Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The incandescent bulb is not the point. This is not a discussion about which is a better light bulb.
The point is how big business has used the regulatory power of big government to force the public to buy a more expensive-- and more profitable-- product that wasn't gaining the wide acceptance they had hoped for.
And to be clear it is not a conspiracy. It's what happens. If I observe that four gas stations were robbed in my area last month by four different crooks, I am not at all saying that they conspired to rob them. Robbing is just what crooks do.
Same thing here. This manipulation is what big business does nowadays because the regulatory power of government has become the most powerful force in the markets. They HAVE to do it, because this is how markets work these days.
Simply not true. No indication that the new business is more profitable than the old business. Classically written off factories making commodity devices are quite profitable cash cows. They will tend to decrease in volume every year but can still make very adequate returns.
It is why it took the electronic speedometer decades to overtake the mechanical one. Head to head it was never a contest. The electronic device wins on virtually all parameters including cost. But the big automakers have large and expensive facilities specialized to the production of speedometers. So until the old plant is amortized and maybe even past that point the electronic is not considered.
It is also likely that new players will enter the forum as the technology is changed. So there is no real assurance that any corporation has a lock on the new devices. And if you don't sell any it is hard to make more money than you used to...
Most regulatory actions have much activity behind them. But it is mainly a technician activity trying to make sure your employer does not get screwed. And technical types generally keep driving at a level playing field. Trying to make sure no one gets a large advantage in the process. And they are not in the least worried about trading low profit business for high profit. That never actually happens. If it is highly profitable and the subject of regulation you are guaranteed instant competition from day 1.
Most regulatory actions have much activity behind them. But it is mainly a technician activity trying to make sure your employer does not get screwed. And technical types generally keep driving at a level playing field. Trying to make sure no one gets a large advantage in the process. And they are not in the least worried about trading low profit business for high profit. That never actually happens. If it is highly profitable and the subject of regulation you are guaranteed instant competition from day 1.
My experience in my industry is quite different from what you describe. Unless you are personally involved in the regulatory process, you would not have a clear picture of how it works these days.
It is certainly never left to low level technicians. Legal counsel is always involved, and business managers lay out goals to improve competive positioning through changes in the proposed regulation. If you are on the technical side of your business you would not be involved in these activities. They are carried out in finance, product management, and legal.
That's just the way it works these days in every industry. There is so much regulation that is has totally screwed up the competitive landscape. They are just not free markets anymore, and to think they are in somewhat naive.
Sorry no time for that, but I see no reason why a company cant make them and I could then pay them money in return for the finished product.
Since the finished product harms no one, there should be no protestation on anyones part.
My experience in my industry is quite different from what you describe. Unless you are personally involved in the regulatory process, you would not have a clear picture of how it works these days.
It is certainly never left to low level technicians. Legal counsel is always involved, and business managers lay out goals to improve competive positioning through changes in the proposed regulation. If you are on the technical side of your business you would not be involved in these activities. They are carried out in finance, product management, and legal.
That's just the way it works these days in every industry. There is so much regulation that is has totally screwed up the competitive landscape. They are just not free markets anymore, and to think they are in somewhat naive.
Comeon...You can't even find an Mba or Lawyer who is competent in these discussions. The low level technicians have Phds...
I will certainly agree that their are decision makers who get involved in setting strategy. But they often have to be hand fed the information necessary to even understand the situation. And when it comes down to what it costs to increase the efficiency of an appliance by 15% would you really ask the financial department? The legal guy? It is even likely past the ken of the product planner.
You simply don't have enough real world experience. I know it is nice to think this is all simply the big corps maximizing profit...and there are lots of high level corp types who would like it to be that way...but that is not how it works in the real world.
I have been in a few thousand meetings on standards and regulation and suspect that there have been at most a hand full of lawyers in any of them. And they were almost always engineers on the side.
Its not about what I want, but rather lawmakers telling me what I need.
So you want incandescent light bulbs, but you want someone else to make them for you, sounds like a typical American to me. Maybe you can order your incandescent light bulbs from China.
Its not about what I want, but rather lawmakers telling me what I need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05
Exactly
Yeah I want a major car manufacturer to design a car without airbags, seat belts, air pollution standards and is unsafe at any speed. Ralph Nader and the liberals are responsible for the mess in Detroit. In the old days we used to run into trees and it was fun. Now you have to put up with airbags..Whats up with that?
yeah right, when they have to spend $200 to put bulbs into each of their sockets at home, vs having to spend 10 bucks instead, that is really saving them money.
The government did not mandate that people use CFLs. They mandated that "light bulbs" have a minimum energy efficiency. Most incandescents that meet the standard can not be economically produced. It is no different than mandates for fuel economy or safety standards in cars. You can drive your gas guzzling clunker till it won't run any more (or you can't find parts) and then you are going to have to replace it with a more modern, efficient vehicle unless you can find another gas guzzling clunker. You can keep your old bulbs till they burn out and when you replace them, you will need to use a more modern, efficient light bulb unless you can find more energy wasting bulbs somewhere. In both the cases of the auto and the bulb, we are all better off for the government energy standard. Change is inevitable. Live with it.
the government still has no authority to make those changes, and no right to force companies to meet that standard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
