Lightbulbs

[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.

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.

No.

The example I illustrated and you illustrated did not involve taxation, did it?

[Timminz]

What (sorry for the smiley. My keyboard has switched to french, and so my question mark key doesn`t work properly)

I`m pretty sure I`ve been talking about how taxation is a better way to apply market controls than quotas (or bans). I`m not arguing for or against the idea of reducing the use of incandescent bulbs. Just that it could be implemented more efficiently.

I`m sorry if we`ve got our signals crossed here.


edit- hey! I found the question mark. ???

[thegreekdog]

What (sorry for the smiley. My keyboard has switched to french, and so my question mark key doesn`t work properly)

I`m pretty sure I`ve been talking about how taxation is a better way to apply market controls than quotas (or bans). I`m not arguing for or against the idea of reducing the use of incandescent bulbs. Just that it could be implemented more efficiently.

I`m sorry if we`ve got our signals crossed here.


edit- hey! I found the question mark. ???

If two light bulbs are equal in all other ways and both cost $20, if the government taxes one at a rate of 10% and the other at a rate of 0%, I would buy the less expensive (i.e. non-taxed) light bulb.

I've never seen that before.

[BigBallinStalin]

TGD's main point is that the government doesn't really care about reducing your consumption so that your health is improved. It's main concern is generating tax revenue.

The main reason why it won't prohibit the production of tobacco products is because it would lose a ton of money.

A ban on incandescent light bulbs won't lead to a viable black market for them (most likely) because there's very little profit to be made from those light bulbs and the demand for such lightbulbs is elastic (mostly because there's a better substitute). The main reason why those light bulbs were banned in favor of CFLs was to reduce energy costs on the government's budget--including capturing votes from the environmentalists and capturing future campaign contributions from certain corporations (most likely).


Can we all agree on the above?

[thegreekdog]

TGD's main point is that the government doesn't really care about reducing your consumption so that your health is improved. It's main concern is generating tax revenue.

The main reason why it won't prohibit the production of tobacco products is because it would lose a ton of money.

A ban on incandescent light bulbs won't lead to a viable black market for them (most likely) because there's very little profit to be made from those light bulbs and the demand for such lightbulbs is elastic (mostly because there's a better substitute). The main reason why those light bulbs were banned in favor of CFLs was to reduce energy costs on the government's budget--including capturing votes from the environmentalists and capturing future campaign contributions from certain corporations (most likely).


Can we all agree on the above?

I agree.
Timminz likely agrees.
Player likely will not agree.

I would also add the following - A ban on incandescent light bulbs won't lead to a viable black market because incandescent light bulbs result in a higher per person energy bill that CFLs (which is why if the government permitted the free market to work, CFLs would be used anyway). Instead, we have increased government intervention (and therefore increased bureaucratic costs).

[Timminz]

What (sorry for the smiley. My keyboard has switched to french, and so my question mark key doesn`t work properly)

I`m pretty sure I`ve been talking about how taxation is a better way to apply market controls than quotas (or bans). I`m not arguing for or against the idea of reducing the use of incandescent bulbs. Just that it could be implemented more efficiently.

I`m sorry if we`ve got our signals crossed here.


edit- hey! I found the question mark. ???

If two light bulbs are equal in all other ways and both cost $20, if the government taxes one at a rate of 10% and the other at a rate of 0%, I would buy the less expensive (i.e. non-taxed) light bulb.

I've never seen that before.

Okay, but how is that relevant to what I`m saying? Are we arguing, or are we just discussing separate things, at each other?

edit for fastpost- I`m glad to see that at least the three of us agree on this.

[thegreekdog]

What (sorry for the smiley. My keyboard has switched to french, and so my question mark key doesn`t work properly)

I`m pretty sure I`ve been talking about how taxation is a better way to apply market controls than quotas (or bans). I`m not arguing for or against the idea of reducing the use of incandescent bulbs. Just that it could be implemented more efficiently.

I`m sorry if we`ve got our signals crossed here.


edit- hey! I found the question mark. ???

If two light bulbs are equal in all other ways and both cost $20, if the government taxes one at a rate of 10% and the other at a rate of 0%, I would buy the less expensive (i.e. non-taxed) light bulb.

I've never seen that before.

Okay, but how is that relevant to what I`m saying? Are we arguing, or are we just discussing separate things, at each other?

edit for fastpost- I`m glad to see that at least the three of us agree on this.

I agree with the scenario you posed. What I have a problem with is that it's not a realistic scenario and if the product not being taxed is better than the product being taxed, why have the tax in the first place (if the only goal is to increase use of the better product and not to increase government revenue)?

Also, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure most states have constitutional prohibitions against taxing the same products differently. Those state constitutional provisions are never invoked so I'm not familiar with them (and they aren't invoked because state governments never tax the same product differently).

[PLAYER57832]

A ban on incandescent light bulbs won't lead to a viable black market for them (most likely) because there's very little profit to be made from those light bulbs and the demand for such lightbulbs is elastic (mostly because there's a better substitute). The main reason why those light bulbs were banned in favor of CFLs was to reduce energy costs on the government's budget--including capturing votes from the environmentalists and capturing future campaign contributions from certain corporations (most likely).


Can we all agree on the above?

This part anyway... though I would add a couple other minor points, perhaps.

[BigBallinStalin]

A ban on incandescent light bulbs won't lead to a viable black market for them (most likely) because there's very little profit to be made from those light bulbs and the demand for such lightbulbs is elastic (mostly because there's a better substitute). The main reason why those light bulbs were banned in favor of CFLs was to reduce energy costs on the government's budget--including capturing votes from the environmentalists and capturing future campaign contributions from certain corporations (most likely).


Can we all agree on the above?

This part anyway... though I would add a couple other minor points, perhaps.

Ah, then please explain why the government and its politicians are so altruistic.

[Quirks Wife]