"Ebenezer Scrooge suffered from bad press in his time. If you really look at the facts, he didn't exploit Bob Cratchit. Bob Cratchit was paid 10 shillings a week, which was a very good wage at the time... Bob, in fact, had good cause to be happy with his situation. He lived in a house not a tenement. His wife didn't have to work... He was able to afford the traditional Christmas dinner of roast goose and plum pudding... So let's be fair to Scrooge. He had his faults, but he wasn't unfair to anyone."Obviously, Henry's article is written very tongue-in-cheek (whereas Ed Meese, bless his heart, was serious), and it's possible that he realizes the other layer on which his article works-- economists are rewarded for writing these "contrarian" articles that make very little sense and completely ignore human behavior and non-economic desires and actions that normal human beings take. This sort of article follows pretty much the same model as many other articles written by economists that appear in mainstream publications every week but attract less controversy and aren't obviously written in jest. However, they're just as absurd, but because they're less obviously absurd, they get taken seriously.
« Older Let's Rock... | 95 Old School Games You Can Pl... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Of course, I'm wondering how much of this is tongue-in-cheek and I'm just bitter at being at work and can't see the humor. I never know how much economists are being ironic or not.
Also, 'Christmas furs'? What? Is it 1890 here?
*(I prefer the Futurama version)
posted by cobaltnine at 12:19 PM on December 24, 2008 [1 favorite]