government mandates can spur innovation

[RWebb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?hpw

[masraum]

pretty cool. I guess there was just no motivation to try to improve on the lightbulb before. Like no reason to make engines more efficient when gas was $1 a gallon.

[sammyg2]

When the government forces us to pay $6 for a 50 cent light bulb, then even a $5 bulb looks like a bargain.

There's a reason they didn't make a $5 incandescent bulb before. No one in their right mind would buy it.

Unless they can figure out a way to make this thing last a lot longer than the conventional bulbs do I'd suspect it will never pay for itself simply by energy savings.

Hey, maybe we can get the taxpayers to give em a subsidy to make it more affordable. The taxpayers will go along with it, there are allot of very gullible suckers out there when it comes to expensive crap with a geen label.

[pwd72s]

It was computerization that made the auto less polluting....my thinking is that would have happened without government intervention. So, I'd say "innovation" happens despite government mandates, not because of them.

[RWebb]

well, you'd be wrong or almost wrong

innovation will happen at some level, no matter what

but there is a very long history of increased innovation driven by govt. actions:
- NACA, NASA and all it has spawned
- all sorts of military technologies - not just here but in ancient China and in between
- clean air and clean water acts - see "technology forcing"
- etc.

[jluetjen]

Originally Posted by RWebb

well, you'd be wrong or almost wrong

innovation will happen at some level, no matter what

but there is a very long history of increased innovation driven by govt. actions:
- NACA, NASA and all it has spawned
- all sorts of military technologies - not just here but in ancient China and in between
- clean air and clean water acts - see "technology forcing"
- etc.

NACA and NASA are really different forms of "military" technology. Sure government actions related to military Purchases have spurred innovation, but that's because there really aren't any other domestic customers for military technology. And of course there is always technology cross-over, so military technology has spurred non-military innovation (Tang anyone?), but by the same token non-military technologies (civilian automotive manufacturing technology) has spurred military technologies (thousands and thousands of tanks and planes in WWII).

It's not clear to me how you can directly link government action to increased innovation. Or are you suggesting that Al Gore really did invent the internet???

[jyl]

Why would computerization cause any auto OEM to include a catalytic converter in the exhaust? That is one example.

It was computerization that made the auto less polluting....my thinking is that would have happened without government intervention. So, I'd say "innovation" happens despite government mandates, not because of them.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

...Sure government actions related to military Purchases have spurred innovation...yada, yada, yada...but by the same token non-military technologies has spurred military technologies...

OK. I guess you're really just agreeing with the OP, just with limited vigor.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

It was computerization that made the auto less polluting....my thinking is that would have happened without government intervention. So, I'd say "innovation" happens despite government mandates, not because of them.

Yeah, but someone makes the valid point that a catalytic convertor is not something you would put on if you were solely interested in efficiency. I believe a modern fuel injected engine would burn pretty clean even without a cat.

I have always been opposed to the CFL, now mandated in California, because that Hg is nasty stuff. Used to be that if you broke a light bulb you worried about the broken glass.

Sorry Randy, not impressed, how long do these $5 bulbs last again?

[pwd72s]

This isn't stopping me from laying in a huge supply of incandescent bulbs before the ban begins. Cindy claims flickering fluorescents can trigger her migraines...

[red-beard]

I run a mix of CFL and std bulbs. I've changed all of the outdoor bulbs to CFL. They seem fine. Better than the 4 foot tube units.

[jyl]

The mercury in a CFL is no big hazard. Most of it is contained in the tube even if broken. A very small amount dissipates in the air, but presumably you're not putting your face to the floor and inhaling deeply. Yes, they've actually done tests of this.

If you're worried about the environment, I've read some comparisons of that mercury versus the mercury released by the coal-burning power plant to power the incandescent. Its more or less a wash, and of course the CFL's mercury can be recycled.

I have mostly CFLs, with a few regular incandescents and some halogens. I've been overall happy with the CFLs, indoors and out. I can't see any flicker with the CFLs - they are not like the old crappy tubes at all.

However, some cheap "dimmable" CFLs I tried - they were junk. So the bulbs on dimmers remain non-CFL. Eventually, when they either make a decent dimmable CFL or when LEDs become affordable, I'll switch those out too.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Tobra

I believe a modern fuel injected engine would burn pretty clean even without a cat.

My 944 race car will pass the emmissions test with no cat.

[lendaddy]

Of course government mandates can stimulate innovation, any pressure to evolve leads to eventual evolution. The problem is that it's highly ineffective when compared to a truly powerful motivator like market draw.

[jluetjen]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

OK. I guess you're really just agreeing with the OP, just with limited vigor.

Hi Jim, I'm agreeing with it to the degree that it is most likely 50% right and 50% wrong. As such I strongly disagree that you can draw any conclusions from it, which is what the OP is doing. Or did I mess the green in your post?

The other point made in the original link is that because of government intervention the incandescent bulb is developing in new ways to become more efficient. That really does sound to me like Al Gore taking credit for the internet. At a micro level, there was a change in the market caused by the government, and then the free-market bulb companies responded with new innovations to try to save their market share. But from a macro perspective, the governments intervention favoring Florescent bulbs may in fact be mis-guided and causing unearned benefits to the florescent bulb companies and distorting the markets. The end result is more expensive lighting for the consumer and industrial lighting markets. To put it differently because of the government's intervention we're having to spend more money on bulbs (not to mention in higher taxes) because the government is trying to save us money spent on electricity. I don't need that sort of help!

If things had just been left alone (thus saving millions in taxpayer $'s being paid to the regulators, legislators and specifically the beltway bandits who wrote the laws) I'm pretty sure that the incandescent bulb companies would have still innovated in order to save their market share if the florescent bulb industry was really taking a lead. But that would have been sorted out by the individual consumers making individually optimized decisions rather then the government picking who is going to have an advantage.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Of course government mandates can stimulate innovation, any pressure to evolve leads to eventual evolution. The problem is that it's highly ineffective when compared to a truly powerful motivator like market draw.

Agreed - but remember there is both push and pull of govt. re innovation.

i.e. grants targeted to certain areas (human genome project), military R&D, space pgm etc.

vs. std. setting, requirement of a certain cap on pollution, etc.

re CFLs - I am not ahuge fan but mix a few into fixtures that are used a lot. I am hoping for LEDs...

[RWebb]

"governments intervention favoring Florescent bulbs"

whoa padnuh!

It is the government's intervention favoring higher efficiency bulbs, not fl. bulbs. You are conflating std. setting with a particular product class. ... just like with DOT headlights/sealed beams a couple of decades ago.

[legion]

What about all the innovation that government intervention has stifled?

[Hugh R]

I agree to a point, take emissions standards, they got us cars that now go 100,000 without a tuneup, where when the Clean Air Act was passed, cars needed tuneups every 5-10K miles. They also put out about 100x the tail pipe emissions. CAFE standards pushed technology too. Tort lawyers also contributed, think about air compressors from the 50's and 60's, plenty of moving parts to tear your hand off.

[sammyg2]

NASA has an annual budget of $17.6 billion.

That's a big old pile of money. Year after year.
Yes they end up developing new technology but the cost to do so is astronomical (pun).
The inneficiency, the incredible cost, the huge waste, it all boils down to corporate welfare.
To suggest we are getting our money's worth through technological developments is bull.

It's government spending money to create jobs.
Reducing red tape, making it easier to run a business, those things would do more to create jobs and develop technology than throwing money at screwed up programs.

Making new laws and regulations to try and advance technology is a fool's game.
Why spend a $billion on something when a $million would get the same result?