to actively reduce market uncertainty by increasing available venture capital and building confidence in investors. Many will cite the fact that most tax cut recipients tend to hoard their money rather than spend it. I can't dispute that, the numbers are clear and concise. However, I will argue that money sitting in a bank account is not a passive observer to the market. In the neighborhood of cooperate tax cuts (also a topic I wish to include under my umbrella), a higher value on the balance sheet quantitatively changes many of the financial indicators which in turn influences investors into increased activity. In conclusion, my statement could be broadened even further to say that their is a correlation between tax increases and market inefficiency in general.

Just total up the [ce] \Delta H^o [/ce] values for each step of the reaction, breaking lattices, breaking bonds, forming bonds, phase changes... then see if your total value is positive of negative. Remember to account for stoichiometry if your heat values are expressed as molar quantities. If you look up Born-Haber cycles, you'll even learn that every route from A to B, no matter which route you use takes the same amount of heat when all is said and done.

Make sure to keep the temp as low as you can and still collect ammonia. You want to keep the vapor pressure of water as low as you can.

Yeah Horza, your right. It was late here in the US, and I missed the "environmentally friendly" clause in the OP, sorry. He could try a sephadex, or celite column without even using an oxidant at all though. No, not these in particular, but we used to recycle all solvents in the lab I worked in, more for budget than the environment (we have facilities for that), so the post-doc and myself were often forced to come up with outlandish or creative separation methods. Some didn't work but many did; that's the kind of chemistry they don't put in textbooks , i.e. you don't have this, this, and this that you need. You only have this; make it work! I heard those phrases a lot from the boss who also happened to be a hard-ass, so I was often frightened into scientific creativity.

Zinc metal reacted with aqueous hydrochloric acid yields hydrogen gas and aqueous zinc chloride. It occurs spontaneously at room temperature and is ideal for a classroom demonstration.

You could distill in high vacuum if you have the equipment and try to get around that nasty azeotrope. Or you could reduce the acetone with [ce] NaBH_4 [/ce] to 2-propanol that boils at ~85 C. Then you could oxidize it back to acetone with pyridinum chlorochromate or chromic acid. You might lose a little acetone to the process but organic redox reactions usually have good yields. Or you could, on the wilder side, react the acetone with ethan-1,2-dithiol to give the cyclic thioacetal, which is easily hydrolyzed off in acidic solution I believe. You could then put the whole mixture down a fairly long [ce] \alpha [/ce]-alumina column, of which chloroform and the thioacetal might achieve good resolution. *note: don't put acetone or 2-propanol on an alumina column unless you have a year of life to waste. I put ethanol on a 2 meter alumina column one time and learned the hard way.

Both forms are correct as long as formal charges are adjusted accordingly. They are both resonance forms of the same molecule. Don't make the mistake of thinking the molecule cycles between resonance forms though. In reality, nitrous oxide exists as a "resonance hybrid" of the two forms. This is the result of the "de-localization" of electrons that exists in all systems involving [ce] \pi [/ce] bonds.

federalreserve.gov -from the WSJ -read page 66 Though not the major cause of market rallies, it is well documented that tax relief can cause market gains or keep values from falling. Should we split this thread or continue on an older one?

Yes, if the goal is to generate government revenue. What about the effects on market activity? Namely trade volume. Low trade volume serves to propagate uncertainty in the market, especially in these days were technical trend analysis is popular. Cost/benefit analysis is subjective in the sense that you and I will probably not agree completely on the priority of benefits. You may site increased tax revenue as a benefit, where as I might look to less volatility in the S&P 500 as a benefit, as ultimately that leads to economic stability. When I say foolish, I mean it in the sense that it seems counterproductive to create policies (or let policies expire) that will serve to propagate or even amplify the already rampant uncertainty in the financial sector. Your argument stands only when you assume that voters actually make the effort to look up all the information available in their free country. But voters actually behave like consumers of toothpaste. They will not make an objective analysis of the patents and publications of the manufacturer, or the list of ingredients and their proven effect on the health of their teeth on the long term. They will base their decision on the advertisements, and the packaging and presentation in the shop... despite the availability of the information. How does his argument only stand when voters have and use all available information? The more information that is available to the public, the less effect one piece of information will have. Of course voters don't make truly objective analysis of candidates and/or policies, but does anyone really? Democracy doesn't ensure that voters will make wise decisions, they never do, but it only ensures that they will have the complete freedom to make wise or stupid decisions without the influence of active coercion. Both parties in the USA are guilty of propaganda through misleading information. How is one liar better than another? Captain Panic, I agree with this very much. Especially the part about an overload of information. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where there is so much bad information that much of the good information is buried under a pile of feces that no one has the time or will to dig through. _________________________________________________________________________ P.S. What was this thread about to begin with?

It wasn't large enough in areas that actually stimulate the economy: Fiscal Multipliers; by Antonio Spilimberg... You'll notice that this work is compiled from the work of many economists. You'll also notice the small or even negative multiplier values from some categories of spending. However, notice the gigantic 1.5 next to military spending. True, but could they have picked a worse time to execute such a plan? In a time where many are already angry about government spending? It wasn't meant to address monetary policy. I wasn't even talking about monetary policy though. I was talking about fiscal policy, which it wasn't meant to address either, but that doesn't stop it from causing a weak market in a time of rampant market uncertainty does it? Only the federal reserve has much of a say in monetary policy anyway. Ben Bernanke refusing to switch over to "easy money policy" right now is the only thing keeping us afloat. Who do you think buys most of the securities on Wall Street that keep the "working man's" retirement plan above water? Who do you think employs people in local and regional businesses? Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire now, regardless of your ideological opinion of them, is foolish. I have no problem with a progressive agenda. I just have a problem with one in times when we can't afford it. If our economy tanks, we can't afford all the nice liberal amenities. I'll give you that, albeit grudgingly . I'm a victim of my own syntax. Care to explain the gains? pardon the rhyme.

Pauling Electronegativity is defined by the following equation: [math] \chi_{\rm A} - \chi_{\rm B} = ({\rm eV})^{-1/2} \sqrt{E_{\rm d}({\rm AB}) - [E_{\rm d}({\rm AA}) + E_{\rm d}({\rm BB})]/2} [/math] Here it is expressed as the difference in electronegativity between two bonded atoms. But what is the origin of this electronegativity difference? The answer lies in the concept of effective nuclear charge: [math] Z_{\mathrm{eff}}= Z - s.\, [/math] Where "Z" is the atomic number and "s "is the electronic shielding constant for an electron. (finding an s value can be cumbersome, sometimes they are listed in tables). So when elements with different formal charges/oxidation states and different effective nuclear charges are bonded together. There must be unequal "sharing" of electrons. I put the word sharing in quotes because you shouldn't think of this as a simple back and forth sharing of a particle. It is more of a shift in the probability density of in the bonding molecular orbital wave functions. So this unequal sharing, if unequal enough, will cause a slight overall charge difference between the two bonded atoms. Which actually serves to strengthen the bond as well (known as ionic contributions to a covalent bond). This is apparent in the Pauling E.N. equation above as he has included terms for an AA, BB, and AB bond, accounting for differing degrees of polarity or ionic forces. The above diagram is nice but doesn't account for the differing sizes of the fluorine and hydrogen atom to scale. Check wikipedia, their article on electronegativity is good, and is where I got my above equations.

Bascule, as far as Fox News being an arm of the Republican party, I agree. But I wouldn't put much stock in your example about the campaign contributions: Politico Article Does this make BP an extension of the Democratic Party? My point being that often times corporations make campaign contributions for reasons which are not always apparent. BP would be thought by many to have an ideology quite different from that of President Obama. I'm not saying that Fox News made their contribution with some ulterior motive, I'm just saying let's be careful not to jump to any conclusion. There could be a dirtier reason; or not!? I agree with 99% of your statements concerning Fox, but I have beef with your Democratic congressional spending comments: Look, I consider myself Libertarian, so I would also contest much of the Bush spending; but one can't deny that the recent spending by the Dem. majority congress has been outrageous. I'm even okay with some Keynesian economics, but Keynes rolled over in his grave because of the recent stimulus bill! The stimulus plan was built on solid principles, but the logistics of how it was executed are ignorant at best. A large portion of the money was spread out over the next few years which negates the purpose of said stimulus [to inflate our way out of recession]. Also, much of the money was spent on public incentives with low or negative multipliers. All the social welfare spending, along with the health care massacre, is not doing much if anything to stimulate job growth, or to tighten monetary policy. The phrase "jobless-recovery", conveniently coined by the administration is an insult to my intelligence. What is a recovery then? So we are left with an egregious amount of debt, a "jobless-recovery?" facing rampant tax hikes in a time of low market activity, and might I add that Gitmo is still operational? My problem lies in the amount of spending compared to the amount of progress. I wouldn't mind the spending as much if it all wasn't for petty political gain. Even many liberals are angry at the lack of real progress. It seems that all our money has been spent for absolutely no gain.

Oh sorry, I assumed you were trying to get the tetra-ammine complex. Where's the IUPAC when you need them?

Oh okay. mix a soluble copper salt with a soluble sulfate salt in aqueous solution. Then just play the solubility ballgame to make your copper sulfate percipitate out, or get the other compound to percipitate out and evaporate the solution to dryness.

When you say from scratch, do you mean from anhydrous copper(II) sulphate? If so, just dissolve the copper(II) sulphate in a concentrated aqueous solution of ammonia [also known as ammonium hydroxide]. This should form the complex [ce] [Cu(NH_3 )_4 ] SO_4 [/ce] which is what you were looking for I believe.

Not making a comment on the ethics of the death penalty. But I feel, unless someone has a mental retardation that is extremely obvious, IQ shouldn't have much sway in deciding their punishment (whatever that may be). Once IQ matters in determining your punishment, then one is faced with the highly arbitrary decision of deciding where the "handicap-cutoff" is. I mean is it 70, 73, 72.8734219 ? Then you've got the margin of error to deal with as was mentioned in an earlier post. If murderer A has an IQ of 69, and murderer B has an IQ of 72, is murderer A spared the harsh penalty because he can solve a puzzle just a little worse than murderer B? This just seems very arbitrary to me.

See the wikipedia article for aerogel. That's the closest thing I can think of. There they're hard to make though, and are fairly hygroscopic (water makes them lose their transparency). Edited for stupidity

Sorry, not to be picky. But the above calculation doesn't account for the complex relationship between solvent/solute volume and solution volume. Though your extrapolation is reasonable and approximately correct for the general chemistry student, the volume of solute can't really be claimed. Sorry again, you can accuse me of being a "purist" if you want.

this number is for the solid state reaction. Your calculated value is for the aqueous solution I believe.

Try manipulating the equation for the Beer-Lambert law, as far as concentration goes. Getting two peaks in your spectrum? what was [math] \lambda [/math] for the two peaks?

Sadly this is used often. Even more sad...it works. It's reasonable to say that most people took elementary school mathematics, but then one starts to wonder. I think many do not understand the difference between a false statement and an intentionally misleading statement. Usually politicians statements are for the most part true [argue here], but they are almost always misleading when they discuss economic or budget numbers. I've also seen a lot of statistical "fudging" done on the subject of immigration in the US, from bot sides of the argument. They just play with confidence intervals, sample sizes and parameters until they get the number that supports their argument upon laymens' examination, which is not hard to accomplish. This will never happen, but I wish public speakers of all types would give all the relevant statistical modifiers along with their beloved percentage.

I agree. Pantheism ~ Atheism in my opinion. Saying that god is inherently in everything is the same as saying that there is no god, in net effect. I have a friend who could be said to be a pantheist, every time we discuss/debate it ends in a semantics argument. I've tried to convince him he's just an atheist in disguise, where as I'm an atheist with a t-shirt. If god is everything, then he has the same effect as a non-existent god. It's like thermodynamics, the true amount of energy doesn't matter as much as the change between two measured values. God being everything equates to no "change in God" from object to object, or place to place.

I asked my physical chemistry professor what the real advantage to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation was; he said: "So you won't have to become a physicist".