No more Bulbs?

[HappYBallZ 31]

Market should be left alone to decide what consumers pick. If people try one or two of these and like it then it will spread like wild fire but if it sucks it will just die off like it should. Making other choices "illegal" is cheating the system of consumerism.

 

Many times these promises of "save 90% on energy cost", "last 10 years" etc. are overhyped. When I switched to CFLs, I honestly didnt notice much difference in my electric bill at all. And those bulbs dont last no where near what they claim. So I take all of these claims with a ton of salt.

Like it was mentioned some people are intolerant to other types of light bulbs flickering and temperature. Also, there has been some studies to show that eliminating other light wavelengths can strain and damage eyes (like in LEDs) so overall I think this is a stupid idea to enforce.

 

And all this BS by electric company to conserve is just an easy way out for them, when you use less they will just charge you more. This was done in here like that with water usage, they urged to conserve and use low flow EVERYTHING and then when usage started to drop they hiked the rates astronomically, so now when you need to use a lot of water you are cahsed big $$$$. All a scam in the pretense of doing good and them not having to improve or build-out infrastructure.

Edited September 1, 2011 by HappYBallZ

[kdbutler 563]

Market should be left alone to decide what consumers pick. If people try one or two of these and like it then it will spread like wild fire but if it sucks it will just die off like it should. Making other choices "illegal" is cheating the system of consumerism.

 

Many times these promises of "save 90% on energy cost", "last 10 years" etc. are overhyped. When I switched to CFLs, I honestly didnt notice much difference in my electric bill at all. And those bulbs dont last no where near what they claim. So I take all of these claims with a ton of salt.

Like it was mentioned some people are intolerant to other types of light bulbs flickering and temperature. Also, there has been some studies to show that eliminating other light wavelengths can strain and damage eyes (like in LEDs) so overall I think this is a stupid idea to enforce.

 

And all this BS by electric company to conserve is just an easy way out for them, when you use less they will just charge you more. This was done in here like that with water usage, they urged to conserve and use low flow EVERYTHING and then when usage started to drop they hiked the rates astronomically, so now when you need to use a lot of water you are cahsed big $$$$. All a scam in the pretense of doing good and them not having to improve or build-out infrastructure.

 

Exactly. People should be unimpeded to decide what technology they want to use and what they do not. We all vote with our dollars in other ways, which signals to the free market what we want and what we don't want. Either business improves its product/service, or loses business and folds. Government intervention into the free market like banning incandescent bulbs, creates an artificial market for a product that government has an interest in. Statists think that our government exists to affect the market in this way. In a truly free market shitty products are allowed to compete with superior products. Its the consumer, and ultimate end-user who should have the power to decide which products are desired and which ones should go the way of the dinosaur. If this truly was the time for the CFL, then no ban would be necessary as consumers would buy them in favor of incandescent bulbs.

 

All it does is create that "intersection between business and government" that GE CEO and Obama's Chairperson on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Jefferey Immelt was talking about. His position on the president's council is quite funny when you realize that his company is the nation's largest outsourcer of American jobs. Sounds a lot like crony capitalism to me. The Left constantly complains about how evil corporations are, but the dirty little secret is that many who decry them have gotten (or are getting) very rich from them. The Left only hates those corporations that they do not control through government in some way.

 

Once again, I apologize for the delayed reply, I am only on once a week these days.

 

My quote about the stone and iron ages is no sling against free market. It follows the history of industry:

 

The greatest buggy whip plant in the world is gone.

 

Giant, rear wheel drive cars with flat top heads are history.

 

Blimps and zepplins are extinct.

 

30,000 laborers in one plant is now 1,000 skilled machinists/robotics operators.

 

My point is, technology moves faster than the market, and by the time it catches up, it's already moved to the next level.

 

Point taken, but will you also acknowledge that none of those changes in industry required a ban on buggy whips, rear-wheel drive cars, blimps, zeppelins or laborers? Or is that point lost on you?

Edited September 5, 2011 by Kevin in Texas

[uzitiger 193]

Some people are sensitive to fluorescent light. I had an engineering professor who used incandescent light bulbs in his office because he got skin cancer from the fluorescent lights in the buildings.

[ktcm7271 999]

Market should be left alone to decide what consumers pick. If people try one or two of these and like it then it will spread like wild fire but if it sucks it will just die off like it should. Making other choices "illegal" is cheating the system of consumerism.

 

Many times these promises of "save 90% on energy cost", "last 10 years" etc. are overhyped. When I switched to CFLs, I honestly didnt notice much difference in my electric bill at all. And those bulbs dont last no where near what they claim. So I take all of these claims with a ton of salt.

Like it was mentioned some people are intolerant to other types of light bulbs flickering and temperature. Also, there has been some studies to show that eliminating other light wavelengths can strain and damage eyes (like in LEDs) so overall I think this is a stupid idea to enforce.

 

And all this BS by electric company to conserve is just an easy way out for them, when you use less they will just charge you more. This was done in here like that with water usage, they urged to conserve and use low flow EVERYTHING and then when usage started to drop they hiked the rates astronomically, so now when you need to use a lot of water you are cahsed big $$$$. All a scam in the pretense of doing good and them not having to improve or build-out infrastructure.

 

Exactly. People should be unimpeded to decide what technology they want to use and what they do not. We all vote with our dollars in other ways, which signals to the free market what we want and what we don't want. Either business improves its product/service, or loses business and folds. Government intervention into the free market like banning incandescent bulbs, creates an artificial market for a product that government has an interest in. In a truly free market shitty products are allowed to compete with superior products. Its the consumer, and ultimate end-user who should have the power to decide which products are desired and which ones should go the way of the dinosaur. If this truly was the time for the CFL, then no ban would be necessary as consumers would buy them in favor of incandescent bulbs. Statists think that our government exists to affect the market in this way.

 

All it does is create that "intersection between business and government" that GE CEO and Obama's Chairperson on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Jefferey Immelt was talking about. His position on the president's council is quite funny when you realize that his company is the nation's largest outsourcer of American jobs. Sounds a lot like crony capitalism to me. The Left constantly complains about how evil corporations are, but the dirty little secret is that many who decry them have gotten (or are getting) very rich from them. The Left only hates those corporations that they do not control through government in some way.

 

Once again, I apologize for the delayed reply, I am only on once a week these days.

 

My quote about the stone and iron ages is no sling against free market. It follows the history of industry:

 

The greatest buggy whip plant in the world is gone.

 

Giant, rear wheel drive cars with flat top heads are history.

 

Blimps and zepplins are extinct.

 

30,000 laborers in one plant is now 1,000 skilled machinists/robotics operators.

 

My point is, technology moves faster than the market, and by the time it catches up, it's already moved to the next level.

 

Point taken, but will you also acknowledge that none of those changes in industry required a ban on buggy whips, rear-wheel drive cars, blimps, zeppelins or laborers? Or is that point lost on you?

 

I agree 100% Kevin. Do not tell us what we can buy, just build a better mouse trap. It's just a shame that the job creators are creating work in China.

[kdbutler 563]

I agree 100% Kevin. Do not tell us what we can buy, just build a better mouse trap. It's just a shame that the job creators are creating work in China.

 

Sure you do. Your agreement isn't really needed, but thanks.

[MCurtis762 10]

Any time politics gets involved in the free market, both the consumers and producers are screwed. period. For anyone that wants a good explanation of the efficiency of the free market and the travesties caused by unneeded government intervention into the free market, please check out Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.