In a well-known 1993 article and a recent book, economist Joel Waldfogel argues that holiday gift-giving is inefficient. Very often, givers don’t fully understand the recipients’ wants and end up purchasing things that the recipients value at less than their cost. Waldfogel estimates that some 10 to 33% of the value of gifts is “wasted” in this way. Even gift certificates (which allow recipients to use the money to purchase any goods available at the store in question) are, on average, worth only about 70 to 86 percent of their face value to the recipient.
Unlike Waldfogel, I am not convinced that this proves that gift-giving is inefficient or irrational. True, the recipient would be materially better off if the giver would simply send him a check for $50 instead spending the same amount of money on a gift. However, buying a gift instead of sending money serves a signalling function: it shows that you care enough about the person to spend time and effort figuring out what they might like. And if you succeed in buying them something they really want, it shows that you understand them relatively well. Thus, the recipient might ultimately be happier to receive a gift that is “only” 90% as valuable to him as its market price than to receive 100% of the gift’s price in cash. Similarly, if you get a gift that you value far less than its price, that’s a sign that the giver either doesn’t understand your preferences very well, or didn’t make the effort to try to figure them out. Both scenarios give you some useful information about your friends and relatives that you wouldn’t get from a check. In sum, gift-giving may often be better than giving money because givers use it to send social signals, and recipients use it to judge how well the givers understand them. As in Waldfogel’s previous book arguing that markets give too few choices, he underestimates the utility of market transactions.
That said, Waldfogel’s research does show that we often do a poor job of figuring out the true desires of our friends and relatives – the people we know best. As Virginia Postrel points out, this result strengthens the Hayekian case against government planning:
The problem of buying good presents for other people, even people you supposedly know well, illustrates that old familiar Hayekian concept, the knowledge problem. If you can’t even give your loved ones the right presents, how likely is it that a central authority could make the right decisions for everyone?
Just another example of why Hayek is still relevant decades after he wrote his most important work.
UPDATE: I have added a link to Virginia Postrel’s post, which I accidentally omitted earlier.
Mikhail Koulikov says:
If you can’t even give your loved ones the right presents, how likely is it that a central authority could make the right decisions for everyone?
Easy answer – the central authority is not in the business of making the right decisions for everyone, rather, its purpose is to make the right decision for the central authority.
Going back to the gift-giving dilemma, as the giver of the present, once you actually transfer it to the recipient, you are done, and are satisfied knowing that you played your part in the game. Whether or not the present is liked or used is not *your* problem.
December 5, 2009, 9:05 pmIlya Somin says:
Going back to the gift-giving dilemma, as the giver of the present, once you actually transfer it to the recipient, you are done, and are satisfied knowing that you played your part in the game. Whether or not the present is liked or used is not *your* problem.
Yes, but if your goal was to actually make the recipient better off by giving him something he actually likes, then you can’t be satisfied merely by the act of gift-giving.
December 5, 2009, 9:12 pmJoe says:
Many years ago I resolved to never give a gift unless I was really sure what the recipient wanted. At the same time, save for my wife and kids, I do not restrict my major gift giving to Christmas or birthdays, but when I find an item that a recipient would really enjoy. (I actually now do this with my kids and compensated by reducing what I spend at Christmas on them.)
My wife and I just buy what we each want and then pretend we received it. With our older kids, we often pool money from us and other relatives to buy something expensive such as a nice electric guitar last year for my oldest (and while surprise sounds good in theory, he picked out the exact model he wanted to avoid complications.)
December 5, 2009, 9:13 pmRyan Waxx says:
If you applied the analogy to the government, it would me more akin to collecting money from everyone in the neighborhood to give gifts to those people you liked or thought you deserved gifts or those who promised to elect you gift-giver next year.
December 5, 2009, 9:24 pmTwirlip says:
Thereby neatly illustrating the flaw in the economists way of looking at the world. A great deal of human activity is not supposed to be “efficient”. In fact the majority of human activity is not. It’s not very “efficient” for any of us to spend our time writing, reading, and commenting here, but we do it anyway for reasons which efficiency can never comprehend.
December 5, 2009, 9:24 pmIlya Somin says:
It’s not very “efficient” for any of us to spend our time writing, reading, and commenting here, but we do it anyway for reasons which efficiency can never comprehend.
Actually, it is efficient if you enjoy the writing, reading, or commenting more than whatever else you could have done with the same time and energy.
December 5, 2009, 9:26 pmbyomtov says:
The conclusion that gift-giving is inefficient seems to ignore the benefits to the giver, and consider only the recipient.
If I enjoy giving a gift to a friend or relative then surely that is part of the benefit of the transaction. Why shouldn’t that be taken into account?
December 5, 2009, 9:29 pmBama 1L says:
I suppose it is possible that economists like Waldfogel genuinely do not live in a culture where gifts have any social meaning. It is more likely that they are failing to understand their own culture. That there could be a political sphere apart from the economic is also one of the insights one cannot expect all economists to have.
I think you can have a pretty coherent theory of gifts without putting as much emphasis on finding the right gift as Professor Somin does. Gifts say something about a relationship. The level of personal knowledge required to find the perfect gift is not appropriate to all relationships. Recall also that there is a social norm of graciously receiving all gifts regardless of one’s personal tastes.
December 5, 2009, 9:57 pmTwirlip says:
Then you can say that ‘it is efficient to give gifts provided you understand that the purpose of doing so is not “make the recipient better off”‘, in the same way that I (and the rest of you) don’t write comments here to make the readers feel pleasure.
Obviously, the recipient of a gift always is better off in the material sense, even if all he received was some crappy tie. But there is a psychological truth contained in the phrase “it is better to give than to receive” which the unfortunate Waldfogel was oblivious to.
December 5, 2009, 10:17 pmCurious passerby says:
My wife and I each give each other a check for the same amount for Christmas and birthday with a requirement that each spend it for something nice that we really want. If we bought for the other we would never be able to pick exactly what the other would want.
We normally wouldn’t get ourselves something as extravagant with our own money, but since we are required to, it’s different.
I think more that 33% of gifts are unwanted/unneeded. What a waste.
December 5, 2009, 10:20 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
When I think about gifts I’ve received that gave me pleasure, I always think about a book my husband found for me in a used book store. It was a First American Edition of James Pope-Hennessy’s Queen Mary, still with the tissue paper over the photographs (which are stunning). I think it probably cost him about 6 bucks. When I unwrapped it I knew he loved me.
I guess that when you talk about the efficiency of gift-giving you have to ask yourself what you want to achieve. If you just want to get something and get it over with, a $25 gift certificate for Outback Steak House can be picked up at Walgreen’s.
December 5, 2009, 10:25 pmThe Unbeliever says:
Wouldn’t the efficiency of the gift giving be determined by the amount of economic utility the recipient realizes? The goal of gift-giving may not be to transfer objective/fungible value, but subjective value; i.e., friends and family may value a gift higher based on the circumstances of the giving transaction itself, instead of on the price of the gift itself. To pick an obvious pop culture example, you can get a disproportional impact with something as inexpensive a free ring out of a Crackerjack box.
(Translation: gift-giving promotes warm and fuzzy feelings, which have a value economists find impossible to measure, though they do label it as “utility” when trying to explain problems on graphs.)
December 5, 2009, 10:33 pmMikhail Koulikov says:
Going back to the original discussion, why not think of gift-giving as an attempt to convince whoever it you are giving the gift to that they *should* pay attention to said gift, whatever it represents, and whatever it actually is. In a way, the act of gift-giving lets any one of us feel a little authoritarian – we generally know our gift won’t be refused outright, so that lets us give the gift that we feel the person needs based on *our* understanding of their needs, not necessarily their stated desires or wants.
It may fail most of the times…but if it is successful a few times, that may very well be worth all the times it fails.
December 5, 2009, 10:39 pmpot meet kettle says:
ah, another familiar misunderstanding of waldvogel’s paper. waldvogel specifically says in his paper that his deadweight loss calculation does not account for the sentimental/emotional value of gifts (page 1331), which is often a non-trivial component of the value of gifts (as opposed to random goods).
December 5, 2009, 11:53 pmMunch says:
This is maudlin bunk. Your wife probably wants a real alpha male. A movie star, sports superstar or a President would be her secret dream. (Just as you might dream of a hot young girl.) Your business associate might desire things that make your guts turn. why is discovering the no-doubt unfortunate desires of the people you live with and love important? Not to be cynical but you do not need to know soneone’s “deepest wishes” to be a good friend or spouse. You would probably not want to know. If you pick something that flatters their view of themselves, you done well enough.
December 6, 2009, 12:29 amsitzpinkler says:
I find gift-giving unpleasant and stressful.
December 6, 2009, 1:25 amOren says:
Only if you have sufficient leisure time that your enjoyment is now the principle measure of utility (as opposed to, say, feeding your family).
That is to say, we buy a consider amount of leisure with our prosperity.
December 6, 2009, 1:28 amReader says:
Ha, this research in fact proves that Hayek and similar people are completely wrong, and the government MUST implement a centralized program of national gift-giving reform. The choice of gift must be removed from individual people, who are ignorant of what is best, and turned over to the government. Why? Because the people working for the government will be EXPERTS who won’t make mistakes. Duh.
December 6, 2009, 1:37 amMark N. says:
He does say that in the paper (and the book), but people could be forgiven for getting the impression that they do given that the book’s subtitle, Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays, makes a pretty strong normative claim, that buying presents is, after a consideration of all the factors, something you should not do. What he really means is presumably, Why, If You Only Value Economic Efficiency and Attach No Sentimental Value To Gifts, You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays, but I’m guessing such a book wouldn’t sell as well.
December 6, 2009, 1:53 amredc1c4 says:
gift giving is easy: booze, bullets or bang sticks…… everyone is happy except the lieberals.
December 6, 2009, 2:51 amtheobromophile says:
True, but I think you’re missing another part of gift-giving: people buy each other things that the recipient would never buy for herself. That might result in a decreased price that the recipient would put on the item (if buying it herself), but that has little to do with whether or not it was thoroughly appreciated.
(On a side note, the argument above may be an excellent explanation of why people so hate Yankee Swaps.)
December 6, 2009, 3:02 amIlya Somin says:
ah, another familiar misunderstanding of waldvogel’s paper. waldvogel specifically says in his paper that his deadweight loss calculation does not account for the sentimental/emotional value of gifts (page 1331), which is often a non-trivial component of the value of gifts (as opposed to random goods).
That argument is different from my signalling theory. Moreover, “sentimental/emotional value” divorced from signalling still doesn’t explain why people should give gifts rather than checks. If the goal is simply to show your willingness to sacrifice for someone else, a check could be just as good as a gift.
December 6, 2009, 3:28 amIlya Somin says:
Then you can say that ‘it is efficient to give gifts provided you understand that the purpose of doing so is not “make the recipient better off“‘, in the same way that I (and the rest of you) don’t write comments here to make the readers feel pleasure.
That’s true, of course. But making the recipient better off is, for most people, one of the main purposes of buying a gift.
Obviously, the recipient of a gift always is better off in the material sense, even if all he received was some crappy tie.
Right again (usually). But the point is that he could be even better off if he got the cash value of the crappy tie instead. So Waldfogel would argue that it would be more efficient to simply send a check for the tie’s cash value to the recipient.
December 6, 2009, 3:30 amJeff Walden says:
I go through the motions of gift-giving these days, but I make no pretense of liking it or thinking it especially worthwhile (visiting relatives — my being on the opposite coast from them these days — probably provides more value to them), and my relatives have all received links to the Waldfogel paper from me. I’ve thought about telling people I’m out of the gift-giving/receiving racket (particularly the latter, because there are very very very few things I want or even need, and thus I’m near impossible to buy for) unless they/I see something exceptionally suitable but never actually done it.
A better gift might be the gift of information: point ‘em at something you think they’d like, let them decide whether it’s useful or not. I’ve also told people to find the particular model of something I know they want and then point me at it to have it shipped to them (think outdoor gear from REI, for example, where there could be a dozen different feature sets the person might select from).
December 6, 2009, 4:40 amArkady says:
Next up: Economic analysis shows human beings are sometimes unlucky in love.
December 6, 2009, 8:21 ambuford puser says:
Isn’t the attempt at analogizing the Waldvogel research to Hayek’s knowledge problem argument an example of the ecological fallacy?
December 6, 2009, 8:23 amWhile it is certainly true that any given individual’s preferences may be hard to pick, isn’t it likely that aggregate preferences are distributed along normal curves, and thus highly predictable? Thus, the task of central plannners is arguably not to satisfy members of society as atomized Thatcherian individuals, but as a group.
Is it really likely that there are large numbers of persons whose desire to starve and be homeless would be frustrated by insensitive central planners’ insistence on food and housing for all, for example?
Not an advocate of a centrally planned economy, but the Postrel argument is rather thin and poorly thought out.
David Chesler says:
I’m with Curious Passerby. Even a gift certificate, if well chosen, says “I am giving you permission to get pleasure by spending what you ordinarily wouldn’t.”
I don’t entirely discount the signal: a well-chosen gift is part of the whole mating ritual thing. I had once told my wife about something I’d wanted as a kid but didn’t get, and she got it for me. That meant a lot. But it was only a few dollars out of our budget, within the noise level of spending anyway.
On the other hand, at obligatory gift-giving times we’d sometimes travel to a store and show each other the gift or card we would have given the other if we were exchanging gifts, thereby putting in the “thought” without wasting the money.
I often think of Dilbert, from the animated series, on gift certificates. He says “Why not just give money?” The answer is “Because it shows there’s thought involved.” He says “Yeah, defective thought – you’ve just taken money and turned it into something less useful.”
I don’t like obligatory gift-giving. I like ritual, predictable categories: some of my close associates have their token animal or color, so if we find something marginally useful in that shape or color we can buy it. And there are well-used classes that work (like the book of car wash tickets bought each year for someone who uses that car wash.) Some people are easy, anything in redc1c4′s “booze, bullets, bang sticks”, or anything in broad categories of jewelry or apparel. But besides that, I wish we could do it all with money, and since we’re just moving it around, just net it out.
December 6, 2009, 8:24 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I dislike being asked what I want. If I want something I go and get it for myself. Being asked makes me think I have no personality and am a complete blank to people who are supposed to give me gifts. If I’m that much of a mystery, don’t bother.
For instance – anybody in the family probably knows that we have two cats that we obtained from a cat shelter in Memphis, and that our daughter volunteered there until she went off to college. Make a donation to the cat shelter in my name. That shows that you took two minutes to think about me, which is the point, really.
December 6, 2009, 8:26 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Important. Nothing says “I have no clue about you” like giving a gift card to a store or restaurant that you never go to.
December 6, 2009, 8:29 ampot meet kettle says:
Of course it does. The sentimental value derives explicitly from associating the material object with who gave it, something cash or a check will not have. it is not hard to imagine that sentimentality can contribute a significant fraction of the value of gifts (for example, books, trinkets etc.) and pretty much explain waldvogel’s result.
of course, he has to oversell it as deadweight loss etc., he is an academic, and a result saying that gift-giving is a good idea isn’t going to get any attention.
December 6, 2009, 8:50 ampot meet kettle says:
this i disagree with. sentimental value is part of the economic value of a good. a book signed by grandpa is worth more than the same book that you bought yourself. as is the cheap ring passed down in the family as an heirloom.
December 6, 2009, 8:56 amBonze Saunders says:
December 6, 2009, 9:22 amBob Lipton says:
Nothing says “I thought long and hard about what to get you because I care” like cash.
Bob
December 6, 2009, 9:26 amlatinist says:
I think Bama1L is in the right about this. I’ve often thought that Christmas and other gift-giving should be understood through Polanyi’s ideas about gift (non-market) economies[1]: in deciding the value and type of gift to give, you’re not aiming to maximize your own (or anyone else’s) gains, but to make sure your gifts correspond in particular ways to your social relationship with the recipient. There are particular types of gifts you give to relatives, friends, employees, etc. In fact, for example, it’s perfectly normal to give cash as a gift if the recipient is a much younger niece/nephew/grandchild. But if you gave cash to your mother, that would be inappropriate.
[1] I should reveal, before someone explains that I’m an idiot, that I haven’t actually read Polanyi, and have only the most superficial understanding of his ideas.
December 6, 2009, 9:32 amnumeral says:
Yes but if you disagree with what he says then the reasons he gives won’t really affect you, looking at it another way if you don’t take account of all the economic reasons(since you put a sentimental value on gift giving) you essentially claim anything he says doesn’t affect you and his argument becomes moot. I don’t think he has to explicitly state that you should only not go gift shopping if you only take into account economic reasons. It would be a horrible title :/
December 6, 2009, 9:59 ambyomtov says:
Sitzpinkler,
I find gift-giving unpleasant and stressful.
Well. That settles it, then. Give cash and be done.
But others derive utility from gift-giving, and the recipient may derive utility from the fact of the gift over and above its material value. Ilya exlains the latter clearly in the post. The point is that Waldfogel’s analysis omits too many factors.
December 6, 2009, 11:41 amDavid Chesler says:
Similarly particular foods. Like the Thanksgiving turkey, even if you don’t particularly like turkey (or if you do like turkey but you don’t bother cooking a bird most of the time.)
On the other hand, while I’ll be gracious, I’d just as soon my kids don’t take my money to go to the school fair to buy me a mug (or one year a golf set, in case I ever take up golf) that says “Number 1 Dad”. At a certain point the tiny sentimental value (from the tiny amount of thought) doesn’t outweigh the acquisition and storage cost. Same thing with clothing or tools that the recipient would never wear or use — there’s an obligation that comes with the gift that outweighs the sentiment.
December 6, 2009, 11:50 amRicardo says:
On the contrary, if it’s a good restaurant, it’s exactly the kind of gift that is most meaningful. The gift says, “I think you’ll like this restaurant and I’m so confident of this that I’ll pay for your meal there through this gift certificate.” In a broader sense, some of the most valuable friends you may have in life are those who introduce you to people, activities or ideas you would not have considered on your own.
In economics parlance, gift-giving can surmount problems of incomplete information and commitment problems: even if I tell you about a new restaurant you haven’t heard of, you may not go there without a nudge from me in the form of a gift certificate.
December 6, 2009, 12:18 pmShane says:
I think that some of you understate the probability of a gift-giver choosing a gift that is of greater value to the recipient than the cash spent on the gift. The last 2 gifts I’ve gotten from my mom, I would have bought myself had I known such a good existed. I didn’t, so cash would not have given me the utility that the 2 gifts had. In fact, they were given to me when I was working 90 hours per week, and the cash would’ve meant almost nothing to me (since I was too busy to actually spend money). Similarly, I took my sister to a running store to get fitted for running shoes – I know that she would have never thought to actually talk to a shoe guy to get a pair of shoes that matches her running form and gait.
I guess the principle here is to give people gifts where you actually do have greater knowledge or expertise than the recipient. This shouldn’t be too tough – in our society most of us have chosen to specialize in certain fields. So a professional chef may decide to buy his friend, the amateur home cook, some very useful kitchen utensil that he knows the friend needs. And of course, it doesn’t have to be some kind of professional expertise. A music enthusiast might buy a friend an expensive set of headphones. The list goes on.
December 6, 2009, 12:19 pmlatinist says:
Ah, but the obligation is part of the point, too. I give you, say, a shirt, as recognition of our particular social connection (as everyone knows, a shirt is the traditional gift for a fellow commenter on the same Volokh Conspiracy thread). Then, every time you wear the shirt (particularly in front of me), you are further reinforcing that connection. You might, of course, toss the shirt in the closet and never wear it, if you don’t really have much invested in our relationship. On the other hand, if I really do care about our relationship (I have such high hopes of future blog comment interactions!) I might take care to buy you a particularly flattering, durable, just-your-style shirt, thus both signaling my interest in reinforcing our relationship and giving you an incentive to reinforce it further by wearing the shirt. Obviously.
December 6, 2009, 12:19 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Ricardo, sure, but what if I never go to the restaurant because I’ve been, was underwhelmed, and there isn’t one that is convenient enough for me to get to, to bother going.
I agree with David, and worst of all is artwork or other home decor that isn’t your thing. A whimsical serving bowl that you might put some apples in on occasion is probably all right, but a large picture or mantle knicknack that isn’t your cup of tea is actually kind of irritating, esp. if the giver visits you sometimes.
It’s why, when someone is sick, I favor gifting them with flowers over a potted plant. You admire the flowers, and when they wilt, you toss them. There’s nothing to take care of when you possibly don’t feel like it.
December 6, 2009, 12:27 pmDavid Chesler says:
This was discussed in Bridget Jones Diary. If it’s a shirt (or a sweater) that I might wear it’s one thing, otherwise you’ve condemned me to wearing something ugly (or ill-fitting, or itchy) just to demonstrate that connection. I already have to get rid of surplus clothes (really) because of storage limitations — more clothes means I’ve got to get rid of some that if I didn’t like I would have gotten rid of by now anyway.
And since it hasn’t come up in the discussion yet, Regifting.
December 6, 2009, 12:50 pmSuperSkeptic says:
My main issue with the gift-giving is TIMING. I consider the value of the gift, the social connections, etc. that all have mentioned thus far as important considerations – weighing the “totality of the circumstances,” so to speak, for each gift/recipient. But, my main objection to the whole thing is the timing of the mandatory gift-giving regime. I’d much rather give random gifts as it suited my fancy, as I think they would be far more appropriate and satisfactory – in all the relevant categories of gift-giving importance. Random gifts would be more fitting to the person, and our relationship’s importance at any one time, for example. Yet, I’m not affluent enough to utilize such a scheme, and am thus reduced to the mandatorily scheduled regime, which crowds out better random gifts, and reduces the quality of the mandatory gifts. Nor would I find it appropriate to merely “save” all the random gifts acquired throughout the year for xmas, grandma style. (not that organized, I guess).
December 6, 2009, 1:23 pmBama 1L says:
Yes, that’s just where I’m coming from. Though we have a market economy, our gift-giving customs are easier to understand if you know something about gift cultures. Indeed, when giving gifts I try to emulate members of gift cultures.
In that vein, the emphasis on giving a particular gift that the recipient will definitely like is socially destructive. So latinist’s invocation of gift catalogues or customary gifts is exactly correct. If you feel the relationship requires a gift but you don’t feel as though you know what the recipient likes, for goodness’s sake don’t fail to give a gift for that reason. Just pick out a generally appropriate item. Obviously look at the price first, since the market economy is a real factor.
Again, anthropology helps. The obligation is the sentiment. Gifts express relationships; relationships are mutual obligations, though of course not always equal ones. If I can give you a sweater and obliges you to wear that sweater the next time you see me, we can easily see which of us has higher status.
December 6, 2009, 1:33 pmEMB says:
Personally, I consider the time might spend shopping for something for myself as a considerable cost, meaning that if I could instead receive it as a gift, that often has value to me beyond the price of the item. (This is particularly true in the case of something like clothing, wherein the gift-giver likely has much “better taste” than I do.)
December 6, 2009, 1:37 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Gift-Giving and Government Planning -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by David, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Gift-Giving and Government Planning: In a well-known 1993 article and a recent book, economist Joel Waldfogel a.. http://bit.ly/5sxBVU [...]
December 6, 2009, 2:31 pmTwirlip says:
I don’t think that is actually the case, for any meaning of “better off” that economics can understand.
I believe this is analogous to the whole argument over science and scientism which pops up from time to time. There is a category of questions whch science, by its fundamental design, cannot ever answer. By the same token economics, while a powerful analytical tool within a certain sphere of human activity, is simply not suited to addressing many other things which humans do.
“Economistism”, to coin a phrase, attempts to answer every question about human nature from an economic perspective. As with scientism, it ends up doing violence to both true economics and to the subject it is purportedly analyzing. The exchange of gifts is no more amenable to economic investigation than is joining a monastery and taking a vow of holy povetry, or marching to almost certain death at the hands of massed enemy machine-gun fire, or falling in love, to pick a few examples at random.
December 6, 2009, 2:32 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
This is truer of gifts for bridal showers and baby showers than for holidays and birthdays, probably. I look back to the very nice shower the women in my church gave me when I was expecting. Lots of little bibs and onesies (do they still call them that?) and socks and all, baby shampoo and powder and lotion; and several people gave diapers and wipes, which were very much appreciated. This sort of thing is in the same spirit as barn-raising. Bridal showers used to be, when it was the normal thing that a bride was leaving her parents’ household to set up a household of her own for the first time, and was expected to be in charge of the home (whether she wanted to be or not).
December 6, 2009, 3:33 pmDuffy Pratt says:
And just think what would happen to the economy if people started taking this seriously and gave each other cash instead of gifts. Is it possible that all of this inefficiency ends up being a good thing?
December 6, 2009, 4:00 pmMartha says:
economysticism?
December 6, 2009, 4:40 pmLarryA says:
In a very basic sense, yes. Look, for instance, at the many homeless people who view a government homeless shelter as worse than the streets on any night where weather doesn’t make it suicide to stay outside.
December 6, 2009, 6:43 pmUnfortunately the government doesn’t give gifts without strings. People on welfare, for instance, don’t get cash to purchase housing or food. Instead the government provides housing in subsidized housing projects and food stamps, which regulate recipients according to what the government thinks they need, not what recipients think they need.
The government view, of course, is that people are too stupid to know what they need, and thus must be herded in the right direction. Unfortunately the government isn’t nearly as smart as it pretends to be. The fact that most government housing turns out to be a really crappy place to live is a symptom of the problem.
Bama 1L says:
This is about as certain as any statement describing culture can be. We expect registries–in effect, demands for certain gifts–in these limited contexts. In each case, a woman is moving from one status to another and requires a set of objects. We want the set to be given efficiently (she gets enough china and silver). Furthermore, we let her decide the exactly what items from each category she wants in the set (this pattern or that pattern of china) but we don’t really let her go outside the categories (she has to register for china; she can’t register for a television).
Obviously she can actually go ahead put a television rather than china on her registry, but many guests will furrow their brows and there will be calls to the hostess inquiring what china has been requested, since every bride registers from china. This is economically inefficient but it’s exactly what happens.
Of course nowadays retailers will let you register for anything, but I wonder how many people actually use gift registries for Christmas or birthdays. I guess Amazon wish lists are catching on, although that strikes me as something a bit different.
December 6, 2009, 6:44 pmBama 1L says:
It’s certainly a good thing for retailers. If you give me cash I will probably pay a bill or reduce debt.
Retailers realize the greatest benefit if they can simultaneously encourage self-indulgence and giving, and steer you toward objects rather than cash.
December 6, 2009, 6:47 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Broken window fallacy?
December 6, 2009, 6:51 pmCrunchy Frog says:
So instead of buying Orin a beer, I should give him the cash equivalent? I’m so confused.
December 6, 2009, 7:11 pmDavid Chesler says:
Does that mean they’re all gag gifts? And I’ve been doing it wrong, trying to give people what they want instead of what I want them to have?
December 6, 2009, 10:10 pmtheobromophile says:
Which is exactly why a lot of women (myself included) are getting rather frustrated with the entire bridal shower routine. These days, you’re expected to fork over an engagement present, at least one bridal shower present, the cost of a bachelorette party, and a wedding present. Some of us look at our bills – none of which are smaller for being unmarried – and wonder why we are basically paying someone else’s dowry. It’s especially galling when you consider that it’s cheaper to live as a couple than as a single person and that there is more stability involved (two incomes, not one; two options for health insurance, not one, etc).
December 7, 2009, 12:56 amBama 1L says:
If you are pleasantly entangled in a web of affective friendships with people whom you know intimately and whose happiness is tied up with yours, then you’re doing it right.
December 7, 2009, 1:42 amDavid Nieporent says:
Or even better, tell Laura that you gave money to the cat shelter in her name, but actually give the money to me instead. That shows you took two minutes to think about each of us, and doesn’t waste good money on stray cats.
December 7, 2009, 1:48 amDavid Nieporent says:
In the spirit of Maimonides, the hierarchy of gifts received:
1. Something I didn’t know I wanted, but really want now that I have.
December 7, 2009, 2:13 am2. Something I really wanted, but would never have bought for myself.
3. Something I really wanted, and would have bought for myself.
4. Something I’d probably like because it’s a pretty good item, but isn’t personal to me.
5. Gift card to a place I really wanted to shop/eat/etc.
6. Cash.
7. “Just tell me what you want and I’ll buy it for you.”
8. Gift card to a generic place where I can probably find something I want because they carry lots of things.
9. Gift card to a car wash.
10. Something you felt like getting me because you thought it was amusing, despite the fact that you knew I didn’t actually want it.
11. What, my presence isn’t gift enough? Fine, I guess I’ll buy you something if you insist.
Widmerpool says:
People don’t want to die alone–hence the need to give and receive gifts in recognition of each other’s unique humanity. There’s an obscure author who created an oddball character with the unbelievable name of “Scrooge,” who made this point in a little-known work with the wretched title, “A Christmas Carol.” The ridiculous conceit of a Ghost of Christmas Future plays some part in this, too.
December 7, 2009, 9:03 amFedya says:
I saw this hilarious and appropriate PSA on CBS last night during The Amazing Race.
For those of you who have Youtube blocked at work, it starts, “Want to do something special for your woman this Christmas? Schedule her pap smear.”
Those of you who have wives or girlfriends try this, and let us know how it turns out.
December 7, 2009, 9:11 amFedya says:
Widmerpool:
Are you sure you didn’t have The Passions of Carol in mind? ;-)
December 7, 2009, 9:20 amShelbyC says:
Does the man give lessons?
December 7, 2009, 2:30 pmA.C. says:
As a woman entering middle age, I’m doing a lot of work to fend off the “collection” problem. All my relatives seem to want me to amass a large collection of some useless item, ideally something made of china and under $75 a pop. If it is infuriatingly cute, so much the better.
I hate all that stuff with a fiery passion. Also all perfume, jewelry, scarves, and office accessories that I don’t pick out myself. (The yucky scarf is the female equivalent of the yucky tie.)
So I’m sympathetic to the whole no-gifts position, because I know there’s another load of this stuff coming. But, although my people seem to be remarkably thick in this area, it’s not really all that hard to figure out what friends and relative want. The trick is to talk to them and find out what they like.
December 7, 2009, 5:02 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
David, you’re mean.
Shelby, : )
December 7, 2009, 5:36 pmShane says:
I’m pretty sure David wins the thread. All joking aside, that list is pretty much right – especially numbers 1 through 6.
December 8, 2009, 10:25 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Per David’s list:
Consider a potential gift recipient who has a car that she really likes. Maybe it’s a model she’s had her eye on for years, and she finally has one. She mentions to you that she has on very infrequent occasions entrusted her car to X car wash, where they hand-wash her car and do an outstanding job detailing, and that she wishes she could go more often but it’s just too expensive and she can’t budget for it.
If you buy her the car wash gift certificates, that’s a two-in-one gift: it allows her to do the thing she wants to do and doesn’t feel she can afford, but also, it’s an indication that you listen to her, you pay attention, you want to please her – in other words, she’s a person to you and you give a damn. If she’s like me, that will beat out, for instance, a piece of expensive jewelry that she didn’t choose and that any man might buy any woman.
December 8, 2009, 12:08 pmPositive Liberty » Occasional Notes: Christmas Curmudgeonry says:
[...] there’s still hope. Those who’d save Christmas have a new argument courtesy of Ilya Somin: I am not convinced that this proves that gift-giving is inefficient or irrational. True, the [...]
December 10, 2009, 11:14 amMichikinaqua thundercloud (Ojibwe) says:
Great content! I really hope you know how much this means to me. I’m so happy you put this up. This is the type of content I’ve been looking for, can I do a write up? I really hope so. I’ve bookmarked your page here and will be back. Also visited some of your sponsors, good stuff. I hope you visit my site about Christmas gifts sometime soon and return the favor. Have a good day.
August 6, 2010, 12:57 am