The Progressive Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I would be just as satisfied if when the bailout for AIG was issued, all the staff who worked on the derivative wings were fired and their bonuses rescinded.Unfortunately America is quite a stickler for things like "legal contracts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't understand why the authoritarian libertarians keep insisting that lightbulbs manufacturers continue to produce ineffective lightbulbs for them to use.A libertarian would say they shouldn't be mandated, subsidized, or prohibited. Real life imitates Atlas Shrugged:http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels.htmlThis is one reason that Volt sales are anemic: 326 in December, 321 in January, and 281 in February. GM announced a production run of 100,000 in the first two years. Who is going to buy all these cars?......Recently, President Obama selected General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to chair his Economic Advisory Board. GE is awash in windmills waiting to be subsidized so they can provide unreliable, expensive power.Consequently, and soon after his appointment, Immelt announced that GE will buy 50,000 Volts in the next two years, or half the total produced. Assuming the corporation qualifies for the same tax credit, we (you and me) just shelled out $375,000,000 to a company to buy cars that no one else wants so that GM will not tank and produce even more cars that no one wants. And this guy is the chair of Obama's Economic Advisory Board?Makes you want to scream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 A libertarian would say they shouldn't be mandated, subsidized, or prohibited. Real life imitates Atlas Shrugged:http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels.htmlMakes you want to scream.Release.... the hounds........;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 A libertarian would say they shouldn't be mandated, subsidized, or prohibited. Real life imitates Atlas Shrugged:http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels.htmlMakes you want to scream.Or cry....You'd think we'd have learned from the ethanol subsidies, but nooooooo.... This is just a huge problem with government-directed efforts at supposed economic efficiencies. They are far too likely to get swept up in political motivations where appealing to a specific special interest becomes more important that acting rationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Or cry....You'd think we'd have learned from the ethanol subsidies, but nooooooo.... This is just a huge problem with government-directed efforts at supposed economic efficiencies. They are far too likely to get swept up in political motivations where appealing to a specific special interest becomes more important that acting rationally.You think private businesses act rationally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You think private businesses act rationally?Ah, my bad. I shouldn't have used the word "rationally" in that last sentence. I should have said "efficiently".Because it may be entirely rational for a particular politician to promote horribly inefficient activities as long as they derive some subjective political benefit.That's the real problem. People both inside and outside government can act irrationally or stupidly on occasion. That's just part of being human. Where government is different -- apart from having people making laws about fields in which they lack any semblence of expertise -- is that the subjective goals of policymakers can be so fucked up at the outset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 A libertarian would say they shouldn't be mandated, subsidized, or prohibited. Then why are you demanding that manufacturers make less efficient lightbulbs for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Then why are you demanding that manufacturers make less efficient lightbulbs for you?I'm demanding they have the right to do so, not that they must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But they do. Give me any statue in the books that is prohibiting manufacturers from making ineffficient lightbulbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But they do. Give me any statue in the books that is prohibiting manufacturers from making ineffficient lightbulbs.Efficiency may not be what I'm looking for.For example, I want to go and get something out of my garage at night, I have to wait 5 minutes for the light bulb to warm up before I can see anything. That's inconvenient, I may have an urgent need to find something (not to mention the black widows and scorpions I have seen in my garage). But once you start debating the merits of a particular prohibition, the do-gooders have already won. It doesn't matter why I like a particular light bulb, that's nobody else's business. If someone is willing to sell it and I'm willing to buy it, they should be free to make the exchange. It all comes down to the imposition of standards (in this case efficiency over convenience) by force, rather than individuals making those decisions for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 But nobody is imposing on you, the consumer, the choice to buy lightbulbs.Rather, what you're doing is imposing upon manufacturers to make lightbulbs which is more convenience for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Efficiency may not be what I'm looking for.For example, I want to go and get something out of my garage at night, I have to wait 5 minutes for the light bulb to warm up before I can see anything. That's inconvenient, I may have an urgent need to find something (not to mention the black widows and scorpions I have seen in my garage). What type of shit bulbs are you buying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Rather, what you're doing is imposing upon manufacturers to make lightbulbs which is more convenience for you. How is offering cash - which they have the option not to take - imposing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 How is offering cash - which they have the option not to take - imposing?That's not his problem. His problem is that the manufacturers are no longer making the type of shitty inefficient bulbs he prefers.I couldn't care less if he went online and buy them from some third-world countries where they still make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Strange...I picked up a crate of 60 watt incandecent (sp?) light bulbs at Home Depot a few weeks back for maybe five bucks. Don't really need or want them, but what the heck...so whats this about a shortage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 That's not his problem. His problem is that the manufacturers are no longer making the type of shitty inefficient bulbs he prefersMy problem is not that they are not making them, it's that they are not allowed to make them.What type of shit bulbs are you buying?GE cflStrange...I picked up a crate of 60 watt incandecent (sp?) light bulbs at Home Depot a few weeks back for maybe five bucks. Don't really need or want them, but what the heck...so whats this about a shortage?ban hasn't gone into effect yet, end of this yearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Incandescent_lightsUnder the law, incandescent bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light are effectively phased out between 2012 and 2014. Bulbs outside this range (roughly, light bulbs currently less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts) are exempt from the ban. Also exempt are several classes of speciality lights, including appliance lamps, "rough service" bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.[23] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.