Scrooge Defended

[High Lord Tolkien]

Found on the Web:



***************************************

Scrooge Defended

Mises Daily: Monday, December 14, 1998 by Michael Levin

It's Christmas again, time to celebrate the transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge. You know the ritual: boo the curmudgeon initially encountered in Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol, then cheer the sweetie pie he becomes in the end. It's too bad no one notices that the curmudgeon had a point—quite a few points, in fact.

To appreciate them, it is necessary first to distinguish Scrooge's outlook on life from his disagreeable persona. He is said to have a pointed nose and a harsh voice, but not all hardheaded businessmen are so lamentably endowed, nor are their feckless nephews (remember Fred?) alwavs "ruddy and handsome," and possessed of pretty wives. These touches of the storyteller's art only bias the issue.

So let's look without preconceptions at Scrooge's allegedly underpaid clerk, Bob Cratchit. The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

No doubt Cratchit needs—i.e., wants—more, to support his family and care for Tiny Tim. But Scrooge did not force Cratchit to father children he is having difficulty supporting. If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight. And if Cratchit didn't know how expensive they would be, why must Scrooge assume the burden of Cratchit's misjudgment?

As for that one lump of coal Scrooge allows him, it bears emphasis that Cratchit has not been chained to his chilly desk. If he stays there, he shows by his behavior that he prefers his present wages-plus-comfort package to any other he has found, or supposes himself likely to find. Actions speak louder than grumbling, and the reader can hardly complain about what Cratchit evidently finds satisfactory.

More notorious even than his miserly ways are Scrooge's cynical words. "Are there no prisons," he jibes when solicited for charity, "and the Union workhouses?"

Terrible, right? Lacking in compassion?

Not necessarily. As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort.

Scrooge is skeptical that many would prefer death to the workhouse, and he is unmoved by talk of the workhouse's cheerlessness. He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness.

The normally taciturn Scrooge lets himself go a bit when Cratchit hints that he would like a paid Christmas holiday. "It's not fair," Scrooge objects, a charge not met by Cratchet's patently irrelevant protest that Christmas comes but once a year. Unfair it is, for Cratchit would doubtless object to a request for a day's uncompensated labor, "and yet," as Scrooge shrewdly points out, "you don't think me ill used when I pay a day's wages for no work."

Cratchit has apparently forgotten the golden rule. (Or is it that Scrooge has so much more than Cratchit that the golden rule does not come into play? But Scrooge doesn't think he has that much, and shouldn't he have a say in the matter?)

Scrooge's first employer, good old Fezziwig, was a lot freer with a guinea—he throws his employees a Christmas party. What the Ghost of Christmas Past does not explain is how Fezziwig afforded it. Did he attempt to pass the added costs to his customers? Or did young Scrooge pay for it anyway by working for marginally lower wages?

The biggest of the Big Lies about Scrooge is the pointlessness of his pursuit of money. "Wealth is of no use to him. He doesn't do any good with it," opines ruddy nephew Fred.

Wrong on both counts. Scrooge apparently lends money, and to discover the good he does one need only inquire of the borrowers. Here is a homeowner with a new roof, and there a merchant able to finance a shipment of tea, bringing profit to himself and happiness to tea drinkers, all thanks to Scrooge.

Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.

Scrooge is said to hound debtors so relentlessly that—as the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Be is able to show him—an indebted couple rejoices at his demise. The mere delay while their debt is transferred will avert the ruin Scrooge would have imposed.

This canard is triply absurd. First, a businessman as keen as Scrooge would prefer to delay payment to protect his investment rather than take possession of possibly useless collateral. (No bank wants developers to fail and leave it the proud possessor of a half-built shopping mall.) Second, the fretful couple knew and agreed to the terms on which Scrooge insisted. By reneging on the deal, they are effectively engaged in theft. Third, most important, and completely overlooked by Ghost and by Dickens, there are hopefuls whose own plans turn on borrowing the money returned to Scrooge from his old accounts. Scrooge can't relend what Caroline and her unnamed husband don't pay up, and he won't make a penny unless he puts the money to use after he gets it back.

The hard case, of course, is a payment due from Bob Cratchit, who needs the money for an emergency operation on Tiny Tim. (Here I depart from the text, but Dickens characters are so familiar to us they can be pressed into unfamiliar roles.) If you think it is heartless of Scrooge to demand payment, think of Sickly Sid, who needs an operation even more urgently than Tim does, and whose father is waiting to finance that operation by borrowing the money Cratchit is expected to pay up.

Is Tim's life more valuable than Sid's just because we've met him? And how do we explain to Sid's father that his son won't be able to have the operation after all, because Scrooge, as Christmas generosity, is allowing Cratchit to reschedule his debt? Scrooge does not circulate money from altruism, to be sure, but his motives, whatever they are, are congruent with the public good.

But what about those motives? Scrooge doesn't seem to get much satisfaction from the services he may inadvertently perform, and that seems to be part of Dickens's point. But who, apart from Dickens, says that Scrooge is not enjoying himself? He spends all his time at his business, likes to count his money, and has no outside interests.

At the same time, Scrooge is not given to brooding and shows absolutely no sign of depression or conflict. Whether he wished to or not, Dickens has made Scrooge by far the most intelligent character in his fable, and Dickens credits his creation with having nothing "fancy" about him. So we conclude that, in his undemonstrative way, Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy.

There can be no arguing with Dickens's wish to show the spiritual advantages of love. But there was no need to make the object of his lesson an entrepreneur whose ideas and practices benefit his employees, society at large, and himself. Must such a man expect no fairer a fate than to die scorned and alone? Bah, I say. Humbug.

[CovenantJr]

Brilliant! And mostly right.

[Avatar]

I like it.

--A

[Elfgirl]

That's absolute GOLD!! Especially the bit about extra 'handouts' to dole-bludging cretins already benefiting from taxes paid by workers, and having brats you can't afford to keep!

[AjK]

I may or may not be alone here but I have to respectfully and with good intention disagree. While cleverly written, the arguments put forward (with only a few exceptions) are either IMO wrong or could be considered either right or wrong depending on the assumptions you make regarding the information you don't know (of course, a story can't tell you everything, LOL.) Unfortunately I don't have enough time to address all of the article, but here are just a few examples of what I mean:

The fact is, if Cratchit's skills were worth more to anyone than the fifteen shillings Scrooge pays him weekly, there would be someone glad to offer it to him. Since no one has, and since Cratchit's profit-maximizing boss is hardly a man to pay for nothing, Cratchit must be worth exactly his present wages.

Not true. Lets move past my personal opinion that your time is priceless and get on with practicalities. I am all for free enterprise but why do you think labor unions were started in the United States? And haven't some unions gotten out of control and in turn damaged the business health of their respective industries? So who was right? You cannot conclude that what a given industry is paying its workers is what they are worth.

If Cratchit had children while suspecting he would be unable to afford them, he, not Scrooge, is responsible for their plight.

Scrooge is not responsible for Cratchit's children. But what about Cratchit? Was he poor when his wife originally birthed the children? Perhaps he was not but had since fallen on hard times. That may not probable but you don't know. It was certainly the case with my parents.

...it bears emphasis that Cratchit has not been chained to his chilly desk. If he stays there, he shows by his behavior that he prefers his present wages-plus-comfort package to any other he has found, or supposes himself likely to find.

Behavior doesn't always accurately reflect preference. Some people have trouble moving away from their present state regardless of what they would prefer. Again, this is not Scrooge's responsibility but it is certainly an unsupportable assumption about Cratchit.

He is right to be unmoved, for society's provisions for the poor must be, well, Dickensian. The more pleasant the alternatives to gainful employment, the greater will be the number of people who seek these alternatives, and the fewer there will be who engage in productive labor. If society expects anyone to work, work had better be a lot more attractive than idleness.

I will certainly allow for what the article is getting at here. I know multiple social workers and they have told me they have seen countless people who have no motivation to let go of the welfare teet. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who truly need help from that social system.

Scrooge apparently lends money, and to discover the good he does one need only inquire of the borrowers. Here is a homeowner with a new roof, and there a merchant able to finance a shipment of tea, bringing profit to himself and happiness to tea drinkers, all thanks to Scrooge.

There is a difference between the good that one intends in one's mind and the good that results from one's actions. The article assumes that the lent money is put to good use and that may be. But do you assume that this was Scrooge's intent or even a concern of his? What is at issue is the intent and the mentality behind his business practices ... and how one's intents ultimately shape the person.

Dickens doesn't mention Scrooge's satisfied customers, but there must have been plenty of them for Scrooge to have gotten so rich.

This is completely faulty reasoning (unless your definition of "satisfied" is simply that the customers paid for the services.) The owners of many many businesses have gotten quite rich while leaving huge percentages of unsatisfied customers in their wake. I can only speak for the USA, but how many people are satisfied with their cell phone company? Last I checked their CEOs were very well compensated but the overall customer satisfaction ratings on all aspects of the cell phone industry was the pits.

First, a businessman as keen as Scrooge would prefer to delay payment to protect his investment rather than take possession of possibly useless collateral. (No bank wants developers to fail and leave it the proud possessor of a half-built shopping mall.) Second, the fretful couple knew and agreed to the terms on which Scrooge insisted. By reneging on the deal, they are effectively engaged in theft. Third, most important, and completely overlooked by Ghost and by Dickens, there are hopefuls whose own plans turn on borrowing the money returned to Scrooge from his old accounts. Scrooge can't relend what Caroline and her unnamed husband don't pay up, and he won't make a penny unless he puts the money to use after he gets it back.

Again, this isn't about Scrooge's business acumen or what good could be done with future loans. It is about Scrooge valuing his profit above all else. He gives no indication that I can recall that he has any concern for any of the either current or future customers involved.

Scrooge does not circulate money from altruism, to be sure, but his motives, whatever they are, are congruent with the public good.

This can't be assumed to be true. While his services COULD facilitate public good there are no guarantees. How about credit card companies that make it very exceptionally easy for borrowers to get in debt over their heads? While ultimately the burden of fiscal responsibility lies with the borrower (of course), you can't legitimately assume that any and all lending is congruent with the public good and you can't assume that Scrooge gives two hoots about it either.

And how do we explain to Sid's father that his son won't be able to have the operation after all, because Scrooge, as Christmas generosity, is allowing Cratchit to reschedule his debt?

This makes the unsupportable assumption that there are no other lending institutions from which Sid's father could get a loan.

Scrooge is productive and satisfied with his lot, which is to say happy.

Happiness is relative. The ending of the story would seem to indicate that Scrooge was much happier AFTER the overnight change.

There can be no arguing with Dickens's wish to show the spiritual advantages of love.

Isn't that enough?

Must such a man expect no fairer a fate than to die scorned and alone?

I personally do not expect that or desire that fate for anyone. However if you don't want to be scorned don't do things most people would find scornful. If you want to avoid dying alone then cultivate loving relationships that ensure the you will have caring people at your side when your time comes to move on. And my view on people who don't do these things is that they represent an opportunity for me to wish the best for them, just like I wished the best for Scrooge. The onus for that one is on me.

The bottom line is that when I read the story I don't really object to Scrooge's business practices or his personality. What I see is a person who could make a MORE positive impact on the lives of others chooses to do just that after his overnight visitations. And to me that is a good message.

Why did I take the time to babble on about all this? Maybe because the author's efforts to reduce the message in Dickens' story to Economics 101 pokes one more hole in the already deflating balloon of interpersonal cheer that most people only fly during one short month of the year. And that the time period during which this goodwill comes around every year seems to get shorter and shorter despite the increased duration of the official "shopping season". Sorry for ranting.

Note to self: Read Dickens' story in July 2010 and appreciate it just as much as when the snow is flying and the lights are blinking.

[aliantha]

What Andy said.

I saw this when it was first posted, thought it was a great example of how corporations view their workers, and chose not to post, in case it was intended to be serious and not satire....

[matrixman]

I saw this when it was first posted, thought it was a great example of how corporations view their workers, and chose not to post, in case it was intended to be serious and not satire....

Same here.

But great response, AjK! You've expressed a lot of things that I wasn't sure how to.

I've yet to read Dickens's book, but over the years, the movie adaptations of A Christmas Carol have really grown on me. In fact, just yesterday, I finally bought the version with George C. Scott. I had seen bits of it before but last night was the first time I saw it from beginning to end. I think it's my favorite version now. Anyway, Scrooge's story - more than any other - makes me understand the importance of the ideals behind Christmas. Maybe because it hits too close to home. The lesson of Scrooge is like a wake up call to me, if I too wish to avoid living life unloved and dying unmourned.

Like you said, AjK, Mr. Michael Levin's aim to reduce the message of Dickens's story to Economics 101 is petty.

[AjK]

Although I certainly stand by my view, I hope that no one who did agree with or enjoy the article was put off by my rant. I was just in a mood I guess, LOL.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Although I certainly stand by my view, I hope that no one who did agree with or enjoy the article was put off by my rant. I was just in a mood I guess, LOL.

Scrooge!

[[Syl]]

I think it's my favorite version now.

And watching Scrooged is a tradition in our house. I'd also like to listen to this one of these days.

[aliantha]

Anything with Patrick Stewart in it has *got* to be good. "Make it so!"

[AjK]

Scrooge!

Fair enough! Now if I could just figure out if that is good or bad...

[matrixman]

I think it's my favorite version now.

And watching Scrooged is a tradition in our house. I'd also like to listen to this one of these days.

Yeah, I finally bought The Muppet Christmas Carol, too. Marley and Marley are still great.

I avoided Scrooged when it came out, but I wouldn't mind watching it now.

I haven't seen the one with Patrick Stewart either...I might try to get that and watch it sometime this week.

So what if it's long past Christmas?