Edmunds CarPool

Couple of things that would muddle this plan. When the price of gas naturally hits $4.00/gal and consumers are not aware of it, they'd still be waiting for their refunds, which would be eliminated or greatly reduced.

Secondly, there would be significant administrative costs for the fed to run this program that would encumber things.

I am firmly in favour of an elastic and revenue neutral gas tax (although I might set it higher, or at least a Federal floor of $4, and different state taxes might make it, say, $4.33 in CA and $4.07 in WY, say), but I'm not quite sure of the rebate aspect. Are you talking an exact rebate (I was levied $1000 over the year, so I get $1000 back), or something along the lines of the Alaska Permanent Fund (every taxpayer gets $x back, regardless of how much gas tax they paid)? In order to truly change behaviour, I'd make the revenue return (tax breaks) for something like home or office energy efficiency -- insulation, etc. (if not an a/c "cash-for-clunkers" program)

But bottom line, Karl, no, you're not crazy, nor are you a tree-hugging commie.

Interesting ideas. However I am not in favor of government creating an artificial price. Also, if government returns the funds to the people there is waste in the cost to create the program and run it simple to dictate people's actions.

Here is another idea. I have kids in elementary and middle school (In a very good district). How much economics have they been taught in school? The answer is none. Teaching economics, budgets and finance at an early age throughout school would help with understanding the economics of everything including auto ownership. Informed consumers and a free market with minimal government action equals a better country.

I agree with the basic point if not all the details. (i) Clearly, it is desirable for us as a country to consume less oil (either to be more energy-independent or to be more friendly to the environment or both - I happen to like both ideas).
(ii) CAFE does NOT work. It actually makes driving cheaper rather than more expensive. (It makes buying the car more expensive but once you bought it, it consumes less gas so driving is cheaper.) As a result, people drive more and move further out into the suburbs which negates a large part if not all of the gas savings. So CAFE doesn't work even if implemented perfectly. Things get even worse if you have loopholes like in the current CAFE that encourage production of trucks instead of cars.

So, why don't we attack the problem the American way, via supply and demand. Which means, of course, a gas tax.

I also think it should be revenue neutral, but I'd just reduce federal income taxes by the appropriate amount. We do not need an additional government bureaucracy managing rebate checks.

Also I am not sure how well Karl's elastic feature would really work. I'd rather say: Lets increase gas tax by, say, 2 cents per months
for the next 5 years. This would give a total increase of $1.20 which is roughly right to change people's behavior AND it gives businesses and people time to adjust.

If the gov't insists on trying to influence car purchase decisions, a gas tax of some kind makes more sense than the CAFE rules or cash-for-clunkers do. CAFE is trying to force manufacturers to make particular cars, whether they can sell them or not. This results in the need to massive discounts and losses on particular sectors of cars. How does CAFE help the manufacturers get back on their feet? It doesn't, it just compounds a bad situation. Cash-for-clunkers can't seem to decide if the goal is to reduce fuel consumption or boost the economy, and seems to be doing bad job of both.

With a gas tax, however, you influence the consumer directly. As demonstrated last summer (and as shown in Europe for decades), if you want people to buy fuel-efficient cars, make the fuel more expensive.

The tax as you've outlined, though, is interesting but not very workable. First, as stated above, the tax that exists now is a revenue source that states depend on. If you take that away, it needs to be replaced by something else.

Second, any tax that results in a rebate back to the taxpayer needs accountability and transparency, otherwise you can get people wondering why they aren't getting a rebate. Then there's the question of how much does each person get. Simply dividing the cash evenly amongst the taxpayers means that someone who buys a lot of fuel ends up giving money to someone who buys little or no fuel at all. A complex system of proving how much fuel you buy (and how much fuel tax you paid) means more paperwork and bureaucracy
and opportunities for mistakes and fraud. It would be better if personal taxes could just go down because the tax revenue increased somewhere else, and let people keep their money in the first place. I'm not a fan of "give it to the gov't and we'll give it back later" rebate systems: let people keep their money up front.

Last, the price of gasoline fluctuates from day to day, and even hour to hour at times. It varies widely across the country due to a number of factors beyond varying state taxes. That would mean the retailers would have to figure out the tax at any given time to keep $4/gal as the price at the pump. Who compensates them for the extra expense and complexity in calculating this? Who makes sure they aren't making mistakes, either deliberate or accidental?

If the goal is to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars, approaches like CAFE and cash-for-clunkers seem backward to me. Taxing the fuel makes more sense, because it influences consumption by the consumer.

That's just what we need...more taxes.

I support drilling for more oil. Gee, what a concept.

I'd go with it.

I have a problem with your elastic argument. You'll skew the supply-demand curve for oil companies. If there's just as much demand for gas at "$2.50/gal" as there is at $4/gal, then why sell for less? Basically, you're suggesting we subsidize the oil companies during "hard times" or, plainly speaking, during fall, winter, and spring.

I strongly support a gas tax, but whatever I'm paying at the pump, I would like returned on the 1st and 15th of every month, not on April 15th the following year. In other words, lower income taxes.

Two problems here:

1. Govt. intervention is never a good intervention.

2. Such protectionism of citizens from the "real world" is dangerous because it makes the citizens of other countries more intelligent and gives their future generations a head start. I'd say let the citizens decide for themselves on their vehicles purchase. I know they've got a moths brain but protecting them won't turn them into a rocket scientist. It would rather create a dumber moth (if there is such a thing).

Sometimes, we will have to loose battles to win wars.

PS: Don't just read news from the local sources. Be brave and open up BBC or other Asian sites to see what the world thinks of us and you'll see what I'm saying.

Karl, is a mix bag and we are chasing our tails all the time. Let the states regulate their "GASOLINE TAX" and not DIESEL. Let the states use that tax money to repair the roads or whatever so they don't have to beg the government for more money. Some say people will revolt! Look how many short minded people bought new large SUV's and large trucks lately because of lower gas prices. We don't learn from the past?

By the way drilling an oil well is not cheap. Requires millions of dollars of equipment and resources to get the oil. Then requires thousands of dollars to keep the oil flowing. 70% percent of the times a well will flow for the first weeks and then the production will go down as fast as you can pump money in. Gas drilling... worst!

Are we going to change people perceptions? Nope. But been in the oil & gas for many years I know what is coming!

Karl, I like your "Karl's Gas Tax"! The only part I differ is returning the money to individuals.........if I know that I'll get the money back at the end of the year, it won't be the deterrent it's meant to be. I think the money should go to other projects: road maintenance (and maybe be used to eliminate the concept of toll roads), construction, reducing the deficit, whatever program that will benefit society....as long as the money is not misused or mismanaged, it's fine by me!

I think that your idea, while good & soundly reasoned, is too little, too late. We no longer have the luxury of discussing a gas tax in narrow terms (for the benefit of auto drivers, to induce more responsible car choices, etc). Nope, we're at the point where we need to start pulling out the stops to induce thrift at all levels as a means of cutting expenses and raising revenue.

Not to be soapbox-y, but the US as a country - and also we as individuals - are so up to our eyeballs in debt of all kinds that we really don't have much of a choice. I understand everyone's wariness about the government's track record with fiscal responsibility, but we as a people aren't much better; we're all going to have to pull back, re-evaluate, and dedicate to a different way of being.

Theory is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

Interesting.

I had a similar thoughts to pushrod -

"Second, any tax that results in a rebate back to the taxpayer needs accountability and transparency, otherwise you can get people wondering why they aren't getting a rebate. Then there's the question of how much does each person get. Simply dividing the cash evenly amongst the taxpayers means that someone who buys a lot of fuel ends up giving money to someone who buys little or no fuel at all. A complex system of proving how much fuel you buy (and how much fuel tax you paid) means more paperwork and bureaucracy
and opportunities for mistakes and fraud. It would be better if personal taxes could just go down because the tax revenue increased somewhere else, and let people keep their money in the first place. I'm not a fan of "give it to the gov't and we'll give it back later" rebate systems: let people keep their money up front."

Perhaps a rebate could be tied to your most recent car registration? Regardless of the miles you drive/amount of gallons you use your rebate would be governed by a table which would be based on EPA ratings.

I think a predictable buffer against wildly fluctuating gas prices as we've seen over the past couple years would be a good thing.

In practice, revenue neutral and individual refunds are impossible. Give the federal behemoth money and they will spend all of it (and in this administration, another 50% besides). Refunds will go to people who didn't pay anything in the first place, and that'll only last as long as the budget is black.

Which changes the real world nature of this program from price buffer to just another federal expansion into my wallet. No sale.

"We've tried attacking this problem on the supply/production side for the past 35 years with pointless CAFE legislation. And in case you're still under any illusions I'll state clearly: CAFE DOESN'T WORK."

Of course it doesn't work because efficiency isn't consumption. CAFE doesn't care whether you use 1 gallon a month or 100, as long as you spin the wheels enough in the process. Which is as idiotic as it sounds. This needs to be brought up more often.

What will prevent the oil company from simply moving the price to $4 in this theoretical argument? The consumer wont know the difference. In the end, it will just make the oil company stronger.

The best way to do this is to lower income taxes and raise gas taxes by an equal amount. That would've made 10 times more sense than CAFE regulations but politicians know Americans oppose increases in fuel prices under any terms so they are too cowardly to advance such an idea. Instead they would rather point the figure at the auto industry and act like gas prices don't affect consumption.

Couple things:

- First, everyone is fixated on $4/gallon as the price that "woke everyone up". I'm not so sure. Personally, I think it was the extremely fast increase in the price from $3 to $4 in a matter of weeks that really scared people. If that ramp up had taken a year or two, I don't think you would have had nearly the reaction.

- Second, this country hasn't decided, as an entity, what it wants. Okay, it kind of has - it wants all cars, no matter what size, to get infinite mileage while gas is pennies for a gallon. But we haven't come up with a goal based in reality - we keep trying to push it off (or push it onto others, like the auto companies). This actually may be the right answer, because while we hem and haw technology may actually save us. But otherwise we have to make a choice - are we trying to reduce gas consumption and emissions, or are we trying to improve our checkbook balance? We can't have it both ways. Karl's idea tries to let us have it both ways, which is why it is flawed.

No to the gas tax. I would much prefer a similar tax on imported oil. Tax the imported oil so the taxed price is $100 per barrel - no refunds to anyone. All oil users, not just drivers, have an incentive to use less.

The biggest problem that I see with this scenario is that you're price fixing. Who's to say that the price of gas should always be $4.00 a gallon? Who's to say it should always be $1.00 or $10.00 a gallon? What you're doing is setting a price and saying no matter what, we'll all be paying it.

It's no different than the provisions under the New Deal that said farmers would be guaranteed a set price for their products. The exactly result that redliner has mentioned (the producers of the product raising the price so all prices are sent directly to them rather than the government) would occur. This would only serve to make the government look even WORSE for intervening in the market, and make the oil companies better because they would be touting their high prices as a method of keeping "consumer money out of the hands of the government", or something of the like.

It's all just a round-about way of price fixing and it'll fail just like every other price fixing plan has. This isn't communism, it's fascism. The best way is to let the consumers decide what price is best to pay for a certain commodity and have the producers of that commodity respond by setting it to that price. Taxes should be as minimalist as possible while still providing the funding necessary to properly regulate that industry.

blackadder, the idea is that everyone gets the same amount of money back. Say the average person spends $1,000 on gas - they'll get that much back at the end of the year. If you drive a very efficient car or only drive on weekends, you might spend $300 on gas - and get $1,000 back. If you have an hour-long commute in a Suburban you might spend $2,000 on gas - and get $1,000 back. Hence the incentive.

Tiruvan, it makes for a catchy phrase but it's overly simplistic to say government intervention is never a good thing. We've elected officials to look out for the country's long term interests, but consumers and the market in general tend to have a short term outlook. The two timeframes often disagree. If you think it isn't in our best interest to incentivize saving fuel that's valid, but just say so, and please state why you feel that way with more than a catchphrase.

Some great points here. Let me respond to a few of them.

"the tax that exists now is a revenue source that states depend on. If you take that away, it needs to be replaced by something else."

I'm not saying we reduce any current taxes. This is an ADDITIONAL tax on fuel to make it cost $4-a-gallon, so no current fuel tax income would be cut or replaced (or lost).

"the price of gasoline fluctuates from day to day, and even hour to hour at times. It varies widely across the country due to a number of factors beyond varying state taxes. That would mean the retailers would have to figure out the tax at any given time to keep $4/gal as the price at the pump"

Maybe the national price of gas is reviewed once a month and the next month's tax rate is based on the last month's price, so we're not having to be constantly updating the tax but it tracks pretty closely to the constantly-shifting price.

"Perhaps a rebate could be tied to your most recent car registration? Regardless of the miles you drive/amount of gallons you use your rebate would be governed by a table which would be based on EPA ratings."

Yup, something like that would be the system. The rebate is based on the car you register and its EPA ratings and, maybe, on miles driven each year (though this could be difficult/expensive to track). But just registration and EPA ratings and a general basis of 12,000-a-year would generally get the job done. And yes, we'd deal with multiple car ownership somehow.

"What will prevent the oil company from simply moving the price to $4 in this theoretical argument?"

I'm sure we could track the actual cost from the price the oil companies just pick, but really what's the difference. Whether the oil companies or the tax make it $4-a-gallon the same result occurs. People think about fuel mileage when buying a car. And "YES" I'd rather see the money go to oil companies than government. If people think oil companies are evil I need them to define what governments are. What, are oil companies MORE corrupt? Are they MORE misguided in their efforts to do good? Are they MORE wasteful of capital than the government?

"Such protectionism of citizens from the "real world" is dangerous because it makes the citizens of other countries more intelligent and gives their future generations a head start. I'd say let the citizens decide for themselves on their vehicles purchase. I know they've got a moths brain but protecting them won't turn them into a rocket scientist. It would rather create a dumber moth (if there is such a thing)."

I actually completely agree with this thinking. The problem is it doesn't get carried through to it's logical conclusion.

For example. I hate helmet laws. Not because I think people should ride motorcycles without a helmet, because that is idiotic. But I hate the government restricting my choice. HOWEVER, if people don't ride with a helmet and get in a motorcycle accident and don't die, all of us get ot pay to keep that person on a feed tube and in a wheelchair for the rest of his/her life. So because we've set up a system that forces us to save idiots we now have to make laws to try and stop idiots from doing idiotic (re: expensive to taxpayers) things.

Same with car purchases -- and home purchases -- and car companies. If you pay for too much car and it gets bad fuel mileage (or too much house, or too many employee benefits at too high of cost while make crap product) and that blows up your financial solvency THEN YOU SHOULD GO BROKE AND HAVE TO CLAW YOUR WAY BACK TO FINANCIAL SOLVENCY.

But our system doesn't work that way. When people (or companies) make stupid mistakes they expect the government to make it all better (using my money, of course) so now I have to put laws in place to keep people from being stupid (though I would much prefer no laws and no protection for stupid people -- or companies, believe me!).

So, while I appreciate your motivation to not create dumber moths the painful truth is -- TOO LATE. We've alraedy set up a system that does just that. Now we have to mitigate the cost of creating a dumb moth factory (government). Or we need to totally dismantle the current government and start again with an understanding that a certain amount of people will always be dumb moths but the rest of us shouldn't be burdended with saving them (at least not through government taxation; private charity is a different matter).

Thus the need to protect dumb moths from cyclic fuel prices and encourage long-term investment in fuel-efficient vehicles with Karl's Gas Tax.

"If people think oil companies are evil I need them to define what governments are."

At least I get something back from my tax dollars, albeit via a horribly inefficient system. If my money goes straight to oil companies, I wouldn't expect much of that money to return to me (or to the US). The only returns I could expect would be increased home values in locations that are supported by the oil industry (like Houston).

No, I'd rather not subsidize the oil industry.

"No, I'd rather not subsidize the oil industry."

Compared to the things I'm currently being forced to subsidize the oil industry is the Salvation Army.

But of all the industries out there that could use some cash, Big Oil isn't one of them. In fact, it'd be the last one that would need any help.

"In fact, it'd be the last one that would need any help."

Next to last: Government

I agree a gas tax is the best way to reduce gas consumption. There are compelling environmental and national security reasons to reduce our gas consumption. Even if you take issue with the former reason there is no way to drill your way out of foriegn dependency to address the latter issue. I agree that CAFE is a failure and I do not like the restriction of choice. If you are willing to pay for the fuel you should be able to buy a vehilcle with poorer MPG. The goal is to influence overall behavior but to allow individual choice. Also it is more fair to address the actual amount of fuel consumed rather than focusing on the rate at which it is consumeed. Someone driving a lot of miles in a Prius may consume more fuel than someone with a short commute in an SUV.

I thought for moment you were on to something there Karl, then you threw the incentive out the window. As soon as the "moth on the freeway" crowd hears that they are getting that tax back, then what's the point. I mean the populous might be dumb, but they're not that dumb. After a few years it would just be another government bureaucracy that we have no idea why need and no idea how to get rid off.

If forcing people to consider their gas consumption when purchasing a vehicle is your ultimate goal then there has to be pain involved. Which brings us back to the same old gas tax debate . . . do you want that pain to come from the government or the market . . . I personally lean towards the market. There's less overhead!

Karl,

I'd like you to comment on my earlier post about price fixing. Your behemoth of a comment didn't directly talk about it, but it did touch on something you may be implying that I said. And that is that the oil companies are more corrupt than government.

That imply couldn't be further from the truth. Inherently, the companies are NOT corrupt, but what you'd be doing by your price fixing gas tax would actually be harboring monopoly in the oil industry which then leads to corruption. You would be protecting unnecessarily high prices on gas because, as I've said before, the companies would rather collect that money from the consumer instead of that money going to a government that is seemingly out to get them. You're effectively guaranteeing them profit, no matter what, and all under the guise of a gas tax.

You say you're for limited government, but you constantly raise hypothetical policies (like this one) which are little more than round-about socialism. I'm for a gas tax, but this seems more like a Ponzi scheme than anything else...

"That imply couldn't be further from the truth. Inherently, the companies are NOT corrupt"

Agreed. That's why my "behemoth of a comment" included the line, "And "YES" I'd rather see the money go to oil companies than government. If people think oil companies are evil I need them to define what governments are." To be clear, I think most government most of the time are far more corrupt than ANY private enterprise.

"You say you're for limited government, but you constantly raise hypothetical policies (like this one) which are little more than round-about socialism."

Gonna need a list of my "contantly" raised socialism policies. I've been doing this blog for five years, so I hope you have more than 2-3 examples. I can certainly provide plenty of examples of my lambasting government's socialist-like policies. Like this week's. And last week's. And the week before that. And the week before that.

In fact, the last four weeks in a row I've bemoaned the increased role (and complete folly) of our government's attempt to save us and our corporations from mistakes versus letting them serve as valuable lessons.

Might want to read this blog a little closer.

Karl, no way that real corruptable politicians could implement a better way to price gasoline than the free market. As mirth noted, it might be the rapid increase in gas prices, not the price of $4 per gallon, that changed consumer behavior. Maybe volatile gas prices where the consumer fears the possibility of $5/gal gas but pays less than $3/gal most of the time is the best situation. Instead of high but artificially steady prices maybe we need fear and uncertainty to increase subcompact demand.

Karl,

If you can't see how price fixing is backdoor socialism, then you shouldn't be writing about "free market capitalism". And price fixing is exactly what you're talking about here.

And thanks for dodging my request to comment on my argument directly.

I'll repeat it again: your policy would only help to create high prices and sustain then, thus making the commodity in question (and, arguably, all commodities directly or indirectly related) more expensive for consumers. One of the principles of capitalism is that prices go down over time. What you're working towards is the opposite.

Controlling prices is fascist and only has the company that makes the commodity in interest. It totally forgets the consumers who ultimately control the market.

If you want to call that capitalism, then I lump you with Bush, Cheney, Bernanke, and Greenspan.

@Estreka, you are right that this tax would simply create a price floor of $4 per gallon, and the additional revenue goes to oil companies and suppliers. This is a gift of funds to a private company, and is therefore wrong. I understand that politics makes it near impossible to do the right thing in Washington. All the wrong people and all the bad instincts rise to the top, because they can work the political levers and hand out favors. We however, should never give in.

We should keep throwing our representatives out until they do the right thing. Eliminate lifetime representatives. Make it two-terms, maximum. No person or personality is indespensible (except in bad politics). Only good ideas are.

I say a fixed tax, or the oil companies will just raise their prices and effectively take it all. No rebates. Start small and increase every year for 5 years so people can PLAN for it.

Tell ya what Karl, how about we just eliminate the middleman and pay homage (and taxes) directly to Wall St. Let's disband the US government and give all companies a monthly stipend. We don't need defense, social medicine, roads, or any of that other junk. And if we do, corporate America will pay for it, right? I mean, obviously there would be a need for defense. I'm sure we can rely on the free market to develop a strong national defense on its own. Dyncorp would be up to the challenge I bet. We should just pay taxes directly to them. I bet they'll give us a fair deal. After all, the average consumer knows precisely how much he should spend on defense.

Maybe I'll resign my commission and work for commission.

Btw, I know I'm blowing this argument completely out of proportion (at least I hope I am), but I'm trying to explain why government is a necessary evil. There are some extremely hefty costs out there that you may or may not be aware of. Yes, the 1/4 of your paycheck that you give every month seems outrageous, but just imagine what kind of nation this would be if you weren't paying it.

I probably pay around $17K in taxes each year. I'm sure I'd have to pay far more than that each year if I had to provide government services for myself. Imagine paying college prices for an elementary education, or maintaining the roads on your own commute, or hiring an air force to keep your loved ones safe.

I gladly pay my taxes.

"To be clear, I think most government most of the time are far more corrupt than ANY private enterprise."

Where the hell do you come up with stuff like this? People in power are always tempted to take shortcuts for personal gain. Its just as likely in the private sector as it is in government and its harder to discover and punish on the private side. The fact that you hate government and want to live in a tax free republic doesnt make government corrupt. Government is a lot more than politicians. Politicians grab headlines when they do something wrong but they are a small part of government and have nothing to do with the administrative and service functions of government. There are numerous examples of efficient government functions (medicare for example) and those functions have little to do with politics.

"I gladly pay my taxes."

There are plenty of places in the world where taxes are lower. Bet Karl wont be moving to any of them because they are hell holes.

estreka:

remember, priavte entities only do bad things when the government forces them to. In the same way a racist can blame every personal problem on the presence of minorities an anti government type can blame every failing of the private sector on the government. The reason why Karl believes corporations are inherently positive and unlikely to do anything wrong is because all examples of corporate failure can be traced to government intervention/regulation. Its ALWAYS the government no matter what.

Increasing taxes only to offer some sort of complicated rebate system is onerous. Simply raise the gas tax incrementally and reduce other taxes in proportion. Problem solved. Government gets inefficient due to loopholes and exceptions that complicate revenue collection and distribution of services. This can be done simply and with no added bureuacracy.

Government officials are at least accountable to voters - for that reason alone I'd trust government more than private industry. We don't do a good job voting them out when we need to, but at least we theoretically can.

Yeah technically shareholders and boards hold corporate execs accountable. That hasn't worked out too well over the last few years. The ONLY reason any of these people were held accountable (and by that I mean they left the companies with big figure golden parachutes) is because the overall economy crashed and banks needed the government to bail them out. The people who made all these bad decisions were not forced out by corporate boards.

So the consumer has no clout over evil corporations?

We're forgetting that a vote by ballot is no different than a vote by green-back. Consumers vote with their dollars every time they make a purchase.

Don't like a product or a company? Don't buy it. No one's forcing their commodities down your throat. We all have the option to opt out. There's nothing hard to understand about that.

For Karl: http://mises.org/story/3498

A great example why price control does NOT work.

Terrible idea because it won't be implemented properly and even if it is implemented the way you're suggesting, people will realize they'll be getting this extra tax back at the end of the year and they won't switch from SUV down to a small economical car. Anytime you start to artificially control prices, it's no longer subject to free enterprise.

"We're forgetting that a vote by ballot is no different than a vote by green-back. Consumers vote with their dollars every time they make a purchase."

What does that have to do with banks and AIG? You think the customers were aware of what was going on behind the scenes? What were they supposed to do- cancel bank accounts in protest? You presume the average consumer understands complex investments and improper risk taking for the sake of irrational profits. They dont and even if they did CEOs and top managers are paid well regardless of what consumers and shareholders think. They operate by a different set of rules because they are buddy-buddy with the same folks that evaluate their pay and performance. Many say that part of GMs problem was that Wagoner was too close with the board and they refused to force him to make hard decisions- or remove him.

1487,

For all the talk you do about there being a difference between the financial bailout and the auto bailout, you sure blur the lines here.

For one, the financial crisis was in the throws of being cured by the recession. Financial companies were making horrible business decisions by playing around with derivatives (something even the top execs don't understand) and CDS's, and using their customers money to finance all of it. The consumers didn't NEED to know what these people were doing because the economy was working at getting rid of the lousy practices by forcing these companies to fail. And then Big G stepped in...

Besides, we weren't talking about banking firms, were we? We were talking about oil companies getting increased profit from Karl's absurd tax.

As far as those oil companies go, they're offering a physical commodity. It's no different than steel, tastey-kakes, or slinkies. But, for some reason, we think the consumer has no power over the likes of Exxon or Shell. That's completely wrong. People can CHOOSE to drive less. They can CHOOSE to get a more fuel efficient car. They can CHOOSE to move closer to work and ride a bike or take the bus or walk. We can do things to either help mitigate our purchase of those products or remove the need for them in our lives completely. It's all possible.

We're no more dependent on gas to move us places than we are on sugar in our diets and American Idol on our TV sets. The real problem is a lack of motivation by consumers to actually take the reins and make a difference. People are apathetic. And they're probably apathetic BECAUSE they think they can't do anything about it.

"What were they supposed to do- cancel bank accounts in protest?"

Additionally, do you know what a bank-run is?