GREAT RESPONSE TO WSJ PIECE

Pathetic

Another mean spirited rant based on personal attacks using the Prius as a Straw-Man surrogate for their other neuroses.

At least the first one wasn't by a Prius owner. This kind of stuff makes me cringe and want to sell the damned car lest I be mistaken for someone like that.

 

Tempus -

I disagree with you entirely. Just my opinion on your opinion. Please don't invoke the Patriot Act on me for doing so.

Good thing there are people out there like author Jane Smiley to write intelligent rebuttals against the conservative editorial page of the WSJ.

 

Yes, I can see why you would appreciate the dialectic techniques employed by that author. Insult, innuendo and aspersion as a substitute for logic.

You have no idea of my political leanings, but because I take exception with the way someone substitutes personal attacks for logical arguements, you assume I must be on the 'other side' and roll out the snide.

By all means, enjoy. You're right in the main stream of public discourse these days.

Edit: In case anyone missed it, I was NOT defending the WSJ piece. The point is they are both sides of the same coin. They both say more about the author than the Prius. The Prius is just a prop to them.

I think a more accurate topic for this thread would be "Appropriate" response to WSJ piece, because they deserve each other.

 

larrysullivan I applaud you for trying to educate the uneducatable on the destruction and devistation caused by a certain line of thinking, and furthermore, pointing out that normal, rational people (not the vast majority of sheeple) can and do still think with the future in mind. It is an uphill battle, especially with the strident replies evidenced above.

 

I find your logic quite flawed here. You criticize one article for doing exactly on purpose what the other article does but tries to hide behind a Prius!

And unfortunately most articles about the Prius do the same and are virtually never about the car itself.

 

There's no inconsistency.

Both articles are deplorable. However, the fact that one was written by a Prius Owner in direct response reflects badly on all Prius Owners. That was the crux of my lament. The first author proposed a stereotype of Prius Owners, and the second author did everything they could to confirm it.

So, now when people see a Prius, they think of idiots like these two.

 

Let's try a different tack.

If you think the second article was an appropriate rebuttal to whatever points the first author thought he was making, please consider the old aphorism.

"Don't mud-wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty, but the pig LIKES it"

 

I agree with you in spirit. Although I would have left out the pyschological evaluations of the authors of the articles. I just think their positions are poorly argued, in both articles. If I wanted to see a fight, I'd go to a boxing match.

There can be a case made for buying or not buying a hybrid based on any number of factors. An economic case is a rational one. For example, I often hear that a Ford Escape Hybrid cannot be a good deal because it is $3,000 more than the comparable non-hybrid, and the gas mileage savings cannot come close to paying that back. That may be a true statement, but people buy cars for lots of reasons, and the American love affair with the car means people will pay from $12,000 to $150,000 for a transportation device that does essentially the same thing, get us from one place to another. From a purely economic standpoint, I suspect those that throw stones could tell the author's of these articles they are fools for buying their SL when a Kia would do the same job.

While not my main rationale' for deciding on a Prius, I've been told by many here that they think the Prius is cool because it helps the environment. Saving money on gas wasn't the main issue, conserving gas for future generations was. I think that's a perfectly fine reason for buying a Prius that, when combined with all the other "love affair with cars" factors we bring to the table, makes the car a reasonable choice for them.

For me, an unapologetic conservative, the choice of a Prius has to do with a combination of high gas mileage that will save me money on my 80 mile round trip each day, long warranty coverage, comfort in the car equal to other cars costing as much (the Camry, for instance) and the fact that I think its cool. I like the idea that its better for the environment, but there are cars that have less emissions and less impact on the environment.

 

This thread reminds me of the Hybrid vs the SUV video.

You have the Prius on the left and the SUV on the right. They crash into one another and do a lot of damage, but both parties inside manage to survive.

 

Yes, it's right below your post.

http://priuschat.com/Twenty-Five-Years-a-S...d33-t13227.html

It's "25 Years a Sucker" by Jane Smiley.

 

Tempus -

The Democrats tried taking the high road against the Republicans in the last Presidential election and did not "mud-wrestle with a pig" and they LOST when they should have won by a landslide.

I think it's time to "wrestle with the pig"!

It's time to fight back and get muddy!

PS. I only differed with your opinion - but you decided to attack mine. Lighten up.

 

Let me know how that works out for you.

I really wouldn't mind though, if you didn't drag the Prius along on the way to the bottom.

 

Agreed!

 

Just the kind of wimpy bleeding-heart response the WSJ expects.

A more pointed reply would describe the fallacy of a free market in which significant externalities are not priced. People who buy gas guzzlers get subsidies from society in such forms as military action to secure oil supplies, damage to others' economic interests caused by global warming, and so on. If these were properly accounted for by pricing them into cars and fuel, Junior would be taking a Prius, a train, or a bicycle to work, depending on how much he gets paid for writing dull-witted attempts at satire.

 

I have written a very pointed reply to the author of the WSJ article, Mr. Holman Jenkins. It is provided below for your reading pleasure in an e-mail exchange I had with him. The most recent e-mail is first, the original e-mail last. Though lenghty, the original e-mail contains a number of quotes from his original article for those who haven't seen it. Sorry about the length, but I would like to hear some feedback on this!

Mr. Jenkins,

Thanks so much for your reply. As to your concern that I might burst a blood vessel, have no fear. I enjoy winning arguments, especially when they are as easy as this. So lets review a few of the key points:

1) I suggested that your statement that a Toyota Prius costs $9,500 more than any comparable vehicle was laughably inaccurate by any objective measure. Now that you have explained the basis of your comparison, surely we can both agree that the $9500 price difference is laughably inaccurate by any objective measure. You compared a Prius (MSRP $21,725) to a Corolla LE (MSRP $15,790). You added $1000 to the Prius price even though I know 4 people who have bought Priuses from 4 different dealers in 3 states and they all paid MSRP. You said you used less than MSRP for the non-Prius, but did not specify an amount. Lets say its $500. You also ignore the tax credit that is available to Prius purchasers. But just for the sake of argument, lets run the numbers your way. ($21,725 + $1000) – ($15,790 - $500) = $7435. In my Engineering Economics class they taught us to use real numbers when doing economic life cycle evaluations. And although we occasionally employed "rounding", had I rounded up from $7435 to $9500 I would have failed the class. Also, you said ANY comparable vehicle, and there are many other comparable vehicles that cost a lot more than a Corolla. You say there's room to nitpik, but you are wrong about that too. There is no room to nitpik something that is blatantly false.

2) You commented that "petroleum saved by Prius owners is not ‘saved’. It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else." You invoke “basic economics†and “the price mechanism†to support your statement, but regrettably you forgot about another important economic factor, reality. Lets consider basic economics, price mechanisms AND reality to demonstrate how totally wrong you are. When hydrid cars were introduced in 1999, the cost of a gallon of gas was about $1.35. The cost of a gallon of gas as of November 11, 2005 (post Katrina skewing) was $2.15 (www.fueleconomy.gov), an increase of over 50% in 5 years. The price is up due to basic economics at work. Worldwide demand for oil is up sharply, and thus so are prices. Your basic economics tells us that any efficiencies implemented during this time of net increasing demand and price will be true efficiencies. This would hold true up to the point that the efficiencies “tip the scaleâ€, and actually cause prices to fall (which isn’t likely to happen). Therefore, due to price mechanisms at work, any fuel saved by hydrid vehicles is solidly saved. In the face of 50% higher fuel prices, nobody is stepping up to use that saved fuel as you contend.

3) I made the point that hybrid technology IS "green" technology. I provided significant data to support that it is, and you provided nothing in response. Apparently you now agree, and wisely so.

4) You say your “main point was to debunk the idea that conserving oil (by driving a hydrid car) is a virtue independent of economicsâ€. I take the liberty of inserting ‘by driving a hybrid car’ because your entire article was about hybrid cars, and I don’t want to get sidetracked into say, wind power. And I disagree. From a purely economic point of view, you are partially right, but out of touch with reality. As previously demonstrated, the introduction of the hybrid car has saved oil, but not to the extent that oil prices have dropped. Up to the point of falling oil prices, buying and driving hybrid cars is a virtue in that it exerts a mitigating effect on rising oil prices. This mitigating effect is beneficial as it helps keep inflation in check and is good for the overall economy. And you have completely ignored the virtues of reduced air pollution and smog. The American Lung Association estimates the annual health cost from outdoor air pollution (mostly from autos) at between $14 and $55 billion. Further, according to the American Lung Association:
 Scientific evidence increasingly shows that air pollution plays a major role as a trigger for asthma attacks.
 An estimated 20.3 million Americans have asthma, and 4,222 died from Asthma in 2001.
 Asthma is the third leading cause of hospitalization of children under the age of 15.
 Many Americans are exposed to unhealthful levels of smog based on the current 0.08 ppm ozone standard.
With that in mind, buying a Prius or other efficient SULEV hydrid car is the very definition of virtue, Mr. Jenkins. Both economically and socially.

But who am I kidding. I’m using facts, logic and proper math to make my points and you obviously don’t care about any of those things. And thanks again for your reply.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jenkins, Holman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 12:12 PM
To: Alan Pratt
Cc:
Subject: RE: Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...
i used the corrolla LE and the honda civic and the market prices reported by edmunds.com for my (nyc) zip code. both have bigger engines than the prius and similar performance, and i placed a lot of weight on fuel economy, since presumably the point of the prius is to conserve fuel and emissions. that's why i didn't compare it to accord-class or other mid-size cars, which have 2-plus liter engines.

i specified no options, except for ABS on the civic since it's a quasi standard option. According to edmunds, customers are paying about $1g over msrp for the prius (with the specified lack of options) and somewhat less than msrp for the comparison models.

i realize there's room to nitpick. For the point I was making, however it would have been absurd to assume that the second-choice of prius owners was some significantly more gas-guzzling vehicle, wouldn't it? Since then, numerous prius owners have written me saying they love their cars because they delight in its gadgetry, not because they believed they'd save money driving it. that's a point i address only indirectly, noting that hybrid drive is an expensive option for people who (for whatever reason) are willing to pay for it. that's very much in line with the reasons most people pick their cars, except for drivers of corrollas, civics, etc who want efficient transportation (and therefore don't buy priuses)

CR says the prius gets 44 mpg in city driving, not the 60 epa credits it with. that's the number i use.

my main point was to debunk the idea that conserving oil is a virtue independent of economics, such that it makes sense to PAY MORE to USE LESS. it only makes sense to use less in order to pay less.

As to your imagined savings of gasoline: Basic economics tells us that, at any given price, consumers consume as much gasoline they are willing to consume at that price. If prius owners consume less, there's less demand, thus prices will be lower and somebody else will step up to consume more gasoline than they otherwise would. that's the price mechanism at work -- see the sharp decrease in gasoline demand as the result of the post-katrina price spikes. that's why the feared shortages and gas lines didn't materialize. we'll see now how quickly demand recovers since gas prices are down again.

if you want americans to use less oil, you should insist gasoline be heavily taxed. failing that, you should drive a hummer, use more gas and drive up the price for everybody else. if enough people did that, we really would get a cost-efficient alternative to the gasoline engine.

thanks for your note. i hope you didn't burst a blood vessel in the act of composing it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Pratt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:36 PM
To: Jenkins, Holman
Subject: Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...
Mr. Jenkins,

Your article, ‘Dear Valued Hybrid Customer’ is the journalistic equivalent of a computer virus, an article that can be of no possible benefit to anyone and can only cause harm. It’s only potential value is to fuel the warped ego of it’s author. Yes, I know you are hiding behind the thin veil of satire, but the opinions behind the satire are clear, and based false information and misconception. Most people don’t really understand hybrid vehicles (take yourself, for example) and are not sure whether to buy one. Helping people make that choice is a worthwhile goal. But your article merely offers up false information and fuels misconceptions about hybrids. This serves no one and is a complete waste of ink and paper. It also reflects poorly on the integrity of the author and the paper that printed it. Allow me to demonstrate my point.

Your article states “"Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year."

The MSRP of a Toyota Prius is $21,275. It is a midsize sedan.
http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehic...ota/model/Prius
In order for your statement to be true, the MOST EXPENSIVE non-Prius midsize sedan must cost under $12,000. A base 4 cyl. Toyota Camry (also a midsize) lists for $20,125. A 4 cyl. Chevrolet Malibu 4 door sedan lists for $19,200.
http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/compa...&model=0&trim=0
Is there ANY midsize car that lists for under $12,000? No. $16,000? No. Is the information in the article completely misleading and based on false pretense. Yes.

Article quote:
"Hybrid technology is not "green" technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers."

A completely false statement. Hybrid technology as employed in the Toyota Prius is very "green" technology. First, it saves fuel which even you don’t try to deny. Secondly, it significantly reduces pollution. According to the EPA, the current Prius and Civic hybrids are the cleanest cars sold in the U.S. They have no competition, they beat out all other cars and trucks. Why, even under the veil of satire, lie about this?
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/all-rank-06.htm
The Prius produces less than 1 pound of smog forming pollution per 15,000 miles driven. Compare that to the Cherolet Malibu 4 cyl. which gets a 6 rating from EPA. This rating means the Chevrolet produces 12.3 to 12.9 lbs of smog forming pollution per 15,000 miles driven. I would say a car that produces 12 times less smog than a comparable car is "green".

Article quote:
"But we are also a far-seeing corporation. We recognize that the Prius's distinctiveness may be a wasting asset for reasons outlined in this letter. Other motorists may see the Prius operator and think "sucker." Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value. Toyota regrets any inconvenience."

The clear implication here is that the Prius represents a false promise, and that its resale value will be relatively lower than other cars as a result. However, the only relevant facts here are that the Prius has held its value as well or better than ANY comparable car, in most cases dramatically better. To take this information and conclude that in the future the Prius will hold less of its value than comparable cars is baseless speculation, completely lacking in any supporting evidence. According to the NADA vehicle pricing guide, the current average retail of a 2002 Prius is 80.2% of its original MSRP. The comparable number for a 2002 Toyota Corolla is 70.1%. 2002 Toyota Camry 74%. 2002 Chev Malibu 46.6%. 2002 Honda Accord 72.1%. 2002 Dodge Stratus 46.6%. 2002 Ford Taurus 43%.
http://www.nadaguides.com/com/compare.aspx...=U&comp=1&vt4=U

Article quote:
"Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else."

Now you go beyond baseless speculation and falsehood, and stray into the patently absurd. I have saved over 400 gallons of gas since I purchased a Prius (compared to the compact car it replaced). Who stepped up to the plate to use that saved 400 gallons for me? What a laughably stupid statement.... and article.

I would agree that the Toyota Prius (or other hybrid) aren’t for everyone, and an article that objectively helped people make the choice would serve a purpose.

But I ask you, what is the purpose of your article?