https://www.aei.org/publication/quotation-of-the-day-ii-on-the-evils-of-communism/

This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person. Man must never be treated as means to the end of the state; but always as an end within himself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429588/mortgage-default-and-fannie-mae

Emphasis mine:

In lieu of the usual complex regulation larded with special-interest favoritism, here is a simple mortgage rule that could and probably should be adopted: No federally regulated financial institution shall make a mortgage loan without the borrower’s making a down payment of at least 20 percent derived from his own savings. Period, paragraph, next subject. Instead of doing that, we are sprinting flat-out in the opposite direction, with government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae rolling out a daft new mortgage proposal that would allow borrowers without enough income to qualify for a mortgage to count income that isn’t theirs on their mortgage application.

You're usually touching upon, but not feeling the entire issue whenever a public service is considered. Sure, it's kind of strange to tell us we can't have an incandescent bulb, but once a reliable design is found, can you really argue against a light that costs nearly nothing to run?

Do you complain because you can't disable the smog controls on your car in California?

There is always a problem in dealing with the masses: market forces are immediate. While we can see the obvious benefit of not turning every piece of waterfront property into concrete, that is what the market would produce if not resisted, and this resistance has to come from agents outside the market.

You have arguments about "high-speed" rail all over the country now, only because the wild popularity of the car led to developments which now obstruct logical rail routes.

In short, the market does not reward planning for the future. It sells candy at the door.

Are you SURE it costs "nearly nothing to run" ? Are you considering the sunk energy costs of a compact florescent, with rare earths that have a huge cost to mine and refine ? Shipping costs from China ?? Compared to a much simpler incandescent ? (which also produces heat, which is a much-desired side effect in many areas. . . .)

And it just costs LESS operating costs in electricity. And, if it doesn't meet the requirements, requiring warm-up to full performance, is that also not a cost ?

...can you really argue against a light that costs nearly nothing to run? ~ Posted by: Radwaste at January 25, 2016 7:57 AM

Is that really the government's decision to make for individuals.

The argument is not against the light bulb that costs nothing to run. The argument is against the government telling us we must use that one and cannot make our own choices.

It's an argument about personal liberty and not about light bulb efficiency.

If the CFLs and LEDs are so good, people will flock to them. The incandescent makers will have to respond with better light bulbs. In that way, we all win.

With the government mandating CFL/LEDs, the incentive for CFL/LED makers to improve their bulbs is minimal. So, that MIT-engineered incandescent bulb that is more efficient than CFL/LEDs does not benefit the public at large because no one can use it and the CFL/LED makers know that.

One word to summarize the efficiency of government mandated products and no competition: Trabant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

One word to summarize the efficiency of government mandated products and no competition: Trabant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Color me a bit skeptical on the MIT light bulbs. I suspect they will have a lot of the same problems that halogens have, with filaments not lasting very long, and conducting heat to the fixture through the bulb base. But we'll see.

"Do you complain because you can't disable the smog controls on your car in California?"

Back in the '70s, a whole lot of people did exactly that. They did it because the smog equipment made the engine run poorly and hurt fuel mileage. There were shops that offered package deals where, for a given price, they removed most of the smog equipment and re-tuned the engine to run without it. I remember all the problems my mom's '73 Monte Carlo had with dieseling, throttle lag, lack of torque, and overheating because of the smog systems and the changes made to the engine to accommodate them. People who were advocates of the smog stuff back then are pretty honest now about the fact that their long-term goal was to regulate the automobile out of existence, except for VIPs. They were thwarted by a disruptive technology -- the advent of microprocessor-controlled ignition and fuel injection. Recall that for a while, in the late '80s and early '90s, automakers were able to make "50-state" cars that met the California regulations without any additional equipment, a boon to both the manufacturers and the customers. This didn't happen because California backed off of its regs; it happened because the computer-controlled engine designs got so good that they could pass the California regs without doing anything special. But eventually the California regulators recovered from the blow and got some new regs passed so that the 50-state cars couldn't be sold in California anymore. Now we're back to special California versions for everything, which adds $2000-3000 to the price of a California-legal car and explains why a lot of drivers in California look for ways to buy and register their cars in Arizona.

Consider: how many people bother to get their catalytic converters replaced at the manufacturer's recommended interval? Other than people who live in states where they have to in order to meet regs, absolutely nobody. Why not? Because (1) it's very expensive, and (2) unless the converter is clogged, it has absolutely no impact on the car's performance. Other than the feeling of being a do-gooder, the owner gains nothing from replacing the converter.

Today, other than California cars, the bulk of the pollution control in automobiles comes from the computer control of the engine's operating parameters; the smog equipment is secondary. That benefits the consumer because that same computer control makes the engine more powerful, efficient and reliable. That's the way it works out most of the time; what's in the best interest of the individual usually also contributes to the public good. Yes, there is such a thing is market failure, but those can be dealt with on a case by case basis (and the failures often have a component of socialism to them, as in government-subsidized flood insurance contributing to over-development of hurricane-vulnerable shoreline property). The flip side is that a whole host of social ills result from the individual being either enticed or compelled by government to act against their own interest.

The problem is that the government is mandating a solution to a problem that is not a problem and is considering only one dimension of performance. To take another example, in the EU new rules forbid the sale of high performance vacuum cleaners. They are assuming that somehow such cleaners are "bad" because they use more electricity (per minute), but if you have allergies they are very very good. Also, weaker vacuums have to be used for longer to get the dust up, so probably use even more electricity.
The light bulb ban assumes that the only aspect of a light bulb that matters is electricity use, but color of the light, glare, how quickly it comes on, etc all also matter.
But even moreso, it takes away liberty.

Color me a bit skeptical on the MIT light bulbs. I suspect they will have a lot of the same problems that halogens have, with filaments not lasting very long, and conducting heat to the fixture through the bulb base. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 25, 2016 9:12 AM

Probably. If the product does not deliver what it's sellers promise or something people want, people will not buy it. If it does, they will.

But we'll see. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 25, 2016 9:12 AM

No we won't. Because you won't be allowed to buy it.

Also, weaker vacuums have to be used for longer to get the dust up, so probably use even more electricity.

Same thing with those water-efficient washing machines. It takes twice as long to wash smaller loads, so where's the savings in the long run?

Raddie argued that the "market does not reward planning for the future. It sells candy at the door." The same can be said for government regulation.

Government does not account for innovation or market demand. Malthus calculated how much food the world could grow at that time, how long it took to get to market then, and how many people were in the world and argued for population control.

We can now ship food around the world and have it arrive fresh anywhere. We have multiple growing seasons. We rotate crops to refresh the soil (or do so with chemicals).

Malthusian shortsightedness is endemic to government regulation. He saw a problem and one solution, his, and argued to force that solution on everyone.

"The argument is not against the light bulb that costs nothing to run. The argument is against the government telling us we must use that one and cannot make our own choices."

Well, you've missed the point.

The government tells you you cannot remove the smog controls on your car. Object?

Take a deep breath and tell me that's wrong.

And you simply cannot show that the market plans for long-term changes in population.

You want the candy. I get it. At the same time I recognize the total environmental costs (you should see the paperwork to replace any fluorescent tube at work!), do you recognize that the heat provided by incandescents must be removed by air conditioning for a great many people?

Have you even looked at the ceiling in WalMart? Target? McDonald's? Anywhere? Fluorescent lighting is already well supported.

Compact fluorescent lights are crap.

I've bought two of them and both had to be replaced less than one year later. So much for their long-lasting claim!

So, yea, like Amy, I've stocked up on other bulbs.

There wasn't enough profit on the old incandescents. So the bulb makers enlisted the professional greenies who fooled the chumps, not a tough proposition.
Remember when mercury was a hazardous material?
That was before we're putting it into our living room rug which, since it was the government's idea, must mean mercury is okay.
Hell, I'm so old I recall playing with the stuff by the glob in chemistry class.
But needs must when the devil drives.

The government tells you you cannot remove the smog controls on your car. Object? ~ Posted by: Radwaste at January 25, 2016 9:51 AM

You're comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about the government restricting the means to an end, not the end itself. Smog control is the end, catalytic converters are the means. Light is the end, bulbs are the means.

Consumers don't choose smog controls since the government mandates catalytic converters. If you want to talk about being unable to install an alternative to a catalytic converter, then you'd have made a comparable scenario.

Have you even looked at the ceiling in WalMart? Target? McDonald's? Anywhere? Fluorescent lighting is already well supported. ~ Posted by: Radwaste at January 25, 2016 9:51 AM

That fluorescent lighting is widespread has no relevance to objecting to the government restricting people from purchasing incandescent bulbs.

If people want fluorescent lighting in their houses, they can purchase it. Likewise, they should be able to purchase incandescent lighting. Or LED lighting. Or use candles. Or sit in the dark.

The debate is about government overreach, not lighting.

I'm glad the government is here to tell me what is best for me in my lighting choices. They obviously have researched every bit of this issue, and know that I would make nothing but foolish choices for me and my family, as you would have as well.
I hope they will help me in all the other hard decisions I have to make, such as who to marry, how many children to have, where to live, what occupation to pursue, what to have for dinner, and all the other decisions that I will make that will be ruinous for them and their "advisers" (campaign donors).

Or Milwaukee (IIRC) where they replaced the streetlights with LED's which was fine till they would up covered in ice and had to have heaters installed which had HIGHER energy costs than the incandescent lights that heated themselves. Or the environmental costs of using mercury laced CFL's which require hazmat response if broken (although I have yet to see any company or household actually do so.

The three biggest fallacies in Stateism;

1)Central authority can operate efficiently in all or most circumstances.

2)Central authority has all the information necessary to make a rational decision.

3)Central authority is unbiased.

None of the above are true in the vast majority of cases and in those few situations where they are true they do not remain true for long.

And you simply cannot show that the market plans for long-term changes in population. ~ Posted by: Radwaste at January 25, 2016 9:51 AM

I can and it does.

I've been involved in retail location analytics and demographics analysis for a major retailer. If a retailer sees an area is growing, that growth is taken into account in planning where to locate a store.

In fact, population changes play an important role in many aspects of business planning.

Just ask any company trying to crack the Chinese or Indian markets - because they're growing markets where the West is not.

Or ask any company trying to adjust to the changing demographics of the US market (and the resulting changes in product preferences and consumer tastes).

Government doesn't plan long-term either. And you're fooling yourself if you think it does.

We're getting hit in California with an additional drought fee. Why? Because the government encouraged (nay, mandated) lower water usage and now is struggling because it's not getting as much revenue from water usage. It did the same thing with gasoline, mandating lower usage and then raising gasoline taxes because revenue fell.

California is a classic example of poor planning by government. No new power plants have been build in at least 20 years and now the state is struggling to provide a consistent source of electricity for its growing population. Just ask Gray-out Davis.

Or try the federal government, which immediately spent every dime it collected in Social Security taxes and is now scrambling to find a way to cover the massive retirement wave it's about to experience.

"No we won't. Because you won't be allowed to buy it."

Good point. And it touches on another unfortunate aspect of government regulation -- the tendency to mandate specific solutions, rather than stating the problem and asking industry to solve it. I think this happens for two reasons: (1) bureaucrats who tend to assume that since they work for the government, they are the best and brightest and have superior decision-making skills compared to industry people; (2) the influence of cronies, who see regulation as a way of creating locked-in markets for their own products.

"No we won't. Because you won't be allowed to buy it."

Not true. The regs don't mandate a specific solution. They simply
require that given lumen level X consumes Y watts or less. If
this new MIT bulb meets the efficiency standard, there is no
government prohibition on selling or buying it.

However, I read the article. This new bulb may, in the future,
be capable of better efficiency than today's LED bulbs.

"Have you even looked at the ceiling in WalMart? Target? McDonald's? Anywhere? Fluorescent lighting is already well supported."

And did not require government coercion to get there. That is the key point you miss Rad. The free market almost always provides a better solution.

Amazing how you'll step around the failures of the market to claim that the market can plan ahead.

The first of you to note the market conserving resources for future generations to enjoy, let me know. Going to try mentioning customer enthusiasm for Prius and Insight? Well, there's a fine example to parallel the CFL bulb: low capacity, higher initial cost, higher environmental costs vs. the ordinary sedan. Done.

Meanwhile, take a deep breath. You in the LA basin flatly couldn't until the Feds said you can't run bare exhausts any more.

And, by the way - if Joe Blow wants to drive a Hummer everywhere he goes, it's his business since he can pay for it.

Right?

-----

"Light is the end, bulbs are the means."
No - you've left out, intentionally or otherwise, the true extent of the issue. Lighting with lower energy costs is the actual goal.

"That fluorescent lighting is widespread has no relevance to objecting to the government restricting people from purchasing incandescent bulbs."
What it does is counter the claim of increased environmental impact.

"And did not require government coercion to get there. That is the key point you miss Rad. The free market almost always provides a better solution."
Actually, the "free market" did NOT provide the current low/no Mercury design in the manufacture, distribution and handling of these lamps. Regulations were required to "tweak" that.

-----

Know what else you can't buy? Leaded gasoline in bulk. Used to be a big issue. "My valves will burn!" was the legitimate cry.
Not any more.

When production drives the costs down and the consumer's genuine and valid objection to color is addressed, this issue will vanish.

Actually, the "free market" did NOT provide the current low/no Mercury design in the manufacture, distribution and handling of these lamps. Regulations were required to "tweak" that. ~ Posted by: Radwaste at January 25, 2016 7:18 PM

You assume the manufacturers would not have "tweaked" that themselves to make a more salable product - especially as customers became more aware of mercury poisoning and moved their purchases to safer products.

Yes, the Prius and Insight. Perfect examples Rad. Unfortunately for you they are perfect examples of government encouragement of waste and environmental destruction. Any life cycle analysis of those cars will note the reduced use in fuel is more than offset by the increased cost and environmental damage of initial manufacture as well as battery lifespan issues.

Heaven save me from government experts. After a decade or so, we finally got a "high efficiency" toilet that you didn't need to flush twice, thus obviating any savings from good intentions combined with bad engineering.

Then we got the new high efficiency furnace, which replaced the simple, reliable pilot light with an expensive and failure prone electronic igniter. Of course it was not replaceable by the consumer, When your heat failed you got to freeze waiting for the repairman. Oh, that low tech pilot light also kept the heat exchanger from rusting.

Just wait. They aren't out of good intentions.

"When production drives the costs down..."

At which point government will pile on more regulation to keep the cost high. Reference what I said about the 50-state cars from the early '90s. You, Raddy (and of all people here, you should know better) make the mistake of thinking that the government knows what is best for you and is acting in your best interest. The government does not pile on cost-escalating regs because it's trying to save the environment or whatnot. The government piles on cost-escalating regs because it doesn't want you to have these things. Remember, the root motivation behind the automobile environmental and safety regs of the 1970s was not really to reduce pollution or to reduce collision deaths (although it somewhat did the former as a side effect). The root motivation was to price automobiles out of reach of the middle class. And it almost worked, until the disruptive technology of computerized engine control came along.

(In the early '70s, Toyota had an idea for an alternative to the catalytic converter called a thermal converter. It would not have required expensive platinum catalysts, and it did a better job of reducing CO and unburned hydrocarbons than the catalytic converters of the day. I forget the details, but this pissed off someone who was a big producer of platinum, and they convinced the EPA to re-write the NOx standards so that the thermal converter couldn't meet them. Toyota learned to go along to get along.)

I have a Popular Mechanics from the late 1960s where some leftist wrote about their vision of the ideal, centrally-planned city. A passage I remember from it said, "The average citizen will be outside of their own neighborhood only twice in their lives: when they are born in the hospital, and when their bodies are taken out of town for burial. Transportation will be reserved for VIPs; the average citizen has no need to travel." If you can control transportation, you can control everything.

Cousin Dave is referring to a thermal reactor. BMW used them a couple of years on their US spec. models. They worked but at temperatures that heated the outer stainless steel shell to a dull red color. The owners of these cars soon learned not to park their cars over flammable vegetation.

Catalytic converters also get hot enough to set dry grass on fire. If you read the owner's manual of your car, somewhere in the pages and pages of warning labels is one that tells you not to park on grass.

Another example of the sort of thing that I'm talking about is the notorious "5 MPH bumper" mandate from the early '70s. Some cars from the '60s have bumpers that don't amount to much and get damaged pretty easily in a low-speed bump. The government, with heavy backing from the insurance industry, levied a mandate that a car be able to take a 5 MPH bump in the front and back with no damage resulting. The government and the insurers spent a lot of money to socialize the idea that it would save car owners money, since no repairs would be required after a 5 MPH bump.

Well, guess what. The new cars with the mandated bumpers, in a 10 MPH bump, the car suffered more damage and needed more repairs than the older cars. Because the 5 MPH bumper mechanism had to be replaced along with whatever else. Repair costs, instead of going down, went up. The insurance industry then said, "Car repair costs are going up, so we have to raise rates." Shazam! Further: Chevy came up with a cheap and effective mechanism that they used on a few Corvettes. It involved forcing a pin through a die to absorb the impact energy. It worked and was far less expensive than the high-pressure shock absorber mechanisms that were being used on other cars. The only thing was, the pins and dies had to be replaced after a bump. "Not good enough", the government said. "You must do it the same way everyone else does." Out with the cheap and effective mechanism, in with the dodgy and expensive mechanism.