Consumers are too stupid to make good choices

[Hammerskjold]

Stocks were trading at 1000x earnings, with no possible way to become solvent in my lifetime. So, while I pity the people who were swindled and ended up with the worthless paper, it was their own fault as well.

I was thinking more about the employees (not investors) who were told by Enron it was ok and will continue to be ok, while the some of the thieves at the top were preparing to bail for themselves. Employees who had no part with the funny business.

Ah, yes, the CEO parachutes. Well, these days with the legal responsibilities of signing 10Q's and risking going to jail if they are wrong I can understand the six digit parachutes. You can give Madonna a billion dollars for singing "Like a Virgin", but you don't understand giving a CEO a few million for running a billion dollar company and employing 10,000 people?

I understand it alright thanks, but since you brought out the sports analogy. I agree in saying someone playing in the big leagues with big stakes, earns them the right to get the big pay. However that wasn't what I was talking about.

What I was talking about is what happens when a CEO screws up royally say out of stupid greed. A company worth a billion or so and employing 10,000 people, are exactly the reasons why I think serious legal responsibilities for these captains of industry, and the industry itself is a good idea. To me Enron is not just about accounting problems, it's also about an accountability problem.

If I get caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I don't expect ice cream for punishment. I'm not talking about a case where I accidentally knocked over the jar due to butterfingers. Both are damaging, but one is done with intent and to me, erodes more confidence in the system.

Look, I actually think enlightened greed can be a powerful motivator, and properly harnessed can be a good thing. Ultra greed that approaches supervillainy level on the other hand, is to me simply bad business, and bad policy. That goes for both the free market, and government IMO.


Anyway, my money is still on FOX for 'Ow My Balls', simply because I think FOX has comedy in it's blood, intended or not. Though E! would probably be the one that morphs into the 'Batin Network.

[eppie]

This may cause some kind of heart stoppage, but I actually agree with you. Tax credits are a much better way to regulate energy consumption than passing laws over lightbulbs. If person X uses half the energy of person Y, I don't really care how they did it, they deserve a credit for that.

-Jester

Your right about the lamps. However outside lamps, car lamps etc. need to be changed by leds.

About the credit? Maybe we should give money to africans....most villages use less energy than the average american, european or australian family.

And Kandrathe... most people are indeed to stupid to make good decisions themselves....sad but true.

I mean when we talk about energy consumption.....you should see how many people leave the front door open for hours in the middle of winter when they are talking to somebody (just a small example).

And the other 'funny' thing. Ever seen all those people without any relevant eduction and expertise that are sure that man-made CO2 emission don't have anything to do with global warming?

[kandrathe]

Your right about the lamps. However outside lamps, car lamps etc. need to be changed by leds.

About the credit? Maybe we should give money to africans....most villages use less energy than the average american, european or australian family.

And Kandrathe... most people are indeed to stupid to make good decisions themselves....sad but true.

I mean when we talk about energy consumption.....you should see how many people leave the front door open for hours in the middle of winter when they are talking to somebody (just a small example).

And the other 'funny' thing. Ever seen all those people without any relevant eduction and expertise that are sure that man-made CO2 emission don't have anything to do with global warming?

I hear that the human body produces the same heat as a 100 watt light bulb. Maybe there are too many bodies? Once you start making decisions for people, when do we subjectively decide the limits of how much freedom people should have? How much should we breathe, or at all? How are you going to regulate whether or not people open their front doors in the winter too long? And, your answer (as well as the other environmental neo-Luddites) is to return our societies back to primitive subsistence levels as is experienced in much of Africa (which will certainly help on the population side).

How much energy and material does it take to make an LED bulb? How much energy and materials does it take to make a CFL bulb? What is the pay back life of the bulb? Is it five years, ten years? If the bulb does not make it to its pay back life you just screwed the consumer out of his money and wasted more energy than if you had allowed him to use an incandescent bulb.

[eppie]

I hear that the human body produces the same heat as a 100 watt light bulb. Maybe there are too many bodies? Once you start making decisions for people, when do we subjectively decide the limits of how much freedom people should have? How much should we breathe, or at all? How are you going to regulate whether or not people open their front doors in the winter too long? And, your answer (as well as the other environmental neo-Luddites) is to return our societies back to primitive subsistence levels as is experienced in much of Africa (which will certainly help on the population side).

You do the same as you are blaming me for. You just put a line somewhere. I mean, why have a policeforce, why have traffic-rules, why have hygene regulations for restaurants etc.etc.
I think working for a better environment is a good thing, and if instead of having to implement all kinds of different schemes people would just think a bit and save energy that would be a lot better......but it doesn't work because people in general are stupid and egoistic. So or you 'just leave it' or you do something.

Of course it is not a right thing to check if people leave their doors open when they are heating the house, but people that in general behave antisocial in these ways should be denied their right to vote. <_<

How much energy and material does it take to make an LED bulb? How much energy and materials does it take to make a CFL bulb? What is the pay back life of the bulb? Is it five years, ten years? If the bulb does not make it to its pay back life you just screwed the consumer out of his money and wasted more energy than if you had allowed him to use an incandescent bulb.

The best will always be to careful with things you use. Keeping an old car 5 more years will indeed be better for the environment than buying every year the newest environmentally friendly car, just as the best is to change a lightbulb when it is broken and not because your government tells you to.
Just at a certain moment stop selling the incandescent ones and only sell the leds.

[Quark]

I hear that the human body produces the same heat as a 100 watt light bulb. Maybe there are too many bodies? Once you start making decisions for people, when do we subjectively decide the limits of how much freedom people should have? How much should we breathe, or at all? How are you going to regulate whether or not people open their front doors in the winter too long? And, your answer (as well as the other environmental neo-Luddites) is to return our societies back to primitive subsistence levels as is experienced in much of Africa (which will certainly help on the population side).

Ah yes, the infamous slippery slope argument. We don't need to argue against point A, just say that "OMG, we'll never be able to have rational thought and eventually point A will become point B and we're all doomed!"

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . Maybe there are too many bodies? . . .

Yes, by about 5 billion. The uncontrolled expansion of the human population is the root cause of almost all of the environmental problems. A reduction to a reasonable world population of under a billion could be achieved in a century if the growth rate were about -2%. A comparable rate already exists among the educated members of first world countries, most of which countries would have decreasing population were it not for immigration. So, not only is the population increasing, it is increasing exactly among the people and the regions least capable of providing for it.

Of course, this is too tough a nut for the politicians to handle, so when the resources run out, we'll reduce the world population the old fashioned way. We'll have a nice little war which, with the following plague, will wipe out all humanity and give a potentially intelligent species a chance. And, until then, we'll have weighty debates about what type of lamps to use and think we're addressing the issue.

--Pete

[Taem]

You do the same as you are blaming me for. You just put a line somewhere. I mean, why have a policeforce, why have traffic-rules, why have hygene regulations for restaurants etc.etc.
I think working for a better environment is a good thing, and if instead of having to implement all kinds of different schemes people would just think a bit and save energy that would be a lot better......but it doesn't work because people in general are stupid and egoistic. So or you 'just leave it' or you do something.

People are too stupid? I remember back when Al Gore was preaching global warming *way* before it became a mainstream concern, and Congress shunned him because the ideas he had to fix this "problem" were too costly and required too dramatic of a change, so what did Congress and the Bush administration, Senior and Jr., so about it? Deny and put out misinformation about how the whole global warming issue was untrue because they did not want the work to change, even thou they knew global warming was true. No, I think some things DO need to be regulated not because of stupidity, but because of greed, which seems to fit inline perfectly with the other point made in this thread about Enron.

[Pantalaimon]

Perhaps, but why does it keep burning? If they could figure this out, then perhaps a better, longer-lasting bulb could be made? I honestly have no idea about these things, but it seems logical to me.

Ahh, sorry if I was not clear.

From the Almighty God, Wikipedia,

For a supply voltage V,

* Light output is approximately proportional to V 3.4
* Power consumption is approximately proportional to V 1.6
* Lifetime is approximately inversely proportional to V 16
* Colour temperature is approximately proportional to V 0.42 [37]

This means that a 5% reduction in operating voltage will more than double the life of the bulb, at the expense of reducing its light output by about 20%. This may be a very acceptable trade off for a light bulb that is in a difficult-to-access location (for example, traffic lights or fixtures hung from high ceilings). So-called "long-life" bulbs are simply bulbs that take advantage of this trade off. Since the value of the electric power they consume is much more than the value of the lamp, general service lamps for illumination usually emphasize efficiency over long operating life; the objective is to minimize the cost of light, not the cost of lamps.

The relationships above are valid for only a few percent change of voltage around rated conditions, but they do indicate that a lamp operated at much lower than rated voltage could last for hundreds of times longer than at rated conditions, albeit with greatly reduced light output. The Centennial Light is a light bulb which is accepted by the Guinness Book of World Records as having been burning almost continuously at a fire station in Livermore, California since 1901.

Emphasis Mine. I usually hate to appeal to wiki, but in this case it seems to be fairly well written and accurate:)

[eppie]

Hi,
Yes, by about 5 billion. The uncontrolled expansion of the human population is the root cause of almost all of the environmental problems. A reduction to a reasonable world population of under a billion could be achieved in a century if the growth rate were about -2%. A comparable rate already exists among the educated members of first world countries, most of which countries would have decreasing population were it not for immigration. So, not only is the population increasing, it is increasing exactly among the people and the regions least capable of providing for it.

Of course, this is too tough a nut for the politicians to handle, so when the resources run out, we'll reduce the world population the old fashioned way. We'll have a nice little war which, with the following plague, will wipe out all humanity and give a potentially intelligent species a chance. And, until then, we'll have weighty debates about what type of lamps to use and think we're addressing the issue.

--Pete

Sadly you are right. Reducing population would be a common interest, but not many people act out of common interest but out of their own.

[kandrathe]

What I was talking about is what happens when a CEO screws up royally say out of stupid greed. A company worth a billion or so and employing 10,000 people, are exactly the reasons why I think serious legal responsibilities for these captains of industry, and the industry itself is a good idea. To me Enron is not just about accounting problems, it's also about an accountability problem.

If I get caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I don't expect ice cream for punishment. I'm not talking about a case where I accidentally knocked over the jar due to butterfingers. Both are damaging, but one is done with intent and to me, erodes more confidence in the system.

Arther Anderson went belly up due to the accounting fraud, and most of the top executives (Skilling, Fastow, Lay) were convicted and are serving time (except Lay because he died). It seems the legal system worked. I'm not sure you can have the government insure to remove all the risks of carnage to pensions, stock losses, and people temporarily unemployed. Risk is an inherent part of the reward that a capitalist system provides, to owners, investors, and even workers. There is always the risks that you are being lied to by an unscrupulous person, even when to do so is fraud and against the law. We mostly get justice, but seldom satisfaction.

[Hammerskjold]

Arther Anderson went belly up due to the accounting fraud, and most of the top executives (Skilling, Fastow, Lay) were convicted and are serving time (except Lay because he died). It seems the legal system worked.

The system 'worked' in my opinion and memory, because of the scale and the media scrutiny involved. IIRC, there was shenanigans before it, but Enron sparked off an anger among people at that time. Even the government is smart enough to know if the public thinks Fastow and co. is let off with a slap on the wrist, the anger at Enron can turn to them instead.

I'm not sure you can have the government insure to remove all the risks of carnage to pensions, stock losses, and people temporarily unemployed. Risk is an inherent part of the reward that a capitalist system provides, to owners, investors, and even workers. There is always the risks that you are being lied to by an unscrupulous person, even when to do so is fraud and against the law. We mostly get justice, but seldom satisfaction.

Not what I'm talking about. I never said anything about eliminating all risks. There's risks that comes with the territory, and then there's stupid risk like 'profit at all costs' supergreed that to me, undermines confidence in the free-market capitalist system. In my opinion that kind of shenanigans can do far more damage to that system than any of the eeyviil socialist schemes.

To be clear, I'm not saying this because I'm some sort of Elliot Ness of corporate justice. I am saying this because whenever I see these types of scandal, IMO they siderail wealth creation by bringing too much instability and distrust.

[kandrathe]

To be clear, I'm not saying this because I'm some sort of Elliot Ness of corporate justice. I am saying this because whenever I see these types of scandal, IMO they siderail wealth creation by bringing too much instability and distrust.

I guess I see it as a part of the natural selection of the corporate world. There was a definite bubble created by certain accounting frauds that siphoned off losses to hidden subsidiaries, while expressing all the profits in Enron. This same practice was also uncovered (because of AA's involvement) at Worldcom. These two pin pricks deflated the hyper exuberant stock market of the late 90's, and for those people who know when to leave the party before the paddy wagon arrives it was kinda fun. For all the people who stayed invested after fall 2001, it was a huge sucking sound. Your use of the term greed or hyper-greed is confusing, seems judgmental and sounds pejorative, and since this was a case of outright fraud akin to them selling you shares in the Brooklyn Bridge, or offering 10 people 40% interest in a company, it seems a mismatch to me. Also, the way you describe this event makes it seem that other fraud has been frequently perpetrated and escaped prosecution.

[kandrathe]

Ah yes, the infamous slippery slope argument. We don't need to argue against point A, just say that "OMG, we'll never be able to have rational thought and eventually point A will become point B and we're all doomed!"

Ok, but how will you keep the stupid Netherlanders from opening their doors too long in the winter months? As Eppie said, people are too stupid to think for themselves so the government needs to be in control of our lives. How much of our lives? Just the parts where we need to make consumer decisions? We might as well embrace our new Soviet styled State and let the government choose the best way we can be productive for the society, and on our hour walk home to our block apartments from our State run factory jobs we can stand in line to buy our government sanctioned light bulbs. Unless you happen to be one of the corrupt government officials, like say Al Gore, whose mansion consumes energy at 20 times that of a normal house.

[kandrathe]

People are too stupid? I remember back when Al Gore was preaching global warming *way* before it became a mainstream concern, and Congress shunned him because the ideas he had to fix this "problem" were too costly and required too dramatic of a change, so what did Congress and the Bush administration, Senior and Jr., so about it?

"In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying any treaty negotiated at Kyoto that (1) did not also set emissions limits on developing countries; and (2) that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Yet when the Kyoto negotiations faltered, Al Gore as leader of the American delegation agreed to a treaty that did exactly that. President Clinton therefore declined to send the Treaty to the Senate for ratification in the sure knowledge that it would be defeated heavily, damaging the reputation of both him and his Vice-President."

No, I think some things DO need to be regulated not because of stupidity, but because of greed, which seems to fit inline perfectly with the other point made in this thread about Enron.

I'll repeat. Enron was not greed, it was fraud, a lie, total hogwash, and a scam. What they did was always illegal, which is why new laws did not need to be made to convict them. They did inspire the government to require that Corporate officers sign their 10Q's and submit them to the government for scrutiny, adding another oversight department to government.

"Men hate the individual whom they call avaricious only because nothing can be gained from him." - Voltaire

[kandrathe]

You do the same as you are blaming me for. You just put a line somewhere. I mean, why have a police force, why have traffic-rules, why have hygiene regulations for restaurants etc.etc. I think working for a better environment is a good thing, and if instead of having to implement all kinds of different schemes people would just think a bit and save energy that would be a lot better......but it doesn't work because people in general are stupid and egoistic. So or you 'just leave it' or you do something.

I think working for a better environment is a good thing as well. I was taught conservation and the love of nature from an early age. I just don't want Al Gore as my scientific source, nor do I want the government controlling my resource consumption or my purchasing decisions. I don't have a police force citing me for using too much water on my lawn... yet. We used to have to go in and get our cars inspected for emissions every so often here, but they stopped it because it was a colossal waste of time and money. The cars of all the citizens who were forced to get checked wasted more gas and polluted more waiting in line to be inspected than was ever corrected by repairs. I guess this is my overwhelming distrust of what government can do with good intentions. This is the very definition of "Nanny State".

Here is my ad hoc environmental quiz;

Which is worse, your neighbor leaving his door open for 5 minutes increasing his own energy bill, or me deciding to buy a plane ticket to Amsterdam to enjoy the Van Gogh museum?

Which is the greener fuel for automobiles, gasoline, ethanol, or hydrogen?

How much mercury is in a CFL, and if one breaks how much over the standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter would be your contamination?

[eppie]

I think working for a better environment is a good thing as well. I was taught conservation and the love of nature from an early age. I just don't want Al Gore as my scientific source, nor do I want the government controlling my resource consumption or my purchasing decisions. I don't have a police force citing me for using too much water on my lawn... yet. We used to have to go in and get our cars inspected for emissions every so often here, but they stopped it because it was a colossal waste of time and money. The cars of all the citizens who were forced to get checked wasted more gas and polluted more waiting in line to be inspected than was ever corrected by repairs. I guess this is my overwhelming distrust of what government can do with good intentions. This is the very definition of "Nanny State".

Here is my ad hoc environmental quiz;

Which is worse, your neighbor leaving his door open for 5 minutes increasing his own energy bill, or me deciding to buy a plane ticket to Amsterdam to enjoy the Van Gogh museum?

Which is the greener fuel for automobiles, gasoline, ethanol, or hydrogen?

How much mercury is in a CFL, and if one breaks how much over the standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter would be your contamination?

Your point now is that in principle environmental measures are good as long as they really make sense. And of course your completely right. Too often environmental policy is made that is actually worse for the environment than the previous policy. So let's use our energy to discuss about that and not to discuss about if we want the government to regulate.

(in Holland a few local politicians had to go to London for a visit to see how some environment scheme worked over there...because of policy they had to travel by train....spending 3 times the time and travel distance than if they would have gone by train....the wrongfully believe (and a lot of people do) that plane is bad and train is good.....while of course the distance traveled is still the most important factor for emission and not the vehicle...................this of course does not mean that working on lower fuel consumption in vehicle isn't a good thing)

[Hammerskjold]

Your use of the term greed or hyper-greed is confusing, seems judgmental and sounds pejorative, and since this was a case of outright fraud akin to them selling you shares in the Brooklyn Bridge, or offering 10 people 40% interest in a company, it seems a mismatch to me.

So the term super greed seems confusing, judgemental, and pejorative to you, and you insist that fraud is what happened. Ok, I'll grant you that fraud is the 'what'. But do you really blanch at the 'why'? What else would you call it? Fastow and Skilling and Lay did it as an economic experiment?

Funny how when the big shocks started to happen, they seemed to either contract sudden amnesia, or insist that any numbers fudging did not happen while they were at office, or somehow it wasn't in their department or responsibilities. After all, they're merely execs, no different than any other employees really. Strange that sudden shift of titles from Captains, to simple deck hands when the iceberg hit.

Super-greed to me, gives enlightened greed and business a bad name. If you feel that is an offensive term, and can't or won't see the difference between the two, I'll try to present it to you in another way. If you still think I'm disparaging enlightened greed or have an axe to grind against those evil kapitalist, then I guess we just have to part ways on this subject. In any case, I'll make this my last 2 inflated cents. (If I can bottle the energy generated by this thread, I can light my house for 2 months straight.)

You mentioned a party, so let's try that. I got no beef against parties, I like fun, throw in some good chow and your choice of spirits, music, some nice girls, good times right. I've even held a few in my property, and I'll defend anyone's right to party, or even to partay. If nothing else for variety, it'd be boring if my party is the only one happening. I try to keep the noise down after a certain hours, not because I am such a nice altruistic guy. But because I don't want them to have any reason to complain the next time I hold a party.

But when someone in my neighbourhood decides to throw one that goes on full volume to 5 in the morning, leaves garbage like beer bottles, cans, and condoms on other people's yard, turn a 2 lane street into a barely one way lane due to parking, and continues to do this soiree on a regular basis. And when someone tries to say something, the party animal just says are you against fun or something, we're not hurting anyone leave us alone we just want to party.

I'm now pissed because this a-hole is not only having his 'fun' at the expense of other's, but he's bringing down the heat for people who can party responsibly.

Let's say after a while this crap is no longer tolerated, triggered by of all things, the a-hole selling tickets to a beer bash and overselling it. And the authorities finally comes in and shuts down the place. I still have to convince some of my friends that my parties are not like that a-hole, that it's ok to come back. Except some won't because they still think parking will be bad like last time. And you can forget the ladies coming over, because they're still creeped out by the last time some of a-hole's drunken friends were hollering at them.

I won't be able to have a get together for a while anyway, because tensions and distrust is obviously still high. One long time neighbour had to move because he was implicated in covering for the party-animal. True or not, any previous good rep he had is moot by this point, the For Sale\Sold sign is already up.

Allegations of some authorities turning a blind eye before the final crackdown, because all those parking tickets are pretty lucrative. Some folks even claimed they saw a few of those authority figures partying with the a-hole. Some neighbours claims they saw other neighbours in the parties too, only ducking out before the sirens started to arrive. Rumor or truth, the damage is already done at this point. It will take some time before the bad rep of the whole neighbourhood dies down, and the good vibes can start again.

That's what super-greed is like to me. Now we can split hairs that it's actually noise bylaws, littering, illegal liquor sales and parking violations that is the problem. But to me the real problem is thinking that -no- rules possibly applies to me, I'm special! Meanwhile, people who can party responsibly gets the negative rep as well, simply due to proximity. That is what I mean by super greed giving enlightened greed a bad name.

Also, the way you describe this event makes it seem that other fraud has been frequently perpetrated and escaped prosecution.

I didn't mean it was all done specifically by Enron, I meant it in general. Enron Tyco Worldcom etc blowing up was iirc, the turning point for many folks who previously didn't think white collar crime was serious enough. Before that, jail time was mostly rare, and fines were more common if at all, from what I remembered.

Only time will tell if the lessons of Enron is truly learned and applied I guess. I'm kind of pessimistic about it, humans in general seems to have no problem in saying 'Never Again!', only to repeat it yet again. Focus seems to be thrown out to make room for novelty, and IMO that's pretty irresistable to the fickle side in our species. Hey look a squirrel!

http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/40/p...irrels_6059.jpg

[Quark]

Many things are stupid to regulate. Many things handle regulation quite gracefully. Just because you don't try to distinguish the difference between the two doesn't mean you can't.

[kandrathe]

Many things are stupid to regulate. Many things handle regulation quite gracefully. Just because you don't try to distinguish the difference between the two doesn't mean you can't.

Ok, how would you regulate my green house gas emissions, and my general environmental sensitivity without severely impinging on liberty?

[kandrathe]

Your point now is that in principle environmental measures are good as long as they really make sense. And of course your completely right. Too often environmental policy is made that is actually worse for the environment than the previous policy. So let's use our energy to discuss about that and not to discuss about if we want the government to regulate.

(in Holland a few local politicians had to go to London for a visit to see how some environment scheme worked over there...because of policy they had to travel by train....spending 3 times the time and travel distance than if they would have gone by train....the wrongfully believe (and a lot of people do) that plane is bad and train is good.....while of course the distance traveled is still the most important factor for emission and not the vehicle...................this of course does not mean that working on lower fuel consumption in vehicle isn't a good thing)

Right. We've talked before about the net energy loss of ethanol as a fuel, but it makes "some" people feel better about their energy consumption even though it is worse for the environment. Not only do we burn an equal amount of coal to turn it into ethanol, we also convert our food into fuel at the same time driving up the cost of food.

Or, take hybrid vehicles, another feel good technology. Force = Mass x Acceleration, it's the law. The hybrid 2500lb SUV takes the same force, and therefore energy to propel regardless of the fuel. Getting 50mpg due to plugging it in at night drawing electricity does not make it green, only transfers the energy consumed to coal fired plants. Then consider the additional number of components on a hybrid vehicle and the energy and cost to make them, maintain them, and dispose of them.

Now on the positive side, using regenerative braking and other conservation of energy devices does make sense, and it was prophesied to be an imminent car feature in Popular Mechanics back in the late 1960's when I was a lad. It would make sense for all vehicles to try to convert as much of the wasted heat, and momentum back into stored energy when possible. However, this helps any vehicle be more energy efficient but does not replace much of the force required to propel them. Every time you transfer energy from potential to kinetic and back you lose a bunch due to inefficiencies in the transfer. We could probably do as much for fuel conservation by focusing on reducing friction within the vehicle, and between the wheels and the road.