Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
3 companies unable to sell an inferior product conspire with a government to pass a law forcing people to buy their inferior product and you are a.ok with this? With a market monopoly, kiss all those advancements good bye. Why R&D when you don't have to?
|
What ARE you talking about?
#1 - the companies don't have a monopoly, never mind that it is nonsensical to talk about a "monopoly" with more than one company in the first place.
#2 - the product isn't inferior, unless you think Edison is the pinnacle of light bulb development and everyone since has been a poseur. The lightbulbs are CHEAPER in the long run than conventional ones, but too many people are unable to process the concept of "long run". Plus, people that don't pay for their power (like me) have no incentive to use the more expensive bulbs unless forced to.
#3 - If you don't think the three companies (never mind the dozens of other companies in the business) are going to try to take market share from each other with better bulbs, you are mistaken. R & D is hardly going to be stifled by making a bigger market for efficient lightbulbs, it will have the opposite effect.
#4 - Unless the gov't goes into the business of making lightbulbs, some company has to do it, and therefore, will benefit. However, instead of a negative sum game like preferential legislation for oil companies (so that the taxpayers eat the costs and still get expensive gasoline and heating oil), the only "losers" in this instance are people who will be forced to buy the lights and save money over years of use. Oh, the tragedy!