The BIG LIE.

[Designer]

Sorry, Ron, you can no longer use your ceiling light fixtures.

The government has MANDATED that light bulbs SHALL meet new standards of efficiency.

 

[Ron Evers]

Relying on "the market" to take care of these things is demonstrably a terrible idea.

Interesting take!

Methinks if CFLs proved to be value for money, the free market would have stampeded towards them.

Personally, I resent government meddling in the free market.

 

[photoguy99]

Not the case, people are not rational. Better value for money is frequently trumped by lowered initial cost.

People buy cars and homes based on what the monthly payment will be, rather than the total cost. People buy airplane seats based on lowest cost, not on quality of service offered. And so on. The cheapest bulb, whether it offers better value for money or not (and that is itself a tricky calculation) is likely to sell the best even to people who bear the costs themselves. The cheapest bulb will DEFINITELY sell the best to landlords, home sellers, and anyone else who will not be bearing the long term costs.

And so on and so forth.

The market is, in general, surprisingly bad at pricing things.

 

[The_Traveler]

Personally, I resent government meddling in the free market.

Except when it works for you?

 

[SurvivalDad]

This is soo true. I think the whole thing is a sham!

 

[Ron Evers]

Sorry, Ron, you can no longer use your ceiling light fixtures.

And many others if you want them to last as long as an incandescent.

 

[Ron Evers]

Personally, I resent government meddling in the free market.

Except when it works for you?

Well, you got me there Lew. Health care in Canada being a perfect example of your point.

 

[photoguy99]

You are awesome, Ron. It takes a incredibly big man to just stand up and say something like that, without a single weasel word in sight.

 

[pgriz]

The "free market" (also known as self-interest) never values the commonly-held or the intangibles. And unlike the rational consumer beloved by economists, the real consumer behaviour is quite irrational and emotion-driven, as most marketers already know. And as the "free market" is set up and dominated by those with capital, it is less free than we may expect.

As governments are usually required to consider the commons and future implications (as opposed to short-term efficiencies and profit-making opportunities), they usually fulfill that role with regulations (laws, standards, etc.). Of course, governments are made up of the same irrational and emotion-driven people that are the consumers, so the laws and regulations can often be skewed by special-interest groups exerting influence (almost always money) on the lawmakers. However, when the citizenry (that's you and me) get involved and push for transparency and accountability, then governments tend to be somewhat more responsive to the needs of the common.

As a self-employed enterpreneur in the construction field, I strongly resent the bureaucratic burden that reporting places on me, not to mention the haphazard enforcement of the rules and the occasional heavy-handed regulation, but on the other hand, despite these distortions, I also recognize the need for and the reasons that many of the regulations and standards have been enacted. And that allows me to (somewhat) accept the imperfect realities of regulation because of the underlying benefit (overall, anyways) that on the balance accrues to society.

The CFL's are an example of regulations that aim for a common good (energy conservation), influenced by special interests (GE), implemented by industry looking for short-term profits, and used by consumers who, for the most part, aren't aware of, or don't care about the fine print. I am as guilty as the next person in this, and have learned a few things about CFL's in this thread that will guide my usage of these. And yet, because of the mercury content (in the CFL's), I am going to try and switch away from CFL's to LED's in most of our usage and application.

 

[Braineack]

I've been quite fond of my LED bulbs--I just hate the cost. IIRC I spent something like $70 to buy (4) BR30 bulbs. Unless the ballast fails, these should last a lifetime--but then again, why would a manufacturer want to make parts that last.

CFL tech makes little sense now that LED is available.

The law was not well intentioned--the gov't literally misinformed the public about all the risks and It forced it to move to the market flubbing CFL bulbs that were dim, slow to warm up, couldn't work on dimmers, and failed well before their expected lifespan--not to mention they were incredibly overpriced as well as BIOLOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS!

all under the wild and false assertion that the govt was saving us from ourselves so that a few rich people could get even richer through coercion.

there was nothing well intentioned behind the law.

 

[soufiej]

I've been quite fond of my LED bulbs--I just hate the cost. IIRC I spent something like $70 to buy (4) BR30 bulbs. Unless the ballast fails, these should last a lifetime--but then again, why would a manufacturer want to make parts that last.

CFL tech makes little sense now that LED is available.

The law was not well intentioned--the gov't literally misinformed the public about all the risks and It forced it to move to the market flubbing CFL bulbs that were dim, slow to warm up, couldn't work on dimmers, and failed well before their expected lifespan--not to mention they were incredibly overpriced as well as BIOLOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY HAZARDOUS!

all under the wild and false assertion that the govt was saving us from ourselves so that a few rich people could get even richer through coercion.

there was nothing well intentioned behind the law.

That last statement is truly ridiculous. The government funded cancer research of the last fifty years allowed drugs to be tried which, in the end, didn't save lives. Was that a waste? Was that not well intentioned? If we found better ways in the end to treat disease, then the research was a success. A very well known audio designer, Henry Kloss, once said (paraphrasing), "Of course, I don't know what I'm going to find. That's why they call it research!"

Many laws and regulations have inherent self interests designed into them. Look at the bankruptcy laws which were passed and still gave the banks (who were funding the people passing the regulations) several years to come up with ways around the regulations. By the time a law is on the books and going to happen, the industrialists have had their lawyers working 'round the clock to figure out how to beat the law. Drive out to West Texas and look at all the electric power lines and "modern conveniences of life" which exist there where you can drive for 30 minutes and not see another car on the road. They were put there by LBJ who sincerely thought improving people's life was the function of government but getting the funding for the project also served to get him re-elected numerous times.

The whole bash the government schtick is just dumbed down thinking. We blame government and ignore the manufacturer of poor or even defective parts. If the government is reported to have done something which can be viewed in a negative light, we get all up in arms. If a manufacturer designs a product which leaves out a five cent part and several dozen or even several hundred people die as a result, we don't seem to blame big business. The self interest of selling and buying something at the cheapest cost appears to drive a lot of business today. Then the consumer will b*tch when cheap products don't live up to their expectations - see this very thread for a fer-instance.

Simply look at the manufacturers of the CFL's and consider their alternatives. They were given several years notice to make design changes. It's not like tomorrow they had to have all new stuff. They made the decision to sell CFL's, not the government. The government simply put in place future regulations and then left it up to the "free market" to decide how to respond. The inefficiencies of the $0.60, 60 watt incandescent lamp were not suddenly recognized one day in 2007. Most bills and regulations take months if not years to get through committees and floor votes. Then it may take several more years for the laws and regulations to take effect, as with the light bulb efficiency standards. In the intervening years, the manufacturers decided how they wanted to sell and what they wanted to sell. To blame government for their actions is a bit like blaming the camera manufacturers for you not knowing how to take a decent photograph.

If you really, really wanted to not buy CFL's, you as a consumer had ample opportunity to stock up on incandescent lamps. In the years since the legislation passed, you could have purchased a sufficient number of incandescent lamps to last well into your grandchildren's life time. No one from the government held a gun to your head and said you had to buy a CFL in 2010. The government didn't advertise the money saving features of the CFL lamp. The manufacturer's did. And many people bought them thinking they would be saving a few bucks and then ignored the label for usage. Technology changes and everyone expects technology to remain static and then they complain when it does not.

The desire to always blame someone else for what the individual and the manufacturing industry are doing is bizarre to me. Government has regulations which say protect your and your neighbor's children from drowning in your swimming pool. I've got more than a few neighbors who see that as big government over reach. Wear a seat belt. How long did people resist that just because they were not going to be told by government how to save their own life? Wear a motorcycle helmet. How many quadriplegics are we paying to keep on 24/7 care when, if they had simply worn a helmet and acted responsibly, they wouldn't have been in the same situation?

I'm not a government apologist but I'm also not someone who runs to blame government when the blame actually exists elsewhere.

 

[Braineack]

rofl.

just rofl. im not sure how to address you post when you start it with such an off-topic strawman.

Your photographer metaphor isn't even close. A better one would be if the gov't outlawed film in 1993. Photographers would be blaming gov't for forcing them to buy expensive cameras that didn't perform better--actually much worse. While you'd be blaming nikon and canon for not making better digital cameras in an unreasonable amount of time.

And the gov't figuratively DID hold a gun to our heads and said we had to buy CFL bulbs because it was the only alternative to tugensten bulbs on the market at the time. They were still early to be adopted to the market and had plenty of issues.

There was no good reason the gov't needed to swoop in and outlaw tungsten bulb. not one*. and if you try to refute with efficiency/energy savings, then you really have no grasp on the issue.






*unless you own a company like GE.

 

[photoguy99]

If you dig, you will always, always, find that any piece of legislation was passed for exactly one reason. It's one of those things. Somehow, everyone on the committees, and everyone voting, in both houses, as well as the president, arrive at a consensus. They are all, weirdly enough, thinking exactly the same simple thought. One single idea motivates them.

The trick is, of course, decoding what that single idea IS. They keep it secret.

 

[soufiej]

rofl.

just rofl.

While big government doesn't require it, I hope you're wearing your helmet while doing so. I have no desire to pay for you becoming a vegetable.

I guess I missed the trooper in the light bulb aisle when I was shopping. There truly is no helping some people who want to blame others for everything.

 

[Braineack]

there you go blaming me for your problems