I just finished reading your post on your dinner with an unnamed accomplished economist. One must admire your success in getting an economist to talk in circles. But it isn’t really all that difficult as you’re applying legitimate scientific thinking to a subject that is in fact not a science.

Economists try to say their art is a science by applying two very common themes to their work: laws and controlled experiments.

Laws: In physics, there is the well understood law of gravity. Every objects attracts other objects at a rate proportional to their masses or something. This law has helped govern and expand our understanding of physics for hundreds of years.

Economic Laws: The most basic economic concepts are still hotly debated. Is gold a currency? What caused the Great Depression? How do you tax pollution? What is the right measure of the economy? GDP, which is a common topic in your discussion with the economist, isn’t even universally agreed upon as the best measure for the economy. See happiness. There are no laws at which understanding can be furthered. Economics in 2012 is where physics was before Newton was walking. How long did it take for us to understand physics enough from that point to fly even a hundred feet? We can observe economic concepts in markets, but they are rarely consistent and nearly impossible to predict. Thankfully gravity is.

Controlled Experiments: In all manners of science, we are able to further our understanding by conducting controlled experiments. We can isolate almost every variable and change only one to observe the change. These observations have given us cancer-beating drugs, astronauts, electric cars, and the glass your reading this on.

Economic Experiments: Macroeconomists can’t experiment at all. They can only observe the real environment and report. When asked for advice or input they propose solutions “ceteris paribus”. Ceteris paribus is what real scientists do in a lab. But economists can’t hold all other factors equal when talking about solutions to a broken market. Markets are driven by people. At this point in our understanding of people there are too many factors at play to control all of them. So sure, if you control for every other aspect of the economy, you can improve it by having government spend more. But we really don’t know what every other aspect of the economy is.

Even though you have no formal training in economics it’s clear from your story you have a well enough understanding of it. So it was very disappointing that simply for the sake of conversation you limited the capacity for humanity to grow to the confines of the planet. While the pace of space exploration has certainly slowed, to even hypothetically chat about how we’ll be living in 400 years without including at least gathering resources from space is fruitless. Much less live in places other than Earth. No one was enriched by this conversation.

But the biggest problem with your conversation is that neither of you were willing to talk about the possibility of new understanding of your respective fields. Only after the conversation ends and you have time to reflect do you start to get to where some of us already are. I’ve already talked about our limited understanding of economics. But does anyone in your field ever talk about the thought of having it all wrong? Perhaps we can travel 300,000,000 m/s through normal space. To quote Scotty from the most recent Star Trek film: “Imagine that! It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving!” Our understanding of things could change.

While on the concept of science fiction, there are some things about economics that can be learned from Star Trek and Star Wars. The Star Trek universe had largely given up money. In such a hypothetical situation how would we measure the economy? Likewise, the Star Wars universe spans thousands of years without any significant change in technology or energy usage. The powerful were simply the ones that could gather the most resources and influence the most people. Again, how do we measure economy there?

The concept of unlimited growth is merely a way for economists to frame their limited understanding of their “science”. If GDP is ever constrained by the physical limits of growth they are likely to achieve some new understanding of economy. But that has not occurred yet. Until then, or until an economics Einstein comes along, the concept of unlimited growth is as sound as the speed of light. It provides a constant for which they can expand their knowledge.

Economics is not a mature field. Nor is it sophisticated. But they are trying. To apply real scientific logic to something that at this point, for the sake of argument, is an art, leaves a taste of snobbery in my mouth that was evidenced all over your post. At the very least you should disclose who the economist was, so they can confirm the events of your article, or perhaps offer a more well thought out response.

I am no fan of any economist (or politician) that thinks they actually understand the economy enough to explain how one action will result in a specific opposite reaction in a market. I prefer to look at economics the way we do psychology. We’re only beginning to understand how the brain works and apply real scientific methods to understanding it.  But no one is trying to break psychology because physics and biology can’t explain where the soul comes from. This would have been a much more interesting starting point for your conversation I think.

Please continue to poke holes in economics where you see a chance, it’s enlightening to see those outside the field take an interest. But if you want to add real value do it within the confines of the discipline, not by applying another one to it.

Exponentially,

The Weakonomist

Related posts:

1. The Future Of Economics, Explained With Physics
2. An Open Letter To Sir James Dyson
3. Is Economics A Science?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is the line drawn in the sand. If the American economy averages about 175,000 news jobs a month then Obama should win the election. If it’s below 100,000 jobs a month then Romney is moving in. Anything else in between then we have a fight.

That is at least according to some analysis by the NY Times:

“Historically, nothing — not social issues, campaign advertisements or gaffes — has influenced voters more heavily than the direction of the economy in an election year. In only three races since World War II has the outcome been different from what the economy’s direction would have suggested: 1952 (when the popular Dwight D. Eisenhower was running), 1968 (when the Vietnam War hobbled the Democrats) and 1976 (when Watergate hobbled the Republicans).”

In the absence any kind of scandal against a party, this looks like a race that comes down to jobs. And last month the economy added only 115,000 jobs. But the 6 months prior averaged almost 200,000.

This should be interesting then.

But it’s also sad. I’ve talked before about how candidates play games with economics. When it suits them, they will take credit for something in the economy. When it doesn’t, they won’t or their opponent will use it as an attack point. The reality is the role of the president in the economy is marginal at best. Even if a president put in different policies, there is no guarantee they would have been more effective.

No one really knows what the magic button is for jobs. But any candidate with a good smile (and both do) can convince you their policies did or would work.

The fact that the economy plays such a role in our elections is disappointing. Who was president really doesn’t matter. But in an election where the media is more focused on alleged high school bullying than a campaigner’s actual stance on issues tell us all we need to know about how rational voters will be come November anyway.

Related posts:

1. Rubio Economics
2. Weakend: PolitiFact
3. The State Of The Economy

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Europe has been trying to get to some level of stability for some time now. This has included more centralized control and massive budget cuts. The hope is to cut spending and get debt under control. But such measures involve great pain.

The lack of centralized control has also lead to many patchwork compromises. Many would say that they are “kicking the can down the road”. This implies they put off an important decision today because no one can really agree on long term solutions. Well, we’ve caught up to the can again and now the Eurozone must decide if to kick again, and where to kick the can. The problem is, they may be out of road.

Weakonomics doesn’t spend much time on the Europe issue because nothing ever seems to change. But for today let’s check in on the major stories playing out there this May:

Greece: After two bailouts, things are still not looking good for Greece. In order to get the bailouts Greece had to agree to huge cuts in spending. This has ruined the economy as it still sits in recession and suffers from an unemployment rate over 20%. Recent elections made everything worse. The Greek people don’t like all the austerity, so they’ve elected some new politicians that represent the far right and left. Some are actually Neo Nazis. Many of those elected are ready for action. This is stirring up fears of defaults again or perhaps Greece leaving the Euro currency. Whatever happens, the relative stability of the past few months is gone.

France: These guys also just had an election. The head hauncho Nicolas Sarkozy actually lost. The new guy, Francois Hollande, is also anti-austerity. Greece isn’t the only country that isn’t happy with its economy. The entire continent basically embraced the idea of cutting government spending to get debt levels back in check. Those cuts have hurt the economy though. Now Hollande has to go eye to eye with Germany, the arguably most powerful state in the EU, which still has a government in place that supports austerity. Once again, a lack of stability comes in to play.

Spain: When Greece got its first few bailouts, everyone thought there could be another domino to fall. Ireland and Portugal are going through similar crises but Spain’s economy is much larger than the others. Spain’s stress could be a tipping point between weaker outlier countries and the stronger countries at the core. In addition to high unemployment, Spain is also dealing with a real estate collapse. Whereas other countries are dealing with bad government debt, Spain also has the housing thing to deal with.

Related posts:

1. The 30 Second Guide To Europe
2. Christine Lagarde Takes Over The IMF; What’s the IMF Again?
3. What’s Happening To Greece?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

But sometimes those relationship crack. Perhaps a country is breaking some fundamental human right, or maybe they’re lying about what their plans are with a mountain of plutonium. For whatever reason, the US and other major world powers don’t want to just send the military in to fix the problem. So we instead use a tool that only recently has started to have some value.

Back in the 1960s the US got in a big fight with Cuba. Perhaps rightfully so, we cut Cuba off. The hope was that by refusing to have an economic relationship with Cuba the country would be forced to see their erred ways and come to work with the US again. It didn’t happen. The embargo is still in place.

In the 1960s trade relationships weren’t nearly is significant as they are today. The dollar was the king of currencies, but countries were largely self-sufficient. Even the US imported a fraction of oil compared to domestic production.

Nowadays we’re all totally reliant on each other. We need China for cheap goods and loans, and they need us to keep buying the stuff they make. We need the Middle East to supply us with oil, and they need us and Europe for places to spend their money. And smaller, less developed countries, rely on aid from 1st world countries to provide the stability needed to grow and modernize.

When one of those countries gets on our nerves, we bring out the sanctions. We’ve been especially hard on Iran because of their push towards having nuclear power. Many believe they are trying to make a bomb. One would have to assume that for us and the EU to be so tough on Iran the intelligence community knows something the rest of us don’t. The sanctions include not doing business with their central bank, and boycotting their oil exports.

The hope would be that this would cause enough economic chaos that the country would fix the issue to stabilize. If no one is buying their oil, then the country starts to run out of money real fast. Angry citizens could demand their government fix it. The suffering of innocents could lead to a similar solution. This is the ultimate goal of sanctions. The hope would be that just the threat of sanctions would be enough.

Think of it this way. You run a company with 100 employees. Most of your profits come from one customer. That customer doesn’t like what you’re doing and threatens to cut you off if you don’t fix the issue. If you don’t you’re employees will suffer, and so will your business. What do you do?

The argument seems simple. But it isn’t. In many of the countries we sanction, the leader won’t feel the effects of the sanctions. As the leader of your business, you can watch your employees slowly get laid off, and die of starvation. But if you have your own stockpile of cash you can afford to wait it out. Assuming the leaders of these countries don’t care about their people, sanctions won’t matter to them so long as they can keep paying the body guards.

This is the fundamental problem with economic sanctions as a policy. The wrong people suffer. The decision makers causing all the problems aren’t going to feel the affects of the sanctions. Certainly not immediately. And the sanctions hurt the punisher too. If the punished can afford to wait it out, they will.

That doesn’t say sanctions, don’t work. In many cases they do. But does that make them good policy? Are there other options? I don’t know.

Image: Nouhailler

Related posts:

1. Text Messaging is the Biggest Scam of the 21st Century
2. The Weakonomist Reads a Book: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
3. Why Is Haiti Such An Economic Mess?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Dan Ariely of Predictably Irrational fame reminisces:

“When I first moved to the U.S. for graduate school (which was a long time ago), I was very intrigued by and excited about the tax system and tax day. I envisioned it as a matter of civic engagement, a yearly ritual where citizens reflected on their contribution to the common pool of resources—for better and for worse. I imagined that people would consider the benefits of taxes—being able to fund schools, build roads and bridges, care for the poorest members of the community, and fund the defense of the U.S.—while at the same time watching for wastefulness and protesting against it”

Like most people, Dan Ariely understands the purpose of taxes and respects them at a high level. Most people appreciate all the benefits that taxes bring us. Economists agree that the best benefits of taxes are public goods. Public goods are items where there isn’t a market large enough for one group to pay for it themselves. Roads are always the best example. We all need roads, but none of us, not even large corporations, can build a highway system for their personal use.

With public goods there will always be free riders, those that use the goods but don’t have to pay for it. If you drive through a state without stopping to buy something then you are a free rider on that state’s roads. That’s okay though because there are enough taxes collected to pay for the few free riders that can’t be stopped anyway. Public goods benefit everyone and this is why taxes are needed to pay for them.

But when taxes become a part of policy discussion they are publicly loathed for being a drag on the economy or too high or unfair. This is due to fundamental disagreements on what those tax dollars should be spent on. Anyone with a hatred for taxes of a certain kind always has a good story about a rich guy dodging his bill or some poorly managed government investment.

What this has done though is helped create a culture where we feel like all taxes are bad. We forget all the good taxes do for us. When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money was being spent we saw signs all over the country near construction sites attributing that project to the stimulus money spending. This likely helped a bit with appreciation for the spending. Imagine a Tea Partier that is at least happy they finally widened the road for their commute.

Do we need more reminders of what our tax dollars are actually doing for us? Here’s just a few publicly funded services that I think would help quite a bit with this problem:

• Outside prisons: These guys are here instead of in your neighborhood thanks to tax dollars
• Bridges: You’re able to cross a gap that previously took 2 days thanks to tax dollars
• Airports: Tourists are able to come here and you’re able to travel thanks to tax dollars
• That new employer in town: You got your job thanks to tax dollars
• Random locations: This area not patrolled by Nazis or Soviets thanks to tax dollars
• Defense contractors: We employ hundreds of thousands of people thanks to tax dollars
• Public transportation: You don’t have to sit in traffic and are using less fossil fuels thanks to tax dollars
• After a wreck involving a guardrail: This person didn’t fall off a cliff and die thanks to tax dollars
• When Grandma comes home from the hospital: She’s still kicking thanks to tax dollars

Those are just a few that came to me in a couple of minutes. If you have more you can throw them in the comments.

It seems though that we’ve collectively forgotten everything our tax dollars do buy.  We only focus on the things our tax dollars are seemingly wasted on. But we’re all connected. The funding for someone’s welfare check may mean the difference between that person robbing your store today or not. A few years ago it was considered unpatriotic to not support our wars, even if you were like me and still very much supported our troops. So let’s get more reminders of all the good stuff our tax dollars do provide. Perhaps then we can be more civilized about what we don’t want our dollars spent on.

Image: Eric Kilby

Related posts:

1. The Amazon Tax
2. Fair Tax:  The Pros and Cons
3. Tax Day Eve

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For my parking needs, I have two choices. There is a surface lot available for $4 and a parking deck for $5. Each comes with it’s own advantages:

Surface lot: It is easy to get in and out of and I don’t have to get in by a certain time to get the $4 price point. But the lot is exposed to the elements both sun and rain. When it’s storming or really hot out, either I’m getting wet or my car is getting hot.

Parking deck: It takes longer to get in and out of, but the walk is shorter to my office. There is protection from the elements, not just for my car, but me as well. I can get to my building by walking through other ones. But I have to get in by a certain time to get the low price.

The parking deck is 25% more expensive, which can add up over time. Overall the utility of each choice is about equal for me so my choice depends on what I think the weather might be like that day and what time I get in. But the parking deck has another hidden feature, and this is where economists come in.

Event day
My office in town is near a number of buildings that host events, especially in the evenings. Events can be lucrative for parking facilities and they often switch to a flat rate for the events. This particular deck switches from automated payment upon exit to human power collection upon entrance when these events occur. Event attendees aren’t given tickets for exiting so the manager must leave the gate open for everyone trying to leave.

What this means for me is on these event days every once in a while I can drive out of the parking deck without having to pay, saving $5.

So when I know there is an event and choose the parking deck over the surface lot, I’m taking a risk and if I lose I’m out $1.  That’s because my choices are to either pay $4, or maybe pay $5 with a chance of paying $0.

Options
Economists and financiers see this as an option contract. The contract is between myself and the parking deck operator. In finance, an option is usually a contract that gives the buyer the choice on whether to buy an asset from the seller at a set price in the future (some readers may note this is but one kind of option). The option buyer pays a small fee to the seller for the pleasure to decide in the future.

In the parking world the parking deck operator is buying a contract from me. They pay for the contract in the form of parking services, and they have the right, but are not required, to charge me $5 in the future.

Options are used all the time in the business world to give managers and investors a choice in the future they don’t want to make now. The deck operator wants to decide at the end of the day whether or not to charge me. Their ultimate decision will be based on whether or not they can get enough vehicles to come to the event to offset the loss on me.

As for me, I am taking a risk every day I park in this deck. The $4 surface lot is the more conservative choice. I know how much I will pay at any given time, and it will always be less than if I get charged in the parking deck. But if I tracked my visits into the city I could model the likelihood of the parking deck to charge me or not and allow an algorithm to decide for me. That isn’t going to happen, so instead I will be taking a risk. Wish me luck!

Image: o palsson

Related posts:

1. Supply & Demand Meets Parking
2. Free Parking Isn’t Free: Counterpoint
3. When A $300,000 Parking Space Is Worth It

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Marco Rubio said this on Monday while campaigning for Mitt Romney. He may or may not end up being Romney’s VP, but he’s saying all the right things, like the comment above.

Statements like this will be a common theme in the campaigns. Romney and Co will say things like Rubio did. Obama will counter by saying things would have been worse without his policies.

The debates could go down like this:

• Romney: Unemployment is at 8%, if Obama hadn’t meddled or if I had been president it would be 6% by now.
• Obama: If I hadn’t meddled it would be 10%, I kept the country out of a depression.

Which argument you believe likely depends on your politics. Credible arguments can be made in either direction. I would posit that neither are actually true but those are my politics.

It’s important to distinguish economics from politics. Incumbents are always held overly responsible for events that occur during their terms. They will deny those held against them and affirm those that suit their agenda. Likewise, the challenger will hold the incumbent responsible for actions that suit their agenda but clarify anything good happening isn’t because of said incumbent. Case in point:

‘We should hope the economy is getting better. There are signs it’s getting better. I sure hope it keeps getting better.” “And the president is going to stand there and say he deserves credit for that. No, if it gets better it’s not because of him, it’s in spite of him.” ~ Mitt Romney

Be watching for similar comments from Obama in the coming months. He has so far held back a bit because he hasn’t had to say much. That is about to change.

Related posts:

1. Mitt Romney Running For POTUS Might Be Bad For Rich People
2. The Tragedy Of Mitt Romney
3. Mitt Romney: The Job Creator

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Natural gas is considered a “bridge fuel” to get us to green. It’s considerably cleaner than coal or oil, and can replace both in many aspects of life. Most of the planned power plants to be built in the next few years are natural gas. And vehicles can run on gas as well. Honda makes a natural gas Civic and some companies are slowly switching to gas powered trucks.

The benefits are three-fold. Natural gas burns much cleaner than oil, it’s made here in America, and it’s super freaking cheap. That last one might actually be becoming a problem actually.

The price of natural gas continues to fall, because supply is extremely outpacing demand. If this is such a wondrous fuel, why aren’t people buying it? This is one of those times where traditional economics doesn’t seem to apply. Supply and demand are completely out of synch; so much so that all the gas being extracted from the ground may soon not even have a place to be stored.

So what’s the problem? The users of gas tomorrow, aren’t ready to use it today. Most of the new power plants aren’t up and running yet. No one buys the Civic GX because there’s no place to fill it up. Some cities have embraced natural gas for buses and dump trucks because they don’t have to drive far to fill up. But it’s more difficult for truckers going cross country. How often do you see a station that offers natural gas? For most people, the answer is never.

The most interesting thing about this problem is the extractors continue to pump gas out of the ground. This despite not having a buyer. Part of the reason is the way the contracts are written for these people to extract the gas. They buy leases that give them the rights to extract gas for a certain number of years. But if they don’t start extracting, then the contract will expire. If they start drilling then the contract keeps going. Everyone in the business bought up these contracts at cheap prices years ago.

So we have too much gas. Too much of a fuel that’s supposed to be a win for everyone (except for some potential issues with extraction). A very interesting economic enigma. In the long term this is a problem that will solve itself. A lot of demand is about to come online. But that is long term. We don’t know when the short term will end.

Read: US Has A Natural Gas Problem: Too Much Of It

Image: Montgomery Cty Division of Solid Waste Services

Related posts:

1. Not Everyone Makes Money In Big Oil
2. Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is?
3. Yet Another Blogger Talking About Gas Prices, Me!

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I am addressing you today because our country is about to start a 7 month journey that occurs once every four years. Two people that are at this point only marginally loved by their parties are representing them in a bid to have as much control over this country that we allow.

I am here to tell you, that while there is one person at any given time with a ton of power, the president can’t do much. I have a four points that you should be aware of that will never be uttered by either side.

The president can’t do much for the economy – One person just doesn’t have that much control. They can’t make the economy better. At best, a president can put some Neosporin an economic boo-boo and kiss the bandage. This applies even to a clean break of the tibia going straight through the skin. Time and proper care are the only real fixes. And unless your presidential parents don’t allow you outside of the house any more there is very little they can do to stop you from breaking your leg again.

The president and candidates will take credit for things they shouldn’t – When it suits their needs, a president or candidate will take credit for positive events that happened on their watch. This is unavoidable. Just watch for any claim that seems like it’s incredible that one person could be responsible for such a thing. Again, any impact coming from a president or candidate is likely minor and someone else would have done it if they didn’t. Candidates and presidents will make such claims because you American people are still hero obsessed and will believe it.

Opponents will blame presidents and candidates for things they shouldn’t – The current president is not responsible for whatever per cent of female job losses on his watch any more than the GOP candidate is a hypocrite for opposing a law on a national scale he helped implement at the state level. But strategists will make such attacks, partially because these people will have made wild claims that pertain to the previous point. This is campaign karma.

Most every promise made for the next seven months won’t happen- There are three reasons for this.  Either they are underestimating, exaggerating, or Congress will shut it down.

• Underestimate: Those that have not held the office yet do not understand how hard it is to actually get something accomplished in Washington.  Every new president struggles with this in the first couple of years.  Consider it naivety if you wish.  But only once they are in office will they get the entire picture of a situation.  This will lead presidents having to back out of campaign promises and literally not able (or allowed) to explain why.
• Exaggerate: Over-promising and under-delivering is a big problem in American politics.  Presidents and candidates will exaggerate the truth or their abilities in order to win more votes.  Once they win it will be easy to explain why they didn’t accomplish the promise by blaming it on someone else.
• Congress: The most noble of goals can be shut down in Congress.  Congress is more focused on re-elections even during their terms and so their position is greatly influenced by who donated the most money that week.  Everyone has an agenda and if one party controls every chamber and office you will quickly see how divided that party actually is.

Please do not be disappointed if this is news to you. But we Americans always seem to forget that presidents are not dictators. We vote for presidents based on what they could accomplish as dictators if they’re lucky.  Set your expectations now for the next four years.  What have prior presidents promised?  What have they accomplished?

Sincerely,

Related posts:

1. Who Is Herman Cain?
2. Weakend: What Do You Own That You Love?
3. The Weakonomist Endorses a Candidate: Part II

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As my tasty concoction came together I reached in the refrigerator for the final and most important ingredient. Not only does milk give coffee a creamy texture, it’s also fun to watch it mix in through a clear cup. But, there wasn’t much milk left. There wasn’t another jug either. The Sheconomist wouldn’t make it to the store for another 36 hours and that’s two breakfasts away. I could have had cereal for breakfast but due to the high dairy need of such a meal I passed and went for oatmeal with my coffee.  Oatmeal uses a lot less milk than cereal because water is usually the primary moist ingredient.  The result lead to my using considerably less milk than if there had been another gallon in the fridge.

Think of all the things you have to purchase regularly because you run out of it. For me it’s milk and other perishable foods. But there’s also toiletries, makeup (for some), and fuel for our cars. In every instance as we start to run low and without backup, we start conserving. We use considerable less when there’s no extra in site.

Perhaps the best example is toilet paper. We’ve all been there. You sit down on the toilet, let biology and physics do their thing, look around, and there’s not enough toilet paper to get the job done in normal circumstances. But somehow you make it work. Without doing a study it’s reasonable to guess we can easily get by with a third of the TP we’d use if there was another roll nearby.

Buying in bulk is difficult in many areas of life. We don’t buy suits, cars, fuel, iPads, or vacations in bulk. But we do buy lots of things in bulk. We’re told it’s economical because we’re paying less per unit. There’s a three pound bag of dried apricots in my pantry that would agree with us.

But it’s only economical in the traditional economics sense. We would assume it’s much more efficient to buy in bulk, not only saving on cost per unit, but also on trips to make purchases. But that assumes we consume at the same rate regardless of what we have on hand, and that as soon as we run out, we would go out and purchase more.

This is not how we act when we run low on resources. We cut our consumption, especially if the resource is expensive to replace. We see this every time the price of gas goes up but we don’t equate it to other areas of life. No one thinks “hey, I’d cut my toilet paper costs by 30% if I tricked myself into always thinking I was running out”.

But we actually could save that much or more. Buying in bulk is one of those American things we’ve all become accustomed to but may not be the best for us.

Related posts:

1. Just Buy It Already!
2. Why Would A Company Buy Back Stock?
3. How To Buy A Car

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.