Lightbulbs

[Night Strike]

Symmetry, your Sam Vines' boots theory does a provide a good point, but the question remains:

Since information is not perfect, (and that it's a process of discovery), then should the central planners make the decisions or should individuals acting with the markets make the decisions on which good is better?

If the central planners had perfect information and were aware of all knowledge, then they could best decide for everyone else. Since they don't, I doubt their capabilities to decide what is best for others--especially since there is the conflict of interests and political incentives at play.

In order to tap into the aggregate knowledge of society, the markets and its individuals should engage in this process of discovery.

Whether the debate is about light bulbs, illicit drugs, prostitution, etc., the crux of the issue is free market principles (a.k.a. spontaneous order) versus central planning. I prefer free market principles, so of course, I'll take the time to debate about light bulbs, because I stick to my principles, and I'm adamantly against state intervention.

Given what I've posted, Symmetry, do you find yourself to be on the side of central planning or on the side of free market principles/spontaneous order, or shall you remain "agnostic"?

Interesting question, and I hope you'll appreciate that this wasn't exactly how I saw the argument heading, so I'll try to give the best response I can, but yeah- I will try to think more on the wider issues.

I genuinely believe that central planning is better than individual choice in many cases. Quite simply, I don't have the knowledge or ability to judge how effective a given drug is at treating a medical condition, for example. I rely on a certain amount of central planning to regulate that and make certain decisions for me. I'd love to be in a position where I could test every possible permutation and work out what is effective, but life is too short.

I appreciate that you lean more towards the free market side, and I think that's a reasonable standpoint. I just don't agree with the idea that it should all be free market. At some point the government simply has a wider view of the economy, of the impact of a product, and of its effectiveness. An individual will just know if it works or not, and sometimes not even that, after they've tried it.

I don't want to come across as advocating a centrally planned economy, but central planning has its place, and I will call bull when the process that's taken place everywhere, across all time, in every society, of governments deciding what can and can't be sold legally is criticised as a type of tyranny.

I'm fine with the government saying which items are more beneficial or have bad side-effects. But what I'm not fine with is the government saying which things you can or cannot buy. The government needs to allow both to be on the market and put out the facts about each: incandescents are cheaper, CFLs do contain mercury but use less energy. And then they need to let the consumers decide which one they want to buy. They don't need to put arbitrary limits on what someone can buy.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, your Sam Vines' boots theory does a provide a good point, but the question remains:

Since information is not perfect, (and that it's a process of discovery), then should the central planners make the decisions or should individuals acting with the markets make the decisions on which good is better?

If the central planners had perfect information and were aware of all knowledge, then they could best decide for everyone else. Since they don't, I doubt their capabilities to decide what is best for others--especially since there is the conflict of interests and political incentives at play.

In order to tap into the aggregate knowledge of society, the markets and its individuals should engage in this process of discovery.

Whether the debate is about light bulbs, illicit drugs, prostitution, etc., the crux of the issue is free market principles (a.k.a. spontaneous order) versus central planning. I prefer free market principles, so of course, I'll take the time to debate about light bulbs, because I stick to my principles, and I'm adamantly against state intervention.

Given what I've posted, Symmetry, do you find yourself to be on the side of central planning or on the side of free market principles/spontaneous order, or shall you remain "agnostic"?

Interesting question, and I hope you'll appreciate that this wasn't exactly how I saw the argument heading, so I'll try to give the best response I can, but yeah- I will try to think more on the wider issues.

I genuinely believe that central planning is better than individual choice in many cases. Quite simply, I don't have the knowledge or ability to judge how effective a given drug is at treating a medical condition, for example. I rely on a certain amount of central planning to regulate that and make certain decisions for me. I'd love to be in a position where I could test every possible permutation and work out what is effective, but life is too short.

I appreciate that you lean more towards the free market side, and I think that's a reasonable standpoint. I just don't agree with the idea that it should all be free market. At some point the government simply has a wider view of the economy, of the impact of a product, and of its effectiveness. An individual will just know if it works or not, and sometimes not even that, after they've tried it.

I don't want to come across as advocating a centrally planned economy, but central planning has its place, and I will call bull when the process that's taken place everywhere, across all time, in every society, of governments deciding what can and can't be sold legally is criticised as a type of tyranny.

I'm fine with the government saying which items are more beneficial or have bad side-effects. But what I'm not fine with is the government saying which things you can or cannot buy. The government needs to allow both to be on the market and put out the facts about each: incandescents are cheaper, CFLs do contain mercury but use less energy. And then they need to let the consumers decide which one they want to buy. They don't need to put arbitrary limits on what someone can buy.

Heroin? Nuclear Weapons? At some point you must have an arbitrary line where you think that certain items should be restricted by the government. I know I'm making an extreme case here, but you are too. Is there really no compromise between government restrictions and an absolutely free market?

[saxitoxin]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

I agree with the sentiment, though it begs the question as to why you started this thread in the first place.

The TMZ-style celebrity obsessiveness some media - the Graun included - have with the most detailed minutia of daily life in the United States eclipses the bizarre. IIRC there is more substantial news in the world than how many times the U.S. went to the bathroom last Tuesday or who the U.S. is taking to the spring catillon.

But, I appreciate papers print what sells and - for some reason - Manchester chav culture really is interested in American lightbulb policy.

[Night Strike]

Heroin? Nuclear Weapons? At some point you must have an arbitrary line where you think that certain items should be restricted by the government. I know I'm making an extreme case here, but you are too. Is there really no compromise between government restrictions and an absolutely free market?

Considering the public can't buy nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure that one is a non-issue in the free market discussion. With heroin, all of the options are bad, which is why they are outlawed. With light bulbs, there are pros and cons to each, which is why the government shouldn't just pick one. They need to let the consumers pick which ones they want.

[rdsrds2120]

Even if GE's study is on emissions is correct, the fact that this mercury will either be directly in the home or seep into the water supply from a landfill is much more directly harmful to people than the gases emitted from a power plant.

I would have to see data on this as smoke from power plants and other energy supplying facilities often contain mercury.

-rd

CFLs on average contain 4 mg of mercury, according to the epa.org/mercury.



If 100% of the CFLs were recycled or discarded properly, then there would be no problem. Since they aren't because many people are unaware of the environmental consequences of not doing so (or they don't care), then you should at least pause to contemplate about the unintended consequences of the state-mandated prohibition.

Of course, what % are not discarded properly? I'm not sure, but since 300+ million people will be forced to use CFLs, and since we know that some people won't take the extra steps of properly discarding CFLs, then the risks of mercury exposure into the environment would greatly increase.

This is a factual statement. However, I am curious as how the mercury levels in CFL's juxtapose to the mean amount of mercury in computers and television sets that are thrown out and not discarded properly.

The other thing to consider is the integrity of the light bulbs. I don't think many people end up breaking that many light bulbs, though it does happen. They're also supposed to last a very long time. I don't think that the answer to preventing the pollution caused by CFL's is to not endorse them due to the fact that they are more efficient, but to create a public awareness that they do need to be recycled. This would kill two birds with one stone since other recyclable things would be taken up in that package as well.

In the end, I have a hunch that the amount of mercury produced in these light bulbs is almost negligible to the amount that we're putting in landfills through other appliances, and other chemicals that aren't recycled such as the ones in batteries.

-rd

[Symmetry]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

I agree with the sentiment, though it begs the question as to why you started this thread in the first place.

Mainly because it amused me to adopt a tone of bored indifference while asking people about lightbulbs.

Also, you misused the term "begs the question", but as I am completely free of pedantry I won't point that out.

There's a wikipedia article here though.

[Symmetry]

Heroin? Nuclear Weapons? At some point you must have an arbitrary line where you think that certain items should be restricted by the government. I know I'm making an extreme case here, but you are too. Is there really no compromise between government restrictions and an absolutely free market?

Considering the public can't buy nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure that one is a non-issue in the free market discussion. With heroin, all of the options are bad, which is why they are outlawed. With light bulbs, there are pros and cons to each, which is why the government shouldn't just pick one. They need to let the consumers pick which ones they want.

So roughly your argument is that everything should be subject to free market principles, except for the things that shouldn't be subject to free market principles?

[Night Strike]

Heroin? Nuclear Weapons? At some point you must have an arbitrary line where you think that certain items should be restricted by the government. I know I'm making an extreme case here, but you are too. Is there really no compromise between government restrictions and an absolutely free market?

Considering the public can't buy nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure that one is a non-issue in the free market discussion. With heroin, all of the options are bad, which is why they are outlawed. With light bulbs, there are pros and cons to each, which is why the government shouldn't just pick one. They need to let the consumers pick which ones they want.

So roughly your argument is that everything should be subject to free market principles, except for the things that shouldn't be subject to free market principles?

No, I'm saying that the government needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace. All heroine is bad, so it's outlawed. Neither type of light bulb is inherently bad, so the government has no place in deciding which one should be allowed. The government doesn't allow one blend of heroine to be sold and not another: it bans them all. Yet the government picks which type of light bulb can be sold, and it's not their place to do so.

[Symmetry]

Heroin? Nuclear Weapons? At some point you must have an arbitrary line where you think that certain items should be restricted by the government. I know I'm making an extreme case here, but you are too. Is there really no compromise between government restrictions and an absolutely free market?

Considering the public can't buy nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure that one is a non-issue in the free market discussion. With heroin, all of the options are bad, which is why they are outlawed. With light bulbs, there are pros and cons to each, which is why the government shouldn't just pick one. They need to let the consumers pick which ones they want.

So roughly your argument is that everything should be subject to free market principles, except for the things that shouldn't be subject to free market principles?

No, I'm saying that the government needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace. All heroine is bad, so it's outlawed. Neither type of light bulb is inherently bad, so the government has no place in deciding which one should be allowed. The government doesn't allow one blend of heroine to be sold and not another: it bans them all. Yet the government picks which type of light bulb can be sold, and it's not their place to do so.

Look- NS, all I'm asking you to accept is that there is some point at which the government gets to decide what can and can't be available on the free market. It was your first point in reply to me on this thread that government shouldn't be allowed to do that. Indeed, that it would be socialist.

I don't disagree with your later points, but it seems odd that you can't just look at that first point and say "yeah- that was kinda wrong", or simply, "I misspoke- the government should actually decide in certain cases".

I think I've consistently argued for a middle ground- some things should be restricted, but not everything should be centrally planned. Free market principles are a worthy aim, but not totally applicable.

As a recap, this is what you said, and it's taken 2 pages of evasion to chase you down on:

1. It's not the government's job to pick and choose which products get sold in a free market. They make those choices in a socialist market.

[saxitoxin]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

I agree with the sentiment, though it begs the question as to why you started this thread in the first place.

Mainly because it amused me to adopt a tone of bored indifference while asking people about lightbulbs.

oh yes, of course ...

Also, you misused the term "begs the question", but as I am completely free of pedantry I won't point that out.

No, I didn't.

The introductory "I agree with the sentiment" incorrectly assumes the rationale for your initiation of the thread -

• I agree with the sentiment, though it begs the question as to which is why you started this thread in the first place.

- is a question begging argument. In the absence of "I agree with the sentiment", however, you'd be correct that I was incorrect.

Best of luck in all your endeavours in life,
Saxi!

[Symmetry]

A seven point anti-energy saving lightbulb manifesto? Referencing studies? Just... I dunno, I guess I admire your enthusiasm, but it kind of seems like a waste of time.

I agree with the sentiment, though it begs the question as to why you started this thread in the first place.

Mainly because it amused me to adopt a tone of bored indifference while asking people about lightbulbs.

oh yes, of course ...

Also, you misused the term "begs the question", but as I am completely free of pedantry I won't point that out.

No, I didn't.

The introductory "I agree with the sentiment" incorrectly assumes the rationale for your initiation of the thread -

I agree with the sentiment, though it begs the question as to which is why you started this thread in the first place.

- is a question begging argument. In the absence of "I agree with the sentiment", however, you'd be correct that I was incorrect.

Best of luck in all your endeavours in life,
Saxi!

Your mom

[Quirk]

Allow me to shed some light on the subject . The new bulbs are not what we were promised. Power surges can significantly reduce the life of the bulbs. We have a lot of lightning storms where I live. I have spoken to several people who said the bulbs lasted less than a year. I also know some elderly people who have begun hoarding the old bulbs because they can't adjust to the new light. Depending on what kind you need, the price can be up to $20 a bulb. I think the government is being hasty with this change.

[Symmetry]

Depending on what kind of hamburger you want to eat, the price can be up to $200 a burger. Also I believe this legislation was introduced in 2007. Hasty?

[Nobunaga]

... I have a closet full of CFL's. Should last a coupld of decades.

... Any thoughts on the federal showerhead regulations? It follows a similar central planning line.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 63490.html

[Symmetry]

... I have a closet full of CFL's. Should last a coupld of decades.

... Any thoughts on the federal showerhead regulations? It follows a similar central planning line.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 63490.html

From the article you posted:

In May, the DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term "showerhead" in enforcing standards that have been on the books—but largely unenforced—for nearly 20 years.

I think they're being too hasty. Give this law another 20 years of non-enforcement and we will be able to make a judgement. At the moment, it's basically communism, or maybe fascism. Possibly socialism.

[Quirk]

Depending on what kind of hamburger you want to eat, the price can be up to $200 a burger. Also I believe this legislation was introduced in 2007. Hasty?

I said what kind of bulb you "need" not "want". Light bulbs are not luxury items. The ceiling fan in my bedroom has an unusual bulb. The only replacement I can find costs $20. The old bulbs were considerably cheaper. In 2007 we were told the bulbs would save money but this isn't true. As I previously stated they don't last as long as promised. The performance of the bulbs and the price are the issue here regardless of when the legislation was introduced. How can you not understand how this will affect poor people?

[PLAYER57832]

No, I'm saying that the government needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace. All heroine is bad, so it's outlawed. Neither type of light bulb is inherently bad, so the government has no place in deciding which one should be allowed. The government doesn't allow one blend of heroine to be sold and not another: it bans them all. Yet the government picks which type of light bulb can be sold, and it's not their place to do so.

The problem isn't that neither bulb is inherently bad, its that BOTH are bad to some extent.

[Night Strike]

No, I'm saying that the government needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace. All heroine is bad, so it's outlawed. Neither type of light bulb is inherently bad, so the government has no place in deciding which one should be allowed. The government doesn't allow one blend of heroine to be sold and not another: it bans them all. Yet the government picks which type of light bulb can be sold, and it's not their place to do so.

The problem isn't that neither bulb is inherently bad, its that BOTH are bad to some extent.

Then why is the government banning one and not both (or neither)?

[rdsrds2120]

No, I'm saying that the government needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace. All heroine is bad, so it's outlawed. Neither type of light bulb is inherently bad, so the government has no place in deciding which one should be allowed. The government doesn't allow one blend of heroine to be sold and not another: it bans them all. Yet the government picks which type of light bulb can be sold, and it's not their place to do so.

The problem isn't that neither bulb is inherently bad, its that BOTH are bad to some extent.

Then why is the government banning one and not both (or neither)?

Stalin has this one. Political flattery for environmentalists.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

Even if GE's study is on emissions is correct, the fact that this mercury will either be directly in the home or seep into the water supply from a landfill is much more directly harmful to people than the gases emitted from a power plant.

I would have to see data on this as smoke from power plants and other energy supplying facilities often contain mercury.

-rd

CFLs on average contain 4 mg of mercury, according to the epa.org/mercury.



If 100% of the CFLs were recycled or discarded properly, then there would be no problem. Since they aren't because many people are unaware of the environmental consequences of not doing so (or they don't care), then you should at least pause to contemplate about the unintended consequences of the state-mandated prohibition.

Of course, what % are not discarded properly? I'm not sure, but since 300+ million people will be forced to use CFLs, and since we know that some people won't take the extra steps of properly discarding CFLs, then the risks of mercury exposure into the environment would greatly increase.

This is a factual statement. However, I am curious as how the mercury levels in CFL's juxtapose to the mean amount of mercury in computers and television sets that are thrown out and not discarded properly.

The other thing to consider is the integrity of the light bulbs. I don't think many people end up breaking that many light bulbs, though it does happen. They're also supposed to last a very long time. I don't think that the answer to preventing the pollution caused by CFL's is to not endorse them due to the fact that they are more efficient, but to create a public awareness that they do need to be recycled. This would kill two birds with one stone since other recyclable things would be taken up in that package as well.

In the end, I have a hunch that the amount of mercury produced in these light bulbs is almost negligible to the amount that we're putting in landfills through other appliances, and other chemicals that aren't recycled such as the ones in batteries.

-rd

Much of what you say is true, and if the additional damage is minimal, then who cares? (Anyone who doesn't wish to contradict their environmentalist beliefs. --not you, persay)

Do you find that promoting CFL usage through educational campaigns is preferable to prohibitions? And do you think that a state-mandated prohibition is the best solution?

[BigBallinStalin]

Symmetry, your Sam Vines' boots theory does a provide a good point, but the question remains:

Since information is not perfect, (and that it's a process of discovery), then should the central planners make the decisions or should individuals acting with the markets make the decisions on which good is better?

If the central planners had perfect information and were aware of all knowledge, then they could best decide for everyone else. Since they don't, I doubt their capabilities to decide what is best for others--especially since there is the conflict of interests and political incentives at play.

In order to tap into the aggregate knowledge of society, the markets and its individuals should engage in this process of discovery.

Whether the debate is about light bulbs, illicit drugs, prostitution, etc., the crux of the issue is free market principles (a.k.a. spontaneous order) versus central planning. I prefer free market principles, so of course, I'll take the time to debate about light bulbs, because I stick to my principles, and I'm adamantly against state intervention.

Given what I've posted, Symmetry, do you find yourself to be on the side of central planning or on the side of free market principles/spontaneous order, or shall you remain "agnostic"?

Interesting question, and I hope you'll appreciate that this wasn't exactly how I saw the argument heading, so I'll try to give the best response I can, but yeah- I will try to think more on the wider issues.

I genuinely believe that central planning is better than individual choice in many cases. Quite simply, I don't have the knowledge or ability to judge how effective a given drug is at treating a medical condition, for example. I rely on a certain amount of central planning to regulate that and make certain decisions for me. I'd love to be in a position where I could test every possible permutation and work out what is effective, but life is too short.

I appreciate that you lean more towards the free market side, and I think that's a reasonable standpoint. I just don't agree with the idea that it should all be free market. At some point the government simply has a wider view of the economy, of the impact of a product, and of its effectiveness. An individual will just know if it works or not, and sometimes not even that, after they've tried it.

I don't want to come across as advocating a centrally planned economy, but central planning has its place, and I will call bull when the process that's taken place everywhere, across all time, in every society, of governments deciding what can and can't be sold legally is criticised as a type of tyranny.

Concerning light bulbs, the government overstepped my desirable boundaries.

For the provision of other goods, the arguments become more complex, more varied, and generally beyond my knowledge, but still, I tend towards spontaneous order instead of central planning. However, I'm not a full-fledged anarcho-capitalist, because from my limited perspective, certain goods and certain matters should be provided by the state.

[PLAYER57832]

No, I'm saying that the government needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace. All heroine is bad, so it's outlawed. Neither type of light bulb is inherently bad, so the government has no place in deciding which one should be allowed. The government doesn't allow one blend of heroine to be sold and not another: it bans them all. Yet the government picks which type of light bulb can be sold, and it's not their place to do so.

The problem isn't that neither bulb is inherently bad, its that BOTH are bad to some extent.

Then why is the government banning one and not both (or neither)?

Because people want quick fixes, and cannot be bothered to get real solutions.

That said, CFS do help solve the problem of overuse of electricity. That overuse has threatened certain industries in heavy use areas (brownouts and the like). Thus the pressure to exert influence over this one product.

[PLAYER57832]

Allow me to shed some light on the subject . The new bulbs are not what we were promised. Power surges can significantly reduce the life of the bulbs. We have a lot of lightning storms where I live. I have spoken to several people who said the bulbs lasted less than a year. I also know some elderly people who have begun hoarding the old bulbs because they can't adjust to the new light. Depending on what kind you need, the price can be up to $20 a bulb. I think the government is being hasty with this change.

When I first began using these bulbs.. back when they were new (I bought them because my brother was selling them to raise money for his grade school trip), I saw my electric bill cut in half just by replacing every bulb in the house.

However, they are somewhat more sensitive to being turned off and on, surges, etc. Per the light spectrum issue, however, suggest those elderly folks look into more full spectrum bulbs. I would google you a few sources, but you are better off searching yourself for things you can get in your area.

[keiths31]

This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.

[Symmetry]

This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.

Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.