I'm telling you, I really think you aren't using the same definition of free markets as the people making policy. I really think you are lending credence to those people, when they don't deserve your credit. Yes, duh, everyone wants markets with low barriers, lots of competition, well-informed consumers, etc. But that isn't what a free market is; a free market is a market without taxes and regulations. Only a few people want free markets, and it doesn't sound like you are one of them. In order to advocate for the market that it sounds like you want, you will need to dispense with the "free market" label, and support or oppose regulations on a case-by-case basis.
Yeah, bro. This country didn't start out with ideals against slavery. Slavery is right there, enshrined in the Constitution, for everyone to see. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, and all taxes negate free markets. To say that we started out with anti-slavery ideals, or free market ideals, is nonsense.
Suffice it to say, I don't want to live in a world where a business can purposely and knowingly sell a product which kills me, to make a dollar, and then force my family into decades of torts to try to recover damages for the loss of my life. That would be, in my opinion (but apparently, somehow, not yours) BAD. I prefer to live in this world, where with regulations for how safe products need to be. If you prefer to live in Thunderdome, well I guess I think you are lying to protect an untenable political position, but hey maybe you're really honestly that crazy.
That still supports my point. You apparently only read the first sentence (which btw used to say exactly what I'm claiming: a free market has zero regulation) but you didn't read all the way through that first paragraph:
"Regulation which does not affect these specific properties can be in place without disqualifying the market as free under supply and demand."
Look, if you don't want a market with zero regulations, then you don't want a free market. If you want a market with even a small number of well-considered and carefully implemented regulations, then you want what is called an "unfree regulated market". Nearly (but not quite) everybody who actually considers this question, decides they do actually want unfree regulated markets. We should thus drop this religious devotion to "free markets" and instead decide what kind of unfree regulated market we want -- what regulations are good, and which are bad. Unfortunately, that kind of consideration can only be done by people who apply subtle thought, instead of platitudes like "regulations are bad".
Ah, man, you got me! Here's one list of places which have LED bulb rebates, and even though you are surrounded by rebates, you live in an island without one (on that page, anyway). You'd have to fall back onto rebates available to the general public, or wait for your company to introduce a program.
A free market is a market with zero regulations. It's the definition. If you don't support markets having zero regulations, as almost nobody actually does, then you don't support a free market, as almost nobody does, even though they say they do. There is an incredibly tiny number of people who would benefit from a market with zero regulations, and those people cleverly branded that concept as a "free market" because there are a bunch of people who will scream platitudes about anything with "free" in the name.
Regulations can be either good or bad, but there is no doubt that some regulations are good. Well regulated markets are good. Free markets are bad. Poorly regulated markets are bad.
No, it doesn't, thankfully. If it did, I would have to oppose liberty because liberty would be bad, which I would not want to do, because liberty is in fact not bad.
This country was founded on principles which inevitably lead to a free market.
No, it wasn't, thankfully; and if it were, don't you think it would have... you know... started out with a free market?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You need to go look up "free market". If you mean anything other than "a market with zero regulations", then listen, you are one of the people being fooled into promoting a policy that you don't actually support. An "unregulated market" is exactly, precisely the definition of a "free market", and yet most free-market proponents don't even understand that (imho). Please look deeper into what is being said by the people you listen to.
What free market? America has never been a country with zero market regulations -- never. In fact, for the first couple hundred years our entire tax base was levied on imports.
It seems to me that tmosley doesn't know what a free market is. That isn't surprising, today's proponents of free markets rely on people having no understanding of what a free market is, and simply having a knee-jerk attraction to anything with "free" in it.
Look it up. You might blow your own mind. "ZERO market regulations!? Who would want that?!" An incredibly tiny minority of industrialists would want that, tmosley. It's the job of the rest of us to stop them.
Nope, I'm not. In the "past few years" the bulbs I've bought have been... mmm... satisfactory. I tried them at the turn of the century, though, and back then they were not nearly so good. Those early poor-quality bulbs put a bad stigma on later bulbs, which have been better.
I'm willing to bet the $60 Philips lightbulb is a $22 lightbulb with $38 in "rebates" layered on
That is a safe bet, considering those are the facts as presented in the article, the facts about which we are having a conversation.
Rebates are not false savings (if you actually get the rebate). Rebates are real savings. They are money in your pocket you otherwise would not have.
If you want, I can also pull a fake anecdote out of my ass: "You can buy a green, eco-friendly XYC for $50,000,000 this year, or wait until next year when your power utility offers a trillion-dollar rebate, and the price has also dropped to $1."
Wow, considering your fake anecdote, and my fake anecdote, it sure sounds like people should buy the bulbs!
Sure, if there are ten-million-dollar subsidies available to whoever buys them, and that is the rules of the competition. Do you want to ask the same question with another absurd number? The answer will still be the same.
If you tell me who your power company is, I will attempt to show you that you are wrong about the rebates available to you. Before you answer too quickly, consider that many rebates are available from places other than your one power company. My CFL rebates, for instance, were from some company in Seattle, but I live in Wisconsin. Why? I don't know. Nevertheless, I still bet your power company has some kinds of programs, because I've never heard of one that doesn't. But you can show me my first, by telling me what company supplies your electricity, and I will do the leg work of googling "[company name] + rebate".
Yes. The money comes from somewhere: it comes from somewhere other than from you. No, you don't pay the full price of the bulb, you pay $22/60, plus maybe another ten cents, and the rest of society pays for the rest. Congratulations, you just benefited from a transfer program which society set up because society thinks the world is better with it, than without it. Society wants people like you to have a bit of their money, which is why we voted for leaders to give us such programs. If you don't want the money, that's okay too, you don't have to bother with the rebates.
I object when I hear people say that all market distortions are bad. No, they aren't Many market distortions are good. Some are bad. Obviously these are judgement calls, but to equate oil subsidies with LED subsidies is absurd and does a dis-service to everyone. It is culpably simplistic reasoning. (Let me be perfectly explicitly clear: it's still okay if you think this particular market distortion is bad, but it is not okay to thus conclude that all market distortions are bad.)
I'm glad you would buy the bulbs un-subsidized. Me too, probably. But that's not the question, the question is would other people buy them, large numbers of people. If the answer is yes, then perhaps no market distortion is necessary; but apparently the people who set it up thought the answer was no, and I tend to agree with them.
How long have you had it? My understanding is that many LED bulbs lose their coating-color over time. I wonder how these hold up?
I currently use mostly CFLs, but I'd much prefer LEDs because of the mercury in CFLs. I'd pay extra to avoid the mercury, both in my home and in the landfill. I hope humanity can get away from CFLs as soon as possible.
Agreed. If you are selling me a twenty-year light bulb, then you can give me an 18-year warranty on that.
Years ago I bought a bunch of CF bulbs which definitely definitely lasted a shorter time than traditional bulbs, despite claims of multiple times longer lifespan. I know that CF bulbs have now progressed, and get about the lifespan claimed, but it makes me a bit skeptical of new bulbs. Twenty years from now, if these things are still burning bright in households across America, then I will check my skepticism.
Okay. But the light bulb is heavily subsidized. I get rebates from my power company for a variety of things. I've gotten rebates on CF bulbs in the past. If rebates were part of the rules of the competition, then I don't really understand your objection.
I want free markets for my economy like I was a leprechaun for my President -- which is to say, even if one existed, which it doesn't, I still wouldn't want it.
Markets are good; free markets are bad, or would be if they were real.
The underlying premise of this article is that Microsoft, given the opportunity, would have built a device like the iPhone. I think that is preposterous. I think it is obvious that Microsoft would have completely fucked up the implementation, leading to another laughable product.
Why don't we? We don't because we've already heard enough jokes today. We don't because we accept evidence as a foundation for belief. We don't because we aren't lying when we claim to be doing science.
I can just hear the bobblyhead executives screaming "HOW DARE they help people watch our TV shows and COMMERCIALS? WE DON'T WANT more people to watch what we BROADCAST! If we wanted people to watch, WE WOULD MAKE IT EASY AND CONVENIENT! WE MAKE IT ANNOYING AND DIFFICULT FOR A REASON!"
There's little doubt that a child is better off vaccinated, and that the society is healthier if everyone is vaccinated. On the other hand, and we're probably talking past each other here, I'm extremely loathe to force parents to vaccinate children.
Indeed. It's a tough issue and those two sentences sum it up pretty well. I too would have serious reservations about forced inoculation, but so do I have serious reservations about the lack of it. It's hard.
I don't disagree with anything you said. You sound quite reasonable and thoughtful. (So, what the hell are you doing on the internet?)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm telling you, I really think you aren't using the same definition of free markets as the people making policy. I really think you are lending credence to those people, when they don't deserve your credit. Yes, duh, everyone wants markets with low barriers, lots of competition, well-informed consumers, etc. But that isn't what a free market is; a free market is a market without taxes and regulations. Only a few people want free markets, and it doesn't sound like you are one of them. In order to advocate for the market that it sounds like you want, you will need to dispense with the "free market" label, and support or oppose regulations on a case-by-case basis.
Yeah, bro. This country didn't start out with ideals against slavery. Slavery is right there, enshrined in the Constitution, for everyone to see. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, and all taxes negate free markets. To say that we started out with anti-slavery ideals, or free market ideals, is nonsense.
Suffice it to say, I don't want to live in a world where a business can purposely and knowingly sell a product which kills me, to make a dollar, and then force my family into decades of torts to try to recover damages for the loss of my life. That would be, in my opinion (but apparently, somehow, not yours) BAD. I prefer to live in this world, where with regulations for how safe products need to be. If you prefer to live in Thunderdome, well I guess I think you are lying to protect an untenable political position, but hey maybe you're really honestly that crazy.
You can have the last word if you like.
That still supports my point. You apparently only read the first sentence (which btw used to say exactly what I'm claiming: a free market has zero regulation) but you didn't read all the way through that first paragraph:
"Regulation which does not affect these specific properties can be in place without disqualifying the market as free under supply and demand."
Here's another definition (note the last word): A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.
Look, if you don't want a market with zero regulations, then you don't want a free market. If you want a market with even a small number of well-considered and carefully implemented regulations, then you want what is called an "unfree regulated market". Nearly (but not quite) everybody who actually considers this question, decides they do actually want unfree regulated markets. We should thus drop this religious devotion to "free markets" and instead decide what kind of unfree regulated market we want -- what regulations are good, and which are bad. Unfortunately, that kind of consideration can only be done by people who apply subtle thought, instead of platitudes like "regulations are bad".
Golly, sorry, instead of getting a rebate on LED bulbs, you have to settle for completely free CFL bulbs.
Ah, man, you got me! Here's one list of places which have LED bulb rebates, and even though you are surrounded by rebates, you live in an island without one (on that page, anyway). You'd have to fall back onto rebates available to the general public, or wait for your company to introduce a program.
A free market is a market with zero regulations. It's the definition. If you don't support markets having zero regulations, as almost nobody actually does, then you don't support a free market, as almost nobody does, even though they say they do. There is an incredibly tiny number of people who would benefit from a market with zero regulations, and those people cleverly branded that concept as a "free market" because there are a bunch of people who will scream platitudes about anything with "free" in the name.
Regulations can be either good or bad, but there is no doubt that some regulations are good. Well regulated markets are good. Free markets are bad. Poorly regulated markets are bad.
Liberty implies a free (as in libre) market
No, it doesn't, thankfully. If it did, I would have to oppose liberty because liberty would be bad, which I would not want to do, because liberty is in fact not bad.
This country was founded on principles which inevitably lead to a free market.
No, it wasn't, thankfully; and if it were, don't you think it would have... you know... started out with a free market?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You need to go look up "free market". If you mean anything other than "a market with zero regulations", then listen, you are one of the people being fooled into promoting a policy that you don't actually support. An "unregulated market" is exactly, precisely the definition of a "free market", and yet most free-market proponents don't even understand that (imho). Please look deeper into what is being said by the people you listen to.
What free market? America has never been a country with zero market regulations -- never. In fact, for the first couple hundred years our entire tax base was levied on imports.
It seems to me that tmosley doesn't know what a free market is. That isn't surprising, today's proponents of free markets rely on people having no understanding of what a free market is, and simply having a knee-jerk attraction to anything with "free" in it.
Look it up. You might blow your own mind. "ZERO market regulations!? Who would want that?!" An incredibly tiny minority of industrialists would want that, tmosley. It's the job of the rest of us to stop them.
Nope, I'm not. In the "past few years" the bulbs I've bought have been... mmm... satisfactory. I tried them at the turn of the century, though, and back then they were not nearly so good. Those early poor-quality bulbs put a bad stigma on later bulbs, which have been better.
Thanks. I've considered that exact bulb, and the recommendations here on Slashdot will probably cause me to try one.
I'm willing to bet the $60 Philips lightbulb is a $22 lightbulb with $38 in "rebates" layered on
That is a safe bet, considering those are the facts as presented in the article, the facts about which we are having a conversation.
Rebates are not false savings (if you actually get the rebate). Rebates are real savings. They are money in your pocket you otherwise would not have.
If you want, I can also pull a fake anecdote out of my ass: "You can buy a green, eco-friendly XYC for $50,000,000 this year, or wait until next year when your power utility offers a trillion-dollar rebate, and the price has also dropped to $1."
Wow, considering your fake anecdote, and my fake anecdote, it sure sounds like people should buy the bulbs!
Sure, if there are ten-million-dollar subsidies available to whoever buys them, and that is the rules of the competition. Do you want to ask the same question with another absurd number? The answer will still be the same.
If you tell me who your power company is, I will attempt to show you that you are wrong about the rebates available to you. Before you answer too quickly, consider that many rebates are available from places other than your one power company. My CFL rebates, for instance, were from some company in Seattle, but I live in Wisconsin. Why? I don't know. Nevertheless, I still bet your power company has some kinds of programs, because I've never heard of one that doesn't. But you can show me my first, by telling me what company supplies your electricity, and I will do the leg work of googling "[company name] + rebate".
This:
"I'm still paying the full price of the bulb"
means almost the exact opposite of this:
"that $60 cost has to come from *somewhere*"
Yes. The money comes from somewhere: it comes from somewhere other than from you. No, you don't pay the full price of the bulb, you pay $22/60, plus maybe another ten cents, and the rest of society pays for the rest. Congratulations, you just benefited from a transfer program which society set up because society thinks the world is better with it, than without it. Society wants people like you to have a bit of their money, which is why we voted for leaders to give us such programs. If you don't want the money, that's okay too, you don't have to bother with the rebates.
I object when I hear people say that all market distortions are bad. No, they aren't Many market distortions are good. Some are bad. Obviously these are judgement calls, but to equate oil subsidies with LED subsidies is absurd and does a dis-service to everyone. It is culpably simplistic reasoning. (Let me be perfectly explicitly clear: it's still okay if you think this particular market distortion is bad, but it is not okay to thus conclude that all market distortions are bad.)
I'm glad you would buy the bulbs un-subsidized. Me too, probably. But that's not the question, the question is would other people buy them, large numbers of people. If the answer is yes, then perhaps no market distortion is necessary; but apparently the people who set it up thought the answer was no, and I tend to agree with them.
How long have you had it? My understanding is that many LED bulbs lose their coating-color over time. I wonder how these hold up?
I currently use mostly CFLs, but I'd much prefer LEDs because of the mercury in CFLs. I'd pay extra to avoid the mercury, both in my home and in the landfill. I hope humanity can get away from CFLs as soon as possible.
Is the light color really okay? That's my main concern. I've often been underwhelmed with the spectrum offered.
Agreed. If you are selling me a twenty-year light bulb, then you can give me an 18-year warranty on that.
Years ago I bought a bunch of CF bulbs which definitely definitely lasted a shorter time than traditional bulbs, despite claims of multiple times longer lifespan. I know that CF bulbs have now progressed, and get about the lifespan claimed, but it makes me a bit skeptical of new bulbs. Twenty years from now, if these things are still burning bright in households across America, then I will check my skepticism.
Okay. But the light bulb is heavily subsidized. I get rebates from my power company for a variety of things. I've gotten rebates on CF bulbs in the past. If rebates were part of the rules of the competition, then I don't really understand your objection.
I want free markets for my economy like I was a leprechaun for my President -- which is to say, even if one existed, which it doesn't, I still wouldn't want it.
Markets are good; free markets are bad, or would be if they were real.
The underlying premise of this article is that Microsoft, given the opportunity, would have built a device like the iPhone. I think that is preposterous. I think it is obvious that Microsoft would have completely fucked up the implementation, leading to another laughable product.
Why don't we? We don't because we've already heard enough jokes today. We don't because we accept evidence as a foundation for belief. We don't because we aren't lying when we claim to be doing science.
I can just hear the bobblyhead executives screaming "HOW DARE they help people watch our TV shows and COMMERCIALS? WE DON'T WANT more people to watch what we BROADCAST! If we wanted people to watch, WE WOULD MAKE IT EASY AND CONVENIENT! WE MAKE IT ANNOYING AND DIFFICULT FOR A REASON!"
#headasplode
There's little doubt that a child is better off vaccinated, and that the society is healthier if everyone is vaccinated. On the other hand, and we're probably talking past each other here, I'm extremely loathe to force parents to vaccinate children.
Indeed. It's a tough issue and those two sentences sum it up pretty well. I too would have serious reservations about forced inoculation, but so do I have serious reservations about the lack of it. It's hard.
I don't disagree with anything you said. You sound quite reasonable and thoughtful. (So, what the hell are you doing on the internet?)
Have you ever heard that called "the arrogance of ignorance"? You can see it in these phrases:
"Doctors don't know what they are talking about. People need to make up their own mind."
"It is impossible to know how the universe began. I'm sure God did it."
"Nobody knows what is better for me, than me."
"Evolution can't be true because or ."
"The only way out of this crisis is the way I thought of."