Sorry, I do not buy this thesis regarding cost.

For one, you need the unit cost not total cost. Shoes are a good example. Shoe X at $50 last only 500 miles where as shoe Y last 1000 miles but costs $100. (see - you have to consider depreciation that reflects the expected life of the investment) They have the same unit cost per mile. On the other hand a Nalgene bottle costs $15 and lasts forever; my used vinagar bottle only lasts 100 miles, but what the heck, it is free! Now how about some fragile super-light weight pants. Twice as expensive as cheap pants, and cost even MORE when you factor in the days of use you can get out of them.

Second, you need to look at the big picture (your closet). Do you always take the same sleeping bag? If you only own one bag, that is the cost; if you own three different bags and switch bags based on season, then your cost is all of the bags. Come on gear-a-holics-- what is the cost of your total backpack closet! I am with RickD - I really do not want to know.

Third, whenever you do economic analysis you also have to consider the "time value" of money. We may be in a low inflationary phase now but it is not likely to last forever. What you really need is an anualized replacement cost over a given time period. What that piece of equipment really costs is what you have to put aside in a piggy bank to replace that item in the future. Here it gets complicated too. Are prices going to go down? Up? Am I a gear-a-holic so nothing will stay in my pack more than 2 years before I replace it?

Anyway - I doubt ANY of us are logical in buying gear. Lets just admit it - we love the latest and greatest stuff! Most purchase is based on emotion and we are really good at justifying our purchase. Each of us has a "price-point" where we cannot justify the expense based on our financial condition (or disapproval by other family members -- you did what!!! spent $700 for a stupid sleeping bag and you just said we cannot remodel the kitchen!)