When I purchase a commodity, I want it for the lowest price. When, I purchase a non-commodity, I am looking for the greatest total value (quality/cost).

As the democratization of information has evolved, and with the help of my friends at Consumer Reports, this has made my purchasing decisions over the last 5 years extremely rewarding.

But, today, I am in the market for a mattress. And I am learning that, unlike nearly all other retail purchases, consumers have no power in the mattress-buying process.

It's uniquely impressive. These mattress companies have figured out how to avoid the ability to comparison shop altogether. For example, when Sealy sells a mattress through Sears, they might name it Ultraplush 2100. When Sealy sells the exact same mattress through American Matress, they name it ComfortMotion.

I can't figure out how to objectively determine the best quality sub-$600 king-size mattress out there. It's infuriating. It's brilliant.

Any advice?

Note: This post was originally published on The Humble Libertarian.

Justin, my good friend and loyal AOANE contributor, has agreed to pressure me (and I him) into focusing in on some of our passion projects. To figure out if there really is something big worth pursuing, and then actually pursing it. So, I am trying to clarify my "$ per good" charitable argument, and looking for you smart folks to try to internalize this argument (which, by now you're more than familiar with) and help me figure out how to tighten it up. Note: the political preamble was designed for the political reading audience.


(original post)

"I personally care more about eliminating real poverty in the world than the relative poverty of America's lower class."

As a Presidential candidate, you could never get away with this statement. But, as an individual, it's hard to disagree with the ethical argument here, isn't it?

You see, our political arguments are currently caught in a morality debate - which I think is fair game. But, libertarians keep getting caught in situations where their non-support in something "good" ends up looking evil.

You don't want the 30 year-old man without a major medical policy to have his cancer treatments covered by the government? You're a monster.

As a fellow monster, I want to have this debate. But, to do so, it becomes necessary to mainstream the concept of "good" vs. "great" in a world of finite resources. For instance, buying popcorn to support a Boy Scout troop is a "good" thing. Buying wrapping paper to support youth football is a "good" thing.

But, as an individual charitable person - how are either of these in your top 200 list of priorities? Yet, these are the ones we support. Over micronutrients. Over malaria nets. Over clean water.

We have gotten so caught up in doing good things, that we have stopped focusing on doing the most good per $.

You don't have to lose the morality argument just because you're unwilling to fund national social programs. You just need to explain the ethical and economic superiority in not doing so.

Note: This is a political video concerning the #OCCUPY movement. You may disagree with the editorial slant. But, there is a valuable lesson to be learned here. The people being interviewed in this video are smart. Undoubtedly very smart. In fact, they are likely thought leaders during their private conversations with friends. Yet, when they are presented with opposing viewpoints from people who actually know what they're talking about, their big words sound so incredibly empty. And this video made me realize I do this, too. Not intentionally. In fact, it's become subconscious. It's a way of getting the other person in the debate to submit to you - to realize they're up against an intellectual giant, and to back down. It's alpha dog, pack leader behavior for intellectual debate in the 21st century. And we need to stop doing this. Because when you enter debates trying to "win", you will cling to false presuppositions even after they're called out as BS. Your goal in debate should not be to be "right", but to determine what "right" is.

People don't like the idea that some kids may be born smarter than others. That they inherently have more intellectual potential.

More than just "not like" the idea, some dismiss it altogether as nonsense.

Yet, no one could watch the Chicago marathon yesterday and believe that, for whatever reason, Kenyon and Ethiopian genetics are not a distinct advantage in running marathon lengths at a sprinter's pace.

Some kids in your class are Kenyans. They are genetically designed to run intellectual marathons. This doesn't mean expecting less out of your other kids. It means expecting more out of some.

When I was a kid, 20 years ago, they were still inventing new candy. It seemed like every other month, a new colorful wrapper appeared on the shelves.

Oh, the excitement! I couldn't wait to try it (for 50 cents, minds you)- even if it was a loser (had coconut in it).

Now, I can't remember the last time I've seen a new candy bar on the shelves that wasn't just a new shape of Reese' Peanut Butter Cup? Where has Willy Wonka been?

What's the last new candy bar you tried, and what did you think?

Marketing (definition, pre-Jobs)

Understanding your product's competitive differentiation, and best selling this angle to your audience.

Marketing (definition, 2011)

Analyzing consumer need and re-designing your product to better match it.

What if Whole Foods became a not-for-profit?

What if CEO John Mackey had a personal belief that the world should have ever-increasing access to organic food, and his #1 business mission became to mainstream an organic diet?

Is a not-for-profit the best way to achieve this goal? Or does his current for-profit strategy achieve this better?

I really don't know. Maybe the cheaper pricing a not-for-profit could offer also means they wouldn't be able to expand nearly as quickly? Maybe Whole Foods needed to be a for-profit to become what it is, and now, it could consider becoming a not-for-profit?

Either way, the optimist in me thinks that not-for-profit retail is going to be the future.

Clothing. Grocers. Organizations with a desire for individuals to have better, healthier lives.

Wouldn't you feel better shopping at one?

Help me think it through. And join our All Opinions Are Not Equal Facebook page. I think it might make conversations easier. I'll explain more soon.

"I miss the technology from 10 years ago."

No one ever says this. So, why do we believe in the fragility of the human experience? Why do we live in constant fear that one man, one company, one "evolution" is going to walk us off a cliff we will never be able to re-climb.

Life is better than it was 10 years ago. 100 years ago. 1,000 years ago. 10,000 years ago.

Things get better. Always.

1) Greco-Roman Blood Thirsty Savages
These guys hate every yellow flag thrown. They dislike the NFL's growing rules to prevent helmet-to-helmet contact. They want to see guys get flattened. They want to see the big hit. They want to see the car flip over. They want to see the lion eat the Christian.

2) The Ex-High-School Player
These guys think they know what they're talking about because they played a year and a half of high-school football, and can name the two different defensive formations they had to learn to stop an opposing quarterback with a 15-yard maximum arm range.

3) The Stats Guy
These are the guys who wish they could have been on the high school team, and are mad because their physical inability outweighs the fact that they "understand" the game better than 99% of the meat heads on the field. These guys end up working at ESPN.

And then there's me.
These are the guys who don't really know what they're looking at. They like football for the same reason they like Monet. It's beautiful. But they can't explain why. They live for the kickoff returned for the touchdown - the breakout run - the one-handed grab. The constant barrage of action, and the possibility of "wow" on every play gives Football no equal.