From a recent NYT article:

"In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that 'it makes a statement about me.'"

Comedy Central recently re-aired the old episode about how drivers of hybrids are self-righteous assholes. That's my guess as to Samuelson's inspiration on this one. I can't wait for him to find out about the existence of the Tesla Roadster (seriously, have no political commentators heard of the concept of an electric car?).

Also, forgive the nitpicking, but the word you were looking for is "sleight" rather than "slight."

Bought a Prius over the Honda (an example in the column) as the Honda gets better mileage when your driving is mostly highway style and Prius mileage is better in a more urban stop and go setting. Makes a statement about me that I know what kind of driving we do.

Thanks for the catch on "sleight." I've fixed it.

Thanks for the catch on "sleight." I've fixed it.

Tom Friedman has been on a similar kick. His argument goes something like this:

The only "really green" policy is higher gas taxes, because it's hard on people and political suicide. All other policies are super-lame and unserious. Therefore, unless Democrats embrace much higher gas taxes, they are poopy-heads and I'm going to dream about a third party, greenish candidacy in my twice-weekly column.

(Please ignore the fact that by every conceivable measure, Democrats are much greener than Republicans. Unless the Democrats are perfect, they suck. Oh, and try to forget that I wrote exactly zero columns before the 2006 election about how bad Republicans are for the environment. That was then; this is now.)

"In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that 'it makes a statement about me.'"

Right. No other car-buyer bases his decision on what car to buy on the statement it makes about him. No car other than the Prius is bought in order for the owner to show off.

What a moron Samuelson is.

Samuelson was interesting to read about 20 years. For the last decade or so, he basically comes up with cheesy versions of academic economics to justify a kind of center-right status quo. He's right up there with Broder, Ignatiaus, Mallaby, Cohen,Krauthammer, Kurtz, et al. in terms of utter uselessness. But he's widely circulated, so WaPo makes a lot syndicating him and their other empty suits.

And the statement is "I put my money where my mouth is." Wow, imagine that.

"Maybe David Broder isn't the most inane columnist on the Post op-ed page after all."

I was with you until that last sentence

"In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that 'it makes a statement about me.'"

I have to wonder how this question was phrased, and what the other questions are. We bought a used Prius a couple of years ago. The high gas mileage and low emissions appealed to us, and it was a much nicer car than our old Mercury Tracer.

If someone asked me whether it makes a statement about us, I'd strongly agree. It makes the statement that we would rather send our money to Japanese auto-makers than Middle Eastern terrorists, and that we care about the environment.

But we didn't buy the car for the purpose of "making a statement". I doubt that any Prius owner does.

It's actually my husband's car -- I live close enough to work that I can commute by bicycle, which of course I do in order to "make a statement" about myself. That statement would be "I like to get a little exercise every day and avoid spending hundreds of dollars a year on parking fees."

I freely admit that the solar panels on our roof are there to make the statement "F*** Enron."

What a twit. I bought a Prius to offset the much lower gas mileage of my SUV (We need something to pull our tent camper). We're just trying to do our part where we can. When the Prius is sufficient, we drive that.

We're not making a statement to anybody, unless they want to take it as one.

I switched to public transportation, and my spouse now uses the Prius to get to work, instead of our other, less efficient car.

I must REALLY be a show off!

This strikes me as a different strain of the criticism by the beltway elite against the Dirty F'ing Hippies who opposed the Iraq War. In other words, even though they are substantively right on the issue right, they're still wrong because they are too vituperatively toxic.

Mr. Samuelson seems to think Prius owners are just Dirty F'ing Hippies who deserve only scorn because they had the gall to be right and acted on their beliefs. Unlike sensible people like Mr. Samuelson who spout nonsense and profit from said nonsense.

"In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that 'it makes a statement about me.'"

An excellent catch, MM! Let this Adler fellow chew on that one for a while... Wait, what's this, from this very post?

It's also irrelevant -- a Prius doesn't emit more CO2 if its driver has the wrong motivations.

Whoops! Sorry, MM. Better luck next time.

So what? It's still a car. In reality, it costs a ton to buy and own, it takes up a lot of space and pollutes. Not as much as a SUV, but still a lot. My wife's scooter gets 100+mpg and my bicycle gets 20+ miles per bowl of oatmeal.

Like his idiot porn mustache brother-in-arms John Stossel; Robert Samuelson has long thrived on being the 'contrarian' to conventional liberal wisdom.

Like Stossel he seldom fails to make an ass of himself, whether it be disputing global warming, telling us why taxing really rich people is very wrong, or in convincing us that corporate welfare cheats are inventive while actual welfare recipents are poor because they deserve it.

Unlike Stossel, however, Robert works for Fred Hiatt, which is sort of like working for W's own version of Monica Lewinsky although Monica had more dignity than Hiatt ever will.

I have nothing against the Prius or Prius owners. I just don't know why a car that gets worse mileage on the highway than on a surface street is encouraged to use a car-pool lane, or why my taxes should be used for a tax break that was reflected in the additional mark-up charged by the Toyota dealer.
People that I know that bought hybrids used them to make their 100 mile round-trip daily commutes less costly in time and money. In other words, they increased sprawl.

Like the guy who buys the mega SUV isn't making a statement about himself too?

Our culture would fail if people didn't buy products to make statements about themselves. Doesn't make it right, but to criticize for it is pure idiocy.

This is the same BS reasoning that condemns Edwards for being anti-poverty.

Lameness, thy name is neocon.

Like the guy who buys the mega SUV isn't making a statement about himself too?

Our culture would fail if people didn't buy products to make statements about themselves. Doesn't make it right, but to criticize for it is pure idiocy.

This is the same BS reasoning that condemns Edwards for being anti-poverty.

Lameness, thy name is neocon.

Like the guy who buys the mega SUV isn't making a statement about himself too?

Our culture would fail if people didn't buy products to make statements about themselves. Doesn't make it right, but to criticize for it is pure idiocy.

This is the same BS reasoning that condemns Edwards for being anti-poverty.

Lameness, thy name is neocon.

Re: comparing the Prius w/ Honda's mileage

A former colleague bought a Honda hybrid precisely because it's EPA ratings pointed to better mileage on the highway. After several years of ownership he is pretty disillusioned with Honda's approach to hybrids and to the mileage claims. And he's not the only one. From what I understand Honda is completely redesigning their hybrids, and will show off a new car (not a Civic) in 2009.

Re: comparing the Prius w/ Honda's mileage

A former colleague bought a Honda hybrid precisely because its EPA ratings pointed to better mileage on the highway. After several years of ownership he is pretty disillusioned with Honda's approach to hybrids and to the mileage claims. And he's not the only one. From what I understand Honda is completely redesigning their hybrids, and will show off a new car (not a Civic) in 2009.

mds-

I apologize for providing supplementary information that for some reason I thought readers might find interesting or relevant.

I bought a Prius - five years ago - as a statement: Shrub, go cheney yourself. And do Dick, too, while you're at it.

It's got better mileage on the highway than in the city, too. (Average for the last 9000 miles: 47.6 mpg)

No, I don't have a carpool sticker. I don't feel like having every SUV driver on the road wanting to shoot at me, and besides, half the carpool-lane drivers think the minimum speed limit is 85.

I don't know what markup Jim7 is talking about - Toyota was selling them below cost then, and any marking up I've heard of was demand pricing; for two or three years the dealers were making ridiculous offers to get *used* ones for sale.

Really, Jim 7, "the people [you] know" bought hybrids SO THAT they could move further out of town? Because in order for them to increase sprawl, that's what they would've had to do. Otherwise they're just not decreasing sprawl, but with the better gas mileage, they're still using less gas than they had before, which is really the point of investing in hybrid technology, isn't it? I don't see the problem here.

The people I know who bought hybrids also do other things to decrease their fossil fuel consumption, like buying compact fluorescent bulbs and buying local foods.

So ha! I'll see your anecdotal evidence and raise you a logic nitpick!

His article isn't that bad - he's not criticizing people for buying Priuses. He's just saying that a lot of the more popular environmental activism these days is engaged more in show than substance. (Note that he compared the Prius to the Civic Hybrid - people prefer the showier one even though the actual impact is about the same.)

He certainly could have written the piece more clearly, and said more about why Schwarzenegger's policy are all show and not as much substance as we might think. But as far as I can tell, everything he's saying is right - we're not going to fix the environment if the extent of our efforts is to slap a green label on everything and expect future generations to actually do all the work. He's not saying that you shouldn't buy a Prius - he's saying that buying a Prius isn't enough to get you off the hook for thinking about other conservation measures.

I guess all the Prius drivers out there like to gloss over the fact that the Prius consumes more energy from the cradle to the grave than a Hummer. Although I guess it's really hard to argue with cold hard facts, so they don't even bother attempting. Read it and weep.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml

"I just don't know why a car that gets worse mileage on the highway than on a surface street is encouraged to use a car-pool lane" --- Jim

Because it is to encourage people to buy a car that uses less gas (45-50 mpg, compared to

"[...] or why my taxes should be used for a tax break that was reflected in the additional mark-up charged by the Toyota dealer." --- Jim

They aren't YOUR taxes unless your taxes were increased to cover the discount. Besides, the tax incentive, like many others (wind power, home energy efficieny, electric vehicle, and so many others) are to provide encouragement to people to switch to these energy efficient or productive alternatives. It helps to offset the cost so they can AFFORD to.

This gets more people buying them and, as a rule of business, as more people buy them and cause them to be a more popular choice, the increase of production results in a decrease in cost to produce. This, in turn, means future models can be cheaper or, as an alternative, add more features for the same price. If nothing else, it helps to defer future cost increase due to inflation.

"People that I know that bought hybrids used them to make their 100 mile round-trip daily commutes less costly in time and money. In other words, they increased sprawl." --- Jim

As another poster already pointed out, this example is a non-sequitir unless the 'people' in question bought such vehicles so they could move further out from their places of work, thereby increasing sprawl. But the language used indicates they didn't move, they just cut their fuel expenses.

Unless, of course, you were trying to say that rather than being extorted by gas prices to move to some rathole apartment downtown for twice the price of their nice home they instead 'copped out' and bought cars that would allow them to live in better housing. In which case, I really can't take you seriously anyway, sorry.

(my apologies for the double post, apparantly the page misiinterpreted my attempt at "less than" as the start of a HTML tag and lost nearly a whole paragraph first time around)

"I just don't know why a car that gets worse mileage on the highway than on a surface street is encouraged to use a car-pool lane" --- Jim

Because it is to encourage people to buy a car that uses less gas (45-50 mpg, compared to under 30), not a car that gets better gas mileage on the highway than it does the street. Apparantly by your logic, the HOV lane is for SUV's that get a whopping 17 mpg, a whole 4 mpg more than they get by streets.

"[...] or why my taxes should be used for a tax break that was reflected in the additional mark-up charged by the Toyota dealer." --- Jim

They aren't YOUR taxes unless your taxes were increased to cover the discount. Besides, the tax incentive, like many others (wind power, home energy efficieny, electric vehicle, and so many others) are to provide encouragement to people to switch to these energy efficient or productive alternatives. It helps to offset the cost so they can AFFORD to.

This gets more people buying them and, as a rule of business, as more people buy them and cause them to be a more popular choice, the increase of production results in a decrease in cost to produce. This, in turn, means future models can be cheaper or, as an alternative, add more features for the same price. If nothing else, it helps to defer future cost increase due to inflation.

"People that I know that bought hybrids used them to make their 100 mile round-trip daily commutes less costly in time and money. In other words, they increased sprawl." --- Jim

As another poster already pointed out, this example is a non-sequitir unless the 'people' in question bought such vehicles so they could move further out from their places of work, thereby increasing sprawl. But the language used indicates they didn't move, they just cut their fuel expenses.

Unless, of course, you were trying to say that rather than being extorted by gas prices to move to some rathole apartment downtown for twice the price of their nice home they instead 'copped out' and bought cars that would allow them to live in better housing. In which case, I really can't take you seriously anyway, sorry.

Sorry, on more thing.

I haven't noticed you (Jim) complaining about the note at the bottom of this page asking for tax-deductible donations.

No complaints about "your taxes" being spent here? Or is it because it's something you LIKE and SUPPORT you aren't so worried about it?

I see JD is still demonstrating his inability to read or to understand economics. The article you linked to did not argue that "the Prius consumes more energy from the cradle to the grave than a Hummer." What it said was that, averaged over the assumed life of each vehicle, the Prius cost more per mile to operate in terms of gas expenditures. The source quoted by the article (a marketing analyst) assumed that the life of an average Hummer was 300,000 miles (a highly dubious claim, but that's another argument...) compared to 100,000 for a Prius, which means that the Prius would need to get more 3 times the gas mileage of a Hummer to come out ahead in what the analyst called "dust-to-dust energy cost." He never claimed that a Prius "consumes more energy" than a Hummer, because that claim would be ridiculous. Much like JD.

The source quoted by the article (a marketing analyst) assumed that the life of an average Hummer was 300,000 miles (a highly dubious claim, but that's another argument...) compared to 100,000 for a Prius, which means that the Prius would need to get more 3 times the gas mileage of a Hummer to come out ahead in what the analyst called "dust-to-dust energy cost."

About what you would expect from a Reason article.

Qualty attempt at obfuscation jjcomet. Direct quote from the article (which I guess you didn't read in its entirety)

"Comparing this data, the study concludes that overall hybrids cost more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles. But even more surprising, smaller hybrids' energy costs are greater than many large, non-hybrid SUVs."

Not gas expenditures: OVERALL ENERGY CONSUMED, from creation (which includes research and development costs and economies of scale) to death. Hybrids cost more to make, have costlier parts, have shorter lifespans, and cost more to dispose of (Hummers cost 60% less to dispose of). As I said before, nice obfuscation attempt but you'll have to try harder next time.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060719.shtml

The CNW Marketing "Dust to Dust" Hummer vs. Prius study is junk science of the worst sort, as has been repeatedly and variously described. The best single refutation is here:

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_versus_prius.html

As a follow up, note that CNW is the same company who have "discovered" that half of Prius owners are buying the car to make a statement. All in all, not a reputable source of information when discussing the merits or demerits of hybrid technology.

I really believe that these social networks will have a huge impact on what we can accomplish as groups, it'll help us be very organized and communicate.

thank you very much links of london