Lightbulbs

[thegreekdog]

I've got no idea what you're arguing now.

that means he won the argument

This is worthy of a signature.

In our collective defenses, I did try to lay out the issue.

Also - thank you BBS for asking the CDC and Dr. Frank J. Chaloupka my question.

[PLAYER57832]

Still, that doesn't mean that smoking-taxes have a significant effect on the reduction of smoking.

Smoking taxes have significantly reduced smoking. They have not eliminated smoking or reduced it as much as many would like, partly because people are already addicted and partly because lawmakers have been reluctant to make the tax higher in the US (whether for fear of increased black market sales or pressure from the tobacco industry, etc). The biggest change is not so much in people quitting (which is pretty difficult, given how addictive it is), but in the reduction of younger people starting (a much easier challenge).

Ironically, in the US, we have seen a resurgance of smoking in the young.. but that is another tale.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the bottom line is that whether lightbulbs or tobacco, consumer taxes can reduce use, but not eliminate it. Flat regulations/prohibitions are better if elimination is your goal.

HOWEVER, for that to work and not just turn into a black market boon, you have to have almost all of the population convinced already the item is bad. That is actually less about saying "x is bad" and much more about saying "y is better". The first is what happened with smoking.. people listened to a point, but also rebelled. With CFL, it was mostly the second.. and therefore it has been more effective. Because there is economic benefit, few complained. Any environmental argument is secondary to the economic one.

Though off topic, the comparison to what I said before about taxing pollution is not related to this (not directly). These taxes were on the consumer. That kind of tax is the least effective for changing things. Taxing the production source, by contrast, is effective. (not trying to debate that point here.. just pointint out its not a "see I told you so").

[Timminz]

Alright guys, the reason this thread got into talk of cigarettes, is due to a tangent from my point about taxing incandescent bulbs as an alternative to banning them, because it will be a better, more market-based approach to reducing consumption. The reason this idea doesn't translate well into tobacco (and thus the reason why we should stop talking about cigarette taxes in this thread), is the lack of substitute goods. With light bulbs, people can choose to buy a different kind, while smokers can't exactly pick up some clove cigarettes to fill their need.



What I'm trying to portray is analogous to a situation where if the government wanted to reduce people's consumption of hamburgers, they could achieve this by applying a tax on all hamburgers. It wouldn't be likely to reduce the overall consumption of fast food, but it would almost definitely achieve a reduction in the consumption of hamburgers (while likely increasing the sales of fried chicken, or what have you).



Is everyone back on the right page yet?

[PLAYER57832]

Alright guys, the reason this thread got into talk of cigarettes, is due to a tangent from my point about taxing incandescent bulbs as an alternative to banning them, because it will be a better, more market-based approach to reducing consumption. The reason this idea doesn't translate well into tobacco (and thus the reason why we should stop talking about cigarette taxes in this thread), is the lack of substitute goods. With light bulbs, people can choose to buy a different kind, while smokers can't exactly pick up some clove cigarettes to fill their need.

I meant to include that point (did earlier, though probably not as clearly as you). But it has to be a better alternative...and by "better" that generally means more cost-effective (or just more effective).

[keiths31]

What I'm trying to portray is analogous to a situation where if the government wanted to reduce people's consumption of hamburgers, they could achieve this by applying a tax on all hamburgers.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

[Timminz]

What I'm trying to portray is analogous to a situation where if the government wanted to reduce people's consumption of hamburgers, they could achieve this by applying a tax on all hamburgers.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Originally, I was going to use "McDonald's products" in place of "hamburgers". In retrospect, the example might have made more sense if I'd left it the way it was.

[General_Tao]

Back to the main topic, it really makes sense to use fluorescents if you are using AC in summer, because most of the energy in incandescent bulbs is turned into heat. On the other hand, stick with those in winter because that heat is not wasted.

Because of the above, fluorescent bulbs actually pay for themselves, even the poor would be better off if they are using air conditioning in the warm season.

[The Bison King]

Wow this conversation is still going on. Why is it we expect better from Congress...

[GreecePwns]

Socialism says that people (The People, the folks, the honest workers or whatever name you give them) control the means of production and therefore what gets made/sold. It is up to the people directly to decide what gets sold.

Is this guy serious?

Maybe he can share with us what a free market economy is?

What is socialism then? Please, enlighten us.

[thegreekdog]

What I'm trying to portray is analogous to a situation where if the government wanted to reduce people's consumption of hamburgers, they could achieve this by applying a tax on all hamburgers.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Originally, I was going to use "McDonald's products" in place of "hamburgers". In retrospect, the example might have made more sense if I'd left it the way it was.

Um... the government does impose a tax on fast food (compared to not fast food). States generally impose sales tax on restaurant prepared foods and foods that are "bad for you" and do not impose sales tax on food from grocery stores and foods that are "good for you."

[PLAYER57832]

Um... the government does impose a tax on fast food (compared to not fast food). States generally impose sales tax on restaurant prepared foods and foods that are "bad for you" and do not impose sales tax on food from grocery stores and foods that are "good for you."

This is a pretty recent development. As usual, it was imperfectly implemented.

[thegreekdog]

Um... the government does impose a tax on fast food (compared to not fast food). States generally impose sales tax on restaurant prepared foods and foods that are "bad for you" and do not impose sales tax on food from grocery stores and foods that are "good for you."

This is a pretty recent development. As usual, it was imperfectly implemented.

Define recent.

[PLAYER57832]

Um... the government does impose a tax on fast food (compared to not fast food). States generally impose sales tax on restaurant prepared foods and foods that are "bad for you" and do not impose sales tax on food from grocery stores and foods that are "good for you."

This is a pretty recent development. As usual, it was imperfectly implemented.

Define recent.

Within my lifetime.
The snack tax is within the past few years. Other taxes were earlier, but the whole fast food thing arose basically within my lifetime (There was fast food before, but it was nothing like the phenomena it became.. nor quite as fast as it is now).

Anyway, its pretty ironic that we still subsidize sugarcane, etc.

[Timminz]

What I'm trying to portray is analogous to a situation where if the government wanted to reduce people's consumption of hamburgers, they could achieve this by applying a tax on all hamburgers.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Originally, I was going to use "McDonald's products" in place of "hamburgers". In retrospect, the example might have made more sense if I'd left it the way it was.

Um... the government does impose a tax on fast food (compared to not fast food). States generally impose sales tax on restaurant prepared foods and foods that are "bad for you" and do not impose sales tax on food from grocery stores and foods that are "good for you."

Right. Groceries, and fast food are not exactly replacements for one another though. The market for ready-made food exists somewhat independently from the market for groceries. Are you ignoring my pre-suppositions on purpose?

If we take for granted that the government wanted to discourage one particular type of fast food over another type, then applying a tax on the type they hope to discourage will in fact reduce the consumption of that particular type of fast food, even though it will not be likely to reduce the overall consumption of fast food. And this would be achieved through the markets behaving according to the incentives, which I argue is a better way than simply applying a quota (or ban).

[thegreekdog]

Um... the government does impose a tax on fast food (compared to not fast food). States generally impose sales tax on restaurant prepared foods and foods that are "bad for you" and do not impose sales tax on food from grocery stores and foods that are "good for you."

This is a pretty recent development. As usual, it was imperfectly implemented.

Define recent.

Within my lifetime.
The snack tax is within the past few years. Other taxes were earlier, but the whole fast food thing arose basically within my lifetime (There was fast food before, but it was nothing like the phenomena it became.. nor quite as fast as it is now).

Anyway, its pretty ironic that we still subsidize sugarcane, etc.

No offense, but I don't define recent as "within Player's lifetime." But if that's your definition of recent, then, yes, it is recent.

[PLAYER57832]

[
No offense, but I don't define recent as "within Player's lifetime." But if that's your definition of recent, then, yes, it is recent.

The snack tax was recent.. I believe about 5 years ago, maybe?

Anyway, ... no comment on the other. I am, of course a 16 year old. My husband robbed the cradle. (literally ).

[thegreekdog]

Right. Groceries, and fast food are not exactly replacements for one another though. The market for ready-made food exists somewhat independently from the market for groceries. Are you ignoring my pre-suppositions on purpose?

Yes.

If we take for granted that the government wanted to discourage one particular type of fast food over another type, then applying a tax on the type they hope to discourage will in fact reduce the consumption of that particular type of fast food, even though it will not be likely to reduce the overall consumption of fast food. And this would be achieved through the markets behaving according to the incentives, which I argue is a better way than simply applying a quota (or ban).

Let's go with hamburgers (since I was the one that ignored your supposition).

If the government wanted to discourage* the consumption of hamburgers a tax, depending upon whether the rate is high enough to act as a discouragement, would discourage people from consuming hamburgers.

* The word "discourage" is different from stop. In the context of certain light bulbs and tobacco, for example, the government has indicated it wants people to stop using these things. Taxation does not stop people from using things so your example is not indicative of this thread and the discussion of tobacco and light bulbs.

[PLAYER57832]

* The word "discourage" is different from stop. In the context of certain light bulbs and tobacco, for example, the government has indicated it wants people to stop using these things. Taxation does not stop people from using things so your example is not indicative of this thread and the discussion of tobacco and light bulbs.

I believe this is the difference between rhetoric and reality.

In truth, legislators did not truly intend to stop tobacco. They are intending to stop incandescent light bulb sales..and are doing so.

By-the-way, am I just being cynical when I see a connection between virtually ALL of this industry being moved over to China and this new legislation.. and the fact that China holds so much of our debt?

[Timminz]

Right. Groceries, and fast food are not exactly replacements for one another though. The market for ready-made food exists somewhat independently from the market for groceries. Are you ignoring my pre-suppositions on purpose?

Yes.

If we take for granted that the government wanted to discourage one particular type of fast food over another type, then applying a tax on the type they hope to discourage will in fact reduce the consumption of that particular type of fast food, even though it will not be likely to reduce the overall consumption of fast food. And this would be achieved through the markets behaving according to the incentives, which I argue is a better way than simply applying a quota (or ban).

Let's go with hamburgers (since I was the one that ignored your supposition).

If the government wanted to discourage* the consumption of hamburgers a tax, depending upon whether the rate is high enough to act as a discouragement, would discourage people from consuming hamburgers.

* The word "discourage" is different from stop. In the context of certain light bulbs and tobacco, for example, the government has indicated it wants people to stop using these things. Taxation does not stop people from using things so your example is not indicative of this thread and the discussion of tobacco and light bulbs.

Well, it would stop anyone with any idea of the concept of "value". If both types of bulb cost $20 a piece, I would bet very large sums of money that the ones that last far longer (on average) would soon constitute almost the entire market for light bulbs, while the incandescent ones would probably be pulled from the market by most producers, for lack of demand.

Again, tobacco is a different story altogether.

[General_Tao]

It`s also due to the fact that third world countries are the largest market for incandescent bulbs. this is a mature, low-tech product. Multinationals like GE will move their operation to lower-cost manufacturing centers, nothing to do with China holding US debt.

[PLAYER57832]

It`s also due to the fact that third world countries are the largest market for incandescent bulbs. this is a mature, low-tech product. Multinationals like GE will move their operation to lower-cost manufacturing centers, nothing to do with China holding US debt.

Except its the production of CFLs, not incandescent lights that is now in China.

[General_Tao]

CFLs are not a mature, low-tech product, GE probably has a lot of R&D invested in this.

[thegreekdog]

Well, it would stop anyone with any idea of the concept of "value". If both types of bulb cost $20 a piece, I would bet very large sums of money that the ones that last far longer (on average) would soon constitute almost the entire market for light bulbs, while the incandescent ones would probably be pulled from the market by most producers, for lack of demand.

Me too! Let's go back.

Two light bulbs that do the same thing. Both cost $20 a piece. One light bulb will last for 20 years. The other light bulb will last for 10 years. Which light bulb do you buy?

The answer is - the one the government tells you to buy. No... seriously... the answer is the first light bulb.

It doesn't work with hamburgers because some people might prefer hamburgers regardless of price.

[Timminz]

Well, it would stop anyone with any idea of the concept of "value". If both types of bulb cost $20 a piece, I would bet very large sums of money that the ones that last far longer (on average) would soon constitute almost the entire market for light bulbs, while the incandescent ones would probably be pulled from the market by most producers, for lack of demand.

Me too! Let's go back.

Two light bulbs that do the same thing. Both cost $20 a piece. One light bulb will last for 20 years. The other light bulb will last for 10 years. Which light bulb do you buy?

The answer is - the one the government tells you to buy. No... seriously... the answer is the first light bulb.

It doesn't work with hamburgers because some people might prefer hamburgers regardless of price.

So we`re in agreement, then. My hamburger analogy wasn`t as good as it could have been, but my original point was superb. If the government actually wants to reduce the consumption of a particular type of light bulbs (regardless of the reasoning), it would be better (more economically efficient) for them to tax them heavily and let the markets do their thing, rather than to ban them outright.