Comments about ‘'Scroogenomics': Cutting back Christmas’

Waldfogel totally misses the point of gifts. Having to give somebody a Christmas gift, a "good" one means that you have to think about who they are, their lives and their preferences. The very best gift would be something that they themselves really didn't know existed, but they actually value. It is also a personal reflection of the giver's preferences. It is not wasteful when a parent gives a child a gift that the parent thinks is good for the child even if the child would rather have something else.

I am not sure that Waldfogel does miss the point as he comes out against "sloppy giving" but seems to endorse giving overall. In reality, however, this book (at least from the article's report) can only be seen as quantifying the inefficiency of gift giving from an assumption laden perspective. As Economists do not have good tools for measuring good will, love, and surprise, the analysis must be taken only for what it is.

Personally, I think this type of analysis should cause us to step back and think about the impact of the gifts that we give. For people who know me well, I would rather receive a card telling me of a donation made in my name to a cause/recipient that matches my social concern profile (say an orphanage in Angola) than a shirt that may or may not capture my taste in clothes. And, yet, I am still enough of a kid to like to be surprised on Christmas day with an immediately usable, well chosen gift.

One of the issues I've seen since moving to Utah is the often "mindless giving" amongst neighbors of little useless Christmas trinkets. One year, a neighbor gave us a small glass jar of colored popcorn. It was meant to be a decoration of sorts, as the "food" wasn't really edible and the jar wasn't really functional. Sadly, the popcorn went into the trash (I was afraid the dye on the popcorn would poison the birds) and I had to drive out to the recycle place to dispose of the glass jar.

It probably took hours for this neighbor to make each neighbor this sad-looking trinket... but it was really a waste! Other "mindless gifts" have included $1 notepads from Michael's, a bottle of Coke with a ribbon tied around it, some Christmas ornaments made from twigs and sticks that really didn't fit the decor of our tree...

It is not that I'm ungrateful... I would have preferred these neighbors to make a $100 contribution to the local food bank in the name of the neighborhood!

That's why I give blocks of wood. Just an ordinary 3.5x3.5x3.5in block of wood. Usually redwood, but sometimes I go all out with cedar. People can use it to prop up a broken table leg, stand on it to reach a little higher on a shelf, use it to keep papers from blowing off their desks. Incredibly useful stuff. They could even burn it if they were cold.

Yep. Wood. The gift that never disappoints.

Sorry, Fred, Waldfogel is out to lunch. He claims that a gift is wasteful whenever the amount that the person getting the gift wouldn't pay as much for the gift as it costs. What my post above tried to show were cases where the present provides benefits that his simple measure misses. The point is that presents produce lots of benefits that aren't measured by that gap in value. Waldfogel sloppy discussion gives economics a really bad name, something it doesn't deserve.

Richard, have you read the book? Just curious, because if you haven't read it, then how can you accuse him of being "sloppy"? I agree that economics doesn't deserve a bad name, but until you've read the book, how can you know?

As an economist, I must say that Fred may be correct, in that Waldfogel is likely correct that there is deadweight loss in gift-giving, even taking into consideration all benefits of gift giving. If he is arguing (and I haven't read the book, either, so I don't know) that we should try to maximize the benefits of the gift, and therefore minimizing any potential deadweight loss, by putting in a little more effort and thought into choosing gifts that match with what the individual might like or need, then he's likely correct, on that, as well.

This topic didn't sound to interesting to me at first. Then I read the comments and it made me think. First what is it I get from giving gifts? Then what is it I want from gifts received? To answer the first I thought it was to make someone happy, then I realized that someone is me. I want a fuzzy feel good feeling of being cared for in the gifts I receive.But reality is I just want the person who buys the gift to acknowledge my existence in their world for a short time. So really he may have a case for gift giving being out of control unless you are willing to slow down and really get to know the people you are involved with in this life. Do you know I love to read or travel and that I enjoy knick knacks? Are do you only see me as an old lady. I am a well educated older person who enjoys life. So instead of a sweater or food gift why not a book or a hand written memory from your home town.

Walfogel is correct. There is much deadweight loss in Christmas gift giving. And G is right about wood.

I hate the name "scroogenomics". He (although fictitiously) turned out to be such a great man. Quite frankly...I want to be just like Scrooge...a former greedy menace to society to a man of generosity, compassion, and selflessness.

I actually found this book last Friday, sat down at the bookstore and read through it. I'm going to agree with this "forest bird's" song in principle. One can either make up one's mind to be frugal and practical or one can give in to the whims of selfishness.

My Husband, our children and their families, have agreed to cancel Christmas gift giving (and all merciful be-headings) this year and concentrate on having a wonderful get together (as in Thanksgiving).

We feel just fine about it as none of us can afford to do otherwise and we have all made a decision not to charge ANYTHING.