Posted by
Mark Holt on Monday, November 10, 2008 2:31:34 PM
I had an interesting experience yesterday. I learned a profound lesson while I watched my nephews fighting over, of all things, a video game. They both wanted Tetris on their iPods. One of them (we'll call him Nephew R) wanted it so much he was willing to buy it. The other (we'll call him Nephew D) didn't want it bad enough to pay full price for it. He wasn't sure how much he would be willing to pay for it, but it wasn't full price.
(Keep in mind, one copy of Tetris was enough to install on both iPods. For this discussion we'll ignore any possible legal issues that arise from this--since I'm only their uncle and not their dad--and just examine the moral issue that arose.)
The enterprising Nephew D came up with a solution. Nephew R could buy it for both of them! What a glorious solution he had found! What a wonderful world of free Tetris he was now going to inhabit!
The only problem came when Nephew R thought that wasn't fair. "Why don't we both pay half of the cost?" he asked. But to Nephew D, this was stealing. Nephew D knew that Nephew R already planned to buy the game. He knew Nephew R had already mentally spent the full price on Tetris for his iPod. Plus, Nephew R is the older brother. Presumably, he has more money than Nephew D. Therefore, Nephew D should be able to benefit from Nephew R's purchases without contributing a cent. Nephew R, for his part, was somehow able to resist the obvious logical superiority of his younger brother, and stuck to his guns.
Nephew D was so upset (not to mention deluded) that he took it to the local Government: his mom. Now, had this been any other household in my family (most of whom voted for--and love--Obama), it would have been an open and shut case: you already budgeted the money, and you have more of it, therefore you will give your brother Tetris for his iPod.
But this sister didn't. For whatever crazy reason, she didn't see it the same way as her 12-year-old. She told her son, the much-abused Nephew D, that she would not force Nephew R to give him Tetris for his iPod. If he wanted the game so much, he could pay for half of it. Or he could find some other way to convince his brother to share willingly. Or he could do without.
Nephew D squealed and screamed like he had been poked in the eye. He was so upset that he shouted at his mom, he shouted at his brother, and ran to his room crying, slamming the door behind him.
No one went after him. No one even missed him--after all, before he left, he was annoying everyone, and after he left, we were all still perfectly able to keep doing what we had been doing--including downloading (and buying) Tetris for our iPods if we so chose.
I took Nephew R aside, and took advantage of the opportunity to explain the obvious parallels of his situation to economics. There is no need to repeat them here--I will assume any of my readers could do the same.
After several minutes, Nephew D emerged, much calmed by the time he had spent alone in his room without being able to play Tetris. He made amends with his brother, told him he still wanted Tetris for his iPod, and that he was now willing to share the cost of something they would both receive. A deal was struck, and Tetris playing and brotherly love ensued.
The profound lesson came from pondering this question: what would have happened if mom could be replaced by Nephew D at will, for a different mom that would force Nephew R to "share?"
I leave answering this question as an excercise for the reader.