I recently watched the original version of A Christmas Carol. Of course it is easy to find problems with Charles Dickens’ zero-sum view of trade and make-work bias. Economic insights takes a bit away from the movie, but overall it is still enjoyable, and it is not as if Charles Dickens is just completely off base about what kind of people we should be.
My observation about the movie is that despite scrooge’s apathy, his line of work helped many people. As a lender, he helped those in need get access to capital, which ended up saving the multitudes from the kind of poverty Dickens found so revolting. Sure scrooge was kind of a jerk to people who couldn’t pay it back, but without the jerky attitude, there’s nothing wrong with insisting that you receive what you traded for. The long tradition of hating the benefactors of interest comes from not thinking the matter all the way through (maybe we can talk about it some time).
The irony is the part of the story where machinery is decried for displacing a particular way of life. But that way of life is an impoverished one that Dickens hates and machinery helped eliminate from developed countries. Dickens seems to think that everyone can have a turkey dinner if the rich just buy them one, but in fact it requires a whole lot more turkeys which means a whole lot more capital that makes the process of making turkey’s more efficient.
After a lifetime of helping people with his line of work, he had accumulated a very significant stock of wealth. Good thing too, because that means that he actually had wealth to give away. Presumably, he kept his stock of wealth in the form of investments, which means that he had even more to give away at the end of his life than if he had just given away each and every paycheck at the time that he received them. This might be the very best way of charitable giving.
It doesn’t mean that Scrooge was a good man. It is not okay to be apathetic toward your fellow man or to give your life to the pursuit of money. But while Scrooge needed an attitude adjustment, not much of his behavior needed to change. One of the few behaviors he should have changed though is that he not spend so much of his spare time brooding alone in his house. Instead he should have experienced the joy of companionship, love, and community. Though that needed to change, he still should have continued with his job, been pragmatic about the gives and takes with his workers and consumers for the profit of his company, and given at least most of his wealth away near the end of his life.
