I Love Greedy Scoundrels

A recent conversation with an interventionist-minded friend wound up on an interesting topic. It seems that, when it comes right down to it, he, and others of the same mind, feel that the economic problems in America stem from greed. The scoundrels who run companies and corporations have nothing else in mind other than taking advantage of those of us that are not so 'fortunate' as to be in the position of employing labor and bringing products and services into the market.

So I got to thinking about it. Is he right? Is every rich man in America a greedy scoundrel? Or, perhaps, are they only being justly remunerated for greatly increasing our standard of living with the products that they have brought forth? Considering the habits of a typical day, and the attitudes of many individuals, might provide the answer.

I like to sleep in the dark. However, when I awake in the morning at six o'clock, the first thing I need is some light. This used to mean keeping a candle or a lantern next to the bed and lighting the bulky instrument in relative darkness. Even once this operation had been completed, the light would only illuminate a space in a radius of four or five feet. Now, we simply flip a switch and the entire room is flooded with light. We have that old greedy scalawag Benjamin Franklin to thank for that. I guess when he discovered electricity, an invention that would change the world, he should have just given it away to any man that would ask for it. Instead, he started the first electric company, whereby this wonderful gift proliferated throughout society. What a louse.

My next need is that of clothing. Clothes used to be hand-woven from strong and, therefore, coarse linens. They were less than what we would consider comfortable, to say the least. They were also very expensive when compared to what we spend on clothes these days, but rarely lasted very long. A common man could almost always count the different sets of clothes he owned on one hand. Now, however, I, a man of common means, can go to my closet and pick from an almost endless variety of colors and styles what will be my mode of dress for the day. We have a money-grubbing slime-bucket named Edmund Cartwright to thank for that. I guess when he invented the power loom, an invention that made weaving wool and other textiles cheaper and quicker, he should have given as many as he could build to anyone that would ask. Instead, he sold them to the owners of mercantile operations for a profit. What a creep.

Once I've prepared myself, at least reasonably well, to face the world for the day, I then need to go to work to provide a living for my family. In the past, my commute of 45 miles would have constituted a day's work of itself. Such a journey would have required hours upon hours of traveling in an uncomfortable coach drawn by horses on dirt roads with minimum shelter from the elements. Now, I can make the distance in about 45 minutes in a climate-controlled compartment with every convenience imaginable within an arms reach. We have that predatory rascal Henry Ford to thank for that. I guess when he discovered the methods to mass produce the automobile, he should have just given the technology, and the cars he fabricated with it, to anyone who would ask for it. Instead, he started a car manufacturing plant and an auto dealership whereby this wonderful convenience proliferated throughout society. What a boor.

When I come home in the evenings, sometimes I like to speak to my mother, who lives a few towns over. In the past, communication like this was quite cumbersome. It required a person to go down to a designated spot (remember you would have had to walk there at the time), deliver a handwritten message to a gentleman, and have a series of horsemen race the message across the countryside. Now, I can pick up the phone, punch a series of buttons, and the soothing tones of my mom's voice will come to me over a network of voice lines. We have that covetous sleazeball Alexander Graham Bell to thank for this. I guess when he invented the telephone he should have given as many of them away as he could to anybody that would simply ask. Instead, he started the first telephone company, by which this wonderful convenience proliferated throughout society. What a stinker.

On and on the list goes of creeps who have taken advantage of the common man. That greedy peddler Bill Gates really got over on us with the invention of the PC. Boy, did Thomas Edison ever pull a doozy on us when he invented the light bulb. Philo T. Farnsworth must have really had it in for us when he invented the television. Guntenberg's printing press, Eli Whitney's cotton gin, Percy L. Spencer's microwave, Jack Kilby's integrated circuit, Thomas Midgeley Jr.'s leaded gasoline-all, no doubt, the ideas of greedy opportunists.

Any reasonable person knows that this is hardly the case. In fact, these men have done a great service to the world. They have brought forth amazing products that have changed our lives in every way imaginable. They have made conveniences and a standard of living available to the common man that would have been unimaginable at the time of their invention.

Should we not praise, rather than revile, them?

The problem seems to be that they have done the unforgivable. They have accepted pecuniary gain in exchange for bestowing these great gifts upon us. In short, they made money off of their inventions.

The fact is that these men and thousands and thousands of other, less notable entrepreneurs, are just like you and me. In the process of doing something good for themselves, they have done good for mankind, just as you and I do good for our families and those that depend on us when we go about bettering ourselves. Adam Smith understood this when he spoke about human nature in The Wealth of Nations. He said that it was not out of the "benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages." (Emphasis added) We find that in a free society, one cannot help himself without helping others. However, it is not the help that others will receive that spurs us into action; it is the thought of self-improvement that does this.

The truth is, we get out of society what we put into it. These men, and others like them who have attained great wealth, are only being justly compensated for the great contributions they have made to their fellow man. What we must realize is that these contributions never would have been made available to society at large-perhaps never would have been thought of at all-if not for the fact that these individuals would be handsomely rewarded for bringing them to the market.

If this weren't the case, the PC might have only ever been a neat little electronic device stuck back in a garage somewhere that Bill Gates would use as a conversation piece when talking to guests about his youth. Instead, every schoolchild in America is exposed to them before they leave elementary school. Gasoline might have been a liquid that propelled some quirky farm equipment in the Midwest. Instead it powers almost every car on the road. The formula for the atom bomb might have been lost among the millions of thoughts discarded from the mind of Albert Einstein. Instead, it was used to save the world from Nazi tyranny. Thankfully, Einstein was paid quite nicely for his work.

Companies like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, and others are merely the conduit through which these great products are routed from their producers to us, the consumers. So why are they represented as villains?

The answer finds many forms and names-jealousy, lack of self-worth, hatred-but they all stem from the same philosophy of class warfare. Karl Marx was the first to promulgate the theory that the wealthy property owners exploited their laborers to obtain their profit rather than their profit being a remuneration for the service they provided of producing goods that society needed. He said the arrangement was, by nature, one of exploitation. He explicitly denied that any arrangement could ever be made voluntarily by which a laborer would agree to work for the wages that he was being paid.

Much of what is being said today is nothing more than a poorly concealed redressing of Marx's original doctrine. Those who cloak themselves in the self-righteousness of 'consumer advocacy' and 'worker's rights' say that these large companies are taking advantage of hapless workers who are forced to work for nominal wages, perhaps in less than desirable conditions. They can't believe that some might actually prefer the low-paying work to starvation or bondage to a welfare check.

They have a large portion of the rest of the public believing that this is exploitation. They would rather have us forget that the people doing the work that they label as 'demeaning' seem to have a resolve to better themselves and use the position they are currently in, however low it may be deemed to be by others, as a foothold by which to improve their lot later on in life.

It represents a classic victim's mentality. We all know that one person, who, no matter what happens to him or her in life, is always the victim. None of the misfortunes that assail them are of their own making. These people take their dissatisfaction with their own lives and attempt to transfer it on to the rest of us by convincing us that all of us, not just themselves, are being 'taken advantage of'.

Those spewing these sophisms of hatred have allowed themselves to be sucked into the victim's mentality and have given up all control over their own life. Everything that happens to them is an act that is being 'perpetrated' upon them by someone else. When they don't get into the school they want, it's because the president of the university wanted to keep them out. When they are looked over for a promotion, it's because the boss hates them. And so it happens that everything they have in life is because someone else has mandated that it is the most they were 'allowed' to have. It is the ultimate denial of personal responsibility and the ultimate abdication of one's own humanity.

People who go about living their lives in this manner, quite frankly, can never imagine self-improvement. Everyone, they think, hates them. 'The Man' would never think of 'letting' them advance beyond their current position in society. These individuals could never imagine themselves owning a business. They could never see themselves investing in an idea that might be found useful to society. They would never allow themselves to think they could invent a product or service that would change the world. The fact of the matter is very simple. They can't see themselves enjoying prosperity.

So what does this have to do with the greed of the large companies that are preying upon the public? The connection lies in this: those who seem themselves as perpetual victims cannot conceive of these companies as doing good for society. These companies, to them, are but another instrument adding to a string of victimizations in their unfulfilled life.

The fact, however, is that these companies are delivering great, wonderful products to society that greatly enhance our lives and bring us unprecedented conveniences. But they don't do it for free. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they can make money for their investors, executives, and employees and those who depend on them for their livelihood.

I, for one, don't mind. I'm glad to have the products. I don't find it egregious that those responsible for bringing them to the market are well compensated. In fact, I hope they continue to be. They next guy looking to make a buck may come up with something that allows me to think this document into existence rather than do all this typing.

Until that day comes, I guess I'll keep on letting Larry Page and Sergey Brin rake me over the coals. That's right. The owners of Google have provided the application I am using to construct this document as a free service available over the Internet. I love it. I use it all the time. It's infinitely easier than dealing with ink ribbons and White-Out. But they didn't make this great service available just so I could be released from the cumbersome chains of the typewriter. I think they're making just a little bit of money while doing it. At last check the twosome were estimated to be worth over $500 million a piece. Don't you just hate those greedy scoundrels? I don't. I love them.

Church-Sponsored Socialism

Our president has recently been criticized for proposing legislation that would ease the tax burdens on millions of Americans. The source, surprisingly, of many of these criticisms is to be found within the church and church associations. They say that the tax breaks target the 'rich' and the most wealthy of Americans. They say the policies do nothing to help the poor and disadvantaged. They say we, as Christians, should advocate policies and legislation that will do more for the most unfortunate among us, and I agree. So I ask myself, "Why all the uproar over tax breaks?

"What is a tax break, really? Is it not just allowing a person to keep their own money? What we are really saying when we say that we are not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy is that we are in favor of governments taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to those who we think need it more. This is the basis of all socialism.

This would be wrong even if the person in question was a multi-billionaire. However, this is not the case. Many people who are classified as rich by the advocates of social programs and supporters of redistribution are really middle-class working people and small businessmen. Statistics tell us that in the United States, an income of $52,000 per year puts a person in the top 30% of wage earners in the country. This may constitute the 'wealthiest of Americans', but I hardly think it constitutes what any would consider great wealth. So then, the most basic assumption about these tax cuts (that they give extremely wealthy individuals money that they are not entitled to) is flawed to begin with.

These church groups often refer to passages in the Bible like the one in Matthew Chapter 25 where Jesus says that "as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it also unto me." I think we would all agree that helping the poor and the 'least of these' among us is noble, moral and definitely a duty of the church, but one has to consider what the best means to accomplish that end would be. Jesus made it clear that it is the job of Christians to help their fellow man. After all, how will they know that we are his disciples, if not that we show love one to another? This does not just refer to us as Christians showing love to other Christians, but that Christians should be known for showing love to mankind in general. So then how should we best accomplish this? Let's get down to the practical matter of executing this mission.

When we think of giving to the poor, of what should we give? Should this giving not be in every part of our lives? Should we only give of time? Should we only give of resources (our homes, our church facilities, our cars, etc.). Should we ever use money to help our fellow man?

If we are committed to giving in all areas of our life, then, all other things being equal, the only way we could maximize our ability to give, is to maximize our monetary means as well. This would mean not only tax cuts, but, taking the argument to it's logical conclusion, a total elimination of all taxes, if that were at all possible. So, in the absence of a total elimination of all taxes, Christians should agitate for tax cuts, not against them. The more the better.

Imagine the totality of one's ability to give were to be like a pie consisting of three parts. Let those parts be labeled Time, Resources, and Money. (Many would argue that, from an economic standpoint, all these three things devolve into the same thing-money-but let us leave that argument for another time.) Think of two people that were to maximize giving of their Time and Resources. However, the one had very little Money because he somehow saw it as manifestation of greed or somehow aligned against Christian morality; meanwhile the other was a very successful businessman who happened to be very wealthy. Which of these two gentlemen would seemed poised to do the greatest good in the endeavors of helping his fellow man? Few could argue that it would not be the man with the additional monetary resources at his disposal.

So we come back to Bush's tax cuts. The president is being accused of allowing people to maximize their monetary resources by keeping more of their own money! Should he institute tax hikes that would take money out of the hands of people that would do good unto the 'least of these'? Would this somehow do more to help the poor?

I can already hear the response. It's all too typical. "Well, not every wealthy person will give to the poor. At least when the government confiscates the taxes, they will put them to a good use that will help those who need it the most. If we leave that money in the hands of the people that earned it, we have no guarantee that they will, indeed, use it to help their fellow man. They may just turn around and spend it or reinvest it in their business to make even more money." This argument is a fallacy on so many levels.

Let us consider the first point of this argument. When the government takes from the wealthy, it may be said, we are then able to be sure that the money will be used to help the poor and others in need. The sheer amount of waste and ineptitude in our government makes it doubtful that money allocated for any particular use would actually wind up being used in that capacity, but let us leave that argument for another time as well. Let us suppose (and what a supposition it is) that every dollar taken from the private sector in order to fund public assistance and social programs actually makes it into the coffers of the particular agency that will administer the project. What will happen then?

A particular mission or objective will be given. In this case, let's say it's helping the poor. A cash transfer will be given to anyone below the poverty line. However, the government can't discriminate. It must work in generalities. If a person is poor, they are entitled to the money. They cannot consider the cause of the person being poor. Is the person poor because they are disabled and cannot work? Has the person just been laid off from a job? Or is the person poor because they are lazy and refuse to hold a job? The government can't consider these factors and give the money based on a combination of need and merit as a private charity organization would do. Even if they could, the government is poorly equipped to make these types of judgements. How can a department head in Washington, D.C. or a state capital possibly know the needs and merits of people in a community miles away? The people in that community are infinitely more qualified to make the decisions for allocation of charitable resources based on need and merit than a bureaucrat in a posh office somewhere in a government office building.

One such example that has been very prominently displayed in the media of late is FEMA's response to hurricane Katrina. FEMA is a governmental charity organization. When emergency or disaster strikes an area, FEMA directs money and resources procured by our tax dollars to the area to give to the victims. Stories have been forthcoming for some time now about the abuse and waste that has accompanied the aid. Contractors have overcharged for work. Some jobs have been sub-contracted out as many as five different times, each contractor adding on an extra fee. Many resources have ended up in the hands of those who were not affected by the hurricane. A prominent example of this can be found in the story about renters who have moved out of apartments not damaged by the flood waters (in other words housing that had to be paid for) and moved into the free trailers provided by the government. A recent report estimated the total waste of money through abuse and fraud at two billion dollars.

All of this serves only to frustrate and anger those of us who have provided the charity. These aren't feelings that should be associated with helping your fellow man. Charity should make us feel good because we are doing something for humanity. However, these feelings are all but unavoidable when we see our money being put to such inefficient use.

Let us then take the second point of the argument in the same order that it has come to us. Advocates of government charity warn that because a certain amount of self-interest, or greed, as they call it, is involved in becoming wealthy in the first place, it is unlikely that a person who does accrue great pecuniary resources would turn and give that money to charitable purposes. He would, they argue, probably attempt to reinvest the money himself, or put it to purposes of business in order to gain even more wealth.

Although this is by no means true, and setting aside, for the moment, the fact that this would be his right in a free society, let us, for the purposes of the argument, suppose it were. In a capitalistic society, it is impossible to make money or amass wealth without providing something useful to society, usually a good or service. If a person wants to make more money, they have to expand their offerings to society or think of new products and services that will be useful to it. This of itself could be considered a charitable end, for it increases the standard of living of all society by providing more products and services and making life more comfortable for the population in general. But to be more specific, these products and services cannot be brought to the market without labor. This creates jobs. Let us elucidate the point a bit.

Economics is only a specific sector of what we call the social sciences. This group includes psychology, sociology, and political science along with the aforementioned economics and others and concentrates on the phenomena of human actions and interactions. Economics is the study of human action in the realm of exchange. Extensive study has been conducted in almost every conceivable area of exchange, including exchanges between two parties that only materially benefit one of the parties involved. We refer to this type of exchange as charity.

Capitalism is the system of economy that bases exchange on the profit motive and private property. Therefore economic activity within such a system will be based on the most efficient allocation of resources. In other words, what will be the most efficient way to accomplish a certain goal? Remember, the more efficient a person is under the system of capitalism, the more he stands to gain in the form of profit. However, this concept of efficiency also applies to charity.

Many great thinkers in economics have concluded that jobs, not charity, are the most effecient and effective way to help the poor and disadvantaged. Many have concluded that the wealthy should not 'waste' their money on charity, but rather put the money to a use that will create more jobs, and, therefore, more opportunity for the less fortunate. However, a good consideration of common sense would serve just as well to acknowledge this fact. As the axiom states, 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.' So if, indeed, a wealthy individual does not give one penny to 'charity' as we typically think of it, and only attempts to increase his wealth, he will still do a great deal for 'the least of these' among us, and may actually do more for the poor than if he were to give his whole fortune to altruistic purposes.

So how should we go about showing love one to another? How should we 'do unto the least of these'? What policies should we hope that President Bush and other lawmakers will draft and approve that will do the most to "provide the poor, families, and communities with the tools to meet basic needs such as access to nutritious food and quality child-care, accessible and affordable housing, comprehensive and affordable health care, high quality education at every stage of life, a fair and just tax system, job creation and a livable income to sustain their future" as the National Council of Churches USA recently called for? The answer seems pretty clear to me.

Capitalism. Pure, unadulterated capitalism, has and always will be the system of political economy that provides the best way to achieve the common good, namely allowing mankind to help one another. Those who would have the government assist us in the accomplishment of our duty as Christians-that of helping our fellow man-are badly misguided. If our current system in America is flawed, it is so in the fact that we have allowed socialist interventionism to creep too far into our system of economy. In other words, what America needs is a purer form of capitalism that as Thomas Jefferson said "shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." If we truly want to achieve the goals that we say we do, we need policies that will shape a society that is more like this. Not less.

Bush may not care one iota about the poor in America. I, personally, have a hard time believing that. I have a harder time even still believing that Americans can somehow help their fellow man better with less money in their hands.

You Can Afford Gas

1. You Can Afford Gas
   
   
   
   The recent spikes in the price of gasoline have many Americans bemoaning the ills of 'unfettered capitalism' and free markets. Economists ponder with much consternation what malicious effects might befall the economy under the weight of higher energy prices. Many Americans lament aloud "I just can't afford these gas prices!" Well my friend you won't find a solace in me. You can afford those gas prices and I'll tell you exactly why.
   
   First, a brief lesson in the history of economic thought is in order. Early economists theorized that value was determined by factors of input. That is to say that they believed the factors that went into producing a certain object or, to be more precise, the cost of those factors necessarily determined the ultimate price of said object. Most early economists took into account land (or rent), materials, labor and profit or some combination thereof. These were said to be input factors and price would be determined by adding up the combination of factors that were 'worked up' in a particular product. Therefore value was, by nature, objective. Just as a foot of length is a definite standard or fact of science, so they believed that value was a constant quantity. Any yard of uniform cloth, for example, (at least any one produced under the same conditions of labor, rent, etc.) would have the same value because a certain amount of the factors of production had been worked up in them. This, however, was shown in later economic thought, to be a flawed theory.
   
   In the late 1800's Carl Menger and others began to formulate theories of value based on subjectivity. They said that the same object would have different value to every different person at any given time depending on the circumstance of their need or desire at the very moment of exchange. Therefore an infinite number of different values might be ascribed to the very same product. They rightly pointed out that if an ordinary housewife went to the market to buy bread, when she reached the bread aisle and made the determination of whether or not to buy, the bread would have the same value to her whether it had miraculously been dropped from the sky or had been produced by the day's labor of a thousand men. She would not take any of the 'factors of production' into account. She need not know the cost of the maintenance of the grain mill, nor the lease of the land upon which it sits, nor the wages paid to the miller, nor any other of the factors of production to formulate her sense of value for that bread. She only need to make a determination of whether or not she would value the bread more than what she would give in exchange for it. At the very point, the very fraction of a cent, that she values the bread more than the amount she will be asked to give for it, she will make the exchange. It is not important to consider by how much more she values the bread. The slightest tip of the scales in her favor is enough to make the purchase.
   
   So value being subjective rather than objective, we know that the same product will be valued more or less by different persons depending upon their particular circumstance at the moment of exchange. This leads us to what is known as marginal utility. Every one of us is a marginal user or consumer of every product we buy. In fact, we are marginal consumers of products we don't buy.
   
   Marginal utility is exactly what it sounds like. It is the point at which the utility of the product in question becomes marginalized in the eyes of the consumer in light of what is being asked in exchange for it. Let's give an example. Big screen, HD television sets currently seem to be all the rage. Everyone seems to want one. So why doesn't everyone have one? It's marginal utility. The one man may say "I'll buy that TV for $1,000 but I won't pay any more than that." At one thousand dollars and one cent, he values his money (or the other uses of it) more than he values the television. At any point over $1,000 he will keep his money rather than purchase the television. At $1,000 or any point below, he will exchange his money and take the television. Another man may see the same exact TV set and be willing to pay $5,000 for it. To him, his desire being stronger for it, the TV is worth more than what he could do with the money he will give for it. Others, less interested in the benefits of such a product, might not be willing to part with even $250 in exchange for it.
   
   Decisions just like this are made every day concerning products of much less enormity. Most of us would gladly pay 5 cents for a loaf of regular bread. Few would pay $5 for that same loaf, although some might depending on circumstance. However, at the market I frequent, most of my fellow consumers seem to drop out of the 'regular loaf of bread' market at about $1.50.
   
   A pair of tennis shoes is no different. Most of us would consider that same $1.50 we gave for the bread to be a bargain when shopping for a pair of shoes in which to strut our stuff on the local park hoops court. However, I know very few people who would give $500 for a new set of kicks, however fashionable they (or the shoes) might be. The point of marginal utility, or the drop-out point, is somewhere in the middle. I tend to drop out of the market for a new pair of tennis shoes at about $85. My wife has made it perfectly clear the she would have me drop out of the 'new pair of tennis shoes market' at about $50. Thus, it could be said, we have different points of marginal utility.
   
   The problem comes when we assign an elevated level of importance to a particular product. Life without this particular product seems unbearable. Somehow, we think, we should not be forced to make these decisions regarding this product, for it is much too necessary to even be subjected to these types of considerations. It is, as it were, a necessity of life.
   
   Such is the case with gas.
   
   It is conceded that responsible individuals must work to maintain a living and provide for themselves and their family so as to not become a burden upon the resources of society. It is further conceded that, in our society, this usually means owning or renting a car and filling it up with gas every day in order to drive back and forth to a job which provides us that living that it is our duty to make for ourselves. But this is an important caveat. This is the usual way of things in our society. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that we have no choice in the matter or that no other options are available to us. Did mankind not work before the invention of the automobile?
   
   What we really mean when we say we must have gas is that we must have transportation. Few of us would have any other use for the thousands of gallons of gasoline that we consume each year than as fuel for an automobile.
   
   So let us, then, consider modes of transportation. It is possible to live close enough to one's work so as to be in walking distance of one's place of employment. I work at a factory in a small town and I actually know people who, in fact, do this. It is also possible to own a limousine and pay a driver to come and pick you up and deliver you curbside to your place of employment. In reality, thousands of options exist in between these extremes (with prices proportionate to their appeal and comfort) and some outside the bounds of even these. A range from least expensive to most might look like this:
   
   1. Living close to work and walking the distance each day.
   2. Living close to work and riding a bike each day.
   3. Living close to work and carpooling with fellow employees.
   4. Living close to work and driving one's self.
   5. Living in the suburbs and carpooling.
   6. Living in the suburbs and driving one's self.
   7. Living in the suburbs and paying someone to drive you.
   8. Living in the suburbs and owning a helicopter in which you could fly to work each day.
   9. Living across state and flying by jet to work every day.
   
   Of course, all of these options in fact do exist in our society with thousands of variations within each one, from the padding in the seat of the bicycle in Option #2 to the difference in first class or business accommodations in Option #9, each of which will affect the cost of transportation for the person using them.
   
   So the question, then, is: Where does your marginal utility lie? At what point do you drop out of the transportation market?
   
   The fact of the matter is that most Americans have become accustomed to, and now take for granted, conveniences and luxury that would have been un-thought of, much less unheard of, in times past. We like driving in our big, comfortable, climate-controlled vehicles, with radios that bring us all types of information and diversion, navigation systems that tell us where to go if we get lost, and virtual assistants at the ready by the push of a blue button. Most cars can easily accommodate four adults in reasonable comfort without a significant increase in fuel consumption. Yet we like to drive in spacious compartments by ourselves. It's inefficient. And guess what? IT'S EXPENSIVE!!
   
   Still in the face of all this, most Americans prove every day that their marginal utility is quite high when it comes to transportation. This can only mean one thing. We value that particular mode of transportation more than we value what we give in exchange for it - that is our money.
   
   Remember, in a free society, you make a choice in every action you take. This includes actions of exchange. When we value the thing to be obtained (in this case our mode of transportation) less than we value what we would have to give in exchange for it (usually money) something very conspicuous happens. We change our actions. We drop out of that market or change our action within it. In short, we put our money to a different, more efficient use.
   
   For now, though, I don't see that happening. I don't see that the price of gas has risen above the point of marginal utility for most people. I don't see people living closer to work. I don't see people driving smaller cars. I don't see people carpooling, and I sure don't see people walking or riding their bikes. I still see a lot of people driving to and fro in gas-guzzling SUV's, trucks and other assorted vehicles with every type of convenience imaginable within an arms reach, and they're all telling me the same thing. "We can afford it!!"