Quote:
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.