Lawmakers move to secure more life for 100-watt bulb

Jul 16, 2011 By Maria Recio, McClatchy Newspapers
Light bulb
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The House of Representatives gave extended life to the 100-watt bulb Friday, voting to delay a ban on sales of the incandescent bulb for nine months, from Jan. 1 to the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2012.

The House vote, which was part of a funding bill for water and energy programs in the 2012 fiscal year, effectively de-funds implementation of the phase-out of the , which was part of an energy-efficiency provision of the energy law that President George W. Bush signed in 2007.

House Republicans, led by Texans Michael Burgess and Joe Barton, have been on a tear to undo the bulb provision, and though a Barton-led effort failed earlier in the week, Burgess' success opens the door for more.

and Democratic supporters, as well as some Republicans, are upset that gains in efficiency are at risk.

During the House debate, Burgess warned that "starting January 1, if Home Depot or your local grocery store has the 100-watt bulb in their inventory, they will not be allowed to sell them. That means they will take all 100-watt bulbs off the shelf, and they will never see the consumer. My amendment will allow the stores to continue to sell what they have in stock. The 2007 provision never said that these companies could not make the bulb; it said that they couldn't be sold."

"Further," Burgess said, "if a manufacturer should choose to continue to make 100-watt bulbs, they would be permitted under this language, as there is clearly a market based on the thousands of consumers who have contacted Congress upset about their inability to buy 100-watt . This is about the consumer driving the market, not the federal government deciding the market."

Barton, who has been one of the most visible opponents of the bulb requirement, said of the House vote: "It is the first step in restoring and ending government intrusion into our homes."

Barton's effort to repeal the light bulb standard - which calls for efficient bulbs by 2014 - failed in the House earlier this week on a vote that required a two-thirds majority, but he has vowed to bring it up again.

But David Goldston, the director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that Burgess and Barton had it all wrong.

"It's a step backward," Goldston said. "Companies that make the bulbs are all geared up to meet the standard and consumers would save $100 a year per household. It will mean potentially we have to build more power plants. It's a loss for consumers, it's a loss for health and it's a loss for the economy."

Goldston is hopeful the Senate won't go along with the House because, he said, "there is much more support for a light bulb standard in the Senate."

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, ridiculed House Republicans for the vote. "Now that Republicans are finished battling energy-efficient light bulbs, maybe they will focus that energy on finding a light at the end of the tunnel with the debt limit negotiations," he said.

David Jenkins, the vice president for government and political affairs for Republicans for Environmental Protection, warned that postponing the efficiency measure would hurt companies.

"If enacted into law, this ... would strand millions of dollars that lighting manufacturers have invested to produce more efficient incandescent light bulbs, cause confusion in the market and waste consumers' money," he said.

Explore further: Self-cooling solar cells boost power, last longer

2.2 /5 (9 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Lights out for old 100-watt bulbs in EU next week

Aug 26, 2009

Old-style 100-watt light bulbs will be banned in Europe's shops from next week in favour of new energy-saving models, but consumers groups on Wednesday gave the move a guarded welcome.

LEDs bringing good things to light

Jul 01, 2010

Forecasting the future of technology is anything but an exact science. In late 2006, for instance, my colleagues and I put together an article outlining our predictions for the top 10 tech trends for 2007. My record was, ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 227

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

danieltr
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 16, 2011
I'm a service electrician, I go into people's homes and businesses. The overall reaction to CFL bulbs is negative. People don't like the light, the bulbs don't last as long as promised, and they can't use existing dimmers. Also, almost no one takes the time to dispose of old CFL's properly.
I'm in favor of energy efficiency, but until LED's come down in price, people want to keep their incandescent bulbs.
LVT
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
Of course in the winter these combined heat and light bulbs are extremely efficient.
pres68y
3.4 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
Gad, the fluorescent lamp was used for many decades providing good
light in offices and factories without much problem.
Now, when they are "compact" eg CFL they produce bad illumination
and dangerous disposal?
What's wrong with this picture?
LEDs are great also but need more development for price lowering.
CFLs are (mostly) already there.

Imho, it's GEs highly profitable and short lived incandescent bulb
manufacturing that makes incandescent bulbs continue to be praised.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 16, 2011
The more important story is Congress reigning in the Regulatory State.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2011
The recent ban of rare-earth metal export by China has made the cost effectiveness of CFLs virtual - their energy saving is balanced with cost of material, which became a new strategical raw material. I presume, the cold fusion finding will make the cost effectiveness of CFLs even more relative.
mrlewish
5 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
The recent ban of rare-earth metal export by China has made the cost effectiveness of CFLs virtual - their energy saving is balanced with cost of material, which became a new strategical raw material. I presume, the cold fusion finding will make the cost effectiveness of CFLs even more relative.


"Rare Earth Elements" is just a term. Those 17 elements are not rare at all. It's just nominally more economical to get them from China, due to their lower production cost, then dig them up ourselves.. For example Socks.. Socks are cheaper to make there then here.. that does not mean we would never have socks again if china banned the export of socks from their country.

Oh yea.. China also mines the most Tungsten which is used for regular bulbs.
Doug_Huffman
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 16, 2011
What's wrong with this picture?
Your congress of the ignorant interfering with choice and the free market. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. A is A
_etabeta_
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 16, 2011
Ignorant and old-fashioned lawmakers. Instead of promoting energy-saving lighting, they want to save the most energy-inefficient incandescent bulb. I am not in favor of an outright ban, but a 1000% tax on incandescents would be OK and change many peoples habits.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (87) Jul 16, 2011
Just wait until the far lefties get full control,.. Social engineering means not just controlling what bulb you use, but what temperature you set your thermostat to, how far you drive, what you drive, .....and it doesn't stop at tree-hugger issues,.. they will examine every minutiae of statistics measuring every social "problem" and engineer it away without regard to the efficientcy of freedom spent.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (78) Jul 16, 2011
Ignorant and old-fashioned lawmakers. Instead of promoting energy-saving lighting, they want to save the most energy-inefficient incandescent bulb. I am not in favor of an outright ban, but a 1000% tax on incandescents would be OK and change many peoples habits.

This is the greatest threat to a free society; that is is in principal possible to change peoples hahavior. The problem is the "justifications" for doing so are endless.

A more natural way is to let the market decide and correct inefficiencies. If (IF) energy becomes costly people will naturally invest in ways of reducing costs, at which time the old fashioned bulb will have trouble competing.

Banning the old bulb is hack legislation,... reactionary button pushing and dial turning.
sstritt
3.1 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
GE has closed all of their incandescent lightbulb plants in the US, costing 650 jobs. GE's CFL's are made in China. Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. GE paid $0 income tax last year. This is crony capitalism at its finest.
Norezar
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
I have a 28 LED flashlight that runs on three AAA batteries, about 20-30 hours a set. I'm estimating it's light output to be near the equivalent of a 30watt bulb.

The solution to all this nonsense with lightbulbs seems pretty evident to me.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (68) Jul 16, 2011
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense. A is A


Doug has a knack for the ironic, doesn't he?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 16, 2011
reactionary button pushing and dial turning.


This would actually describe the political nature of the backlash.

Just wait until the far lefties get full control...

they will examine every minutiae of statistics measuring every social "problem" and engineer it away without regard to the efficientcy of freedom spent.


Wow, what reality do you live in? Nice projecting.

GE has closed all of their incandescent lightbulb plants in the US, costing 650 jobs. GE's CFL's are made in China. Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. GE paid $0 income tax last year. This is capitalism at its finest.


Fixed that last sentence for you, sstritt.
KaiBrunnenG
3.2 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2011
While I've been a liberal most of my life, I've become much more centrist because I've seen that many of the Conservatives' complaints about the left are spot on, including social engineering.

Nothing pisses me off more than someone taking away my right to choose and forcing me to select from options that only they decided.

Not to mention that the real energy-guzzlers in the home are not lights but refrigerators, ovens, washing machines, hot-water heaters. Lights only account for about 6% of the energy bill.

If they really want to make a difference, it's those other appliances they should be going after.

Bottom line here is let consumers decide what's right for them. Who doesn't want an energy efficient bulb? But if it costs 10 times more and produces an ugly light, forget it-I'd rather stick with incandescent till LEDs can replace them. Also stop trying to force us to do with less and instead build more nuclear power plants you morons.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (77) Jul 16, 2011
@KaiBrunnenG

Not to mention that the real energy-guzzlers in the home are not lights but refrigerators, ovens, washing machines, hot-water heaters.


Conservatives threw a fit when Clinton changed washing machine regulations. Refrigerators get more efficient all the time. I'd also be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that the government does have similar regulations with refrigerators that are probably reevaluated every so often because of improving technology. In fact, I'm positive. Go down to a store and find me a newly manufactured freon fridge. I dare you.

Wouldn't ovens (at least the heating elements) be near 100% efficient? They don't glow very brightly so they might lose what 5% to light? They are pretty much the opposite of an incandescent bulb in that respect. Ovens are also insulted pretty well. I don't ever recall burning myself on the exterior of an oven, and you can't expect them to hold heat indefinitely. The same would apply to hot water heaters.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 16, 2011
It's not how much electricity an appliance uses. It's how much unneeded electricity an appliance uses. Light sources have improved quite a bit since incandescents started using tungsten. So have the other appliances you listed and they are all more regulated than lightbulbs.
sstritt
2.8 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2011
The same would apply to hot water heaters.

hey there, Muad'Dib
you were so kind to "correct" my last sentence, so I thought I would return the favor. Hot water needs no heating.
BTW just because some of us are capitalists does not mean we want inefficient appliances. Just let the free market work!
that_guy
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2011
Has anyone, ANYONE AT ALL read any other articles on this issue??

Did you all know that the actual bill does allow for incandescent bulbs?? As long as they hit a certain efficiency standard, they can be sold. What's more, GE and other companies are perfectly capable of making incandescent bulbs meeting this standard for a dollar or two each.

Just like the Tea Party lawmakers, idiot commentators are shouting out and shooting off before actually knowing about the issue.

Light bulbs only need to be 30% more efficient. A large portion of consumers don't drive this market, because they buy the cheapest bulb possible. They don't care if it will save them down the line - they're short sighted.
Ulg
3.7 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
People may not always dispose of CFL lights properly but incandescent tungsten is a metal that comes extremely often with high amounts of mercury that are just blown out into the atmosphere while refining- sitting on the shelf of a store they have already released more mercury into the environment then a improperly disposed of cfl.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (72) Jul 16, 2011
The sleeper has awakened. ;-)

Hot water needs no heating.


Very true. How would you encourage people to adopt solar water heaters? Tax rebates? Regulations? Nothing at all? It doesn't seem like "hey this'll save you money" is enough of an incentive.

I'll also come out and say I don't totally agree with the lightbulb ban. I do however think the government should try to deter their use. Maybe a tax (oh no) making them closer in price to CFLs? Maybe labeling on the package like cigarettes. E.G. "Did you know just 1 incandescent bulb costs you $XX in electricity every year?"

I guess I can get smarmy in these arguments and I have trouble separating the "hey I like this light better" people from the "this is a socialist mind control program" people. The former are totally reasonable and should be allowed to have the bulbs, even if at a premium, but the latter are not and I have trouble treating their fears with respect when addressing them.
that_guy
3.6 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
Here's a shopping guide for you idiot commenters who fail to understand reality.

There is no ban on incandescent bulbs, that's just what stupid people say when they don't have the intellectual capacity to think beyond sound bites.

All the incandescent bulbs in this shopping guide will meet the new standard, and they will be just as bright as the old 100W bulbs.

http://switchboar...for.html

I know that I'm being insulting, but willful ignorance of this level really pisses me off and has no place on a science site.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (74) Jul 16, 2011
There is no ban on incandescent bulbs, that's just what stupid people say when they don't have the intellectual capacity to think beyond sound bites.


I've tried to explain this before but I've been met with varying versions of "the light isn't the same."
Cave_Man
3.8 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
...

Bottom line here is let consumers decide what's right for them.


Yeah because if consumers like smoking crack and using mercury filled light bulbs then thats what we should let them have! POWER TO YOU BROTHER!....

Jackass...
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (24) Jul 16, 2011
I was at first a fan of CFL, I didn't and still don't mind their light, and loved that they promised that they last 10 years. I still use them, when I can get them on some special.

However, they last no longer than old style, they are more dangerous to the environment. So Let the market place decide. Old style light bulbs ARE NOT a danger, let them be, government has no right to determine what light us commoners can have.

My bet is that Al Gore and his cronies have incandescent bulbs and always will have them, because as we all know Progressive leaders are special and they deserve the best.
that_guy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2011
There is no ban on incandescent bulbs, that's just what stupid people say when they don't have the intellectual capacity to think beyond sound bites.


I've tried to explain this before but I've been met with varying versions of "the light isn't the same."

*sigh* You can tell them a hundred times that they can have their incandescent bulb, and it's like talking to a brick wall. It doesn't register and they cry about CFLs. I won't even bother getting into the CFL vs incandescent debate - If these people aren't even interested in getting the basic facts straight, then what's the point?

Regardless, I look forward to a cheap, warm LED light (They have found that good LEDs have light that is indistinguishable from incandescents). The march is on, and eventually we'll have a pleasant mercury free efficient light that everyone likes.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (74) Jul 16, 2011
However, they last no longer than old style,


This is dubious. Maybe if you buy the cheapest possible and switch it on and off 20 times a day. I switched all the light bulbs I could to CFL 2 years ago and none have burnt out yet. I bought slightly more expensive bulbs due to the advertised quality of light, which I am very pleased with.

Maybe the cheaper bulbs blow their ballasts more easily? This is all the more reason to get off the Edison standard socket and start building lamps specifically designed for fluorescents with separate ballast modules.

they are more dangerous to the environment.


This is untrue. An incandescent has already released more mercury into the environment by the time it hits the shelf than an improperly disposed CFL.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2011
So the 'new' bulbs are quartz halogens.

I haven't cared much for them either.
that_guy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
However, they last no longer than old style,


This is dubious. Maybe if you buy the cheapest possible and switch it on and off 20 times a day.

I bought a bunch of CFLs from Wal-mart once - 1 out of 4 bulbs didn't work, and another 25% failed within the first few months. Obviously this is far outside the normal lifetime of CFls, but there are a few crap brands that aren't worth the cardboard boxes they come in. Outside of that, I've lost maybe 1 or 2 CFLs so far, out of 20 or 30 i've bought in my lifetime. Moral of this story - don't bother buying wal-mart store brand.

@rygg - the philips ecovantage is incandescent
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (73) Jul 16, 2011
Yes, no question that CFL are superior wrt efficientcy and in cases longevity. I haven't needed to replace my outside ones since I got them. I choose to buy them on this basis.

@that_guy,.. wouldn't it be easier, if that's all it was,.. that right-winger tea-partners were morons, ... that they were clueless about what a CFL bulb was and that it was more efficient?

Whether or not the gov intends to ban old style bulbs or just coerce people to use CFL,... the argument is that there are MANY, MANY things that CAN be done in principal to improve energy efficiency. The government changing peoples behavior is social engineering. In a free society, you can't have the government micromanaging what light bulbs people use! It's not even about light bulbs,.. which is just a foot in the door, for the for left.
sstritt
3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
Moral of this story - don't bother buying wal-mart store brand.

I will go further. I have never had any luck with any generic brand lights- old style or CFL.
that_guy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2011
Pick your poison. Have you ever worked in a coal town, where you have to live in company housing and buy from the company store, suffering from black lung. Sure you have freedom to quit, but having a job is the most important issue, because if you do quit, you'll have less than a week before your family starts to starve. You make just barely enough to make ends meet, but the moment your child gets sick, or anything bad happens (And it most definitely will, because the company has no regulations for you or your family's safety or well being), you will just fall deeper into debt if your lucky. But on average, you'll be dead by 35.

It is my belief that being reasonable is the middle ground sometimes.

But the point of my posts above is that if someone is not obliged to research the very basic facts of an issue, they certainly are not obliging themselves to have a well thought out or reasonable opinion. I have no interest in talking politics with these types.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2011
Guy, do some research:
Philips EcoVantage 72-Watt Household Halogen Light Bulbs
http://www.homede...Id=10053
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (70) Jul 16, 2011
WTF is your point marjon? It was his point that there ARE incandescent bulbs that do meet the new requirements and will not be banned.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Jul 16, 2011
@Guy,.. that is a bleeding heart story,.. I'm holding back tears. I didn't realize that coal miners existed so close to death. Think of the coal companies though, having to rehire so often. You're right, I mean changing jobs is like traveling across the dessert without water,.. you could die before you make it to the next town. Oh wait, there's unemployment comp, soup kitchens, temporary gov assistance, and other towns are close. Never mind. The end.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 16, 2011
Oh wait, there's unemployment comp, soup kitchens, temporary gov assistance


I know you claim otherwise, but your tone at least suggests these are things you would be happy to do away with. If you really do not support that, you have to at least realize you are aligning yourself with people who do. When all the evil socialists are gone how do you plan to hold on to the safety net?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2011
WTF is your point marjon? It was his point that there ARE incandescent bulbs that do meet the new requirements and will not be banned.

Guy implied they are not quartz halogens. There is nothing new about quartz halogens which suggests that the EPA ban is an attempt to favor those companies that make quartz halogens.
shadfurman
3.9 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
The facts are simple. CFLs contain mercury and have to be disposed of at a cost. Most people do not dispose of CFLs properly; thereby depositing significant quantities of mercury into our landfills every day. Florecent lights have rarely been favored over incadecence for light quality; some people actually get migraines for florecence (I have some in my family). The overall energy savings from moving to CFLs is a small percentage of overall energy usage. This legislation is liberal greenwashing; designed to make it LOOK like something is being done to curb energy demand, but in reality does little while increasing heavy metal pollution. I'm greener than just about everyone in a "developed" country. I've been using LEDs for over a decade. I run a 45 watt laptop and a cellphone and rarely use heat (I don't have AC). I CHOSE this. It frusterates me to my core that people stick their noses in the air and claim that taking away my freedom is progress. "BE the change you want to see in the w
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
"Rare Earth Elements" is just a term. Those 17 elements are not rare at all. It's just nominally more economical to get them from China, due to their lower production cost, then dig them up ourselves...
Apparently it's not so simple...

http://www.scient...ts-ocean

We could say, we have enough of oil - but who could pay for it, if the price will rise ten-times, for example? And the situation with rare-earth elements is analogous.
sstritt
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
"Rare Earth Elements" is just a term. Those 17 elements are not rare at all. It's just nominally more economical to get them from China, due to their lower production cost, then dig them up ourselves...
Apparently it's not so simple...

http://www.scient...ts-ocean

We could say, we have enough of oil - but who could pay for it, if the price will rise ten-times, for example? And the situation with rare-earth elements is analogous.

China flooded the market for years to the point that mines in the US and Canada could not operate profitably and closed. Now they have at least a temporary monopoly, but at some point other mines will reopen.
SSLPro
4.4 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
The salient points, this is a delay- cfl and incandescent will
be made in ever shrinking numbers- just as typewriter ribbons
are hard to find - that same thing - My own house is lit with 99% LEDs -their use is a big part of how we HALVED OUR kw USE.
300 kWhs/monthly for 4 people - its about logical use of energy.
The example holds the promise of what will happen in the
arena of solid state lighting, folks everywhere will see use in kWhs consumption drop with Quality LED use.
mrlewish
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2011
Apparently it's not so simple...

http://www.scient...ts-ocean

Apparently it is. Read up on it before you do your selective quoting.

http://en.wikiped..._element
that_guy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
@Guy,.. that is a bleeding heart story,.. I'm holding back tears. I didn't realize that coal miners existed so close to death. Think of the coal companies though, having to rehire so often. You're right, I mean changing jobs is like traveling across the dessert without water,.. you could die before you make it to the next town. Oh wait, there's unemployment comp, soup kitchens, temporary gov assistance, and other towns are close. Never mind. The end.


There was a time when the story I gave you was absolutely true and prevanlent. But you are right, now we have unemployment insurance, labor laws, etc, etc, to ensure that we are free to be safe, happy, choose where we work, and the pursuit of happiness. But the freedom to pursue happiness is a socialist concept I guess.

Rygg - Halogens are a type of incandescent. There are non-halogen incandescents that meet the efficiency standard as well, but businesses seem to prefer to make these.
natetuvkok
5 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2011
How many congressmen dose it take to change a light bulb?
SSLPro
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2011
I would be remiss not to mention the rationale behind the legislation was about "energy independence" this ban repeal
is about placating petulant luddites. The idea is if the country did what I did and willingly HALVED their energy consumption we would need fewer - Nukes, coal fired, hydro
production plants- Note @ the time'07 energy production facilities were regarded as "terrorist targets"
THe bi partisian bill was agreed to signed by Bush & put
in place- It was a rare noble bit of doing something beneficial w/out party rancor- So evidently the PATRIOTIC
POLITICIANS* want more coal fired plants etc - when all thats
really needed is common sense energy use. I didn't see it while performing energy audits in my past -
American energy use; greedy solquescious- Trying to save 10% of the
energy waste will be hard. The glow lamp hoarders get a repreive - DUE TO PANDERING
sstritt
1 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2011
How many congressmen dose it take to change a light bulb?

All of them.
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2011
Which is better, for the government to mandate a switch to products which would half the power consuption of the USA,but cost the government billions, destroy the environment by releasing heavy metals, and put 1/2 the population into poverty
--or--
double the amount of power generated by building clean burning coal or nuclear power plants, which would reduce the cost of power, and increase employment? This increase in power plants will be paid for by the people who will buy the power?
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (68) Jul 16, 2011
Oh wait, there's unemployment comp, soup kitchens, temporary gov assistance


I know you claim otherwise, but your tone at least suggests these are things you would be happy to do away with. If you really do not support that, you have to at least realize you are aligning yourself with people who do. When all the evil socialists are gone how do you plan to hold on to the safety net?


Not my tone, Ethelred's caricature of my tone. In the other thread I must have stated five times that Rand is idealistic. Her fundamental principals are sound though. In anycase I was defending her book not her Objectivism philosophy (also stated and ignored in that thread). The book was "mild", had you read it rather than rely on 4th person bias filter, you may even have like it.

TEMPORARY government assistance and unemployment insurance, are reasonable,... most government programs are not.
KaiBrunnenG
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
@FrankHerbert

I said all those appliances guzzle energy, I didn't say they were inefficient at it, though they might be.

My point was that lighting is a very small slice of the total energy bill, unless you have have hundreds of bulbs on 24/7. So even if you made them fully efficient, you might save a whopping $5 or $10 a month, depending on your usage.

So it's a bit idiotic to create a bill forcing everyone to switch to the more efficient bulbs for such small improvements.

Not to mention that CFL bulbs are much more costly and environmentally unfriendly when disposed of, plus they produce an ugly colored light-I know, I've had them.

But I'll reiterate, we're in a capitalist economy, consumers should get to decide what products they want to support or eliminate-not bureaucrats forcing their personal tastes and whims on us Their job should only be to make sure the products we use are safe.

ps-while we differ on bulbs, I'm with you on having a social safety net.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
I'm with you on having a social safety net.

How high should that net be?
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (69) Jul 16, 2011
So it's a bit idiotic to create a bill forcing everyone to switch to the more efficient bulbs for such small improvements.

Not to far left liberals, like Cass Sunstein, (Obama regulatory czar),.. he's an experrt at social engineering peoples behavior,.. even wrote a book called nudge,...

http://en.wikiped...e_(book)

These people will control every aspect of your lives. I don't think most that consider themselves left of center understand this. They do it in a way that still gives the appearance of you having a choice, but gradually your freedoms are limited.
Shelgeyr
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
@_etabeta_ said
...but a 1000% tax on incandescents would be OK and change many peoples habits.


I am beyond sick to death of our lawmakers trying to get people to change their habits, and the level of arrogance required to use taxes to do it darn near approaches "evil".

There's a grand saying that doesn't get used enough... It is the perfect answer for all those who want government to get people to do more (or less) of some activity, or be more efficient at this or that (we're not talking about criminal matters) and especially appropriate for our lawmakers...

"Mind your own business!"

We have a government of busybody "do-gooders", doing no good at all, all-consumed with concern about what other people are eating, driving, and how they light their homes.

Forget the big issues... we might need a revolution just over the tiny stuff - just to get (back?) to a status of government fearing the populace rather than holding them in contempt.
KaiBrunnenG
3 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
@ryggesogn2

How high should that net be?


At least as high as the one they have for corporations.

Before you get the wrong idea, I'm for a mixed capitalist-socialist system. While Capitalism is great for generating wealth, when companies fail, the system must take care of the workers that it put out of work, that's the unwritten deal we make as participants in this system.

Don't take that to mean I support letting people become welfare-bums and mooch off us/the system for years on end. People should be given help when they can't find work to survive until they can get back on their feet again. They pay into the social system after all.

Since we're on the subject we need to abolish corporate welfare, companies exist to make profits, people exist to survive, they are more important. I've run my own business before and I stand by this statement.
KaiBrunnenG
2.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
@Noumenon
These people will control every aspect of your lives. I don't think most that consider themselves left of center understand this. They do it in a way that still gives the appearance of you having a choice, but gradually your freedoms are limited.


Agreed, this is a kind of 'soft totalitarianism', or fascism with a friendly face. Like the muslims or commies, give leftists an inch and they will control every aspect of our lives, for our benefit of course-we're just too stupid to see or understand right now.

Should one go to too far left, right or religious, you end up living under some form of tyrannical system/state. Clearly being in the center politically is best-though I'm sure one can debate what a good center would look like.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2011
Progressives need to stop telling people what to do, what to think, what to believe, what to eat, how to heat a home, how to have light, what to drive.

I may be able to put up with them if they led by example, but Al Gore and other top AGW prophets fly private jets, drive huge SUV's, have mansions. Michelle and Obama eat junk food till the cows come home, yet tell us what to eat. Progressives say conservatives need to be civil and use civil dialogue, yet they use violent rhetoric and threats incessantly.

Progressives need to be told put up or shut up.

Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2011
@KaiBrunnenG said:
Before you get the wrong idea, I'm for a mixed capitalist-socialist system.


Kai, not that you'd ever have occasion to, but I strongly, strongly recommend you never try my best friend's mixed "brownie and dog crap" recipe.

As far as I know, he's only made it once and nobody ate any, and the story itself is probably apocryphal, but the point he was illustrating was well understood.

In fact, it was your position.

...the system must take care of the workers that it put out of work, that's the unwritten deal we make as participants in this system.


Says who?

I completely disagree. I think your statement "the system must take care of the workers that it put out of work" is just flat out wrong. Unreasonable, unworkable, and incorrect as phrased, especially the word "must".

They pay into the social system after all.


Hey, you know, since you brought that up, there's this little government program I'd like to see cut...
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2011
@KaiBrunnenG said:
Clearly being in the center politically is best.


Kai, being in the center politically strikes me as often being the refuge for the least informed and/or most apathetic.

Certainly that's not always the case, and yes you can come to a centrist position as a matter of informed choice, but still! There are countless issues against which your opinions can trend, and I find it probable that the more opinions you form, the less likely it is for them to trend to the dead center.

But that's just my opinion.
freethinking
2 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2011
ryggesogn2 - here is my view of what social safety net should be.

unemployment insurance should be insurance. Let the purchaser decide, do you want long benefits with lower payouts, or higher payouts for shorter time. Also the more you use it, the higher your premiums go.

Welfare should be only for those who cannot work. The exact amount would need to be figured out, but enough for basic needs.

If parents cannot look after their kids, the government should step in, remove the kids and provide care for the kids. Once the parent(s) are back on their feet, they can have the kids back. The only exception would be for parent(s) who through no fault of their own become disabled or widowed. Coverage then would only last for a few years at most.

Those with mental issues who cannot function in society would be taken care of by state mental institution, with proper oversight.
freethinking
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2011
Hope and change Jimmy Carter vs Obama

http://www.youtub...embedded
sstritt
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
Hope and change Jimmy Carter vs Obama

http://www.youtub...embedded

LOL- I posted that to my FB page this morning! I have a sudden urge to rent "Groundhog Day"
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2011
The 'tungsten halogen' variety, as long-since found in car head-lights, is a handy fix. I've found that CFLs are either too big or too dim for direct replacement of 'trad' tungsten incandescents. Also, CFLs can be slow-starting, may slowly dim-up to working brightness. I've put this 'bug' to use in bedroom, where one switch acts as an 'auto-dimmer' to prevent dazzling. At least the latest CFLs don't flash or flicker at start-up...
As an early-uptaker of LED lamps, I was very disappointed when our first failed young, and there was no way to prove how little it had been used. That was £ 10 down the drain.
I've asked this since, and been told, in effect, that I must carry the risk. Given they're £ 10~~20 a time, I can't afford that...
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (69) Jul 16, 2011
Before you get the wrong idea, I'm for a mixed capitalist-socialist system.


Kai, not that you'd ever have occasion to, but I strongly, strongly recommend you never try my best friend's mixed "brownie and dog crap" recipe.
]

Thanks for the laugh!
M_N
1 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2011
I have a 28 LED flashlight that runs on three AAA batteries, about 20-30 hours a set. I'm estimating it's light output to be near the equivalent of a 30watt bulb.

LEDs are good, but nowhere near that good. Based on your numbers, the LEDs would be drawing less than 1/4 watt. The best commercially available LEDs are about 100 lumens / watt, so you're looking at about 25 lumens. A 30 watt incandescent bulb produces at least 10 times this figure...
Justsayin
2 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2011
Title of the article should read "Politicians play both sides of the fence and win". They get to extract money and gain power from one side by trying to ban 100W light bulbs then turn around and extract money and gain power from the other side by delaying the ban. Should just let the free market work.
Burnerjack
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
This is AWESOME! They can't even deal with thr Debt, 2 or more wars, the trade imbalance that is crippling our economy, BUT, they have to take time to vote if I should be able to choose what kind of lightbulbs to purchase? Awesome! Gee, I can't imagine why JQ Public is pissed off at Washington. AWESOME!!
canuckit
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
The Republicans are one of the main reasons the international press laugh at the US. LOL!!!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2011
The Republicans are one of the main reasons the international press laugh at the US. LOL!!!

How hard is the international press laughing at the collapse of European economies or Iran's nuclear warheads and missiles?
Gilbert
1 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
so you don't acknowledge that every. EVERY. other developed country in the world had already made the switch to mostly LEDs, around about the years 2007-2008?

The whole reason you are having this question now is because the rest of the world isn't buying incandescents anymore...

Peteri
3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
LOL. You'd think from some of these posts that the eventual demise of the 100W incandescent light bulb threatens the very fabric of the USA's socio-political system and will hasten its downfall.

Gosh, and here was I fretting about such trivial things as world over population - good to see that American's continue to have a firm grip on reality!
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2011
You'd think from some of these posts that the eventual demise of the 100W incandescent light bulb threatens the very fabric of the USA's socio-political system and will hasten its downfall.

Ever hear of a straw the broke a camel's back?
Govts now regulates toilets, light bulbs, salt and sugar in foods, and thousands of other items. What is the limit?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2011
Another example of crony capitalism, which 'progressives' claim to oppose.
"It came about after big bulb manufacturers, frustrated by their customers refusal to switch from cheap throwaway incandescents to the far more profitable compact fluorescents touted by greens, decided to play hardball."
"So some years ago, The New York Times Magazine noted last month, Philips [Electronics] formed a coalition with environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, to push for higher standards."
"Other corporations joined the plot, lobbying Congress to croak a product Americans overwhelmingly like and compel them to buy the more expensive substitute the industry was eager to sell them. "
"The entire scheme, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association testified candidly in 2007, was at the industrys initiative. "
http://www.boston...take_to/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2011
"This is the worlds greatest marketing scheme, he said. You get the government to ban the competition. A slight man with an air of gray-bearded grandiloquence, Brandston contends that his root objection to the law, which he calls immoral, is connected to his professional appreciation of incandescence, which mimics the natural spectrum. Its what we grew up with its sunlight, Brandston told me earlier on the phone. "
http://www.nytime...nted=all
How do you supporters of the ban like shilling for big business?
wwqq
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2011
Guy, do some research:
Philips EcoVantage 72-Watt Household Halogen Light Bulbs


Halogen lights are incandescent light bulbs. Their colour temperature is a bit closer to the white light of the sun due to the higher filament temperature. The gas in the bulb contains halogens that re-deposit tungsten on the filament, keeping it from evaporating away and burning out quickly; this is what allows them to operate at a slightly higher filament temperature without burning out.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2011
Of course they are. Still don't like to use them.
And I suspect they are much more difficult to make and have a higher profit margin for Sylvania and GE.
TheRedComet
3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
Republicans make a big fuss about light bulbs taking away freedoms. But 3 republicans voted Nay for the 2001 patriot act while 62 Democrats voted Nay.

It would be nice if the real threat was light bulbs not something like the US Patriot Act. Which allows for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act and the evidence may be kept classified due to national security.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2011
The democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2010 with a democrat president from 2009.
The Patriot Act was not repealed. Why?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2011
"Minutes before a midnight deadline, President Barack Obama signed into law a four-year extension of post-Sept. 11 powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

"It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat," Obama said Friday after a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "
"Congress bumped up against the deadline mainly because of the stubborn resistance from a single senator, Republican freshman Rand Paul of Kentucky, who saw the terrorist-hunting powers as an abuse of privacy rights. "
http://www.msnbc....tension/
A republican senator supported by tea parties supported privacy rights. Imagine that!
lighthouse10
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2011
Yes, it is a BAN:

RE some comments here,
not only on simple incandescents starting 2012 (28% energy reduction reqd)
but also on ALL known incandescents before 2020 (67% energy reduction reqd)
- including therefore the announced Philips etc "New Incandescents", which the politicians waving them around like to keep VERY quiet about.

The Energy Information Administration at Dept of Energy (see their press releases)
also confirm that any lamp on the market in 2020
"will have to be as efficient as CFLs" by such time.

Unfortunately
(or fortunately, depending on view!)
incandescents can't technically be made to such energy usage, and even if they could, the profit -seeking manufacturers behind the ban would be unlikely to pursue it given the high cost of such bulbs relative to more profitable CFLs/LEDs.

More on the industrial politics behind the ban,
with references, and copies of official communications on Ceolas.net/#li1ax
.
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
@ ryggesogn2
By that time the Patriot act was modified to make it quasi legal. But personally I despise any politician that trys to defend it. I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul and Rand Paul for vetoing against the Patriot act. Its common ground such as this that makes Bipartisanship work. Digging your heals in over light bulbs makes it hard to take on the the real issues.

Republicans nearly unanimously passed the 2001 Patriot Act thats a big stain on Republicans. That along with Alberto Gonzales view of the right of habeas corpus. Makes a hard road to redemption for Republicans.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2011
Now Red makes excuses for the democrats.

Digging your heals in over light bulbs makes it hard to take on the the real issues.

After light bulbs, what is next?

As for the real issues, 'progressives' support higher taxes and more govt spending even though it destroys economic prosperity. Let's start talking about cutting the size and scope of the govt, from which the ridiculous light bulb ban originated.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2011
As a legal Alien in the USA, I am not scared nor have I ever been scared of the Patriot act. I am however more concerned about flying now than ever before, not because of Terrorists, but because of the TSA.

Ask yourself this questions. Do you have more freedom from government now than you did 5 years ago? Are you better off than you were 5 years ago? Is flying easier than 5 years ago? Are children safer than 5 years ago? Are energy prices higher than 5 years ago? Do you have cheaper or better healthcare than you did 5 years ago? What IS BETTER NOW than 5 years ago?

What happened 5 years ago? Progressives took control of the Senate and Congress! 3 years ago they had the Senate, Congress, and the Whitehouse! Progressives had Absolute control of the Government for 2 years, and control of most houses of government for the last 5 years.
TheRedComet
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2011
@ ryggesogn2
You truly are a tool stop taking quotes out of context. After light bulbs, what is next? Republicans should have had that view when questing the patriot act.

@ freethinking
TSA was created on on December 10, 2001 kind of puts your argument in to a conundrum with the rest of you rant.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2011
Red - No it doesn't! I'm not a republican or democrat. I think the TSA is stupid and doesnt provide security then or now. However now under democrats TSA gropes little babies, and demands people go through scanners that takes nude pictures. Is this better or worse than 5 years ago?

Interesting side note, I saw the movie AIRPORT a few months ago on TV. My favorite part of that awful movie was when an old granny went through the metal detector and was jumped by security. While she was being jumped terrorists were walking through security with all sorts of weapons. HOWEVER THAT PART was not shown on TV.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (69) Jul 17, 2011
Interesting side note, when the SciFi Channel filmed their Children of Dune miniseries they changed the name of the galactic military campaign in the book from a "jihad" to a "crusade."

Political correctness works both ways.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2011
Cant say the word Jihad, could reflect negatively with Muslims. Crusades is ok. PC people cant say anything bad about some groups no matter what they do.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2011
After light bulbs, what is next? Republicans should have had that view when questing the patriot act.

Then you should be pleased Republicans are taking a stand on light bulbs. Every journey begins with one step.
Red, what's out of context? If the govt can arbitrarily tell you want you can buy, what you can eat, etc, it also has the power to monitor your phone calls. BTW, Clinton supported Echelon.
"The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn't show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990's."
http://www.americ...led.html
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2011
One more tidbit Red, had the democrats under Clinton treated the attacks in Somalia, Al Kobar, and two American Embassies as acts of war instead of criminal acts, the 9/11/01 attack may have never occurred. Don't forget it was under Clinton that the CIA and FBI were prohibited from collaboration on national defense.
TheRedComet
3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
You put it off on Obama because its covenant Republicans have had to change their name because of the last 10 years of BS.

Now they complain about the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 bill instead of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Joe Barton was Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Tom DeLay House Majority Leader and President George W. Bush all from Texas. Guess they didnt get it right the first time. Maybe Joe Barton should take some ethic classes this time around so he doesnt end up like his buddies.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 17, 2011
Red, like Obama, you need to seek treatment for your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

AkiBola
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2011
The elite overlords are using us as lab rats in their experiments. Vote them all out in 2012.
LEDman
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
Which is better, for the government to mandate a switch to products which would half the power consuption of the USA,but cost the government billions, destroy the environment by releasing heavy metals, and put 1/2 the population into poverty

--or--

Seriously? I've spent 20 years developing LED technology. No heavy metals are used in their production. Even mining tungsten doesn't release heavy metals.

The bigger problem you are missing is that the majority of our energy comes from coal fired power plants. Burning coal releases far more than carbon dioxide. Coal is in fact the major source of heavy metals in the environment and even releases more radiation than nuclear power plants (it has traces of radium and uranium).

Saving energy means less new power plants need to be built and less pollution (of all kinds) in the environment. Oh and while doing that it will save everyone who uses them money.

Look up Energy Star and LED lights. If you want a quick check on quality.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2011
LED quality involves more than materials and energy.
What is the spectrum of LEDs? What is their initial cost?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (68) Jul 17, 2011
Cant say the word Jihad, could reflect negatively with Muslims. Crusades is ok. PC people cant say anything bad about some groups no matter what they do.


Ummm... in the story the Jihadists are the protagonists so it's for the exact opposite reason. I'm not surprised you failed to get this. However, I do have to give you credit for understanding the wrongness of the crusades.
TheRedComet
4 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2011
Ryggesogn2 Yup balm it on Bush because of the treason perpetrated by him and his followers. Now they change their name and try to get people to forget that they ever had any thing to do with the debacle. Good luck thats going to stick for a long time. Obamas a breath of fresh air compared to the Republicans war for oil.
sutendra
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
Has anyone tried to assess how much energy has been really saved by using CFL bulbs?What do the Power Corporation say?
sutendra
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
Has anyone tried to measure how much energy is saved by using CFL bulbs?What is the report of Power /Electricity Suppliers in this regard?
LuckyExplorer
2 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2011
The incompetence and stupidity of US politicians and is unbelievable!
In addition media are grossly negligent, to cite the law incorrectly and, by that, stiring the rejection of a absolutely necessary measure.
Why are all people fighting against the ban?
The law only sets new limits to efficiency - very low limits (too low limits in my opinion)!
Halogene bulbs overcome these limits easily and can be bought for less more money than a standard incandescent bulb. They last 2-4 times longer and CoO is lower.
And finally, why are all people talking about CFL? - LED bulbs are very expensive, but prices are coming down.
LEDman
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
Has anyone tried to measure how much energy is saved by using CFL bulbs?What is the report of Power /Electricity Suppliers in this regard?


They actually save quite a lot. They whole reason CFL price has come down is because utility companies pay consumers to reduce energy costs. Now that there are quite a few LED bulbs available, they are looking at rebates for LED bulbs. Price needs to come down some more, but expect to see this happen within 6 months.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
I tried to watch and even read Dune several times but lost interest. But if according to the book jihadist is good then the author must know that jihad is rooted in the Qur'an (2:193 and 9:29 for offensive jihad) and Muhammad's statements, notably the one in which he directs his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion, subjugation, or war.

BTW I said the PC crowd takes crusades to be bad. If you read my other posts about the crusades, I say learn history and you will see they are very complex and were a result of Jihad.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
how many people have died because of halogen bulbs? Because of their high heat fires have been caused by them. I don't like them for the heat and because they are so delicate and expensive.

Even if LED lights are more expensive I would buy a couple of them for emergency, as a battery pack could keep them running a lot longer.

The whole point is, let the market decide. When the government gets involved they MAKE THINGS worse, reduce freedom, and makes things more costly. Only progressives fail to see that.
J-n
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
The whole point is, let the market decide. When the government gets involved they MAKE THINGS worse, reduce freedom, and makes things more costly. Only progressives fail to see that.


You're right! The market should be the final and only arbiter of these things! Think about how much the pharmacutical industry is loosing because of the threat of regulation from the government (think 1000$ per dose for anything that might save your life). What about all the extra money the energy industry could be making! (think 100$ more per month on your electric bill, how many electric company options do you have in your area? let them use their monopoly!). Why not deregulate and privatize our water as well?! (I'm sure we could all afford to pay hundreds of dollars a month for water!!).

Lets privatize and de-fund the military! The government is TOTALLY doing things wrong in that area.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
et them use their monopoly!

Energy company monopolies are protected by the govt.
FDA approved drugs have killed many and been withdrawn, and FDA approval processes keep new drugs off the market that may save thousands.
Why not deregulate and privatize our water as well?

Why not? It has been done in many places around the country.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
j-n, you assert govt monopolies are the best solution. Where is the data to support your claim?
Data does exist that shows true privatization does reduce costs and improves quality over govt monopolies.
The DoD can't survive without contractor support.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2011
The whole point is, let the market decide. When the government gets involved they MAKE THINGS worse,

Had the sperm whaling industry lobbied Congress to protect their industry, would JD Rockefeller had a motive to produce cheap kerosene for lanterns or would Edison have had a motive to create his electric lamp?
Market forces saved the sperm whale, created the oil industry and the electric lamp. Not the Regulatory State.
J-n
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
Energy company monopolies are protected by the govt.


And if they weren't, and energy costs weren't regulated we'd be paying out the nose for them.

FDA approved drugs have killed many and been withdrawn, and FDA approval processes keep new drugs off the market that may save thousands.


because of the defunding and de-toothing of the FDA approval process, allowing pharmacutical companies use their inhouse paid for research etc etc means that the process is slower and rife with problems. This situation was CREATED by conservatives, and lack of regulation.

Why not? It has been done in many places around the country.


In the places that privitized their water many of them have seen significant rate increases, quality problems, and customer service issues.

Not to even mention the fact that water (a NEEDED resource for life) is as limited resource, that will eventually run out. Why give foregin companies (most water companies ARE foregin) the ability to pump (CONT)
J-n
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
our limited resources to other nations? What happens when someone can't pay their water bill? Should their access to water be cut off? In a completely privatized situation those people would be DENIED access to life.

Are you really that dogmatic that you believe that the free market should trump basic human rights?

j-n, you assert govt monopolies are the best solution. Where is the data to support your claim?


Where did i claim that? In certain situations government monopolies ARE the best solution. Mail, Water, Electricity, Military, Tax collection, courts, police, etc etc should all be kept as government monopolies. Mostly because businesses fail, they refuse service, and "charge what the market will bear" which means in the cases of things that are needed for life, the charge can be almost unlimited.

What, in your laissez faire world, would keep a local water company from charging 1000$/month for water?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
And if they weren't, and energy costs weren't regulated we'd be paying out the nose for them.

And the data to prove your assertion is ...?
JD Rockefeller reduced the cost of kerosene for lamps so nearly everyone could afford a lamp.
In certain situations government monopolies ARE the best solution. Mail, Water, Electricity, Military, Tax collection, courts, police, etc etc should all be kept as government monopolies.

So where is your data to support your assertions? Private entities are effectively providing all those services, now, in many places.
"It is one of the great ironies of America. In the most
capitalist, free-market nation in the world, most
citizens receive their water and wastewater services
from government entities. Contrast this with the United
Kingdom, where almost all water services are provided
by private systems."
http://www.perc.o...ater.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2011
Not to even mention the fact that water (a NEEDED resource for life) is as limited resource, that will eventually run out.

70% of the planet's surface is water. How will the earth run out of water?
What, in your laissez faire world, would keep a local water company from charging 1000$/month for water?

Competition.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
70% of the planet's surface is water. How will the earth run out of water?


Sorry Fresh Water appropriate for human consumption, you know the topic we were speaking about? Intentional misunderstanding much?

Competition.


It only works if it exists, and if companies don't collude to fix the price (against current laws, but not against your ideals).
J-n
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
Private entities are effectively providing all those services, now, in many places.


Proof please. I'd like to know where a non-public supported post system exists that costs less than a dollar to send a piece of mail 2000 Miles.

What nation(s) have privatized courts? Policing?

Full privatization of the Military? Where? How successful is that? What happens when the military and gov disagree?

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
that costs less than a dollar to send a piece of mail 2000 Miles.


The USPS can't do this. They are broke, and they have a monopoly from the govt. One of the reasons they are broke is they subsidized first class mail.

It only works if it exists, and if companies don't collude to fix the price (against current laws, but not against your ideals).

Only govts can stop competition, like banning Fed Ex from delivering first class mail. Your fantasy of collusion and price fixing collapses under competition. And it has been documented. Look it up.

Private courts and police exist in the USA.
What happens when the military and gov disagree?

I most countries, the military stages a coup.

I asked you first to prove your claims that govt monopoly provides the best services at lowest costs.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
BTW, the US govt has privatized security services for its staff in foreign countries.
The Vatican has a private army, the Swiss guard.
sparkyva
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
The same would apply to hot water heaters.

hey there, Muad'Dib
you were so kind to "correct" my last sentence, so I thought I would return the favor. Hot water needs no heating.
BTW just because some of us are capitalists does not mean we want inefficient appliances. Just let the free market work!


I quite agree, personally I think deregulation is in order so that the "free market" work. I personally liked having the big housing bubble pop, pushing people out of their homes and onto the street. I personally LOVE big oil companies screwing the average American over at the gas pump. At some point I really HOPE the major producers of the world merge together to form one huge monopoly so that it can charge whatever the heck it wants and continue to screw people out of hard earned money.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2011
I personally liked having the big housing bubble pop, pushing people out of their homes and onto the street.

If you are implying this was the result of a free market, you are mistaken.
I really HOPE the major producers of the world merge together to form one huge monopoly

Ever hear of OPEC? How well has that worked?
continue to screw people out of hard earned money.

The Federal Reserve is doing this by printing more money. It's called inflation. Oil prices are rising because of inflation and the fact that the US govt bans oil drilling where the oil is located.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
"Unfortunately, our governments track record in adapting to new conditions and meeting new challenges isnt very good. Much of the federal government remains overly bureaucratic, myopic, narrowly focused, and based on the past. Theres a tendency to cling to outmoded organizational structures and strategies."
"Unfortunately, once federal programs or agencies are created, the tendency is to fund them in perpetuity. This is what I mean when I say our government is on autopilot. Washington rarely seems to question the wisdom of its existing commitments. Instead, it simply adds new programs and initiatives on top of the old ones."
"Im pleased to say I believe GAO is the first federal agency to adopt such a market-based, skills-, knowledge-, and performance-oriented classification and pay system for its permanent employees on an agencywide basis."
GAO-07-1188CG
Some in the govt see the merit in market based solutions.
wwqq
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
70% of the planet's surface is water. How will the earth run out of water?


It's too expensive to desalinate water for agricultural use even if you take major(read: expensive) measures to prevent water losses from evaporation and water sinking below the root-zone. Hence the mining of fossil water on a massive scale.

Competition.


Water and eletricity distribution are natural monopolies. Unless you practically rape your customers nobody is going to build a duplicate distribution infrastructure serving the same area in order to compete. Hence you have a large amount of pricing power.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2011
Water and eletricity distribution are natural monopolies.

This kind of thinking is what has created the massive, fragile power grind the US now has.
I lived in a compound in Jeddah that had its own water system. Water trucks periodically filled the tanks. Individual buildings had their own water tanks on the roof.
Many places now in the SW have installed cisterns to collect rain water for reuse.
If govt's had not protected and established water and electrical monopolies, alternative, individualized solutions would lead to more efficient use of those resources.
Once again, monopolies lead to inefficiency.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
OPEC Exists BECAUSE there were no regulations against such things. They make MORE money because of it.

Please explain why, using capitalism as your model, companies would not do this if there were not strict regulations against it?

If all water resources were privatized what would keep the large water companies in say, LosAngles or LasVegas from talking among themselves and deciding to charge 100$/Gal for water?

In many areas of the country there is 1 highspeed (REAL Consumer highspeed not less than 1mb up/down) internet provider, usually the cable company. Most places with multiple cable providers actually just lease the access from the main provider. Why is there only 1? This is because the infrastructure costs of putting the lines in the ground is prohibitively expensive for other companies to accomplish.
How would this monopoly be removed if all restrictions on businesses were removed?

FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 18, 2011
I tried to watch and even read Dune several times...But if according to the book jihadist is good...

Dune takes place ~30,000 years in the future. Islam is no longer an extant religion or is at least not mentioned among millions of words (Judaism is specifically mentioned in the later books).

The point is that in the context of the books "jihad" is a secular term. Secularly, "jihad" and "crusade" share part of their definitions as "holy war". In this context it doesn't mean "muslim holy war" versus "christian holy war". It's just "holy war".

Children of Dune was shown in 2004 I believe, with 9/11 still fresh in everyone's mind and Iraq in the news. SciFi changed the term to crusade because PC -conservatives- would have caused a stink.
BTW I said the PC crowd takes crusades to be bad... I say learn history... [crusades] were a result of Jihad.

I have studied Middle Eastern history. Islamic Jerusalem was very fair to non-muslims. It was simply a failed christian land grab
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
FH, problem is you either studied under Progressive progessors or watched the history channel who by and large hate christianity and jews.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2011
It's too expensive to desalinate water for agricultural use

That depends only on your energy costs.
Islamic Jerusalem was very fair to non-muslims.

Define fair.
companies would not do this if there were not strict regulations against it?

Ever try to herd cats?
"OPEC Fails to Agree on Production Boost Amid Rising Saudi-Iran Tensions"
http://online.wsj...100.html
"Analysis demonstrates that a cartel is an inherently unstable form of operation:

If pooling resources is more profitable, then the cartel will merge into one company.
If it proves to be less profitable, the individual members of the cartel will break off.
If it doesnt break from within, an outsider, noticing the enormous profitability, will enter the market, and this dooms the cartel. "
http://wiki.mises...i/Cartel
As for cable companies, most pay franchise fees to the communities to prevent competition.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2011
A cartel can only survive with the force of a state behind it. And, OPEC demonstrates that even govt cartels are not very successful.
"In reality, business often welcomes regulation and openly lobbies for it. Business often doesn't want a free market for its goods and services and would rather have a government it can use. Compared to the wilderness of a free market, government regulation represents a warm hearth. Compared with the relentless ever-changing demands of the buyers, the stability and monopoly offered by government regulation is a far more forgiving boss. "
"Energy Secretary Bill Richardson admitted that although America is a superpower, "it's got the grid of a Third World Nation." Competition will also mean the very real possibility of losses and ultimately failure. "
http://mises.org/daily/475
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 18, 2011
FH, problem is you either studied under Progressive progessors or watched the history channel who by and large hate christianity and jews.


Holy shit have you even watched the History channel? It's practically the conservative war porn channel, or at least it used to be. WWII battles/tech, Holocaust stories, and don't forget the Civil War for the Lost Causers, used to be virtually all the channel consisted of.

I don't ever recall seeing a program on Middle Eastern history on the History channel.

Also have you ever watched it around christian religious holidays? They certainly don't hate Christians. Your persecution complex is showing.

So yes I guess I was brainwashed by a "progressive progessor". However, I did get an A.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2011
"The so-called "Progressive Era" is replete with incidences of cartels brought on by government regulation. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 created the railroad cartel that the railroads could not secure for themselves in the free market. Government helped create the railroad empires through land grants and subsidies.

But the largest, perhaps most devastating cartel created by government still lives on in the banking sector with existence of the Federal Reserve System and its attendant inflationary entourage of commercial banks. "
http://mises.org/daily/475
The price of oil, in USD is increasing because of the devaluation of the USD by the Federal Reserve.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2011
History channel, so called science channel, and news channels around christian holidays bring about the same anti christian programming year after year. Lets see easter time, Jesus had children, chrismas time they find out the true father of Jesus, the books of the bible were written by. The church fathers purposly hid the truth. FH you have watched too much dune, its turned your brain to mush.

Getting an A by a progrssive teacher is easy. Dont think, dont question, repeat after me. White man bad, white christian man evil. Communist good. Athiest communist super good. Conservative evil. You will however get an F if you start asking questions, was margret sanger a racist? Did moa/stalin kill inocent people and why? Was Kinsey a pedophile and how did he find out about how babies...? What activities did ACORN support? Why did progressives support and help hitler?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (68) Jul 19, 2011
Why did progressives support and help hitler?


Prescott Bush was a progressive?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2011
I'd like to know where a non-public supported post system exists that costs less than a dollar to send a piece of mail 2000 Miles.

The total cost to send a letter, including the subsidy, has to be more than a dollar as the USPS is now cutting service.
TANSTAAFL.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (68) Jul 21, 2011
What activities did ACORN support?


Advocating for the poor. CRIMINALS! Jesus would be spinning in his grave!

Why did progressives support and help hitler?


FDR was a conservative? Bwaaaa?!

The total cost to send a letter, including the subsidy, has to be more than a dollar as the USPS is now cutting service.
TANSTAAFL.


The cost to send it to your neighbor is much less than a dollar. The cost to send it to the other side of the country is more. It averages out. Also, where is your source that it has to be more than a dollar? Folksy truth?
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 22, 2011
FH, Acorn supported child prostitution. For now anyway Supporting and hiding child prostituion is a criminal offense. What did Jesus say about harming a child????
FH, do you know history? T/F FDR was a democrat? T/F FDR was a progressive? Did you really study history? I'm not even an American and I know basic American facts.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2011
Advocating for the poor.

Jesus advocated for those poor in spirit.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
Jesus advocated for those poor in spirit.


Jesus did, but jesus also advocated for those who were disadvantaged financially. Saying otherwise is an outright lie.

Deut. 15:7
Deut. 26:12
Prov. 31:8ff
Lev. 19:19ff
Mt. 5:42

Just a few examples. If you ACTUALLY READ the bible you'd know this is one of the major messages.

James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

Not about taxes, it's about the rich hoarding their money, and not properly compensating their workers.

Your way is not the way of the bible. Period.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 22, 2011
Marjon, it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven, isn't it?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
Deut. 15:7
Deut. 26:12
Prov. 31:8ff
Lev. 19:19ff

These are in the Old Testament.

Your way is not the way of the bible. Period.

I am sure Jesus would have made great friends with the Jewish and Roman states if he had advocated and supported their confiscation of wealth.
Jesus did not advocate govt confiscation of wealth. He advocated GIVING, CHARITY.
Socialism is NOT about giving, it is all about TAKING.

'Liberals' decried the Moral Majority supporting govt laws legislating their interpretation of Biblical morality, but these same 'liberals' advocate for socialist laws legislating their interpretation of Biblical morality.

Yes, please read the Bible. Its major message is NOT one of using the govt to redistribute wealth. Its message is for each individual soul to have faith,love and charity.
Using a govt to steal wealth from someone else has nothing to do with faith, love and charity.
Frank, thou shall not steal.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
Using a govt to steal wealth from someone else has nothing to do with faith, love and charity.


You live in the united states, they're called TAXES, deal with it. It's not theft, plunder, etc. It's called taxes.

These are in the Old Testament.


So Jesus did not believe in the old testament?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
What happens when you don't pay taxes? Govt agents with guns come to your door and put you in jail and/or take all your stuff.
Yes, govt IS pure force.
Why do 'progressives' love power so much?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 22, 2011
I am sure Jesus would have made great friends with the Jewish and Roman states if he had advocated and supported their confiscation of wealth.


WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW... WOW

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods"

And on another note, Jesus specifically advocated against wealth. Ugg are you some prosperity gospel nut on top of all your other BS?

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

So are you going to claim Matthew was a secret communist or something?

The Book of Matthew says:

1) Pay your taxes.
2) If you're rich there is virtually no chance you got that money fairly.

(PS: This is the New Testement ;-) )
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
Govt agents with guns come to your door and put you in jail and/or take all your stuff.


You get a letter from the us governemnt saying you are being audited, and at the worst you'll be fined and have to do some jail time. Usually it's just a fine.

Gov agents with Guns? Oh gosh that's gotta be scary. They'd probally not show up to your house with guns if you had responded to the letter from the IRS, or Appeared at the Trial if it goes that far. Then again, if we had stricter gun control laws they might not feel the need to pull their guns for every person they take into custody.. but hey.. you want your guns, they're gonna have to pull theirs.

ryggesogn2 - If you don't like taxes, no one is forcing you to stay in the country, you can always move.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (67) Jul 22, 2011
FH, Acorn supported child prostitution. For now anyway Supporting and hiding child prostituion is a criminal offense. What did Jesus say about harming a child????


No actually Acorn advocated for the poor. I guess if anyone with questionable morality can't be considered a christian because it doesn't fit your worldview, I can reject the what... 2 acorn workers that didn't immediately call the cops on O'Keefe?

Have you ever worked in customer service? Have you ever just smiled and nodded to get someone out of the line? Yeah Acorn was really running a child prostitution ring. Moron.

http://www.salon....21/acorn


FH, do you know history? T/F FDR was a democrat? T/F FDR was a progressive? Did you really study history? I'm not even an American and I know basic American facts.


You said progressives helped hitler. FDR was a progressive democrat. Suck my balls.

Change your name to "notthinking" please. It's more accurate.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 22, 2011
Frank, thou shall not steal.


That's the Old Testament, Marjon. I thought that didn't count?

Hmm, well I guess we either found out a place where the bible is irrevocably inconsistent, or you have a moronic definition of theft. Either way I win.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
Jesus specifically advocated against wealth.

No, he did not. Ever hear of the parable of the talents?
" 26 His master replied, You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2011
Gov agents with Guns? Oh gosh that's gotta be scary. They'd probally not show up to your house with guns if you had responded to the letter from the IRS, or Appeared at the Trial if it goes that far. Then again, if we had stricter gun control laws they might not feel the need to pull their guns for every person they take into custody.. but hey.. you want your guns, they're gonna have to pull theirs.

J-n confirms he prefers govt coercion over market persuasion, just as Stalin did.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
J-n confirms he prefers govt coercion over market persuasion, just as Stalin did.


LOL So instead of admitting you over stated the position of being dragged out of your house by government officals with guns for not paying taxes, you instead attempt to classify me with Stalin.

If you really want to play that game we could:

You would rather see those that are poor or disabled starve, rather than given a chance to live productive lives. Just like Hitler. I'd bet you'd be in support of a modern times american Action T4 eh?

Are you sure your real name isnt Philipp Bouhler or Karl Brandt?

You see, accusations like this mean NOTHING..

How about a real question, how, without the IRS would we the government? I suspect though you'll ignore this question like you do most of my questions.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
How about a real question, how, without the IRS would we the government? I suspect though you'll ignore this question like you do most of my questions.

What is the question?
over stated the position

It is not overstated. It happened in NH a few years ago.
And the IRS WILL confiscate salary, your business, etc to pay taxes AND interest AND penalties.

NO business can FORCE you to give them money. They MUST persuade. But to J-n, persuasion is bad, coercion is good.
J-n
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
What is the question?


How, Without the IRS would we Fund the government?

Sorry missed the word fund.

It is not overstated. It happened in NH a few years ago.

Did some searching and couldn't find anything about this, could you link an article?

And the IRS WILL confiscate salary, your business, etc to pay taxes AND interest AND penalties.


As they SHOULD. You live, work, or purchase goods in The United States, you MUST pay taxes. If you don't there are penalties in place. This is law. This is what you agree to, when you are a citizen of this nation. If you don't like it you are totally free to leave.

NO business can FORCE you to give them money


That's not true. Like the unwritten contract you have with the US government to pay your taxes, often you will enter into a contract with a service provider, and will be required to pay for these services. If you don't you could forfeit your salary, house, car, ETC..
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
The US was funded for many decades WITHOUT the IRS.
Did some searching and couldn't find anything about this, could you link an article?

Did very little searching is more like it.
http://www.cbsnew...88.shtml

"A year and a half later, Savage settled the case by allowing the IRS to keep $50,000 of his wrongfully confiscated money; the agency returned $95,000 to Savage. Savage did not want to settle, but his company faced destruction unless he could get some of the money back and move on."
"The IRSs abuse of Savage cost him $167,016 cash out of pocket and several hundred thousand dollars in lost business. "
http://www.fff.or...201d.asp

What would we do without jackbooted thugs like the IRS?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
"For those old enough to remember the news coverage, what stands out is the image of IRS agents testifying behind translucent screens and talking through voice alteration mixers. These whistle-blowers so feared reprisals from their own colleagues that they could not show their faces in a hearing of a Senate committee. Here's why:

Anonymous Agent #1 testified that over his long career in collections he had seen senior IRS staff and executives "violate or ignore Internal Revenue Manual procedures and Treasury regulations simply because they wanted to punish a taxpayer.... I have seen more violations of IRS procedures and policies than I can count. The most appalling aspect of the foregoing examples is that in most every instance, IRS management supported the erroneous actions of the Revenue Officer."
http://www.herita...-tax-gap
david_42
3 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2011
I've used CFL for a long time and rather like them. The slow starting is welcome in the morning. But, there are fixtures in my homes that will have incandescent bulbs as long as they are available. Definitely not willing to pay ten times as much to get LEDs. Not even for hard-to-reach outside floodlights.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (68) Jul 22, 2011
NO business can FORCE you to give them money.


Without government? Sure they could.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2011
NO business can FORCE you to give them money.


Without government? Sure they could.

I am still waiting for you come over and try to force me to give you my property.
Is my property worth your life?
A business that forces people to give them money is not in business. It is gang of criminals, aka govt.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2011
Frank, ever here of a rendezvous in the US west?
Traders gathered in places like Utah with goods the mountain men trappers needed. Trappers traded their catch for the goods.
There was no govt. needed.
People send money to their families in Somalia and the money is distributed to the intended recipient. And as you all state, Somalia has no organized govt. How can such commerce exist without the state?
I find it amusing when illegal drug buyers call 911 and complain about being ripped off. Yet, that market, one banned and attacked by govt, apparently is widespread and prosperous.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 23, 2011
I am still waiting for you come over and try to force me to give you my property.


I knew that'd stick in your craw. Lucky for you, you have laws to protect you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
I am still waiting for you come over and try to force me to give you my property.


I knew that'd stick in your craw. Lucky for you, you have laws to protect you.

I have more than laws.
The Supreme Court has ruled police have no obligation to protect anyone.
What law are you afraid of? Or maybe you value your life over the value of my property?
ccr5Delta32
3 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2011
Here in Sweden incandescent lighting has been fazed out approx ten years back .One can still buy them not in major stores but in hardware stores
That's a lot of juice ( electric current) on a national scale .That is energy that could be used for something else or at least lesson the load on the grid .Should the USA faze out incans how many barrels of oil would that equate to ,hazard a guess ? A lot
Fiscal conservatives my arse
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2011
That's a lot of juice ( electric current) on a national scale

So? How much is cost per lumen, including the non-recurring cost of the bulb?
ccr5Delta32
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2011
That's a lot of juice ( electric current) on a national scale

So? How much is cost per lumen, including the non-recurring cost of the bulb?

I've not calculated what it cost ,it seems trivial that is cost and or calculations
Regardless the the cost will be specific to local economy's
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
Cost is not significant?
Then let's have the govt buy everyone LEDs and give them away to whoever needs them regardless of quantity.
ccr5Delta32
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2011
Cost is not significant?

I said trivial and in my economy it is .In comparison to gasoline ,food ,rent ,bla, bla ,bla the cost of lightbulbs is tiny
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 24, 2011
Then let's have the govt buy everyone LEDs and give them away to whoever needs them regardless of quantity.


It would make sense for the government to provide up to a certain amount for each household. A pretty good tax rebate if I must say so myself. Any beyond that number would be your choice to purchase or not.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2011
Then let's have the govt buy everyone LEDs and give them away to whoever needs them regardless of quantity.


It would make sense for the government to provide up to a certain amount for each household. A pretty good tax rebate if I must say so myself. Any beyond that number would be your choice to purchase or not.

And of course the maker of the LEDs would be major political donor to the 'progressives' and would be sold at a respectable profit margin.
Forestgnome
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2011
The market provides a plentiful supply of electricity at a good price. What's wrong with me buying it and using it the way I want? I f they really wanted to get serious about energy usage, they'ld DEREGULATE instead regulate. There are all kinds of energy efficient building designs that go unused because they aren't "stick-built" homes. They require prohibitively expensive engineering and design studies to be provided before someone can build their own home. The tax credits on solar are only allowable if you have the panels installed by certified installers, thereby making it cost-prohibitive for do-it-yourselfers. Let the people be free to innovate and make their lives better without telling them what to do. In the mean time I'm going to start selling 4-to-1 bulb adapters so people can replace their 100 watt bulbs with four 50 watt bulbs. Brighter better!
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2011
FH, problem is you either studied under Progressive progessors or watched the history channel who by and large hate christianity and jews.


No, freithinking,

The problem is your utter lack of understanding. Read the acknowledged master of the subject-Steven Runciman- 's "The Crusades".

Jihad had no connotation of Holy War in Islam until AFTER the Frankish Princes invaded the near east with their armies of itinerant knights and mercenaries, bent upon rape, plunder, and the acquisition of LAND that was denied them in their own country(ies) due the principle of primogeniture. The accessory limbs of the Tree of Nobility had to live off the table scraps of the Eldest son, or turn to the trade, mercantile, academic, or criminal Arts. Most of the Crusaders chose -natch- the lattermost of those callings, because they considered themselves above mere "work" as a means to obtain the necessities of life.

It was continued aggression that polarized Islam into anti-Xian Jihadis.

FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 24, 2011
Then let's have the govt buy everyone LEDs and give them away to whoever needs them regardless of quantity.


It would make sense for the government to provide up to a certain amount for each household. A pretty good tax rebate if I must say so myself. Any beyond that number would be your choice to purchase or not.

And of course the maker of the LEDs would be major political donor to the 'progressives' and would be sold at a respectable profit margin.


It's not like the government would phsycially mail you the LEDs. You would be given a coupon "bulb stamp" or something to go purchase one of your choice.

Please give me one example of a similar program where you only had the choice of the current administrations political donors.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2011
Ever notices the approved WIC foods in the market?
The coupon would only be good for govt certified LEDs.
I wonder how that certification process would proceed?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 24, 2011
Obviously it would play out according to your insane paranoia.

Obviously.

For any other morons who this isn't extreme obvious to, the government would give you a coupon good for a certain value toward an LED bulb of your choice. If the bulb exceeds the value of the coupon, you would be responsible for difference.

So please Marjon, show me the conspiracy behind digital converter boxes. Which corporations gamed the system so coupons could only be used towards their boxes? Any?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2011
"And of course the maker of the LEDs would be major political donor to the 'progressives' and would be sold at a respectable profit margin." - RyggTard

Government is constrained to purchase from the lowest bidder that can meet the specification. Well, that was until George Bush came along and re-wrote the rules for his corrupt government. You do remember that don't you TardBoy?

What is going to be your next KookFart complaint? That all of the lowest bidders are members of the Communist party?

You are an Idiot RyggTard. Just like all of your worthless, paranoid, Libertarian/Randite Brethren.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2011
"Ever notices the approved WIC foods in the market?" - RyggTard

What is it about American free market Capitalism that makes programs like WIC required?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
What free market capitalism? There are minimum wage laws that keep people from working. There are all sorts of other govt regulations that keep people on welfare.
The 'progressives' base their success on the number of people on food stamps.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 24, 2011
So please Marjon, show me the conspiracy behind digital converter boxes. Which corporations gamed the system so coupons could only be used towards their boxes? Any?
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
What would we do without jackbooted thugs like the IRS?


"Ed and Elaine Brown face minimum 30-year prison sentences if convicted of federal weapons and conspiracy charges stemming from a nine-month standoff with law enforcement at their Plainfield home in 2007. Prosecutors say the mountaintop concrete castle was protected by an arsenal of homemade bombs, booby traps and semiautomatic assault-type rifles intended to kill anyone trying to arrest them."

Govt agents with guns come to your door and put you in jail and/or take all your stuff.


Yep If you've got Bombs, Booby Traps and Assault rifles, they're gonna come to your door well armed. If you're a normal person who isn't a whackjob preparing for war, they'll be comming with a summons for court.

As i said you overstated your case.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2011
J-n, do you believe everything in the biased press?

Ever hear of Waco and the children the US govt burned to death?
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
What law are you afraid of? Or maybe you value your life over the value of my property?


In that case your property is only yours as long as you're a better shot than me. Being that i passed my marksman training before i left the military, i doubt you'll keep it if it came down to that.

There are minimum wage laws that keep people from working.


You're saying that because of minimum wage laws, it keeps people from working?! You really have NEVER lived at minimum wage have you? Ever try to rent an apartment, pay car insurance, car payments, and buy groceries on Minimum wage? Ever even do the math? Factor in a few hundred a month for health insurance, Throw in electricity costs, Water, etc.. show me that you're able to survive off of minimum wage as a SINGLE person, then try it as a single mother.

You are a joke.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
q]Ever notices the approved WIC foods in the market?

Yes lets talk about WIC.
http://www.dhs.wi...4578.pdf

The approved foods for the most part are not brand spesific, when they do mention brand specific items, it is because they meet certain nutritional requirements, along with being low cost. Meaning that you can't get Cereals like LuckyCharms, or Kashi.

I imagine you would like it better if they offered things that were very expensive so you could complain about waste, or allowed unhealthy foods so you could complain that the food they offer is really bad for people. In FACT though, the food they offer is inexpensive, and good for you.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
J-n, do you believe everything in the biased press?


ryggesogn2, that was from the article YOU posted. Do you have a different article that might show the defendants even CLAIMED they didn't have those items? From what i've been able to find, none of their apeals said they didn't have those items, none of their followers have said they didn't have those items.

No one but you, Do you have evidence that would clear these individuals on these charges, or are you just making stuff up just to defend these folks?

These folks you are defending also claimed that:
"The U.S. has not had a Treasury since 1921"; "The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States"; "There are no judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789"; "There have not been any Judges in America since 1789"; "The Revolutionary War was a fraud"; "America is a British colony"; "Britain is owned by the Vatican"; and "A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
The bottom line J-n is you do support state violence that extracts wealth from its 'citizens'.
How is this different than a criminal gang that runs a 'protection' racket?

You're saying that because of minimum wage laws, it keeps people from working?

Yes.
It does provide jobs for illegal aliens and stimulates automation. One minor example. NW Washington state used to grow strawberries. Teenagers picked the berries in the summer. Now, with minimum wage laws, the cost of picking strawberries is too high. Growers now raise raspberries than can be mechanically harvested. No more summer jobs for students.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
The bottom line J-n is you do support state violence that extracts wealth from its 'citizens'.
How is this different than a criminal gang that runs a 'protection' racket?


No the bottom line is that I support Taxes. I support the enforcement of our laws. Sometimes because people are violent the government must use weapons. I dont support State sponsored violence, but in the example you gave there was none.

Again you are unable to provide an example of your Violence in regards to Tax collection.

Now, with minimum wage laws, the cost of picking strawberries is too high.


So wait now, because the Growers did not want to pay their pickers minimum wage, they stopped growing strawberries?

If there was no minimum wage laws under what circumstances would an employer who now pays minimum wage pay their employees more?

What i mean is, how much you think you'd get paid at Walmart, or the Grocery Store?

Are you saying that kids who pick Strawberries are not worth 4.25$/hr?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2011
show me that you're able to survive off of minimum wage as a SINGLE person, then try it as a single mother.

Then raise the minimum wage to $100/hr.
What's wrong with that?
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
So among all of the questions i asked, and problems with your arguments i posted that's all you've got.

I guess i should assume this is typical for people of your political persuasion. If something does not fit, Bury your head.

Then raise the minimum wage to $100/hr.
What's wrong with that?


Where did i advocate raising the minimum wage? Again you raise strawman arguments and refuse to address questions.

I can only assume that you either don't know the answers, or realize that i am correct.

Thank you for admitting you are wrong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
"However, raising the minimum wage is a misguided passion. All the valid research shows that raising the minimum wage destroys jobs. It hurts exactly those workers it intends to help -- the poor, the unskilled, and the young. Everyone wants to see income growth boost the economic well-being of the working poor, but throwing many of them out of work is not the solution. "
http://www.house....sion.htm

I dont support State sponsored violence,

Of course you do. The state IS a monopoly on violence. That is exactly what govt is, force.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
Of course you do. The state IS a monopoly on violence. That is exactly what govt is, force.


Monopoly on Violence? So you're saying that no one else is able to participate in violence except the Government? What exactly do you mean by Monopoly on Violence? Maybe your definitions aren't the same as the Dictionary Definitions?

How does government = Force?

The only Violence that is in the Government is the Military, which i'm a BIG fan of reducing. If we were to reduce the size of our military we might be able to afford to treat our fellow citizens properly.

In your system of no taxes who would pay for road work? How would the Military be paid for? Who would pay the police? How about ANY public works programs? How would the Freeways be maintained? Where would we get the money to pay our politicians?

Specifics please, that is unless you've never actually fully thought out these ideas, and therefore have no answer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
In your system of no taxes who would pay for road work? How would the Military be paid for? Who would pay the police? How about ANY public works programs? How would the Freeways be maintained? Where would we get the money to pay our politicians?

Who pays for the the food? Who pays for the house, the clothes the furniture, the car, the gas, ....?
Where would we get the money to pay our politicians?

Why is this important?

J-n, ever see the Star Trek episode, "Return of the Archons"? After Kirk and Spock destroy the central computer that took care of everyone, the people didn't know what to do.
J-n, you sound like a child afraid to leave your parents house.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
Who pays for the the food? Who pays for the house, the clothes the furniture, the car, the gas, ....?


In your model NO ONE (because there is no tax revenue) would pay for the military, no one would pay for road work, no one would pay for public works programs. No one would pay for Infrastructure. In your model all commerce would grind to a halt because there would be no roads.

Why is this important?


In your model politicans, judges, etc would not be paid?

J-n, ever see the Star Trek episode...


Nope.

J-n, you sound like a child afraid to leave your parents house.


Why? Because i care about people who are unable to get jobs? Because i care about the Disabled and Elderly? Because i care more about actual people than i do businesses? Because i advocate for people who have no voices in politics? Because i don't mind a few dollars coming from my paycheck so others can live?

You sound like a 14 year old who just can't get that they're totally wrong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
Because i care about people who are unable to get jobs?

Obviously you do not care or you would not support restraints on those who create real jobs, businesses.
Because i don't mind a few dollars coming from my paycheck so others can live?

Charities are much more efficient than any govt at providing charity. How much do you donate?

"Because minimum wage laws hurt the disadvantaged the most, they are frequently used to "legalize" discrimination."
"Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are supposed to help."
"When we use aggression to control the marketplace ecosystem with minimum wage laws or other mandated "benefits," we set in motion a destructive chain reaction. Instead of providing the disadvantaged with a better financial base, we prevent them from obtaining what they need most: on-the-job training in the art of creating wealth. "
http://www.ruwart...ap3.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
"People who lobby for minimum wage laws, who enforce them, or who are unemployed because of them produce no wealth. Their activities create no new goods or services. The world as a whole is poorer, and so are we. Our money cannot purchase whatdoes not exist, any more than it could in our desert island example from Chapter 2 (Wealth Is Unlimited!). In a world producing less wealth than it could, we are proportionately deprived. Because the lobbyists, enforcement agents, and unemployed produce no new wealth, part of what we create goes to support them. In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled."
"By supporting minimum wage laws, we've taught the disadvantaged to turn the law enforcement agents on those still employed to feed, clothe, and shelter them."
http://www.ruwart...ap3.html
Control is the objective if the 'progressive'.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 25, 2011
I imagine you would like it better if they offered things that were very expensive so you could complain about waste, or allowed unhealthy foods so you could complain that the food they offer is really bad for people. In FACT though, the food they offer is inexpensive, and good for you.


And this doesn't fit with his worldview, so he will ignore it forever, like this question I am asking for the third time.

So please Marjon, show me the conspiracy behind digital converter boxes. Which corporations gamed the system so coupons could only be used towards their boxes? Any?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 25, 2011
It's obvious that he's just ignoring my question long enough so that it looks out of context and he can wave it away at that point. The fact is he claimed government vouchers are a phenomenon totally explained by corporations lobbying the government for special treatment. The most recent example of widespread vouchers for a product I have seen were for digital television set top boxes, a successful program.

So I'll ask again, with revived context:

So please Marjon, show me the conspiracy behind digital converter boxes. Which corporations gamed the system so coupons could only be used towards their boxes? Any?

Your criticism of WIC has been shown to be BS. Are you going to save face here?
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
Obviously you do not care or you would not support restraints on those who create real jobs, businesses.


The bush tax cuts on the rich were put in place, because they were job creators, and we shouldn't over tax job creators. Where is the almost 3 Trillion dollars worth of jobs they were to create?

I suppourt businesses, I don't support your vision of what businesses want.

Charities are much more efficient than any govt at providing charity. How much do you donate?


About 1/5th of my yearly salary, along with 2 weeks of 24hr care during my volunteer activities for the disabled community here in Wisconsin. I donate QUITE a bit more in not only money but hours than your average person, and i KNOW that charities would not be able to cover all of the services required.

How much do you volunteer? How much do you Donate?

Where do you donate your money and time? How would an all charity donation system deal with inequality in giving?
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
What country Do you think the USA should emulate? What of the worlds Nations have laws that are in line with what you believe? What other nation in the worlds has no minimum wage, no social programs, no taxes, no government?

Where has this succeeded before? Where is it currently working?

Nowhere? Thought so.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
Nations without a Minimum Wage or Collective bargaining for all sectors.

Bahrain
Brunei
Georgia
Guinea
Liechtenstein
North Korea
Republic of Macedonia
Singapore
Somalia
Tonga
UAE
Yemen

These are the nations that ryggesogn2 would like us to emulate?

ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
Singapore is doing quite well.
About 1/5th of my yearly salary, along with 2 weeks of 24hr care during my volunteer activities for the disabled community here in Wisconsin. I donate QUITE a bit more in not only money but hours than your average person, and i KNOW that charities would not be able to cover all of the services required.

Good for you.
Then why do you support govt confiscation of wealth for charity? If your taxes were lower, you could donate more.
Ahh, but you want to force others to 'donate'.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
Good for you.
Then why do you support govt confiscation of wealth for charity? If your taxes were lower, you could donate more.
Ahh, but you want to force others to 'donate'.


I call it taxes, as does the rest of the world.

I support taxes because they not only go for social programs but also go towards many other things that make life better.

I could donate more even if taxes were higher. I choose not to, just like most folks.

People tend to donate towards certain organizaitons and not to others. One year a half-way house for recovering drug addicts might get the funding they need to pay the rent, other years they might not. How would you solve issues like this?

You, sir, have proven time and again, with your refusal to answer basic questions that you ask of others, that you either don't know what you are talking about, or know that what you are saying is untrue.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
How would you solve issues like this?

De-criminalize drugs. Note I did not say 'legalize'.
Stop attacking religion.
End govt funding for such activities.
Prior to the 'progressive' state, there were many local fraternal groups that provided such support.
It was not an entitlement and did not involve a bureaucracy so it was effective.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
Taxes are also not an excuse as to why donations from regular Americans are so low.

If you actually knew anything about donating to Charity, Wealth, or Taxes, you would know that Donations to Charitable organizations are Tax Deductible.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
And you would also know that it is the 'progressives' that donate less.
See 'Who Really Gives'.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
Bill Gates:
"Mr. Gates said that he has grown impatient with the shortcomings of capitalism." - Speach in Switzerland January '08

Warren Buffett:
Well if you didn't know this guy is about as progressive as they come, you're clueless.

So you're telling me that these two progressives Don't donate? Don't donate more than anyone else out there?

I think you're still pulling at straws.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 25, 2011
For the fifth time:

So please Marjon, show me the conspiracy behind digital converter boxes. Which corporations gamed the system so coupons could only be used towards their boxes? Any?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 25, 2011
So the context is entirely clear, this is the conversation exactly how it went laid out in one go.

Me: "It would make sense for the government to provide up to a certain amount for each household. A pretty good tax rebate if I must say so myself. Any beyond that number would be your choice to purchase or not."

Marjon: "And of course the maker of the LEDs would be major political donor to the 'progressives' and would be sold at a respectable profit margin."

Me: "It's not like the government would phsycially mail you the LEDs. You would be given a coupon "bulb stamp" or something to go purchase one of your choice.
Please give me one example of a similar program where you only had the choice of the current administrations political donors."

Marjon: "Ever notices the approved WIC foods in the market?
The coupon would only be good for govt certified LEDs.
I wonder how that certification process would proceed?"

[Here I ask the question he's avoided five times so far.]

FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 25, 2011
J-n: "Yes lets talk about WIC.
http://www.dhs.wi...4578.pdf

The approved foods for the most part are not brand spesific, when they do mention brand specific items, it is because they meet certain nutritional requirements, along with being low cost. Meaning that you can't get Cereals like LuckyCharms, or Kashi.

I imagine you would like it better if they offered things that were very expensive so you could complain about waste, or allowed unhealthy foods so you could complain that the food they offer is really bad for people. In FACT though, the food they offer is inexpensive, and good for you. "

So for the 6th time (7th if you count his WIC nonsense a non-answer):

So please Marjon, show me the conspiracy behind digital converter boxes. Which corporations gamed the system so coupons could only be used towards their boxes? Any?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 25, 2011
Cat got your tongue?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
"Prior to the 'progressive' state, there were many local fraternal groups that provided such support. " - RyggTard

You mean like there were dentists who would set a broken bone in exchange for a chicken long before there was competent state run medical care.

That is where Conservative Libertarians and Randites wish to take America.

Back to the good oll days of slavery and bondage to corporate masters.

In short... Fascism.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
"Somalia...
These are the nations that ryggesogn2 would like us to emulate?" - Jn

Those are the nations that the Libertarian Propaganda farms want Americans to aspire to. How better to serve their corporate masters?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
"People who lobby for minimum wage laws, who enforce them, or who are unemployed because of them produce no wealth." - RyggTard

In your Randite land of Libertopia, how little should your corporate masters be allowed to pay their wage slaves?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
"During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, more Americans belonged to fraternal societies than to any other kind of voluntary association, with the possible exception of churches. Despite the stereotypical image of the lodge as the exclusive domain of white men, fraternalism cut across race, class, and gender lines to include women, African Americans, and immigrants. Exploring the history and impact of fraternal societies in the United States, David Beito uncovers the vital importance they had in the social and fiscal lives of millions of American families. Much more than a means of addressing deep-seated cultural, psychological, and gender needs, fraternal societies gave Americans a way to provide themselves with social-welfare services that would otherwise have been inaccessible, Beito argues."
http://books.goog...0ofIwDwC
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
Slave wages, that's amusing and false.
History, real facts, show that after the War Between the States, southern white farmers tried to pay 'slave' wages. But what actually happened is those workers who preformed better were enticed to work for other farmers who paid more. Others moved north to factories that paid even better.
It's called competition.
Of course the 'progressives' can't accept competition so they form coercive unions, like the NEA, and reward poor performing teachers.
I wonder how all those 'progressives' would have felt in school if everyone received the same grade? Those who were smart, those who worked and studied received the same grade as those who did not. Sounds fair does it not?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 26, 2011
Marjon finally answers but through PM:

You claimed there was. I did not.
What was the motivation to push for HDTV? Of course the electronics industry was opposed to selling new HDTVs and peripherals and all the new HD cameras that had to be sold to studios and sports networks.


So his model fails to explain digital set top boxes but we are supposed to believe his model would work to explain an exactly analogous situation in LEDs should the government decide to go that route.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
Actually what he said was "Wage Slave" not "Slave Wages". It is a refrence to the situation that many individuals find them selves in where if they were to loose their job the time it would take to get paid by their next job would be enough for them to loose their home, miss paying many bills, or even starve.

So while the term does not refer directly to slavery it is a situation where the boss can ask for whatever they want (legal, ethical or not) and the employee is in a situation where saying no or finding another job is not a realistic option.

It can also refer to people in certain industries where there is such small amount of offered jobs, compared to the amount of people wanting jobs, that one is stuck with their employer no matter what rules, wages, etc they dictate.

Wage Slavery is exactly what ruins your Free market notion of being able to switch jobs if your employer refuses to pay what you are worth.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 26, 2011
What was the motivation to push for HDTV?


The same motivation to push for color tv? Oh wait, are you wading off into conspiratorial waters again? Take your floaties with you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
"the coupon program reduces the cost to households of the digital transition by allowing them to spend $40 less on a converter box than they otherwise would.2 This analysis reveals, however, that coupon program has created a floor on the price of these converter boxes. Because consumers pay $0 with the coupon for any box priced $40 or less, retailers have little incentive to reduce the price below $40. An analysis of converter box prices at retailers around the country suggests that the coupon program has increased the price of converter boxes by $21 - $34.
In other words, the coupon program has reduced price competition."
http://techpolicy...gram.pdf
What a surprise!

The motivation for HDTV over the air was so the US govt could sell the VHF bandwidth to cell phone companies.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 26, 2011
And people still pay less with the coupon than they would without it.

What a surprise!

The motivation for HDTV over the air was so the US govt could sell the VHF bandwidth to cell phone companies.


Actually the reason was technology had gotten to the point that NTSC had a pitiful resolution that could easily be exceeded. It was the same motivation for switching to color tv, i.e. customers wanted it and the technology allowed it.

If the government didn't sell off those now unused bands, you'd be bitching about some monopoly they have over them. "Boo hoo I can't broadcast my ham radio over frequency X, THIS IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY!"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
It can also refer to people in certain industries where there is such small amount of offered jobs, compared to the amount of people wanting jobs, that one is stuck with their employer no matter what rules, wages, etc they dictate.

Provide examples.
Gee, people can learn new skill, they can move. But if you like being trapped in some small town in WI, that is your problem. Why should anyone else subsidize your desire to stay in your happy little place?
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (65) Jul 26, 2011
Must be nice to have a nice enough job that you can up and move if you don't like it.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
But if you like being trapped in some small town in WI, that is your problem. Why should anyone else subsidize your desire to stay in your happy little place?


Interesting how you assume i classify myself as a wage slave. Why do you assume that everyone who advocates for those who are downtrodden and abused, are themselves downtrodden and abused?

I live in the largest city of Wisconsin (28th largest in USA), less than 90 min from the 3rd largest city in the nation.

I also happen to be in one of the largest growth industries. My profession did not see much of a downturn in hiring during this recession, though we did see a pay freeze.

No one is asking anyone to subsidize people staying in one location. The point, which of course you missed, and won't respond to after it's made is that those who are in a wage slave situation (ideal for all employers) cannot bargin for better wages, no matter their productivity. It goes against your theory of just being able to switch jobs.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
Gee, people can learn new skill, they can move.


So, you didn't really actually read what i posted did you?

Please explain how someone who is unable to miss a paycheck can afford to move.

J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
Provide examples.


Examples of what? People who cannot leave their job because they live paycheck-to-paycheck, have no savings, and would not be able to afford to change jobs?

Provide examples of Industries who have far fewer job openings than applicants?

Are you looking for Names? Are you looking for Anecdotal evidence? Are you looking for industries that this is common in?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
J-n, what I know I know from my grandparents who borrowed some money and drove in a Model T, on dirt roads, camping along the way for 9 days from SD to WA in 1934 to find work. And he did many jobs eventually becoming a Ford mechanic. He only graduated 8th grade.
And my grandpa knew FDR was socialist, much more intelligent than the 'progressives' here.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
What did WI do to cause this?
"A handful of top managers will move to the Chinese capital and there wont be any job cuts, said Anne LeGrand, general manager of X-ray for GE Healthcare. The headquarters will move from Wisconsin amid a broader plan to invest about $2 billion across China, including opening six customer innovation and development centers."
http://www.boston...o_china/
Or maybe it was Obamacare? Will Obama fire Immelt?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
Soros: 'progressive' hypocrite.
"
Quantum, which will continue to manage about $24.5bn of Soros family money, blamed the decision on new financial regulations requiring hedge funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
"Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com...TGg093Rv

New regulations require hedge funds with more than $150m under management to report details about investments, employees and investors, and also makes them subject to possible inspections by the SEC. Mr Soros decision contrasts with his own reputation as an advocate for both government and corporate transparency."
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (68) Jul 26, 2011
The funny thing is, if Marjon's conspiratorial worldview were correct, these new regulations wouldn't be happening because Soros could just snap his fingers and make them go away.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2011
My guess is that Soros wont lose a cent, will make a ton of money.

Definition of hypocrite, see progressive and/or Al Gore

BTW, I've lost jobs and had to move across country I've learned new skills. People who don't shouldn't be supported by people who do!
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (66) Jul 27, 2011
My guess is that Soros wont lose a cent, will make a ton of money.

Care to offer any actual evidence other than your folksy bs?

Definition of hypocrite: see 'pro life' movement.

BTW, I've lost jobs and had to move across country I've learned new skills. People who don't shouldn't be supported by people who do!


Gonna save this in thingsthatneverhappened.txt
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2011
Soros could just snap his fingers and make them go away.

Stalin had Trotsky murdered.
'Progressives' can't be trusted.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (66) Jul 27, 2011
Nice non-sequitur, Marjon. If you hadn't taken my quote out of context, it'd be obvious I was talking about regulations and not people.

The funny thing is, if Marjon's conspiratorial worldview were correct, these new regulations wouldn't be happening because Soros could just snap his fingers and make them go away.


Marjon can't even quote an entire sentence without his ideology falling apart.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (66) Jul 27, 2011
...i... can't be trusted.


Really marjon? Do go on!
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2011
A bit sensitive are we Frank?

Soros promotes big, 'progressive' govt and is now running away from their rules.
'Progressives' eating their own is nothing new as Stalin demonstrated.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (66) Jul 27, 2011
The funny thing is, if Marjon's conspiratorial worldview were correct, these new regulations wouldn't be happening because Soros could just snap his fingers and make them go away.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2011
Progressives are always sensitive. Tell them they are wrong,or cant have something they cry, threaten, act out, destroy, throw temper tantrums. Something about being taught that self esteem is everything.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
Stalin had Trotsky murdered.
'Progressives' can't be trusted.


So, you're saying that No capitalist EVER had another Capitalist murdered?!? I Seriously doubt that, so you must be intentionally using flawed logic here in order to elicit some sort of response. Unfortunately the ideals of even someone as myself do not blend well with the two you've listed. So you've got no traction here.

Progressives are always sensitive. Tell them they are wrong,or cant have something they cry, threaten, act out, destroy, throw temper tantrums. Something about being taught that self esteem is everything.


Tell me where i've gotten sensitive? Where i've done any of the items above?

Unfortunately, again, your stereotyping has no basis in reality. Why don't you try answering a few of the many many questions that i have posed that have been left unanswered in the comments here, instead of engaging in personal attacks? It would probably help keep the conversation constructive.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (66) Jul 29, 2011
Progressives are always sensitive. Tell them they are wrong,or cant have something they cry, threaten, act out, destroy, throw temper tantrums. Something about being taught that self esteem is everything.


Re: Taxes (Pot, Kettle, Black)