Australia to Ban Incadescent Bulbs

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Its the exact same story as leaded gasoline. People would not have stopped using it of their own accord. It was cheaper. I'm sure many companies that made the lead additives for gasoline either went out of business or faced hardship due to the banning of leaded gas. As a result though, the average lead level in people's blood dropped. It was a government mandated change that benefited the entire population. Are you arguing that was a bad decision?

He suffers from the "everything the way the world is now is the best way when I gained the ability to think somewhat" syndrome. Any changes from that point on upset him.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

If the government forced you to stop eating butter, your cholesterol level would drop and you would benefit from that.

Should the government force you to stop eating butter?

Should the government force everyone to exercise? That would benefit the whole population, no? What kind of argument is that?

The point is not whether the decision is good or bad (that depends on the point of view of every individual) but whether or not someone has the right to impose their will upon you. Can they force "good things" (from their perspective) on someone who might not even be interested?

Please address my question before you start turning this into a war on dairy products.

Do you think the banning of leaded gasoline was the wrong thing to do?

As for your butter question, me eating butter isn't putting more lead in YOUR blood stream. Plus the fact its very well known that butter can be part of a healthy diet. Lead can not be part of a healthy diet. Nice counter point though, you got me there!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Please address my question before you start turning this into a war on dairy products.

Do you think the banning of leaded gasoline was the wrong thing to do?

As for your butter question, me eating butter isn't putting more lead in YOUR blood stream. Plus the fact its very well known that butter can be part of a healthy diet. Lead can not be part of a healthy diet. Nice counter point though, you got me there!

I find it fascinating that you cannot differentiate between:

A - people making good decision X on their own
B - people forced to make decision X that someone else thinks is good

I guess that is my answer to your question. Banning was wrong, voluntary switch of consumers to non leaded gas would be good (from my POV).

PS substitute butter for something else bacon if you want. The point stays the same.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Market forces: In economics, the forces of demand (a want backed by the ability to pay) and supply (the willingness and ability to supply). (copyright any textbook on economics).

The government is a non market force, I would think thats pretty clear.

I'm sure if life worked like it does in textbooks you might be right.

However, try to run a business in this (or any) economy and not factor the government in as a 'market force', you'll be out of business pretty quick. Regardless of whether the government should or should not have a large role in guiding/regulating the marketplace, it does, and businesses factor that in when figuring out supply/demand... or they go broke.

Thats why the original poster was right. If old lightbulb manufacturer's can't make some kind of change in response to 'market forces' (govt. regulation in this case), then they go broke.

Maybe you're thinking of 'market' in the textbook definition, rather than the real life definition?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Market forces: In economics, the forces of demand (a want backed by the ability to pay) and supply (the willingness and ability to supply). (copyright any textbook on economics).

The government is a non market force, I would think thats pretty clear.

I agree that pure market forces include no government involvement.

The decision to ban the bulbs is all governmental regulation, not market forces (it would be market forces if consumers (on their own) decided not to purchase the bulbs so the the companies making them went bankrupt, that would be market forces). What happens now in the industry will be market forces.

I agree with your point but see what the other poster is trying to get at (we dont live in a pure market economy and so its difficult to exclude the government).

MYK

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm sure if life worked like it does in textbooks you might be right.

However, try to run a business in this (or any) economy and not factor the government in as a 'market force', you'll be out of business pretty quick. Regardless of whether the government should or should not have a large role in guiding/regulating the marketplace, it does, and businesses factor that in when figuring out supply/demand... or they go broke.

Thats why the original poster was right. If old lightbulb manufacturer's can't make some kind of change in response to 'market forces' (govt. regulation in this case), then they go broke.

Maybe you're thinking of 'market' in the textbook definition, rather than the real life definition?

Now we are getting somewhere. I suppose the "textbook" definition is talking about "nature" of the force. Not whether it interferes with the market or not - of course the govs do interfere with the market - but they do so "from the outside," they shape markets from the outside.

Whereas market forces are what drives the market itself - trade - demand - supply. When the gov bans bulbs, it does not supply them, it does not buy them. But it shapes the bulb market from the outside (by force).

Thats how I see it anyway.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I guess that is my answer to your question. Banning was wrong, voluntary switch of consumers to non leaded gas would be good (from my POV).

Your faith in mankind is admirable, but you know as well as I do that there are people out there who would never have made the switch and we would all be affected by the negative side effects.

Besides, I don't know if "banning" is the right term. More like "phasing out". It's not like the stormtroopers are kicking in doors and breaking old lightbulbs. Over a period of years the old, inefficient and polluting lightbulbs will be replaced by more efficient, cleaner lightbulbs.

I really don't see how that can be a negative thing. Who loses? Do we lose the freedom to choose old lightbulbs instead of new ones? I suppose, but that's really only a philosophical negative, and it doesn't have much application in the real world.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I agree that pure market forces include no government involvement.

The decision to ban the bulbs is all governmental regulation, not market forces (it would be market forces if consumers (on their own) decided not to purchase the bulbs so the the companies making them went bankrupt, that would be market forces). What happens now in the industry will be market forces.

I agree with your point but see what the other poster is trying to get at (we dont live in a pure market economy and so its difficult to exclude the government).

MYK

Thank you.

But I think that you dont need to live in a pure market economy to call government a non market force (see my post above).

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Your faith in mankind is admirable, but you know as well as I do that there are people out there who would never have made the switch and we would all be affected by the negative side effects.

Besides, I don't know if "banning" is the right term. More like "phasing out". It's not like the stormtroopers are kicking in doors and breaking old lightbulbs. Over a period of years the old, inefficient and polluting lightbulbs will be replaced by more efficient, cleaner lightbulbs.

I really don't see how that can be a negative thing. Who loses? Do we lose the freedom to choose old lightbulbs instead of new ones? I suppose, but that's really only a philosophical negative, and it doesn't have much application in the real world.

OK who cares about bulbs, but whats next? Cars, planes, electrical appliances...where does it stop?

If the mindset of people will be "meh its just a stupid bulb" it will be too late when the government bans something else and far more important for "the good of everyone."

Its about the mindset, principle, not the bulb.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

OK who cares about bulbs, but whats next? Cars, planes, electrical appliances...where does it stop?

If the mindset of people will be "meh its just a stupid bulb" it will be too late when the government bans something else and far more important for "the good of everyone."

Its about the mindset, principle, not the bulb.

Maybe if you believe in 1984 and big brother is out to get you all the time.
Sometimes a bulb is a bulb though.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

OK who cares about bulbs, but whats next? Cars, planes, electrical appliances...where does it stop?

If the mindset of people will be "meh its just a stupid bulb" it will be too late when the government bans something else and far more important for "the good of everyone."

Its about the mindset, principle, not the bulb.

Here's a question. Do you belive in government regulations limiting...say the persence of sharp spikes in children's toys?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I agree that pure market forces include no government involvement.

The decision to ban the bulbs is all governmental regulation, not market forces (it would be market forces if consumers (on their own) decided not to purchase the bulbs so the the companies making them went bankrupt, that would be market forces). What happens now in the industry will be market forces.

I agree with your point but see what the other poster is trying to get at (we dont live in a pure market economy and so its difficult to exclude the government).

Thats the main point. You can't ignore government regulation as a 'market force', though I'm sure we could debate semantics about what truly constitutes a market force. My non-textbook definition is 'anything that affects the market', though I see why that might be up for debate (again, essentially semantics in this example). If the government says you can't build lightbulbs, then you can't build lightbulbs... there's not much else to be said about it.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Here's a question. Do you belive in government regulations limiting...say the persence of sharp spikes in children's toys?

I believe that even semi-normal parents would not buy toys with sharp spikes. And if they would, there is no help for their children, regardless of gov regulations about toys with spikes (other than taking the kids away from their parents).

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I believe that even semi-normal parents would not buy toys with sharp spikes. And if they would, there is no help for their children, regardless of gov regulations about toys with spikes (other than taking the kids away from their parents).

Ok... how about instead of sharp spikes, it's asbestos filling? Might be cheaper for the company to fill it with asbestos, and the parents/consumers won't care as long as you don't tell them what's in it, especially when you're selling it to them cheap... shouldn't someone regulate against a company using unsafe materials to shave a few bucks off their bottom line? Without regulation, who would bust this company for its immoral practises? Or is there no such thing as an 'immoral business practise'?

[Flame On]

What you believe and what exists are different. The government has standards for things such as toys as a given example, but they haven't used that power to regulate that we must all live in prison camps.
No slippery slope there.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Ok... how about instead of sharp spikes, it's asbestos filling? Might be cheaper for the company to fill it with asbestos, and the parents/consumers won't care as long as you don't tell them what's in it, especially when you're selling it to them cheap... shouldn't someone regulate against a company using unsafe materials to shave a few bucks off their bottom line? Without regulation, who would bust this company for its immoral practises? Or is there no such thing as an 'immoral business practise'?

Consumer groups? "Family friendly" stores that would not carry products made from unsafe materials?

I dont have statistics, but isnt the majority of banned materials banned because consumer organizations pointed their finger at them? Speaking strictly from what I can recall right now, but when a product has been deemed unsafe it was usualy because a consumer group raised a storm and then the official gov authority banned the thing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

OK who cares about bulbs, but whats next? Cars, planes, electrical appliances...where does it stop?

If the mindset of people will be "meh its just a stupid bulb" it will be too late when the government bans something else and far more important for "the good of everyone."

Its about the mindset, principle, not the bulb.

Okay fair enough. But I'll start worrying about cars and planes being banned as soon as lightbulbs are banned, not just a certain kind of inefficient lightbulb that negatively harms society and can easily be replaced by a superior product.

There is no harm to society with this move. None. And I don't think there is an ultimate goal or ulterior motive in doing this. I just can't believe it's one step in some plan to take away everything and they are just softening us (well, Australians) so we let them take something else away in the future. I can't believe it.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I find it fascinating that you cannot differentiate between:

A - people making good decision X on their own
B - people forced to make decision X that someone else thinks is good

I guess that is my answer to your question. Banning was wrong, voluntary switch of consumers to non leaded gas would be good (from my POV).

PS substitute butter for something else bacon if you want. The point stays the same.

You need to read my post again. Lead in gas harms the health of those that don't own a car nor purchase gas. A similar argument can be made for incandescent bulbs. Now how is my bacon eating hurting someone who choses not to eat bacon?

Two completely different things.

Person A fills up their car with leaded gas and eats a lot of bacon.

Person B fills up with unleaded gas and eats apples.

Person B will end up with lead in their bloodstream. Person B will not get fat because person A eats bacon.

Get my point here?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Now we are getting somewhere. I suppose the "textbook" definition is talking about "nature" of the force. Not whether it interferes with the market or not - of course the govs do interfere with the market - but they do so "from the outside," they shape markets from the outside.

Whereas market forces are what drives the market itself - trade - demand - supply. When the gov bans bulbs, it does not supply them, it does not buy them. But it shapes the bulb market from the outside (by force).

Thats how I see it anyway.

This is all well and good in the land of unicorns, but the government itself is a major consumer of goods and services within an economy. For instance, government buildings are lit with *gasp* bulbs. Now then, if they were to follow their own ban, they'd have to buy a bunch of CFL/LED/torches to replace their ILBs. I would call that a somewhat significant purchase that would make some company out there more profitable.

Pretending that the government somehow doesn't exist within the realm of the market is incredibly naive and, well, simply not practical.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I believe that even semi-normal parents would not buy toys with sharp spikes. And if they would, there is no help for their children, regardless of gov regulations about toys with spikes (other than taking the kids away from their parents).

You'd be absolutely wrong then. Here's the original Mr. Potato Head:

Mm, love those yummy little spikes. Hasbro made a few million off this toy.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There is no harm to society with this move. None. And I don't think there is an ultimate goal or ulterior motive in doing this. I just can't believe it's one step in some plan to take away everything and they are just softening us (well, Australians) so we let them take something else away in the future. I can't believe it.

Cleary some members on this board haven't gotten through to you with the truth. That the government has unquenchable thrist for control. And that this grab for power will start with the small things like blubs and trans-fats and then move onto mind control and sterilization. There is no escape! Oh did I mention that the reasons the government wants all this control and power is still unknown. Regardless, we must keep our ineffecient poorly designed bulbs in a stance for freedom! Because the public is smart and makes choices on their own accord that will better everyone. The public does not make choices based on money and convenience? No. They make choices based on whats best for their health and the environment.