Good grief California

[skeeve]

It very easily could have the effect I spoke of. By banning the least expensive televisions, the government is effectively raising prices on this item until the market can cope with the change and provide legally acceptable televisions at current prices. Whenever the price on an item is raised, fewer people buy it.

I am not sure, but from what I understand (or misunderstand, perhaps) high-power consuming plasma TV are the more expensive model rather then the less. Power consumption is largely determined by the number of plasma elements: more elements more power consumption. So essentially it is not gonna affect low-priced segment, and it is definitely not affecting LCD TV.

 

[evil tendencies]

There is no energy crisis here. There never was. There is more than enough energy to power this state for a long time to come. Yes, I remember the rolling blackouts of 2001, but that was entirely manufactured by energy providers like Enron at the expense of Californian wallets. My wife and I were working with PG&E that summer, and I was rather close to the problem.

The ideologically-driven policies of deregulation that allowed those energy pirates to soak us, and then not going after them (and our money) with any kind of vigor after the fact, were the reasons Gray Davis was voted out and Arnie was voted in during the 2003 special election.

I fail to see how lowering tax revenues from limiting the sale of luxury items is going to give the state more money, or encourage more investment in modern energy projects here. If anything, this is the same ideologically-driven policy making that led to the energy crisis in the first place - not a solution to it.

 

[daddyo]

pegazus, you guys have police helos? these guys around here can't even spell helochop, hulacopp, heliocrap, ah nuts they can't spell it! mississippi's economy is near or at the bottom of the heap (#48,49 or 50), so i wouldn't know what it's like to have a state with so much money. they throw away what little they have anyway. and televisions? we still have folks with 13-channel b&w's around here. you should have heard the howls of anguish when tv went digital!

the us constitution doesn't address a state's bankruptcy. the writers didn't foresee exactly how corrupt and stupid a body of people we can be.

yep, a bag of popcorn might be just the thing for the upcoming entertainment.

 

[evil tendencies]

yep, a bag of popcorn might be just the thing for the upcoming entertainment.

Sorry, I know you're joking, but calling what's coming next "entertainment" is a bit crass.

 

[Chrome]

@evil: Well, tragedy is a form of play as well, and that's entertainment.

 

[funnymouth]

i did use the term "energy crisis" in quotes, to denote my belief that it is a dubious assertion. we can produce the juice, but that doesn't mean we should. there are many reasons why we shouldnt, most notably economic and environmental.

im just a fan of efficiency. if you want to waste money on electricity, be my guest (although it is a fairly asinine thing to do). it becomes my business however, when public money is involved (such as T.V.s purchased with state funds). in that instance i believe legislation is appropriate to force compliance. aside from that, it is a good idea. it has virtually no negative impact, and it will save money for T.V. consumers, and will promote development of more efficient technologies which will be used globally. with global energy consumption growing as fast as it is, efficiency should be a priority for everyone - it benefits the individual, and the whole. why waste when it benefits no one, and harms everyone.

global energy consumption

 

[PegaZus]

it has virtually no negative impact, and it will save money for T.V. consumers, and will promote development of more efficient technologies which will be used globally. with global energy consumption growing as fast as it is, efficiency should be a priority for everyone - it benefits the individual, and the whole. why waste when it benefits no one, and harms everyone.

Well, "no negative impact" is debatable. If the manufacturers decide to NOT invest R&D to comply with California and focus on the consumer desires from other areas, the number of TVs available in CA will drop. Consumers may see nothing they like in the stores, sales tax revenue would drop, and consumers would hold on to their old less efficient TV negating any energy savings. Or, CA TVs could see a price increase because of the R&D costs to make them more efficient, with a similar result as consumers hold on to their older TV.

I really dislike the government trying to dictate what the market should be rather than letting consumers decide they want more energy efficiency.

 

[evil tendencies]

it becomes my business however, when public money is involved (such as T.V.s purchased with state funds).

I have to concede this point - if you accept public money, you have to act in accordance with the wishes of the people giving it. But who is buying televisions with public money? I'd love to get in on that deal...