Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] The (US) incandescent light bulb isn't dead | The Verge

Subject: Re: [OM] The (US) incandescent light bulb isn't dead | The Verge
From: Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 15:37:17 +0100
You missed my point. The idea that people should pay for the damage they cause 
to others, preferably through higher prices if the injured party can reach an 
agreement with the injuring party, or, more realistically, through taxes, was 
developed by those communist economists at the University of Chicago.

Cheers,
Nathan

On 4 Jan 2014, at 14:38, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> We couldn't possibly be further apart.  "socially desirable outcomes" 
> and "social cost" of energy are not concepts that I accept.  Not that 
> they don't exist.  I just have a problem with who defines it.  Is it 
> "socially desirable" to raise the cost of energy to the majority of the 
> world's poor who already can't afford it?
> 
> Besides, I think you missed the point of the link I provided below.  It 
> purports that the real reason for the lighting efficiency standards had 
> nothing to do with energy efficiency.  It was a ploy by lighting 
> manufacturers to ban the items that they found insufficiently profitable 
> because there was too much competition.  That's not a socially desirable 
> thing either.
> 
> Chuck Norcutt
> 
> 
> On 1/4/2014 12:01 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>> Consumer choice is good and will lead to the socially desirable
>> outcomes only if consumers face the correct prices. Since energy
>> prices (both electricity and gasoline) in the US are far below the
>> social cost, regulations such as these or the car fuel efficiency
>> standards are inevitable. It would be far better to raise energy
>> taxes significantly and let consumers choose, I agree. But there is
>> little political appetite for that, and so I support the second-best
>> solution.
>> 
>> Cheers, Nathan
>> 
>> On 4 Jan 2014, at 03:50, Chuck Norcutt
>> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> Maybe you should check the conservative's viewpoint... and it has
>>> nothing to do with being green or saving energy. :-)
>>> <http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2541430?slideout=1>
>>> 
>>> Chuck Norcutt
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> 
> 

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu

Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Image licensing: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
Blog: 
http://www.nathansmusings.eu/




-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz