🚀 go-pugleaf

fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
server.bigpond.net.au:

> 
> "It is better to give than to receive"
>      The Age 24/12/2008
> 
> 
> 
> "While economists bemoan the inefficient consumerism
> of buying for others, studies tell us it is an
> indicator of happiness.
> 
>      http://images.theage.com.au/2008/12/23/332168/mb_opinion-200x0.jpg
> 
> CHRISTMAS is a trying time of year for economists.
> They have trouble making sense of it. It's not all
> the commercialism and consumerism that worries them,
> of course. These make perfect sense to an economist
> trained to believe that consumption is "the sole
> end and object of all economic activity".
> 
> No, it's all the gift-giving they can't understand.
> It doesn't seem rational. Why would anyone give
> things to others? It's such an inefficient way to consume.
> 
> As the leading researcher in this area, Professor
> Joel Waldfogel, of the University of Pennsylvania,
> demonstrated in his seminal paper of 1993,
> The Deadweight Loss of Christmas, people who receive
> presents generally value them at less than they cost
> the givers.
> 
> Indeed, studies he has conducted among his students
> find that, "on average, a dollar that people spend
> for themselves creates nearly 20 per cent more
> satisfaction than a dollar that someone else
> spends on them". That is, gift-giving effectively
> discards 20 per cent of the gift's price.
> 
> His point � one beloved of conservative economists
> � is that no one can understand your needs and wants
> better than you do yourself. So, though gifts from
> the people you live with may go close, most gifts
> fall well short of the mark.
> 
> This, the prof concludes, makes presents "a resource
> allocation disaster". So, of all the money we spend
> on gifts each year, "one fifth is effectively flushed
> down the toilet". In more refined economic circles,
> this is called a "deadweight loss".
> 
> Waldfogel, being a man of painstaking precision,
> is careful to note that these calculations deliberately
> exclude any sentimental value recipients might attach
> to the gifts they receive from loved ones.
> 
> It crossed my mind some years ago that maybe The
> Deadweight Loss of Christmas had been tongue-in-cheek.
> It was a giant leg-pull, and like a humourless dolt,
> I'd fallen for it. But the more I think about it,
> the more sure I am the man's in deadly earnest.
> He's returned to the theme several times in the
> past 15 years, seeking to refine his arguments
> and his estimate of the precise cost of this
> inefficiency.
> 
> There's a class of economist who, rather than
> accept the seemingly obvious truth that humans
> are capable of doing silly things, will beat
> the bushes in search of even the most far-fetched
> argument to show our behaviour is rational after all.
> 
> Other economic researchers have contended, for
> instance, that gifts represent a form of insurance
> for the giver. So parents may give gifts to their
> children in the hope the children will care for
> them in old age. And adult children may give
> gifts to their elderly parents in the hope of
> generous treatment in their will.
> 
> Another theory is that gifts, particularly
> inefficient ones, serve as costly signals of
> the giver's intention to invest in a future
> relationship. Or maybe gifts are exchanged
> to break down mistrust, permit co-operation
> and build relationships.
> 
> If you don't find those propositions persuasive
> � if they hardly apply to the gifts you give or
> receive � you're not alone. I don't either."

Interesting theory. Too bad he doesn't take into account the intangibles.

When people purchase gifts to give away to others they are not purchasing 
the intrinsic value of the item itself, what they really purchase is the 
potential to feel a certain way when they give it to someone else.

The item purchased is a store of emotional potential in the same way that 
money is a store of value. The gift allows the buyer to convert the value 
stored in money from one form to another.

The gift has a greater potential to deliver the desired emotional state 
than the money used to purchase it, so the process of shopping for and 
buying gifts can be considered to be adding value to the economy.

Since no rational purson would engage in a market transaction that left 
them worse off, giving the gift must provide more value through emotional 
satisfaction to the giver than the intrinsic value of the gift itself.

It really is better to give than to recieve!

Merry Christmas Fasi.

-- 
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

David Moss wrote:
> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au:
> 
>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>
>>
>>
>> "While economists bemoan the inefficient consumerism
>> of buying for others, studies tell us it is an
>> indicator of happiness.
>>
>>      http://images.theage.com.au/2008/12/23/332168/mb_opinion-200x0.jpg
>>
>> CHRISTMAS is a trying time of year for economists.
>> They have trouble making sense of it. It's not all
>> the commercialism and consumerism that worries them,
>> of course. These make perfect sense to an economist
>> trained to believe that consumption is "the sole
>> end and object of all economic activity".
>>
>> No, it's all the gift-giving they can't understand.
>> It doesn't seem rational. Why would anyone give
>> things to others? It's such an inefficient way to consume.
>>
>> As the leading researcher in this area, Professor
>> Joel Waldfogel, of the University of Pennsylvania,
>> demonstrated in his seminal paper of 1993,
>> The Deadweight Loss of Christmas, people who receive
>> presents generally value them at less than they cost
>> the givers.
>>
>> Indeed, studies he has conducted among his students
>> find that, "on average, a dollar that people spend
>> for themselves creates nearly 20 per cent more
>> satisfaction than a dollar that someone else
>> spends on them". That is, gift-giving effectively
>> discards 20 per cent of the gift's price.
>>
>> His point � one beloved of conservative economists
>> � is that no one can understand your needs and wants
>> better than you do yourself. So, though gifts from
>> the people you live with may go close, most gifts
>> fall well short of the mark.
>>
>> This, the prof concludes, makes presents "a resource
>> allocation disaster". So, of all the money we spend
>> on gifts each year, "one fifth is effectively flushed
>> down the toilet". In more refined economic circles,
>> this is called a "deadweight loss".
>>
>> Waldfogel, being a man of painstaking precision,
>> is careful to note that these calculations deliberately
>> exclude any sentimental value recipients might attach
>> to the gifts they receive from loved ones.
>>
>> It crossed my mind some years ago that maybe The
>> Deadweight Loss of Christmas had been tongue-in-cheek.
>> It was a giant leg-pull, and like a humourless dolt,
>> I'd fallen for it. But the more I think about it,
>> the more sure I am the man's in deadly earnest.
>> He's returned to the theme several times in the
>> past 15 years, seeking to refine his arguments
>> and his estimate of the precise cost of this
>> inefficiency.
>>
>> There's a class of economist who, rather than
>> accept the seemingly obvious truth that humans
>> are capable of doing silly things, will beat
>> the bushes in search of even the most far-fetched
>> argument to show our behaviour is rational after all.
>>
>> Other economic researchers have contended, for
>> instance, that gifts represent a form of insurance
>> for the giver. So parents may give gifts to their
>> children in the hope the children will care for
>> them in old age. And adult children may give
>> gifts to their elderly parents in the hope of
>> generous treatment in their will.
>>
>> Another theory is that gifts, particularly
>> inefficient ones, serve as costly signals of
>> the giver's intention to invest in a future
>> relationship. Or maybe gifts are exchanged
>> to break down mistrust, permit co-operation
>> and build relationships.
>>
>> If you don't find those propositions persuasive
>> � if they hardly apply to the gifts you give or
>> receive � you're not alone. I don't either."
> 
> Interesting theory. Too bad he doesn't take into account the intangibles.
> 
> When people purchase gifts to give away to others they are not purchasing 
> the intrinsic value of the item itself, what they really purchase is the 
> potential to feel a certain way when they give it to someone else.
> 
> The item purchased is a store of emotional potential in the same way that 
> money is a store of value. The gift allows the buyer to convert the value 
> stored in money from one form to another.
> 
> The gift has a greater potential to deliver the desired emotional state 
> than the money used to purchase it, so the process of shopping for and 
> buying gifts can be considered to be adding value to the economy.
> 
> Since no rational purson would engage in a market transaction that left 
> them worse off, giving the gift must provide more value through emotional 
> satisfaction to the giver than the intrinsic value of the gift itself.
> 
> It really is better to give than to recieve!
> 
> Merry Christmas Fasi.
> 

Except when you're a child.
Then receiving is definitely better!

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in news:6rdfl0Fo33eU1
@mid.individual.net:

>> It really is better to give than to recieve!
>> 
>> Merry Christmas Fasi.
>> 
> 
> Except when you're a child.
> Then receiving is definitely better!

One of the many joys of parenthood is watching the slow transition from it 
being better to recieve than to give in a child into the opposite in a 
young adult.

I think it is necessary to have experienced the first stage in order to 
really enjoy the second.

I currently have a five year old who is just starting this slow transition. 
The change since last year is noticeable. It is beautiful to see. I feel 
privileged to be the one helping her on this journey.

-- 
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

David Moss wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in news:6rdfl0Fo33eU1
> @mid.individual.net:
> 
>>> It really is better to give than to recieve!
>>>
>>> Merry Christmas Fasi.
>>>
>> Except when you're a child.
>> Then receiving is definitely better!
> 
> One of the many joys of parenthood is watching the slow transition from it 
> being better to recieve than to give in a child into the opposite in a 
> young adult.
> 
> I think it is necessary to have experienced the first stage in order to 
> really enjoy the second.
> 
> I currently have a five year old who is just starting this slow transition. 
> The change since last year is noticeable. It is beautiful to see. I feel 
> privileged to be the one helping her on this journey.
> 

They will also realise that they have grown up when they can buy 
themselves better presents than their parents can afford :-)

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6rdoqtFs3qtU2@mid.individual.net: 

> David Moss wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6rdfl0Fo33eU1 @mid.individual.net:
>> 
>>>> It really is better to give than to recieve!
>>>>
>>>> Merry Christmas Fasi.
>>>>
>>> Except when you're a child.
>>> Then receiving is definitely better!
>> 
>> One of the many joys of parenthood is watching the slow transition
>> from it being better to recieve than to give in a child into the
>> opposite in a young adult.
>> 
>> I think it is necessary to have experienced the first stage in order
>> to really enjoy the second.
>> 
>> I currently have a five year old who is just starting this slow
>> transition. The change since last year is noticeable. It is beautiful
>> to see. I feel privileged to be the one helping her on this journey.
>> 
> 
> They will also realise that they have grown up when they can buy 
> themselves better presents than their parents can afford :-)

Oh yes!
I have a 23 year old son who has a better car than me, a better laptop 
PC, sound system, MP3 player, tools....

I get to borrow them sometimes!

-- 
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

David Moss wrote:
> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au:
> 
>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>

This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:

" Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "


    "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring
     ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the
     words of the Lord Jesus, how he said,
     It is more blessed to give than to receive."

               -  Acts 20:35

2000 years later, despite the secular economic smart boys,
the Market Masters of the Universe, Jesus Christ is shown
to still lead the way:

And Dave Moss is definitely on the path....    B^D

    way ahead of all the ignorant...

Act I: The Common View.

>> "While economists bemoan the inefficient consumerism
>> of buying for others, studies tell us it is an
>> indicator of happiness.
>>
>>      http://images.theage.com.au/2008/12/23/332168/mb_opinion-200x0.jpg
>>
>> CHRISTMAS is a trying time of year for economists.
>> They have trouble making sense of it. It's not all
>> the commercialism and consumerism that worries them,
>> of course. These make perfect sense to an economist
>> trained to believe that consumption is "the sole
>> end and object of all economic activity".
>>
>> No, it's all the gift-giving they can't understand.
>> It doesn't seem rational. Why would anyone give
>> things to others? It's such an inefficient way to consume.
>>
>> As the leading researcher in this area, Professor
>> Joel Waldfogel, of the University of Pennsylvania,
>> demonstrated in his seminal paper of 1993,
>> The Deadweight Loss of Christmas, people who receive
>> presents generally value them at less than they cost
>> the givers.
>>
>> Indeed, studies he has conducted among his students
>> find that, "on average, a dollar that people spend
>> for themselves creates nearly 20 per cent more
>> satisfaction than a dollar that someone else
>> spends on them". That is, gift-giving effectively
>> discards 20 per cent of the gift's price.
>>
>> His point � one beloved of conservative economists
>> � is that no one can understand your needs and wants
>> better than you do yourself. So, though gifts from
>> the people you live with may go close, most gifts
>> fall well short of the mark.
>>
>> This, the prof concludes, makes presents "a resource
>> allocation disaster". So, of all the money we spend
>> on gifts each year, "one fifth is effectively flushed
>> down the toilet". In more refined economic circles,
>> this is called a "deadweight loss".
>>
>> Waldfogel, being a man of painstaking precision,
>> is careful to note that these calculations deliberately
>> exclude any sentimental value recipients might attach
>> to the gifts they receive from loved ones.
>>
>> It crossed my mind some years ago that maybe The
>> Deadweight Loss of Christmas had been tongue-in-cheek.
>> It was a giant leg-pull, and like a humourless dolt,
>> I'd fallen for it. But the more I think about it,
>> the more sure I am the man's in deadly earnest.
>> He's returned to the theme several times in the
>> past 15 years, seeking to refine his arguments
>> and his estimate of the precise cost of this
>> inefficiency.
>>
>> There's a class of economist who, rather than
>> accept the seemingly obvious truth that humans
>> are capable of doing silly things, will beat
>> the bushes in search of even the most far-fetched
>> argument to show our behaviour is rational after all.
>>
>> Other economic researchers have contended, for
>> instance, that gifts represent a form of insurance
>> for the giver. So parents may give gifts to their
>> children in the hope the children will care for
>> them in old age. And adult children may give
>> gifts to their elderly parents in the hope of
>> generous treatment in their will.
>>
>> Another theory is that gifts, particularly
>> inefficient ones, serve as costly signals of
>> the giver's intention to invest in a future
>> relationship. Or maybe gifts are exchanged
>> to break down mistrust, permit co-operation
>> and build relationships.
>>
>> If you don't find those propositions persuasive
>> � if they hardly apply to the gifts you give or
>> receive � you're not alone. I don't either."
> 
> Interesting theory. Too bad he doesn't take into account the intangibles.

Congratulations, Dave, you win the prize for Most Perspicacious Post!

That is precisely the point made in Act II of..

"It is better to give than receive" - a Christmas parable in *TWO* acts.

I held back the Second Act because I wanted to see the response,
and you were the only one to anticipate the second lot of research:



ACT II: Modern Proof of a 2000 year old Divine Insight!  ;-)

"No, there's a simple, glaring weakness in the logic
  of Waldfogel's calculations. Have you picked it? "

   [ Only Dave Moss did, unaided by the research!  8^o ]

" I confess to my shame that, so great is the influence
  on me of all the mean-minded economists I fraternise
  with, it took years for my penny to drop.

  Waldfogel focuses solely on the satisfaction � the "utility"
  as economists would say � a gift yields to the recipient,
  quite forgetting to take account of the utility enjoyed
  by the giver. After all, as this son of the manse should
  have remembered, it's more blessed to give than receive."#

      [ # Copyright,  Jesus Christ, Lord.  ]

  "Too hard-nosed to buy that kind of soppy stuff? Well, the
  psychologists pursuing the "new science of happiness" are
  finding a lot of evidence to support the proposition that
  spending money on other people has a more positive effect
  on happiness than spending money on yourself.

  Elizabeth Dunn and Lara Aknin, of the University of British
  Columbia, and Michael Norton, of Harvard Business School,
  first surveyed a sample of 630 Americans and found that
  their spending on themselves was unrelated to their
  self-assessed degree of general happiness, whereas those
  spending more on others or on donations to charity were
  significantly happier.

  Of course, this didn't prove that spending more on others
  makes you happier. It could be the other way round: happier
  people are more inclined to give to others.

  So next they surveyed the happiness of 16 employees a month
  before they were due to receive their annual profit-sharing
  bonuses. Six or eight weeks after these people had received
  their bonuses, the researchers surveyed them again.

  They found that those employees who spent more of their bonus
  on buying something for someone else or on donations to charity
  experienced greater happiness. And the way in which they spent
  their bonus was a better predictor of their subsequent happiness
  than was the size of the bonus.

  Since this study followed the same people over time, it comes
  closer to demonstrating that it was giving that made them happier,
  not happier people being more inclined to give.

  Next the researchers conducted an experiment in which 46
  participants were asked one morning to rate their happiness,
  then given an envelope containing either $5 or $20. They were
  asked spend the money by 5 o'clock that day. Some were
  instructed to spend the money on themselves, whereas others
  were told to spend the money on someone else or give it
  to charity. The researchers called them after 5pm and
  again surveyed their self-assessed happiness. You guessed it.
  Those told to spend the money on others were happier than
  those told to spend it on themselves. And the amount of
  money people were given had no significant effect on their
  subsequent happiness.

  What's that? You didn't need fancy experiments to tell
  you gift-giving yields a benefit to the giver?
  Don't kid yourself.

  When the researchers explained that last experiment to some
  of their students and asked them to say which of the options
  would make them happiest, they got it doubly wrong. Most
  thought spending on themselves would make them happier.
  And 86 per cent thought getting $20 would make them happier
  than getting $5.

  So don't let any blinkered economist tell you Christmas
  presents make no sense."

  Ross Gittins is a senior columnist.

  And Jesus is the Earth representative of the Product Designer,
  and knows precisely how it works!   B^D

  And Dave Moss is a Senior Usenet commentator who
  understood the truth implicitly!      8^)

  Outstanding insight!

> When people purchase gifts to give away to others they are not purchasing 
> the intrinsic value of the item itself, what they really purchase is the 
> potential to feel a certain way when they give it to someone else.
> 
> The item purchased is a store of emotional potential in the same way that 
> money is a store of value. The gift allows the buyer to convert the value 
> stored in money from one form to another.
> 
> The gift has a greater potential to deliver the desired emotional state 
> than the money used to purchase it, so the process of shopping for and 
> buying gifts can be considered to be adding value to the economy.
> 
> Since no rational person would engage in a market transaction that left 
> them worse off, giving the gift must provide more value through emotional 
> satisfaction to the giver than the intrinsic value of the gift itself.
> 
> It really is better to give than to receive!
> 

"The Word is the master key for the whole world,
inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the
hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of
heaven, are unlocked."

	- Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 173

"Those divines, however, who are truly adorned with
the ornament of knowledge and of a goodly character are, verily,
as a head to the body of the world, and as eyes to the nations.
The guidance of men hath, at all times, been, and is,
dependent upon such blessed souls. We beseech God to graciously
aid them to do His will and pleasure. He, in truth,
is the Lord of all men, the Lord of this world and of the next."

	-Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 16




> Merry Christmas Fasi.


Peace and Joy, Dave,
to you and yours at Christmas
and throughout the years.


http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/xmas.html

fasgnadh wrote:
> David Moss wrote:
>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
>> server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>
> 
> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
> 
> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
> 

Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

"David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message 
news:Xns9B7E6BA378470q0320811mailconnectu@61.9.191.5...
> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au:
>
>>
>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>
>>
>>
>> "While economists bemoan the inefficient consumerism
>> of buying for others, studies tell us it is an
>> indicator of happiness.
>>
>>      http://images.theage.com.au/2008/12/23/332168/mb_opinion-200x0.jpg
>>
>> CHRISTMAS is a trying time of year for economists.
>> They have trouble making sense of it. It's not all
>> the commercialism and consumerism that worries them,
>> of course. These make perfect sense to an economist
>> trained to believe that consumption is "the sole
>> end and object of all economic activity".
>>
>> No, it's all the gift-giving they can't understand.
>> It doesn't seem rational. Why would anyone give
>> things to others? It's such an inefficient way to consume.
>>
>> As the leading researcher in this area, Professor
>> Joel Waldfogel, of the University of Pennsylvania,
>> demonstrated in his seminal paper of 1993,
>> The Deadweight Loss of Christmas, people who receive
>> presents generally value them at less than they cost
>> the givers.
>>
>> Indeed, studies he has conducted among his students
>> find that, "on average, a dollar that people spend
>> for themselves creates nearly 20 per cent more
>> satisfaction than a dollar that someone else
>> spends on them". That is, gift-giving effectively
>> discards 20 per cent of the gift's price.
>>
>> His point - one beloved of conservative economists
>> - is that no one can understand your needs and wants
>> better than you do yourself. So, though gifts from
>> the people you live with may go close, most gifts
>> fall well short of the mark.
>>
>> This, the prof concludes, makes presents "a resource
>> allocation disaster". So, of all the money we spend
>> on gifts each year, "one fifth is effectively flushed
>> down the toilet". In more refined economic circles,
>> this is called a "deadweight loss".
>>
>> Waldfogel, being a man of painstaking precision,
>> is careful to note that these calculations deliberately
>> exclude any sentimental value recipients might attach
>> to the gifts they receive from loved ones.
>>
>> It crossed my mind some years ago that maybe The
>> Deadweight Loss of Christmas had been tongue-in-cheek.
>> It was a giant leg-pull, and like a humourless dolt,
>> I'd fallen for it. But the more I think about it,
>> the more sure I am the man's in deadly earnest.
>> He's returned to the theme several times in the
>> past 15 years, seeking to refine his arguments
>> and his estimate of the precise cost of this
>> inefficiency.
>>
>> There's a class of economist who, rather than
>> accept the seemingly obvious truth that humans
>> are capable of doing silly things, will beat
>> the bushes in search of even the most far-fetched
>> argument to show our behaviour is rational after all.
>>
>> Other economic researchers have contended, for
>> instance, that gifts represent a form of insurance
>> for the giver. So parents may give gifts to their
>> children in the hope the children will care for
>> them in old age. And adult children may give
>> gifts to their elderly parents in the hope of
>> generous treatment in their will.
>>
>> Another theory is that gifts, particularly
>> inefficient ones, serve as costly signals of
>> the giver's intention to invest in a future
>> relationship. Or maybe gifts are exchanged
>> to break down mistrust, permit co-operation
>> and build relationships.
>>
>> If you don't find those propositions persuasive
>> - if they hardly apply to the gifts you give or
>> receive - you're not alone. I don't either."
>
> Interesting theory. Too bad he doesn't take into account the intangibles.
>
> When people purchase gifts to give away to others they are not purchasing
> the intrinsic value of the item itself, what they really purchase is the
> potential to feel a certain way when they give it to someone else.
>
> The item purchased is a store of emotional potential in the same way that
> money is a store of value. The gift allows the buyer to convert the value
> stored in money from one form to another.
>
> The gift has a greater potential to deliver the desired emotional state
> than the money used to purchase it, so the process of shopping for and
> buying gifts can be considered to be adding value to the economy.
>
> Since no rational purson would engage in a market transaction that left
> them worse off, giving the gift must provide more value through emotional
> satisfaction to the giver than the intrinsic value of the gift itself.
>
> It really is better to give than to recieve!

To expand on that, giving presents may also afford emotional satisfaction 
through the establishment of social status and even dominance: giving 
valuable presents then become a demonstration of the giver's resources.  It 
is an act of (self-)affirmation: marvel at me, I am so rich/productive that 
I can afford to simply give away all this loot -- and because this is so, 
you had better show me some respect.

An alternative, and economically quite rational, explanation could be that 
present-giving invokes the principle of reciprocity.  In the positive action 
of making an unasked-for and unlooked-for present, I establish a powerful 
psychological pressure to respond in equally positive ways. 

Alex W. wrote:
> "David Moss" <q0320811@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9B7E6BA378470q0320811mailconnectu@61.9.191.5...
>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
>> server.bigpond.net.au:
>>
>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "While economists bemoan the inefficient consumerism
>>> of buying for others, studies tell us it is an
>>> indicator of happiness.
>>>
>>>      http://images.theage.com.au/2008/12/23/332168/mb_opinion-200x0.jpg
>>>
>>> CHRISTMAS is a trying time of year for economists.
>>> They have trouble making sense of it. It's not all
>>> the commercialism and consumerism that worries them,
>>> of course. These make perfect sense to an economist
>>> trained to believe that consumption is "the sole
>>> end and object of all economic activity".
>>>
>>> No, it's all the gift-giving they can't understand.
>>> It doesn't seem rational. Why would anyone give
>>> things to others? It's such an inefficient way to consume.
>>>
>>> As the leading researcher in this area, Professor
>>> Joel Waldfogel, of the University of Pennsylvania,
>>> demonstrated in his seminal paper of 1993,
>>> The Deadweight Loss of Christmas, people who receive
>>> presents generally value them at less than they cost
>>> the givers.
>>>
>>> Indeed, studies he has conducted among his students
>>> find that, "on average, a dollar that people spend
>>> for themselves creates nearly 20 per cent more
>>> satisfaction than a dollar that someone else
>>> spends on them". That is, gift-giving effectively
>>> discards 20 per cent of the gift's price.
>>>
>>> His point - one beloved of conservative economists
>>> - is that no one can understand your needs and wants
>>> better than you do yourself. So, though gifts from
>>> the people you live with may go close, most gifts
>>> fall well short of the mark.
>>>
>>> This, the prof concludes, makes presents "a resource
>>> allocation disaster". So, of all the money we spend
>>> on gifts each year, "one fifth is effectively flushed
>>> down the toilet". In more refined economic circles,
>>> this is called a "deadweight loss".
>>>
>>> Waldfogel, being a man of painstaking precision,
>>> is careful to note that these calculations deliberately
>>> exclude any sentimental value recipients might attach
>>> to the gifts they receive from loved ones.
>>>
>>> It crossed my mind some years ago that maybe The
>>> Deadweight Loss of Christmas had been tongue-in-cheek.
>>> It was a giant leg-pull, and like a humourless dolt,
>>> I'd fallen for it. But the more I think about it,
>>> the more sure I am the man's in deadly earnest.
>>> He's returned to the theme several times in the
>>> past 15 years, seeking to refine his arguments
>>> and his estimate of the precise cost of this
>>> inefficiency.
>>>
>>> There's a class of economist who, rather than
>>> accept the seemingly obvious truth that humans
>>> are capable of doing silly things, will beat
>>> the bushes in search of even the most far-fetched
>>> argument to show our behaviour is rational after all.
>>>
>>> Other economic researchers have contended, for
>>> instance, that gifts represent a form of insurance
>>> for the giver. So parents may give gifts to their
>>> children in the hope the children will care for
>>> them in old age. And adult children may give
>>> gifts to their elderly parents in the hope of
>>> generous treatment in their will.
>>>
>>> Another theory is that gifts, particularly
>>> inefficient ones, serve as costly signals of
>>> the giver's intention to invest in a future
>>> relationship. Or maybe gifts are exchanged
>>> to break down mistrust, permit co-operation
>>> and build relationships.
>>>
>>> If you don't find those propositions persuasive
>>> - if they hardly apply to the gifts you give or
>>> receive - you're not alone. I don't either."
>> Interesting theory. Too bad he doesn't take into account the intangibles.
>>
>> When people purchase gifts to give away to others they are not purchasing
>> the intrinsic value of the item itself, what they really purchase is the
>> potential to feel a certain way when they give it to someone else.
>>
>> The item purchased is a store of emotional potential in the same way that
>> money is a store of value. The gift allows the buyer to convert the value
>> stored in money from one form to another.
>>
>> The gift has a greater potential to deliver the desired emotional state
>> than the money used to purchase it, so the process of shopping for and
>> buying gifts can be considered to be adding value to the economy.
>>
>> Since no rational purson would engage in a market transaction that left
>> them worse off, giving the gift must provide more value through emotional
>> satisfaction to the giver than the intrinsic value of the gift itself.
>>
>> It really is better to give than to recieve!
> 
> To expand on that, giving presents may also afford emotional satisfaction 
> through the establishment of social status and even dominance: giving 
> valuable presents then become a demonstration of the giver's resources.  It 
> is an act of (self-)affirmation: marvel at me, I am so rich/productive that 
> I can afford to simply give away all this loot -- and because this is so, 
> you had better show me some respect.
> 
> An alternative, and economically quite rational, explanation could be that 
> present-giving invokes the principle of reciprocity.  In the positive action 
> of making an unasked-for and unlooked-for present, I establish a powerful 
> psychological pressure to respond in equally positive ways. 

Which is exploited by those charities who send "free" cards and pens 
through the post.
That REALLY annoys me.



-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6remoaF196mgU1@mid.individual.net: 

> Subject: Re: Jesus Christ was RIGHT!   "It is better to give than to
> receive"   -  ACT II - A Christmas parable in two acts From: Dirk
> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion,alt.atheism,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,aus.cultur
> e.true-blue,aus.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican
> s,uk.politics.misc 
> 
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> David Moss wrote:
>>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>> news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news- server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>
>>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>>
>> 
>> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>> 
>> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>> 
> 
> Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!

Time is an illusion.

-- 
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

David Moss wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6remoaF196mgU1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> Subject: Re: Jesus Christ was RIGHT!   "It is better to give than to
>> receive"   -  ACT II - A Christmas parable in two acts From: Dirk
>> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
>> alt.religion,alt.atheism,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,aus.cultur
>> e.true-blue,aus.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican
>> s,uk.politics.misc 
>>
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>> David Moss wrote:
>>>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>>> news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news- server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>
>>>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>>>
>>> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>>>
>>> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>>>
>> Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!
> 
> Time is an illusion.
> 
So you say, but my clock says different.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

On Dec 24, 7:55 am, David Moss <q0320...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au>
wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote innews:6remoaF196mgU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > Subject: Re: Jesus Christ was RIGHT!   "It is better to give than to
> > receive"   -  ACT II - A Christmas parable in two acts From: Dirk
> > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
> > alt.religion,alt.atheism,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,aus.cultur
> > e.true-blue,aus.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican
> > s,uk.politics.misc
>
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> David Moss wrote:
> >>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> >>>news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>
> >>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
> >>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>
> >> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>
> >> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>
> > Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!
>
> Time is an illusion.
>

...And lunch time doubly so.

PDW

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:6repfbF1csfvU2@mid.individual.net...
> Alex W. wrote:


>> An alternative, and economically quite rational, explanation could be 
>> that present-giving invokes the principle of reciprocity.  In the 
>> positive action of making an unasked-for and unlooked-for present, I 
>> establish a powerful psychological pressure to respond in equally 
>> positive ways.
>
> Which is exploited by those charities who send "free" cards and pens 
> through the post.
> That REALLY annoys me.

That doesn't really bother me.  They are pretty unnoticeable among all the 
junk mail clogging up my letterbox.

Reciprocity is powerful, but it is possible to neutralise the effects simply 
by being aware of what is being done.  It also helps to decline the offer 
when it is made -- generally a good practice since the free pens, free cup 
of coffee or free glass of fizzy wine is usually of a pretty dire quality. 

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> David Moss wrote:
>>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
>>> server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>
>>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>>
>>
>> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>>
>> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>>
> 
> Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!

So you can see that the FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS are the same!   8^D

Buddha and Jesus, different Epochs, different audience, thus different
presentation, but the SAME teaching.   Mere co-incidence?  too many of them.


That is an excellent observation, it saves me making it, because..

It's the SAME Spirit, from the One God!   B^)

At all times and places in history, every part of mankind has been
informed by that spirit, in forms outwardly as diverse, and inwardly
as united, as our ecology, or our humanity.

Think on it.

You are heading for the Deep End, so take a deep breath..  ;-)

Most people have not read ONE holy book, let alone undertaken
a comparative reading of two faith traditions or more.
And so the Common view is profoundly uninformed.
We are in the age when historical isolation is over,
and global dialogue is providing some astonishing connections,
long hidden due to distance, insularity, and turf wars.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking this is about SAMENESS.
The metaphor is say, Love in a family..  one parent expresses it
by long hours of work, earning money,  another by patient service
keeping a home, the children by helping out..  The outward forms
are completely different, the inner truth..  IDENTICAL.

Most people only see the incense and the temples..
or the costumes, or the fast, or the bowing, or the
social laws, which change, or the cultural accretions
which vary with location  (Roman Church/ Greek Church /
Southern Baprist Church/ etc)


To understand the links between Jesus and Buddha,
something groups of serious Christians and Buddhists  have
been working on for some time, Google the Maitreya Buddha,
The Buddhist 'Promised One':

  "Maitreya is a bodhisattva who in the Buddhist tradition
   is to appear on Earth, achieve complete enlightenment,
   and teach the pure dharma. According to scriptures,
   Maitreya will be a successor of the historic S'a-kyamuni
   Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. The prophecy of the
   arrival of Maitreya is found in the canonical literature
   of all Buddhist sects (Therava-da, Maha-ya-na, Vajraya-na) and
   is accepted by most Buddhists as a statement about an actual
   event that will take place in the distant future."


Then brush up on your Biblical prophesies about Second Advent,
(read the Biblical SOURCE before listening to the Interpretations,

And then have a read about the Hidden Imam of Islam,

All of these religions are like Judiasm, awaiting the next Messiah,
or his return.

Then consider that the one they are all waiting for is the SAME ONE,
fulfilling the prophetic expectation of all religions.. and 
establishing firmly the unity of mankind, and of religion..
and it's a UNITY in **DIVERSITY**, not conformist homgeneity,
as you would expect in a complex multilayered world..
where no religious following loses out, all traditions are validated
and celebrated

The fundamental problem with Religion for centuries has been
their insistence that each of them was the One True Religion!!!  B^[
And their willingness to fight each other over it, by which they
all disproved their claims!!!!!!   B^[

It is true, when you realise .. they Are ALL the One True Religion!!!

At least, That is the message of the the One they have all
been waiting for..    8^o

                      SUPRISE!    B^D


" For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord
   so cometh as a thief in the night."
          1 Thessalonians 5:2

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> David Moss wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6remoaF196mgU1@mid.individual.net:
>>> Subject: Re: Jesus Christ was RIGHT!   "It is better to give than to
>>> receive"   -  ACT II - A Christmas parable in two acts From: Dirk
>>> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
>>> alt.religion,alt.atheism,aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,aus.cultur
>>> e.true-blue,aus.politics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republican
>>> s,uk.politics.misc
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> David Moss wrote:
>>>>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>>>> news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news- server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>>>>
>>>> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>>>>
>>>> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>>>>
>>> Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!
>>

" Contemporary research confirms 2500 year old Divine Revelation!  "

B^D

>> Time is an illusion.
>>

Yes, Einstein predicts and physics confirms, it varies with speed.

> So you say, but my clock says different.

Like you, your clock is very S-L-O-W.    B^D


I love it that the only response Atheists can make to further
evidence that it's the Spiritual Teachings which provide useful
insights that form the foundation of great and enduring Civilisations,
is to offer feeble irrelevance ..which is all Atheism offers!   B^D

A Perfect Christmas Parable!

fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:tMZ4l.4567$cu.265@news-
server.bigpond.net.au:

> At all times and places in history, every part of mankind has been
> informed by that spirit, in forms outwardly as diverse, and inwardly
> as united, as our ecology, or our humanity.
> 
> Think on it.

I've often wondered if the same God motivated the back breaking and 
subsequent surgical excision of the heart from still living victims in 
certain South American religious ceremonies.

-- 
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

David Moss wrote:
> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:tMZ4l.4567$cu.265@news-
> server.bigpond.net.au:
> 
>> At all times and places in history, every part of mankind has been
>> informed by that spirit, in forms outwardly as diverse, and inwardly
>> as united, as our ecology, or our humanity.
>>
>> Think on it.
> 
> I've often wondered if the same God motivated the back breaking and 
> subsequent surgical excision of the heart from still living victims in 
> certain South American religious ceremonies.

You can't distinguish between primitive Paganism and the coherent 
Spiritual teachings on which Judeao-Christian-Islamic Civilisation is built?


Do they have any theological links with monotheism, and shared values 
with YHWH as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Baha'u'llah do?
or interlinked prophetic traditions as those, and the Maitreya
Buddha do?

No, the God Of Abraham defeated such as Baal, to whom human
sacrifice was made, including children. Their remains and the 
sacrificial altars are found in Tels throughout the Holy Land.

Human sacrifice, to cause the Sun to Rise or the land to
be fertile(sic), was not the hallmark of great and enduring
civilisations.. but rather of the ones replaced! There are still Jews, 
Buddhists and even Zoroastrians (Parsis) but there are no Inca's, 
Toltecs or Aztecs, still removing hearts and practicising their 
anthropogenic beliefs.  Some religions have been party tested,
found efficacious and preserved.  Others never survived  social 
collapse...   they were, like my brothers ceramic sculptures, 'Party 
Tested', or failures.   ;-)

I accept that some horrific and brutal events have taken place in the 
NAME of God, but invariably by men acting in their own interests.

Abraham did come close to human sacrifice, sorely tested, to see if he 
would sacrifice Isaac to remain obedient to YHWH, but it was only a 
test.  ;-)

   It was not God, but man,
    who slew His Son,
   and Half the seed of Europe,
     one by one!

Jesus took the next step in moving humans from animalistic brutality 
toward our evolutionary goal, by removing the need even for *animal* 
sacrifice.  It has taken so long to remove the notion of 'ransom',
or purchasing favours, often with blood, that even his followers
used to see his own purpose in those terms, rather than as an educator,
and some still do..  but it is a less common view, or so I have heard
even Catholic theologians say.

Modern man assumes that where he finds harshness in early religions,
usually matching harshness in every aspect of contemporary politics
and society, that it indicates a cruel God, but invariably it
represents a gradual progress from a greater to a lesser brutality.

This process can be seen more clearly in the transition to the modern
revelations, for which we have a fuller, more accurate record..
  e.g., the protections for women in Islam now appear dated,
especially the permission to have more than one wife.

But polygamy was rampant in Arabia at the time. Women had NO Status..
By formalising a set of rights for women, yet not banning common custom 
outright, allowing polygamy to continue, but imposing conditions, 
placing the requirement 'ONLY if they can be treated with equity and 
fairness' the desires of men, AND the progressive advancement of women 
were addressed with subtle practicality.  Even in the West, the social 
conditions for accepting women as full and equal partners with men did 
not develop sufficiently until the 1900's to give them the vote..
and in the secularism of the modern era, companionate marriage, multiple 
sexual partners, serial monogamy and even polygamy are approvingly dealt 
  with in TV series!  Such things are thus cultural and not due to, or 
unique to, religion.


Shalom and Salaam.

fasgnadh wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>> David Moss wrote:
>>>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
>>>> server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>
>>>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>>>
>>>
>>> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>>>
>>> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>>>
>>
>> Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!
> 
> So you can see that the FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS are the same!   8^D
> 
> Buddha and Jesus, different Epochs, different audience, thus different
> presentation, but the SAME teaching.   Mere co-incidence?  too many of 
> them.
> 

Only if you don't have an understanding of Evolutionary Psychology and 
assume Humanity is a blank slate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> David Moss wrote:
>>>>> fasgnadh <fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>> news:hId4l.4070$cu.1674@news-
>>>>> server.bigpond.net.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "It is better to give than to receive"
>>>>>>      The Age 24/12/2008
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This thread, a little sociological experiment, should be subtitled:
>>>>
>>>> " Contemporary research confirms 2000 year old Divine Revelation!  "
>>>>
>>>
>>> Buddha beats Jesus by 500 years!
>>
>> So you can see that the FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS are the same!   8^D
>>
>> Buddha and Jesus, different Epochs, different audience, thus different
>> presentation, but the SAME teaching.   Mere co-incidence?  too many of 
>> them.
>>
> 
> Only if you don't have an understanding of Evolutionary Psychology and 
> assume Humanity is a blank slate

What do you mean?

What is the connection you are trying to make?