"Just about everybody" I know is not flying on a plane this summer, and to assume otherwise might be an indication of the bubble you live inside.

I like the Freakonomics podcast quite a bit, and if I could choose a new friend, I think I'd take Steve Levitt, an economist and co-author of the Freakonomics books who loves golf and McDonald's and seems to share my disposition.

Every time I hear him speak, I think that we would be fast friends. 

Yesterday, I was listening to an episode on flying when I heard Levitt's co-author and producer and host of the podcast, Steven Dubner (who I also like a lot) open the show by saying:

“It is nearly summertime, which means that you, and just about everybody you know, will soon be getting on an airplane.”

Either Dubner is making an enormous assumption about his audience demographics or he is living in some kind of bubble where everyone in his world flies to exotic locales during the summer.

While I have friends who are flying places for vacation, I also have friends who have never set foot on a plane once in their lives. 

I have friends who can't afford to take a vacation this summer.

I have friends who don't have paid vacation as part of their employment. 

I have friends who can't afford airline tickets for their family to fly this summer. 

And I will not be getting on a plane this summer, as much as I might like to. I'll be working quite a bit - teaching, speaking, and writing - and we simply can't afford the four airline tickets to whatever destination we might choose.

"Just about everybody" who I know is not flying this summer, either. Some are. Some are not. Perhaps this is reflective of the economic diversity of the people I know, but I don't think so. I suspect most people who aren't living in a bubble have friends like mine.

Some of greater and some of lesser means. 

I love you Dubner, but that was not a good sentence. 

I’m not spiteful. I’m “aggressively moralistic.”

For a long time, I have claimed that spite is one of the best reasons to do anything.

I’ve cited examples in which authors and scientists have used spite to motivate them to great achievements. 

I’ve written about how spite is one of my 5 primary motivating factors in life. 

I’ve argued that spite is one of three possible steps to happiness in your professional life.

I’ve even written about how a positive attitude can be utilized in the pursuit of spite.

Then I listened to the most recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast, which addressed the economics of spite, and it turns out that I am not spiteful after all.

Spite, by definition, requires a person to actively harm him or herself in the pursuit of harming another.

When I told a friend about this definition, he said, “Oh no. You’d never harm yourself for anyone. You’re far too selfish for that.”

He’s right.

Instead, it turns out that I am aggressively moralistic, a state in which I am willing to bring harm to those I feel are deserving while receiving no discernible or tangible benefit in the process.

From an economist’s view, aggressively moralistic is a more sensible position than spite simply because it does not come with any cost except for time and effort.

It is still an economically unwise decision according to economists, because effort and time spent absent of reward is not economically sound, but not nearly as foolish or personally damaging as spite.

I would argue, however, that economists are disregarding the value of personal satisfaction and the potential joy associated with metering out justice, delivering a deserving bit of comeuppance or being able to say the four best words in the English language:

I told you so. 

These may not be the rewards that economists value, but for me, there are few things that I enjoy more.