Post 79

People are so dumb!

I'm taking a class called American Heritage. It isn't an American history class per se, rather it seeks to examine the guiding principles of America and see how they apply to humanity in a general sense--so it appears to be nothing but a history class, but the focus is slightly different (meaning that there's purpose in the study as opposed to studying history for the sake of knowing history).

My professor is really a fantastic lecturer, very engaging. Today, for example, he was teaching us the principles of a Market Economy. To exemplify Free Exchange, he held up a box of one dozen Krispy Kreme donuts and basically started an auction.

"One dollar!" someone shouted.

"Two dollars!" shouted someone else.

"Ten!" shouted a girl in the front row.

$10 for a box of Krispy Kremes‽ What kind of a moron would--

"Twelve dollars!" shouted a boy in the back.

Are you daffy‽ What could possibly posses you to--

"Twelve fifty," the girl said with some hesitation.

"Thirteen," said the boy.

"Thirteen fifty," said the girl.

"Fifteen dollars!" shouted the boy, and the donuts were sold.

The professor asked the boy some questions as the transaction was executed:

"How high would you have gone?" the professor asked.

"Sixteen," the boy said "because that's all I have."

YOU WOULD GIVE ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO BUY DONUTS AT MORE THAN TWICE THEIR VALUE???????????????

This is not the first time my classmates have driven me to the desire to yank out fistfuls of hair; a couple weeks ago, the professor did an experiment to demonstrate self interest: he set up three stools and placed a pile of 10 quarters on each, then he called up six volunteers to play the Self Interest Game. To play the game, the professor put the six students into three pairs and assigned each pair to a stool; one at a time, he we to each pair and arbitrarily chose one of the students to divide the money between the two. The rules were 1) the student who divides the quarters gets to decide who gets which pile, 2) after that student has divided the quarters, the other student decides whether to accept the division, 3) if the second student accepts the division, each student gets to keep his or her pile, 4) if the second student rejects the division, the professor gets to keep all ten quarters.

The game played out in a most frustrating way. The first pair divided the quarters evenly and each left with $1.25 in quarters. In the second pair, the quarters were divided 8 and 2, which the second student rejected, so both left empty handed. In the final pair, the division was 6 and 4, which was also rejected, so they, too, left empty handed.

Morons! Given the choice of being given a dollar--or even 50 cents!--you either have to take 50 cents or walk away empty handed, why the heck do you chose to leave with nothing? Oh, it was so frustrating to me! Selfish pricks. You'd rather have nothing than see someone get more than you? I take it back--you aren't selfish, just stupid and prideful--so stupid and prideful that you hate selflessly, aiming to prevent anyone from getting ahead of you at all costs--even if it does cost!

Again, the professor interviewed the students to ask why they did what they did--why they would reject free money--and they said they rejected it because "it wasn't fair" that the money be divided unequally.

Now let me just say here that I am unequivocally opposed to the philosophy of getting something for nothing; it strikes me as immoral. Frankly, I feel a little guilty for the interest that my ING savings account accrues--and the not-even 4% interest on my measly savings isn't a whole lot. Nevertheless, I think I'd accept a 50-cent donation to my laundry fund--quarters are hard to come by for a debit-card toting student like myself!

Today my professor made the comment that money is "[o]ne of the great social inventions, one of the most important social inventions right up there with the wheel...." In my deliberations over the morality of money, I've decided that I'm glad money exists because the bartering system would get pretty messy for an English teacher (which is what I intend to be); trying to find a grocer that would exchange potatoes for a lecture on the writings of Poe or the rules governing the use of commas just might be impossible--no more potatoes for der schmetterling. No, I don't really hate money, I guess; mostly I just hate what people do for money and also what they turn around and do with that money.

I guess that's what Holiday (the movie that started my rantings on money a month ago) really portrays, the way money can rob people of their humanity. What I really love about that movie is that it shows how depraved the wealthy can be even when they aren't corrupt--the Setons are a bad group, really; they just have a crappy, crappy familial and social relationships because their lives revolve around money instead of living.

Anyway, there some ranting about the stupidity of money--meaning the stupidity of people that money seems to cause. But if money is the cause (or at least a catalyst) of the disease of stupidity, this may be one case in which the cure would be worse than the disease. I suppose, then, the best thing to do is look for Jesus to come take over the world--I assume He can come up with a better system, and I trust He will.