Actual Text:

1. Waldfogel has conducted surveys to measure how much value the inefficient practice destroys. He asks gift recipients to estimate the monetary value of the gifts they’ve received, and the amount they would have been willing to pay for them. His conclusion: “We value items we receive as gifts 20 percent less, per dollar spent, than items we buy for ourselves.”

2. “This is because friendship is about more than being useful to one another. It is also about growing in character and self-knowledge in the company of others. As Aristotle taught, friendship at its best has a formative educative purpose. To monetize all forms of giving among friends can corrupt friendship by suffusing it with utilitarian norms.”


Response:

1.“What Money Can’t Buy” shed light on both the subconscious and conscious notions of gift giving. Personally, as an artist, I have always taken extra consideration in giving gifts. I was never found of monetary gifts, toys, clothes, or most material objects. Even as a child, my favorite gifts were stuffed animals – an object that has more sentimental value than material. I get the most joy from giving handmade gifts – jewelry, cards, paintings, decorated tin boxes – anything that demonstrates my love for the person. The time someone puts into making something unique for a particular person cannot have a certain price tag. While I find this to be true, I also agree with Waldfogel’s unique perspective of gift giving is his economic study. When I receive material gifts, I generally do not value them as much as the material gifts I buy for myself with the money I earn.

2.Using Aristotle’s philosophy on friendship, “What Money Can’t Buy” explains that friendship is more than being useful to one another. I find this statement extremely accurate and valuable. While no one wants to admit that they are “using” a friend, it is usually hard to truly understand this idea. Friends that you trust and love are also useful to you in some way, but you are not friends with them solely because of that use. It really can be hard to understand why and in what context you are friends with some people. I absolutely loved the line, “to monetize all forms of giving among friends can corrupt friendship by suffusing it with utilitarian norms.” This statement is so accurate.

Actual Text
1. There was a study done that had students go door to door in Israel asking for monetary donations. The group was split into thirds and each group was given a different incentive. The first group was sat down and told about how important the different causes are. The second group was told they would receive a 1% commission. The last group was told that they would get a 10% commission. The results founded demonstrated that those who did not receive a monetary commission collected the most money.

2. The article touched upon the difference between what money can't buy (like friendship and honor) and what money shouldn't be able to buy, but it can (organs, and apologies.)


Responses
1. I think that it is pretty impressive that those who did not receive commission were the ones who collected the most money. At first I was a little surprised because I originally thought that those individuals who were being paid would have the most incentive to collect donations. The fact that these individuals regard doing charity as a higher incentive than money is pretty cool. This may not be the case for all individuals, but it definitely highlights the fact that not everyone's number one incentive is always money. People do have "moral convictions" that sometimes are placed higher about monetary prizes.

2. Purchasing organs on the black market is something that is very controversial. Whether or not some is able to purchase organs from someone else is an issue that involves the value of a human life. It raises the issue of how much money is our life worth. I think that the author was correct when saying this is something that is actually up for purchase, but should not be. As humans we should not be able to take away vital organs just for a monetary reward. I also thought it was interesting how it mentions the fairness objection. This suggests that sometimes people have no other choice than to sell an organ.

The major idea of the article was that the morality of Goldman- Sachs has diminished enough for a very influential employee to quit. Winerip argues that it wasn’t always like this but gives many examples of Goldman employees planning on ripping off their clients.

Text 1: “What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.”

Response: This stood out to me as a rather alarming statement. At Goldman you aren’t rewarded for doing the right thing, but rather doing a calculated process in which money is made quickly and unethically. While I can appreciate how this kind of viewpoint is toxic to employee morality and a company in general, I wish Winerip would talk about the alternatives. Some questions I have are “What are the other options for the company?” and “Are there any other companies in the same field that are acting more ethical?” In other words, if you graduated with a degree in finance where is a better place to work? What is Winerip going to do after quitting? Retire?

Text 2:“It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.”

Response: I really appreciate this line because I think it is so true. As someone who has worked in retail I’ve never told a customer that something looked great when in fact it doesn’t for the purpose of selling more. Maybe it is because I didn’t work on commission, maybe it was because I’d like to think I am an honest and moral person, and maybe it is because being nice to a customer and gaining their trust is the most effective way to get them to come back to the store.

Text 1: Today there are websites like theperfecttoast.com that practically wuss a wedding toast for you. All you have to do is fill in a questionnaire about how the bride and groom meet and other details about their lives and how you would describe them. After this sort prices that really requires no work and paying 149 dollars you well receive a 4 minutes long toast in the mail.

Response: For me marriage is quite an important thing. Yes I've been raised a Catholic, and no I don't believe marriage to be a sacred thing, however I still believe marriage to be a very important thing. I mean my parents got divorced when I was in middle school and there I'd a part of me that will never forgive them for it. Sure they're happier now, but the ain't of pain that was caused by it was absurd. Anyways I just thought it was ridiculous. I mean a toast should be something from the heart. It's a toast for someone's wedding for crying out loud. Does our society know no bounds that we have to pay people to do personal tasks that require a little bit of heart and a little bit of effort. That's just sad and disappointing.

Text 2: The second article that interested me was the article on prostitution. The author talks about fairness and corruption in the business of prostitution. The author goes on to talk about how prostitution is demeaning and degrading.

Response: Personally I don't think prostitution is demeaning, I think it is a noble and old profession, and before anyone goes off on my let me explain. I mean in this day and age I can completely understand why people can connote prostitution to demeaning and degrading. However I think that is a social construct that is derived from the social constructed idea of sex and drugs. I believe the mixing of the vicious cycles of addiction and prostitution gives prostitution a bad reputation. I mean a prostitute who isn't in the vicious cycle of addiction, all she is doing is providing pleasure, what's so wrong with that? Think of that compared to people who commit real crimes. Honestly society needs to reflect on how it judges people and there actions.

Text 1- The examples of people putting values above money surprised me because usually when one thinks of capitalism one thinks of people putting money before values. In the case of the nuclear waste being stored in a little town in Switzerland that was apparently the best town for storing such waste, I found it interesting that 51% of people agreed to store it until they were offered money for the same act only 25% responded that they would be willing to store the nuclea waste.

Perspective 1- I think that people didn't want to feel as though they had to sell their dignity to do something good for their country, so not as many people agreed to store the nuclear waste when they were offered money. People do not need monetary rewards for good deeds and frequently feel insulted when offered money to do a good act; for this reason, it makes sense that they agreed less when offered money. If somebody is doing a good deed with no monetary reward, they will be less likely to do it with a monetary reward because it will feel more like an obligation or a job than an act of kindness or charity.

Text 2- I was disgusted by finding out that people actually buy wedding toasts online. Just by filling out a survey on the couple, you can get out of the apparently horribly tedious task of writing a toast for a couple that you're close enough to to have been asked to toast at their wedding. Then you pay for that toast in a disgusting exchange of money for services.

Perspective 2- My mom and stepdad were married in December, and every toast at their wedding reception, rehearsal dinner, and at every party or dinner leading up to the big day was so sincere and from the heart that I genuinely feel bad for people who do not have enough sincerity in their lives to give genuine toasts rather than buy them online. It's ridiculous that people have gotten to the point that instead of just sitting down for fifteen minutes to write a toast to the important people in their lives people would rather pay a hefty fee and fill out a thoughtless survey. Of all the things that money can't buy, a toast is very close to the top of the list. Your wedding day is supposed to be special filled with memories and words from your closest friends and family, not memories and words from a random person paid to write a toast for your wedding.

Actual Text

1) "These three cases- of nuclear waste siting, charitable fund-raising, and late day-care pickups- illustrate the way introducing money into a nonmarket setting can change people's attitudes and croud out moral and civic commitments."

2) "Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all."

Responses

1) I was perplexed to see that adding monetary rewards or disciplines, in the day care example, actually swayed people's moral sentiments in the opposite way it was intended to. I would think that people would agree more to the nuclear plant, for example, because they would be gaining some money reward for doing so, however, that was not the case. Rather, they saw this as more of an incentive for them to disagree with the plant than they did in the first place, minus the money! The group of children selling for charity that were paid did a worse job then those who weren't paid because of the feeling of moral obligation rather than work. And the parents who left their kids late, after implementing a penalty fee continued to leave them at a higher rate then before! I had never thought about money making people act as such I really thought it would be a motivator instead. When it comes to civic commitments I now know that money really cannot win here.

2)How can such a big and well known firm lose its culture? It's very sad to see that the clients are really being abused here and not even treated like human beings. All they represent is a dollar sign. Business ethics teaches you to keep a culture with strong morals and respect, not only for your employees but your clients and the world as a whole. Goldman Sachs should be ashamed of putting money above all else. Money is supposed to follow an idea, a corporate mission, it is not supposed to be the main concern at all other expenses. I wonder how many other corporations are like Goldman and if they will ever be revealed or change.

From Reading
1. I thought it was very fascinating that there was a theory on economic logic behind gift giving. This is something that makes sense now for retailers, economists and even social scientists to look at. The article discussed that (p100) in a survey recipients of gifts were 20% less valuable than the item they would have bought if they had the cash themselves. But it goes on to say that gifts are a signal of the way you feel about someone. Economically and socially the gift giving theory is one that is more interesting than meets the eye, especially for those of us who are use to it.
2. The next theory I really saw as a shock was the crowding out theory, the theory that people do some things based on values rather than for money. There were two examples that stood out. The first was in Switzerland and a survey went out to a village that asked if they would store nuclear waste in their town if it was considered best place in country for it. A small majority (51%) said yes. The following two questions asked if they would do it if they were paid each times there were fewer yes responses (25%). The next one that stood out were the lawyers when they were asked if they would give senior citizens a discounted service, the response was no. But when asked if they would give time for free to seniors who were in need the answer was a strong yes.

My Perspective
1. I think that the explanation of the gift giving economic theory was very interesting. I believe that there is no rationale with the gift giving in intimate settings (ie family, loved one). I believe there is another part of the theory that could be added though. I think with loved ones, we give so that other loved ones see how much we have to offer and how much we have to give to them and it makes us feel good. I believe that the giving part of gift giving is just as important as the receiving part. I do agree with his theory that with those who we are not close, a co-workers son’s bar mitzvah, we will be prone to give cash and not feel as uncomfortable.
2. The crowding out theory proves that there are still values in the system and everything is not just economics. The Swiss people felt that they were being bribed as opposed to them being stand up citizens and doing something for their country. As for the lawyers they mostly likely fit into my theory from the first response, which is that they wanted to do something that made them feel good. Giving up the thirty dollars an hour and doing something for free may have made them feel better than $30/ hour.

Actual Text 1: Are there some things that money can buy but shouldn't? Consider a good that can be bought but whose buying and selling is morally controversial- a human kidney for example. Some people defend markets morally objectionable. It it's wrong to buy a kidney, the problem is not, as with the Nobel Prize, that the money dissolves the good. The kidney will work (assuming a good match) regardless of the monetary payment. So to determine whether kidneys should or shouldn't be up for sale, we have to engage in a moral inquiry. We have to examine the arguments for and against oran sales and determine which more persuasive.

Response 1: I have thought and dealt a lot with the idea of money buying things that they should or should not necessarily be able to do. As we discussed in last class, for example, is the education we are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in equal to money or a job? More simply, is it fair that we are buying a education so that we can get a job later on? I feel we have all been very privileged in the educational sense, but there is a part of me that questions if we are just buying our education and inevitably a very good job. Personally, I can admit that many of the opportunities I have had have been because of money, for example internships and jobs that I have had. It's interesting that in this excerpt he talks about things that money can and can't buy, I see it resonating with what we're talking about in class with Fair Trade organizations.


Actual Text 2: consider now another expression of friendship- gift giving. Unlike wedding speeches, gifts have an unavoidably material aspect. But with some gifts, the monetary aspect is relatively obscure; with others, it is explicit. Recent decades ahve brought a trend toward the monetization of gifts, yet another example of increasing commodification of social life.

Response 2: Sandel spends a of time in this excerpt talking about the concept of gifts, and it made me think a lot about what a gift says. I cannot disagree with him when he says that nowadays a gift is measured by its monetary value, and less about its personal or sentimental value. This can clearly be seen, as he states, with the increase in giving gift cards and cash. He claims that "gift cards represent a halfway house between choosing a specific gift and giving cash", which I think is an interesting, yet very true, way of seeing gift cards. To me, giving a gift card or cash is like saying, "Here, I like you this many dollars worth". As I kept reading, I see how Sandel really has made a science out of the concept of gifts and gift cards, with statistics on yearly trends.

I have read and studied Sandel previously in a political theory class in high school, specifically his book "Justice: What's the right thing to do?". Here is the link to his video lecture on the book, which I find very interesting and entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Actual Text

1. The few pages that discuss how some people have resorted to buying wedding toasts online. Today, there are actual websites such as ThePerfectToast.com that requires you to fill out a questionnaire on how the bride and groom met and how you would describe them. Once you fill out the questionnaire and pay the $149 you will receive a 3-5 minute toasts in the mail.

2. "Gift cards are now the most popular holiday gift request" (Sandel, 105).

Responses

1. When I first read the section about the wedding toasts I was truly in shock. First of all I had no idea that websites like ThePerfectToast.com even exists and like Sandel states "wedding toasts are goods that can be bought, but buying and selling them changes their character and diminishes their value" (98). I understand that some people are shy and would not want to get up in front of a room full people, but if you are the best man or maid of honor you have an obligation to the bride or groom to say a few kind words. This is supposed to be the best day of their lives and I think as a best man or maid of honor it is the least you can do as a best friend. Personally, if I ever found out that my best friend bought a pre-written speech online it would completely diminish our friendship. After being friends for 17 years I would hope that she could write up a few kind words about me because I would be willing to do the same for her.

2. When I read this statistic in the article I can honestly say I was not surprised. I do agree with Judith Martin that gift cards "take the heart and soul out of gift giving" but sometimes you just do not know what to give a person. I do agree that if you are giving a gift to a loved one, friend, or family member then you should get them an actual gift because it shows thoughtfulness. However, if you do not really know the person then I think a gift card is acceptable because it is not worth it to shop for an item that you know they probably won't like. I know everyone says that "it's the thought that counts" but realistically if a distant relative gives you a sweater that is just plain ugly you are never going to wear it. I think that is worse then getting a gift card that you will actually use then having their money waste away in your closet.

Actual Text 1: “Why should I care if, somewhere, an investor is hoping I die? Perhaps I shouldn’t’ care, provided he doesn’t act on his hope or call too often to ask of my condition. Maybe its merely creepy, not to mention objectionable. Or perhaps the moral problem lies not in any tangible harm to me but in the corrosive effect of the character of the investor.” (Sandel; 139)

Response 1: Chapter 4 has a concerning topic, Viaticles, which particularly got me thinking about the various kinds of morals different individuals have. Essentially, viaticles are a type of life insurance for people with a terminal illness. Investors buy the policy depending on the expectant life of the ill patient. When the patient passes away, investors get the money they initially put into the case. Sandel says that many times patients are called constantly by their investors asking about their condition but many times have the wrong intention. Investors frequently ask for health updates to know when the patient dies so they can collect the money. This is absolutely horrifying.

Actual Text 2: “Like viaticals, death pools are morally disquieting because they traffic in morbidity. But unlike viaticles, they serve no socially useful purpose. They are strictly a form of gambling, a source of profit and amusement.”(Sandel; 143)

Response 2: When has it ever been ethical to bet on people’s lives. Until I read this part of the book I had no idea there were websites that enable such atrocities. This quote has a similar opinion and voice that I have regarding this topic. It is frightening to think that people actually enjoy betting on when others lives will end. Sandel depicts this new death poll phenomenon by what they reveal “about the moral fate of insurance in a market-driven age” (Sandel 143).

Text 1: I would like to discuss the section about the wedding toast. Sandel challenges the ideas of authenticity and effect. He is challenging us to consider whether or not we would purchase a speech or toast to have a great effect on someone or an audience, or if we would rather write our own speech that maybe wouldn't result in such a resounding applause. He goes on to say that most of us would agree that the bought toast means much less than an authentic one. Why is this? The answer is friendship. A personal toast to someone you know means much more than a State of the Union of address which is a formal speech written to the masses. The key here is intimacy. Interpersonal speeches or toasts have a greater magnitude because their entire effort is directed at one personality and therefore results in a greater emotional impact due to the proximity of the party delivering the message and the party from which emotion is evoked.

Actual Response 1: This section reminded me about the concept of buying cards. For years now I have considered the act of buying cards plagiarism. If a student were to go online and purchase a scholarly paper and submit that paper for a class, he or she would be subject to school penalty and possible suspension or expulsion. However, families plagiarize numerous times a year buying cards for their loved ones, using words that are not their own to express their emotions. I have always preferred writing personal cards or letters to demonstrate the authenticity that Sandel is writing about in this paper. I believe that an authentic attempt by a human being to convey a true emotion should always be revered more than a bought attempt to create a false effect.

Text 2: "College admission is a good that can be bought and sold." It is sad, but it is true. Legacy preferences and wealthy families are easy ways to increase a person's chances of getting into college. College is just another form of business. Schools adorn their pamphlets with the welcoming smiles of students of all different races and show pictures of the football games and campus life, but they do not show the whole story. College admissions know that if they admit another legacy into their program, they will automatically get more money from that family who will not only spend tuition money, but will probably donate funds because they are so "proud" that their whole family has attended this college or university. So even if this legacy student is not as academically polished as the student applying next to them, he or she will get preference based on past family history. College is therefore not only admitting students based on academic performance. The system is flawed.

Actual Response 2: I am glad I am not a legacy. I am proud that I got into all the schools I applied to all based on my academic merit. I wish that these huge education systems were more focused on each student and less focused on the masses of students and increasing that mass or manipulating that mass in order to achieve a higher profit. This is why I am more attracted to classes like this one whereby each student is encouraged to speak early and often. Too many classes are quiet and dull and I believe this is a problem in the "education" aspect of what a college should be achieving.

Text 1: Economizing Love

Response 1:
The idea of economizing love, as introduced by Sandel, struck me the most out of all of the sections in the reading. The idea that love is a scarce resource is very strange to me. I cannot imagine something intangible to be limited, because it is impossible for us to see those limits. I agree with Sandel's point of view that love, altruism, generosity, etc. are not commodities that can be depleted, but rather "they are more like muscles that develop and grow stronger with exercise." After reading this section, I began to question if this economist view point is one of the problems with today's society. Are people afraid to love to their full capacity in fear that their ability to love will diminish? How can one even measure love, or the amount of love one has left? I personally believe that one's ability to love can be infinite, but it is these types of social attitudes that bind the full potential of love. It is actually scary that some people live their lives thinking that their affection is limited and must be used economically. We all know that money can't buy love, but this type of mentality is treating love as if it were money.

Text 2: Crowding Out/ The Commercialization Effect

Response 2:
The notion of 'crowding-out' really interested me. I think it relates well to the idea of economizing love, in that sometimes normal market mechanisms cannot be applied to social or political spheres. It proves that putting a monetary value on something can actually affect its value as perceived by people. When reading through these sections, I assumed that external motivation (money) would have more of an affect than intrinsic motivation. I was surprised to learn that the opposite was true; offering money as motivation depreciates one's moral interest. It was intriguing that the idea of crowding-out goes against "the most fundamental economic 'law,' that raising monetary incentives increases supply. If the crowding-out effect holds, raising monetary incentives reduces, rather than increases, supply." Overall, I found these sections to be uplifting; that a majority of people value their intrinsic motivation and moral guidance over money, and that there are more things money cannot buy than I originally thought.

The article mentions the distinction between two kinds of goods: The things that money cannot buy such as friends or the Nobel Peace Prize, and the things that money can buy, but should not, such as kidneys and children. The article goes on to mention the apologies and wedding toasts that are also available for purchase, which is an entirely new concept for me.

This distinction points to money as the root of many problems. However, I believe the problem to lie in the holder of the money, rather than the actual wealth. If a person purchases a wedding toast, this person is not a great friend because they cannot personally articulate their friendship. If I ever received an apology that was paid for, I would be more insulted than the original offense. I disagree with the distinction that money can buy, but should not buy kidneys. This is extremely necessary at times, especially when a person’s life is on the life. Additionally, purchasing children for adoption is a wonderful thing that shows a wise use of money for the betterment of society.


The second point that I found interesting was regarding the nuclear waste proposal in Switzerland. I was surprised to find out that when the people were offered money to have the plant built, they were less willing to accept it.

Typically, when people are offered money to accept something that is not ideal, it increases their willingness to agree with it. However, I agree that this is a blatant bribe. The people of Switzerland felt that the money incentives crowded out their civic duty, and that they were more likely to accept the deal if a public good such as a new school, park, or a community center was given to them instead of cash. I completely agree that in some cases, monetary incentives and diminish the nature and value of a deed. The concept that “cash is king” has always been engrained in our minds and sometimes, cash is not always necessary for an exchange to occur, especially when the exchange holds the nature of a bribe.

Actual Text #1: "The reason gift giving is not always an irrational departure from efficient utility maximizing is that gifts aren't only about utility. Some gifts are expressive of relationships that engage, challenge, and reinterpret our identities. This is because friendship is about more than being useful to one another. It is also about growing in character and self-knowledge in the company of others. As Aristotle taught, friendship at its best has a formative, educative purpose. To monetize all forms of giving among friends can corrupt friendship by suffusing it with utilitarian norms." -p. 102

Response #1: Gifts have long been given and are given at any time of the year, specially for birthdays or Christmas. For children, these holidays are all about the presents. However, as adults, we know that there is more to gifts. Thoughts put into gifts not count as Sandel has said before. Although gifts can be bought with money, the amount of thought put into it is all you - no money. Money is simply used to display your thoughts. As Sandel said with the wedding toast, it means far more to actually write the toast to your best friend yourself than to have someone else write it and you try to pass it off as your own.

I think the thoughts related to gift giving and nice gestures have changed over time as more services are being available for people to buy. People now assume that anything can be bought. However, I strongly disagree here. Happiness for one, can definitely not be bought. Families in third world countries who have absolutely nothing, still find some way to be happy, yet they have no money. They may find happiness in their family or a idol. As more people became able to get money and as more goods and services became available, happiness being a priceless emotion began to have a price tag on it. I'll admit that even I find happiness in some material object that can be bought for whatever it says on the price tag. However, I often think back to when my parents took me to visit the orphanage the Guyana. I saw so many little kids, who were abandoned by their parents or who's parents died or some other unfortunate event occurred that landed them in the orphanage. Yet these children were able to run around in torn and dirty clothing with true, genuine smiles on their face. Maybe it's because they're children and don't quite know what the outside world is like yet or because the ones with nothing are the ones who have true happiness.

The beauty of gift giving is it does reveal of pieces of ourselves to others. Only those that really do know you will be able to buy the perfect gift, even though Sandel says such gifts don't exist.

Actual Text #2: "The fairness objection points to the injustice that can arise when people buy and sell things under conditions of inequality or dire economic necessity. According to this objection, market exchanges are not always as voluntary as market enthusiasts suggest." - p. 111

Response #2: When I read this paragraph in the article, I thought back to the countless Bollywood and Hollywood movies I've seen where one character must give up, or sell, something so that they may put food on the table for their family or save someone they care about. One such movie was The Hunger Games where the protagonist sacrificed herself and entered the dangerous hunger games so that her sister may be saved and not have to enter it. Although, I find this brave, I do think society is to blame for people having to do this. I see society as being more concerned with the wealthy than the poor because to them, the wealthy occur far more than the poor ever can. This brings about the topic of fairness that Sandel was talking about. Society is not being fair to those less fortunate.

Text 1: The Case Against Gifts/Monetizing Gifts

Response 1: I have actually read this book before, so I’ve already had the opportunity for the contents of it to resonate pretty significantly. I remember that when I first read it, I was very impacted by the section “The Case Against Gifts” and “Monetizing Gifts” because this is such a huge discussion between my mom and me during the holidays. My initial response to this was “FINALLY, THIS IS WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!” And I still feel that way as I read it again.

As a business student, I have a hard time not thinking about the economic impacts of things, even things that do not exist to be economically motivated. Gift giving is a very fun and rewarding activity if you take the time to be thoughtful and are able to find something that you’re proud to give someone you love. However, for many it is a chore: a necessary task that comes with the holiday season.

I personally love being thoughtful, but then again I really only have four immediate family members and occasionally a best friend to buy gift for during Christmas time. However, I often receive thoughtless gifts from relatives (aunts, uncles, etc.). They call up my mom and say “What does Nina want for Christmas”. I say, look at my Christmas list. Either my mom/Santa has bought everything or it’s too expensive. “Where do you want a gift card for?” I say that I don’t believe in gift cards. If it’s not something that you want to put thought into, I’d rather you give me money that I can physically put into my bank account and save. Gift cards force me to spend money that I wouldn’t necessarily spend and if I do use the gift card, it’s usually required that I put down some of my own money to make a purchase. Regardless, I continue to receive gift cards every year from family members that are more concerned with what is “appropriate” (meaning that cash/check is inappropriate because of its lack of thoughtfulness) than with what would make me the most happy. Nonetheless, I trade all of my gift cards with my mom for cash every year. That’s what makes me happy.

Text 2: The Commercialization Effect

Response 2: I loved this section. I was so proud to read that people would rather perform a good deed for free than give a discount. I too agree that offering money would weaken an intrinsically worthwhile motivation. In a book that deals a lot with what’s economically beneficial versus what’s morally correct, it’s nice to see an example where both apply. Is this commercialization effect something we can apply to fair trade that will benefit it?