$50 light bulbs

Originally posted by whodey
You have the penchant for taking one piece of data and ignoring the rest of the world around you, just like an infant fixated on his mobile. I just love it when you ignore US jobs lost and simply focus on the evil Chinese who have turned to capitalism. How about the jobs lost in Winchester VA as the last GE incondescent light bulb factory closed down? No m ...[text shortened]... ht bulbs are preferable due to such factors as longevity and comparible price, then why the ban?

I've said my piece. I was using your posts as a foil in order to make some points to a wider audience comprised of minds capable of processing facts.

Originally posted by whodey
You have the penchant for taking one piece of data and ignoring the rest of the world around you, just like an infant fixated on his mobile. I just love it when you ignore US jobs lost and simply focus on the evil Chinese who have turned to capitalism. How about the jobs lost in Winchester VA as the last GE incondescent light bulb factory closed down? No mention of them? Hmmm.

So, I'm not "ignoring the rest of the world around [me]", as you suggest, and then ask: are Americans somehow more important than Chinese people, in terms of having jobs?

Originally posted by whodey
They will be replacing the incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs costing $50 a peice. Therefore, everyone will be running out to buy CFL bulbs, like the ones you mention.

Your not making any sense. Do you mean you will be forced to buy the LED bulbs? If so, then how will you buy CFLs instead? Or do you mean incandescents are being phased out? If so, everyone will buy CFLs so why are you even mentioning LEDs?

Seems to me you just wanted a headline or you wouldn't even have mentioned the LEDs.

Here in South Africa, we switched to CFLs several years ago when we had power shortages. You can still buy incandescents but most people buy CFLs because of the cost saving, the power saving for the country and because they don't need replacing so often (less trouble).
In fact, during the power shortage, they handed out free CFLs to replace the incandescents.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, the kicker here is that the government is banning something from use. Why? If Americans are willing to pay for the electricity, what business of it is theirs?

That is of course your real complaint. However, you are making the error of confusing your arguments. You cannot simultaneously demand freedom to buy what you like and argue based on overall benefits (such as mercury etc).
Either we should all get together and decide what is best and mandate it by government decree, or we should allow free choice. We could still discuss what is best, but the choice of what to buy would remain with the people.
What you cannot correctly do is say "government decree is OK but they have chosen wrong therefore government decree is wrong".

Originally posted by twhitehead
In fact, during the power shortage, they handed out free CFLs to replace the incandescents.

In fact they weren't free, you just paid for them in a bs round-a-bout way where your money got filtered through a bunch of guvamint buratcracies.

There's no rational reason to still buy incandescents since there are cheaper alternatives (taking into account the power cost and lifetime). I don't agree with the ban though. If people want to waste power they should be able to and they should be taxed accordingly.

Lets be careful here, whodey Although the United States is not phasing out incandescent light bulbs, it has set minimum efficiency standards for lighting which preclude most legacy incandescent designs; these minimum standards phase in between 2012 and 2014.

Other countries have banned them and Calif for one has restricted them.

Originally posted by badmoon
Lets be careful here, whodey Although the United States is not phasing out incandescent light bulbs, it has set minimum efficiency standards for lighting which preclude most legacy incandescent designs; these minimum standards phase in between 2012 and 2014.

Other countries have banned them and Calif for one has restricted them.

The US federal government has assumed the role as energy policeman. You are correct in that many other governments are doing the same. So the question begs, is this the role of government? What is next? After all, assuming the role of energy policeman has no bounds. They will tell you what cars you can drive and what houses you can sell and buy and what light bulbs you use and detergent in your washer is efficient enough to do the job etc.

I suppose all of there regulatory busy bodies must find "things to do", in order to justify their existence, so expect to continue to be micromanaged indefinately, all for the "good" of society, of course. In the interim, just don't try to do things like cross your local state border with an unmaked container of raw milk or there will be hell to pay via the feds!! In fact, is it still legal to criticize them like this? 😳

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your not making any sense. Do you mean you will be forced to buy the LED bulbs? If so, then how will you buy CFLs instead? Or do you mean incandescents are being phased out? If so, everyone will buy CFLs so why are you even mentioning LEDs?

Seems to me you just wanted a headline or you wouldn't even have mentioned the LEDs.

Here in South Africa, we ...[text shortened]... .
In fact, during the power shortage, they handed out free CFLs to replace the incandescents.

Did you try reading the articles? Do they make any sense whatsoever to you?

Originally posted by whodey
Did you try reading the articles? Do they make any sense whatsoever to you?

Claiming light bulbs are going to cost $50 any time soon does not make any sense unless one assumes hyperinflation.

Originally posted by whodey
The US federal government has assumed the role as energy policeman. You are correct in that many other governments are doing the same. So the question begs, is this the role of government? What is next? After all, assuming the role of energy policeman has no bounds. They will tell you what cars you can drive and what houses you can sell and buy and what light bulbs you use and detergent in your washer is efficient enough to do the job etc.

So you don't like the government telling you what to do? Is that really a good excuse for being so dishonest when trying to argue against it? Does such dishonesty really help your cause?
1. You started off with scare tactics: the government is going to force us to buy $50 light bulbs (a lie).
2. You then followed up with an argument that the CFL that are replacing incandescents are in some cases worse for the environment - but somehow thought that was an argument against government making decisions about what is good for everyone?
3. Now you pretend that all this government regulation is new and is going to suddenly escalate indefinitely into a police state.
By the end the thread we will all think your mad and that we'd rather have the government telling us what to do than to leave any important decisions in your hands.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you don't like the government telling you what to do? Is that really a good excuse for being so dishonest when trying to argue against it? Does such dishonesty really help your cause?
1. You started off with scare tactics: the government is going to force us to buy $50 light bulbs (a lie).
2. You then followed up with an argument that the CFL that ar have the government telling us what to do than to leave any important decisions in your hands.

The United States government was formed by first restricting the powers of government, not empowering them. The Founders had the strange notion that the less government the better.

So getting back to our collective salvation and security, there is no end to it. What if the government tells you that you can no longer live in your house because it costs too much money to heat and cool? What if they tell you that you can no longer drive your car because it burns too much fuel? What if they tell you that you can no longer smoke because it is a pollutant, which it is. Smoking does nothing but kill you and those around you so why is it not banned as well? In addition, it skyrockets ones medical expenses which society now has to pay for, so why is it still legal?

Freedom rarely disappears entirely overnight, rather, its a process. Welcome to the process.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you don't like the government telling you what to do? Is that really a good excuse for being so dishonest when trying to argue against it? Does such dishonesty really help your cause?

I have spoken to whodey in this manner several times in the past to no avail.

Originally posted by FMF
I have spoken to whodey in this manner several times in the past to no avail.

You could try banning me. :'(

Originally posted by whodey
Freedom rarely disappears entirely overnight, rather, its a process. Welcome to the process.

Be that as it may, whodey, but twhitehead is asking you if you think your dishonesty really helps your cause?