What happened to the idea that capital economies drive innovation? And that these economies are driven primarily by consumer choice?
In 2012, go to your local hardware store to buy a standard incandescent light bulb. You won’t find a single one. The rule of law (passed by congress and signed by Bush in 2007) will dictate you buy one of those new-fangled spiral fluorescents. What’s wrong with that, you ask? Among other things:
- Less consumer choice (my #1 beef)
- The light is poorer in quality - as an amateur photographer, I hate the tone they give to people
- They don’t work with dimmers
- They contain mercury, and they can break – I have a daughter. The less of that stuff in my home, the better
That’s just the tip of the iceberg…
The intention of this law is energy conservation. In my opinion, it will backfire. In the long run, the good capitalists that make our light bulbs will have less capital pressure to innovate. Allow me to explain.
Which of the following options do you think would benefit consumers, and for that matter, the planet?
- The government tells you that there is not a choice. You have to buy a more expensive, poorer quality product
- You and the rest of the market place decide which light bulb manufacturers produce
By the latter, I mean allowing consumers to vote with their wallets. The buying public is ecologically conscious - there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the company that creates a better product for less (not an inferior one that costs more). With government intervention, there is no incentive to create green value. In fact, the manufacturers now have another “green” reason NOT to innovate!
This kind of green governance generally serves to stifle innovation and progress. It’s done with the best of intentions, and it feels good. In the long run, we all suffer.
If you’re not buying (or following) my argument, consider the Compact disc. Introduced to the public in the early 1980’s, it did not supplant the analog cassette until the early 1990’s. Why? Because it was not a practical alternative. CDs were double the cost of cassettes, and CD players were prohibitively expensive. Now how long do you think it would have taken for the cost of manufacturing CDs and their players to come down if Reagan signed a law banning analog cassettes in say, 1985? More than a decade, that’s for sure!
The government is assuming you’re too stupid to drive green commerce. They think that they can do a better job. If not for the government, you’d be using “bad for the planet light bulbs” through 2050. Since you’re incapable of exerting capital pressure on the manufacturers to create a better product, they come to our rescue.
So tell your friends - capitalism and environmentalism are not necessarily antagonists. Remember that consumers drive consumption, and the capitalists will make what we tell them to make!