Extreme Reductionism

From the New York Times, we have an article on gift-giving: Figuring Out Gift Giving in the Age of $2,000-a-Pound Chocolate.

If you are still seeking the perfect gift for Valentine’s Day, have you considered a box of Noka chocolates?

Both you and the recipient may be in for a surprise. A 12-piece box costs $39 before tax and shipping. And for that you will get 0.9 ounce of chocolate. Not 0.9 ounce a piece, but 0.9 ounce in the entire black and silver box.

Do the math and that comes to $693 a pound. Buy just four pieces in the Signature stainless steel box and you are paying more than $2,000 a pound, making the Noka chocolate more expensive than delicacies like caviar, saffron or black truffles.

How can anyone justify paying that much for a gift? Economists have struggled over that question for years, suggesting that anything other than a cash gift is inefficient.

Most economists would say that giving gifts, other than cash, makes no economic sense. The recipient would be better off spending the money on something he or she values.

Well, these economists are fucking stoopid if they indulge in such extreme reductionism.

Plus, they lack imagination.

Going from the fact that a cash gift is frequently a better idea to the fact that giving a cash gift is always the right idea is something only an economist would come up with. (They're all going on "rational behavior"-style nonsense.)

Here's the conventional reason that people give expensive gifts:

Most frequently, it's because the other party would never spend that money on that stuff so you buy it for them. Alternately, they may love something but can't afford it so you buy it for them. Hell! there are any number of explanations.

I'll even go for the, "It's my money to waste if I want to" explanation.

Rational? Certainly not, but a hell of a lot of fun.

Fun? You know, good times?!?

(To be fair, the article does mention one of the above reasons.)

There's even a dark side to this -- "flaunting your wealth" (a.k.a. Veblen's "conspicuous consumption"), etc.

However, I think I'll give an example of a "rational" explanation for giving gifts over money.

I enjoy receiving surprises as gifts. Authors I've never heard of, artists or photographers I don't as yet know about, composers and musicians I don't know, or even genres of music I don't listen to. Intellectual surprises, something new.

Some are hits, and some are busts but who cares? Many of them end up becoming things that I end up loving passionately.

Even an economist should realize that it is rationally impossible to surprise oneself!

Imagination! It's not a necessary part of an economist's job description.