This is Part 5 of a 5-part back-and-forth between my friend Jason and myself as we compare the eco-friendliness of the Kia Soul and the Toyota Prius.

This is Part 4 of a 5-part back-and-forth between my friend Jason and myself as we compare the eco-friendliness of the Kia Soul and the Toyota Prius.

This is Part 3 of a 5-part back-and-forth between my friend Jason and myself as we compare the eco-friendliness of the Kia Soul and the Toyota Prius.

Yesterday, Matt's comment brought up a point I wasn't sure if I wanted to touch on this week. Specifically, total energy costs/mile comparison figures. It's a good argument. It's an important argument. It's just not the one I was planning to make.

This argument (see pgs. 10-11) points out that in terms of total energy costs over the life of a vehicle, the Hummer H3 costs 1.95 cents/mile. The Toyota Prius? 3.25 cents/mile. (Note: the overall winner is the Scion xB at 0.48 cents/mile) How can this be?

These figures take into account the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose a vehicle from concept to scrappage. It's an even more expanded version of how Jason got us to think past only a vehicle's "miles-per-gallon" impact yesterday. And hybrids currently add the significant drilling and energy costs of manufacturing, replacing and disposing additional batteries, electric motors and more complex power packages.

The reason I didn't want to make this the crux of my argument is because I can see this getting better over time as technology improves (hybrids are relatively new). And in a perfect system where companies are charged accurately for their third-party pollution costs when mining, these costs would be reflected in the cost of the vehicle production and therefore, the vehicle purchase price. Plus, with global oil production staying stagnant and oil demand increasing exponentially (China/India), higher oil costs in the future may help even out these numbers.

So, here's my argument. All things being equal, if your true goal when purchasing the Toyota Prius is eco-friendliness, is this the greatest use of your dollars? For instance, most studies show that it takes 15 years to make up the premium cost of the hybrid with your savings on gas. So, from a strict personal economic analysis, it's break-even at best.

This is Part 2 of a 5-part back-and-forth between my friend Jason and myself as we compare the eco-friendliness of the Kia Soul and the Toyota Prius.


Unfortunately... the Soul's 2,778 lb curb weight actually slightly edges out the Prius' 3,042 lb curb weight.

This is Part 1 of a 5-part back-and-forth between my friend Jason and myself as we compare the eco-friendliness of the Kia Soul and the Toyota Prius.

My friend recently bought a used Toyota Prius. He is a consistently eco-friendly guy (puts more miles on his bike than he does on his car, is a vegetarian, and loves the Prius' design ingenuity).

I recently bought a new Kia Soul, which offers a similar design, but not nearly the miles-per-gallon benefits.

The used 2008 Toyota Prius cost my friend $17,000 and gets 48 highway mpg.

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?