Philosophy of Miles

My original idea to write a post discussing the miles game with someone who was suspicious of the endeavor, really came from a place of wondering how anyone could possibly have a problem with it.

I see the miles game is a huge win-win proposition. Not only is my family traveling everywhere for free now, but the credit awareness, organizational skills, and creative thinking encouraged by the miles game have all had very positive effects on my life as a whole.

That being said, my conversation with Mrs. Skeptic, and the ethical debates that of sprung from it on my Facebook page have raised several interesting ethical questions that are worthy of more discussion.

So I’ve tried to organize all the criticisms of the miles game into a list that I will try to deconstruct in this post.

Criticism 1: It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

“I was responding to some language I have heard about the credit card companies and why it might be justified to use the system in a way it wasn’t intended – such as the “smell test” language.”

I think there are two ways of looking at this statement.

The first way kind of relates to that old saying about pornography. “I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.”

This is referring to that gestalt feeling that you have when something seems morally wrong.

I can’t really argue with this because it’s a feeling. And I wouldn’t want to argue someone out of this line of thinking anyway. In general it’s probably a pretty good rule that you live in a way that is consistent with your own internal moral compass.

Personally, I have zero compunction about playing the miles game. There’s no moral hesitation.

The second way of classifying this criticism could be called the “social animal” hypothesis.

The idea is if you act in a way that is outside of the norms of behavior in your society, it is inherently uncomfortable.

People certainly draw much of their morality from the social cues around them. So behaving in a way that most people do not (eg churning cards or manufacturing spend) can be quite uncomfortable.

There are obviously problems with basing one’s own morality entirely on on the actions of those around you (think Nazi Germany), but in general, I will concede that life is more comfortable when you’re not ethically swimming upstream.

Criticism number two: The zero-sum game argument. 

“Finance is a zero-sum game. The gains to some must come from losses incurred by others. The credit card companies are too smart to be the dunce. Externalizing costs so that money flows from the poor to the rich is the way the system is rigged. Working within the rules may be legal and not necessarily unethical but I understand how someone with a broader perspective may feel something is amiss in the logic of it all.”

So the argument here is that if you’re winning, someone else must be losing.

I have two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that I’m not sure that this is true.

The credit card companies set these bonuses to attract new customers. While they might lose money passing out bonuses, they likely view these losses in a similar light to the way grocery stores view loss leaders (like four dollar turkeys) They attract more customers, and they end up making the money elsewhere.

The second issue I have with this line of reasoning, is that it essentially implies that the only way to act morally is to lose money. That doesn’t pass my own smell test!

Criticism number three: The Robin Hood argument.

“The whole thing sounds a little like Robin Hood – sticking it to the credit card companies, or at least taking advantage of a loophole. The problem is that it’s for one’s own benefit and not for the benefit of the poor. I’m not so sure that works purely in terms of ethics (classically conceived anyway).”

So by putting visa gift cards onto my Bluebird card I am able to….

I have a couple of problems with this one.

The first is that I personally don’t justify the miles game in this manner.

Many people may describe this endeavor in terms of “sticking it to the credit card companies,” but that is not an argument that I use or feel is at all necessary to use.

As I see it, the reason to play the miles game, is that it benefits the player. Period. Full stop.

The second issue I have with this argument, is that it seems to imply that if you are not actively doing good, you’re doing bad.

As I see it, the miles game is ethically neutral act like 99.9% of the acts that we commit every day. To me it is ethically indistinguishable from buying some french fries and eating them. It’s neither good nor bad. It just is.

Criticism number four: The spirit of the law argument.

“Clearly churning is not what the credit card companies had in mind with these programs. They are offering you something for loyalty to their card. I’m realistic enough to know that they don’t really care about me or you, but there seems to be an assumption about the spirit and purpose of the program – an “unwritten rule” perhaps that miles churning disregards.”

I have a couple of problems with this one.

The first is that it assigns a spirit or motivation to Corporations. Corporations generally have one motivation and that is to profit. Worrying about other peoples motivations is hard enough. But worrying about a corporations intentions? This seems futile at best.

The second point that I would make is that the rules of this game are determined by contracts that the credit card companies themselves write.

They have the power to approve or not approve your credit card applications as they see fit.

They even have the power to suspend your account without you violating the terms of the contract, for “perk abuse.”

So worrying about fairness to credit card companies seems to me like a misplaced concern.

Criticism number five: The corrupt system argument.

“If inclusive wealth is a monetary measure of all natural, human, and physical assets it is finite in a closed system. Our wealth is built on externalized costs to the poor and our environment. There’s no way around that. The cost of our gains from the credit card scheme are borne by those who pay fees to the credit card companies. The poor probably end up paying higher fees than the rich. There’s no way around that. That’s the system we have and we play the game. The cognitive dissonance can be rationalized away by some better than others.”

I think this is a sound argument.

If Miles game players are receiving outsized benefits for their activities, then it seems logical, that these costs are passed on to non-miles game players and less informed customers by the credit card companies.

A couple of points though:

In a system that is slanted towards the Haves and away from the Have-nots, it seems likely that almost everything we do outside of the miles game also perpetuates this injustice.

The second point to make, and I think this is an important one, is that by playing the miles game, as prescribed here, you are more likely to:

A) Closely monitor your own credit score.
B) Get organized and pay your bills on time.
C) Not carry any credit card debt.
D) Start taking a good long look at your financial life.

So I would argue that by spreading the “gospel” of the miles game, I am increasing The likelihood of personal financial empowerment, for each person who takes me up on my offer.  And if that ain’t morality, I don’t know what is.