Saturday, May 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Telstar Recalls Energy-Saving Light Bulbs Due to Fire Hazard
NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
| Office of Information and Public Affairs | Washington, DC 20207 |
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 10, 2011 Release #11-219 | Firm's Recall Hotline: (888) 828-1680 CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772 CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908 |
Telstar Recalls Energy-Saving Light Bulbs Due to Fire Hazard
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of Product: Light Bulbs
Units: About 317,000
Manufacturer: Telstar Products d/b/a Sprint International Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y.
Hazard: The light bulbs can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.
Incidents/Injuries: Telstar Products has received two reports of fires. In one incident, the fire was contained to the light fixture. The other reported incident resulted in a residential fire.
Description: This recall involves energy-saving light bulbs sold under the Telstar and Electra brand names. The bulbs were sold in two styles: spiral and the "3-Us" shape. The Telstar bulbs were sold in 20 and 23 watts with model number LB-1020 and LB-1023 printed on the packaging. The Electra bulbs were sold in 18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 38 and 40 watts with model numbers LB-18, LB-20, LB-23, LB-26, LB-28, LB-30, LB-1018, LB-1020, LB-1023, LB-1026, LB-1134, LB-1136, LB-1138 and LB-1140 printed on the packaging. "CE 110V," "China" and the wattage number are printed on the bulb.
Sold at: Discount stores throughout New York and New Jersey from August 2010 through March 2011 for between $1 and $1.50
Manufactured in: China
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the light bulbs and return it to the store where purchased for a full refund.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Telstar Products toll-free at (888) 828-1680 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at www.telstarpro.com
 |  | |
| Spiral Shape | 3-U Shape |
---
CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. Please tell us about it by visiting www.saferproducts.gov
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.
To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Keynes Vs. Hayek, The False Debate | The New Republic
Keynes Vs. Hayek, The False Debate
- May 2, 2011 | 10:26 am
- 7 comments
Print
The right-wing Mercatus Center has another, wildly popular Keynes vs. Hayek rap. David Frum notices the moment when it slides right past the central issue:
The conservative insistence on pretending that central planning is the issue has rendered conservatism mute and useless (when not actively counter-productive) on the actual burning question of the day: How do we recover most rapidly from the worst economic calamity to hit the US since World War II?
To this, the modern Keynesians have an answer. To this, the modern self-described Hayekians don’t. And one of the fascinating sub-themes of the two Keynes-Hayek raps is the way they obscure the modern self-described Hayekians’ lack of an answer to Keynes’ urgent question.
Thus for example, from Round 2:
KEYNES
so what would you do to help those unemployed?
this is the question you seem to avoid
when we’re in a mess, would you just have us wait?
Doing nothing until markets equil-i-brate?
HAYEK
I don’t want to do nothing, there’s plenty to do
The question I ponder is who plans for who?
Do I plan for myself or leave it to you?
I want plans by the many and not by the few.
Look what’s happened here: Keynes ask Hayek what he would do. Hayek says, “there’s plenty to do” – and then immediately switches back to a highly generalized discussion of central planning.
Hayek was a forceful and persuasive critic of central planning. But Keynesian fiscal policy is not about central planning, or even an argument for larger government at all. It's an argument for counter-cyclical budget policy, with higher deficits during severe recessions, and surpluses to pay off those deficits during sustained expansions. This policy is perfectly compatible with any level of government and does not require higher aggregate levels of debt than maintaining a regular balanced budget.
The conservative insistence on viewing stimulus spending to counter the most dire economic crisis in seventy years is one of the many pathologies that have overtaken conservative thought. I think several things are at work. First, the Bush administration's profligacy left structural deficits that mushroomed to huge levels when the economy slowed, causing many conservatives to mistakenly associate the long-term growth debt with temporary stimulus. Second, the Obama presidency, which really did have long-term ambitions to reshape policy on climate change and health care, and which was ushered in on the shoulders of what may be a slowly more liberal electorate, raised fears of a long-term leftward shift. Conservatives failed to distinguish this, too, from temporary stimulus to fight the recession. And third, conservatives recognized that poor economic performance offered their best chance to regain power, and this made them more receptive to do-nothing arguments that neither party had paid attention to for decades.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents - Investors.com
Editorial: A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents
Growth: It's been nearly two full years since the recession officially ended, and the economy is still struggling to get off the ground. It didn't have to be this way.
When the Commerce Department released its estimate for first-quarter growth — a meager 1.8% — President Obama's chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, at least conceded that "faster growth is needed to replace the jobs lost in the downturn."
And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.
How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).
What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.
Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.
In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.
The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither. Consider:
• GDP. In the seven quarters after the 1981-82 recession ended, the economy cranked out quarterly growth rates that averaged 7.1%. Under Obama, GDP growth has averaged a mere 2.8%. (See chart at right.)
• Unemployment. Under Reagan, the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.5% by this point in the recovery. Under Obama, it's still stuck at 8.8%.
• Long-term unemployment. There were far fewer long-term unemployed by this point in the Reagan recovery; just 18% of the unemployed had been without a job 27 weeks or more. Under Obama, that figure is an astonishing 45%.
• Consumer confidence. By this point in the Reagan recovery, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index had hit 100. Today, the index stands at just 65.4.
• Deficits. Under Reagan, the federal deficit was trimmed to 4.8% of GDP by 1984. Under Obama, the deficit is expected to climb to 10.9% of GDP this year.
Obama and his defenders like to say he inherited the worst downturn since the Great Depression and that things would have been worse still had he not acted. But the recession was almost over by the time he took office — and officially over just six months after that.
So while Obama's policies had little to do with bringing an end to the Great Recession, they've had everything to do with producing what is by far the worst economic recovery in the past 70 years.
Posts
