Steven Landsburg is exactly right:
Here’s what I like about Ebenezer Scrooge: His meager lodgings were dark because darkness is cheap, and barely heated because coal is not free. His dinner was gruel, which he prepared himself. Scrooge paid no man to wait on him. Scrooge has been called ungenerous. I say that’s a bum rap. …
In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser — the man who could deplete the world’s resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser *spreads his largess far and wide. …
Put a dollar in the bank and you’ll bid down the interest rate by just enough so someone somewhere can afford an extra dollar’s worth of vacation or home improvement. Put a dollar in your mattress and you’ll drive down prices by just enough so someone somewhere can have an extra dollar’s worth of coffee with his dinner. (more; HT Adrian Kent)
Why are misers so widely criticized, if their gift is distributed unusually equitably, with little chance to receive praise or gratitude in return? Some might suggest this is caused by economic ignorance, but it seems far more likely that misers are criticized exactly because their gifts are equitable.
Humans have had literally millions of years experience begging from one other. Many primates do it, as do foragers. A supplicant appeals to common feelings that one should help associates in need when one is doing well, in the expectation of getting help later when you are in need, and also of sending good signals about your loyalty and ability.
Associates who hint that you should be less miserly and make more overt gifts are not at all hoping that you will spread your gift equitably across the world. They are instead hoping that you will unequally focus most of your gift on them. By criticizing a miserly associate, you are working to take the gift away from those distant recipients. Ask yourself: are you really more deserving than they? Do you care?
Added 1:30p: Karl Smith says:
The miser is not as generous as the dedicated philanthropist. … [He] is withholding his assessment of the most utility maximizing uses of his money. (HT TGGP)
True, but I’d still guess that the miser does more good than the average rich-nation philanthropist.
1) we all benefit when we share our wealth
This is patently false - x/y is always less than x unless y <= x
2) multiplier effect
Hahaahaahahaahaahaha *gasp* bwahaahaha
Anthropologist here,
The technical term for the institution Robin inaccurately describes as "begging" is "reciprocal altruism" (RA), which indeed is common in forager societies and among other primates, but more generally is observed throughout kingdom animalia and beyond. I think "inaccurate" because the receiver doesn't have to do anything (do you really go from relative to relative with your hand out, asking for something on Christmas?), but also because stingy humans often draw resentment by third parties who could not possibly be receivers.
In fact, reciprocal altruism (RA) is one of the better studied ways to stabilize cooperative behaviors in evolutionary biology and anthropology. They work well in high-payoff, high-variance systems like hunting because individuals who bring home the meat can call in their favors when they bring home nothing. There's also a mechanism for punishment of Scrooges - you don't give them things when they are in need. I think Bowles' Microeconomics goes over the evidence that RA evolves spontaneously in environments where contracts can not be enforced.
I have great respect for economists, but I don't understand the need for Robin's turn from talking about RA to a morality play, where we psychoanalyze supplicants to discover secret hypocrisy; they claim to value selflessness but are in their heart of hearts secretly motivated by selfishness [citation needed].