Maggie's Farm

Several ways to look at this.
The 'new' bulbs may be slightly more energy efficient, and possibly even more cost efficient (I have yet to see studies that prove this). But they are also more dangerous for the environment.

The back end costs of dealing with the dangerous metals in these items is barely accounted for in the overall "cost" of these new lights.

As for the costs falling, that will happen when something reaches critical mass, but when you pay $1 for an incandescent bulb versus $3.50 for a flourescent, and the flourescent falls to $2 - you may feel like you've 'gained' when in fact you're still paying 100% more for your bulb.

The forceful shift from incandescent to flourescent/LED has yet to have any widespread and holistic studies on the efficacy of the move. It's not just a cost issue of purchase and use of energy. There are issues of waste removal, as well.

Were incandescents left as the standard, and the shift to flourescents done naturally, via market methods, I assure you the overall costs would have been much, much lower. You may ask "why?" and the answer is easy. Taxes.

How much more did we pay for the legal costs of the laws which enforced this shift? How much did we pay for subsidies and/or breaks to business to adopt these? How much in deadweight losses to politicians and bureaucrats?

Those are all costs which go unnoticed and unrecorded.

LEDs do harm the environment less. But they don't save as much as you think.

http://www.cnet.com/how-to/five-things-to-consider-before-buying-led-bulbs/

Then there are taste considerations. LEDs are starting to provide lighting that is less harsh, but it's taking time.

Either way, none of this has factored in the cost of governance which I pointed out.

For many people, and you'll use all your "but this" and "but that" logic....a 5X difference is very expensive. I have 10 lights in my basement. If I need to change them, the amortized cost of spending $10 today versus $50, to save $176 over the LIFE (which may be upwards of 5 years) of a bulb is a secondary consideration when I have $100 in my pocket but I've already budgeted for the year.

This is the typical response to anything like this - "You'll save 20X over the lifetime if you spend 10X today". Except that having 10X today isn't always easy to do, nor does it account for many other things which come into play (breakage, overuse, etc.)

Standard accounting (which I'm familiar with as it's part of my job) would imply that buying LEDs at all time is the 'better' choice. Except it's not. As I pointed out in my follow up, I have yet to see any real savings. Mainly because the savings on a monthly basis are infinitesimal. Over the course of 5 years I might notice something. But most people aren't willing to wait that long.

It also ignores taste. Many people find LEDs too harsh (I have them at work and rarely turn them on).

Again, you're just smug. I'll tell you what - go visit my sister's family and tell her how to live her life on her budget. You're smart, or you claim to be.

It's never that simple, Dick. The cost of a bulb increasing 5X is significant, even if you're buying 1 or 2.

I paid for 3 today to replace some in my living room and have 1 extra. Thanks for nothing.

For many people, and you'll use all your "but this" and "but that" logic....a 5X difference is very expensive. I have 10 lights in my basement. If I need to change them, the amortized cost of spending $10 today versus $50, to save $176 over the LIFE (which may be upwards of 5 years) of a bulb is a secondary consideration when I have $100 in my pocket but I've already budgeted for the year.

This is the typical response to anything like this - "You'll save 20X over the lifetime if you spend 10X today". Except that having 10X today isn't always easy to do, nor does it account for many other things which come into play (breakage, overuse, etc.)

Standard accounting (which I'm familiar with as it's part of my job) would imply that buying LEDs at all time is the 'better' choice. Except it's not. As I pointed out in my follow up, I have yet to see any real savings. Mainly because the savings on a monthly basis are infinitesimal. Over the course of 5 years I might notice something. But most people aren't willing to wait that long.

It also ignores taste. Many people find LEDs too harsh (I have them at work and rarely turn them on).

I know I'm likely to embroil myself in a long trolling expedition from the king of trolls himself (or themselves as Zach loves to address himself as the royal WE), but here's a question to Zach:

Let's just assume, for the purposes of discussion, that LED or flourescents have clear advantages over incandescent bulbs both economically and environmentally.

Let's also say, for the purposes of discussion, that this information is well known and publicized.

Now, if this was the case, do you believe that people would absolutely stick with incandescent bulbs? It's my belief - and with history on my side given how the conservation movement and markets tend to work - that most people would naturally make the switch and all the government work which led to where we are now would have been unnecessary.

Now let's just say that people didn't switch. For whatever reason, people decided it's better to just use the same old, same old, pay more and not worry about the environmental gains. It's a bizarre thought without any good examples, but let's just say it happens.

Do you feel that at this stage, it's important for government to force people to use these and spend money to pass laws, offer subsidies, provide marketing - all to explain to people something they already know but just don't want?

See, part of the issue here is that NONE of this happened - the evidence is far from clear on bulbs that they are more cost efficient and (in some cases) 'cleaner'. As a result, the switch did not just happen efficiently and naturally - probably because it's not exactly true.

The markets move when people know, or at least believe, something of value is available. Then they flock to it - for right or wrong.

I don't see the value which the government has provided with this switch. Since I used Quicken, I've been able to track what I spend money on. My electrical use is not down significantly with newer bulbs, and I've spent more on the bulbs themselves. I'm one of those guys who yells at his kids to turn off the light, turn off the computer, shut the door, etc. My kids have left the home for college and we now have comparable months to look at our usage and determine if these bulbs actually make a difference.

If they do, I have yet to see it in a meaningful way.

Oh, I know all the tests show it. I know the studies proclaim it. I'm told I'm saving massive amounts on my bills. But a real look at it hasn't shown anything meaningful.

I know someone will say "maybe you're using it elsewhere". Nope. In fact, our 2nd refrigerator is on hiatus while the boys are gone (we will turn it on when they are back and feasting and need more food). Right now, the wife and I are home at night and weekends (sparsely) and like I said, I am strict about lights. Yet the comparable information is still just not there....

So yeah, I have real reason to wonder why I was forced to make the change.

Zach - as usual, you have altered the discussion to suit your altered state of mind. Stick to the point - have a legitimate discussion, rather than the one you want to have. Just once, I'd love to see you have a real response rather than saying something like "well, what you said is true, but that's not what I want to talk about so I'll make up my own story and then wait for you to respond so I can suck you into my hole of slime."

I didn't want to discuss what is happening in LED land. I'm posing a thought experiment - but clearly you lack thought.

So - I'll infer from what you wrote that your initial response is "Yes - if there are CLEAR advantages, then they will switch." That's all I wanted to hear. You're actually 100% incorrect about "Without government mandate, the market was too small to support the development." Fact is, virtually every market develops without government intervention - PCs, for example. Autos, for another. So the government mandate was not necessary. People like you just WANTED IT and WANTED TO FORCE IT on others.

I do not mean that democratic governments should have limited authority over economic matters. I mean should the government FORCE people to do something they DO NOT want to do? You have changed the language to suit your preference. This is not a "limited intervention" - it's a massive kill-off of a preferred industry to suit the desires of people like you who "know better" than everyone else.

The government mandate did NOT spur the development. It had been developed and would have continued to develop. I can cite thousands of examples of failed government mandates of a similar nature, around the world. The government, in focusing on lights of this nature, may well have prevented something better from coming along. It's happened many times before. More to the point - the government FORCED people to buy a light bulb they didn't necessarily want to buy.

Tesla has government assistance. But Elon Musk has often said he doesn't need it, but is stupid to not take it. Having it available doesn't mean it is necessary.

You confuse cause and effect. You also confuse coercion with choice because YOU choose to ignore the coercion because you feel you know better and what you know must be how others see things and live.

You are a classic Soviet.

You'll respond, but as I suspected you're nothing more than a rationalizing liar. You believe you know what's best for everyone, don't you?

Why don't you just start running people's lives for them, since that seems to be what you think is justified?

Rather than discuss how you've damaged the economic position of many people - you will sit there smugly and talk about how you've made life better for everyone, they just don't understand.

By the way - Audi would have discovered this with or without government assistance, because there is a market for it.

It's like the internet. It grew out of a public/private initiative, so Soviets like yourself justify its existence as "because of government intervention", ignoring that its real growth and expansion occurred due to....wait for it...unfettered markets.

I was using the internet in 1983, long before people (including myself) really knew what it was. However, I could at that time see the value of connected devices. If I could, without any meaningful computer experience, it's my estimation the millions of other coders who were out there DID see the opportunity. Why? Because guys like Gates, Jobs and Wozniak did what they did....which means the same thing would have occurred without the government. The fact the government happened to be there doesn't mean it played a meaningful role - even blind squirrels find a nut.

Now. Let's see you come to my house and review my bills and show me all the savings I was supposed to get but haven't quite yet realized....