1. Scrooge is wealthy and reputed to be an “excellent man of business,” suggesting that he’s productive. (What exactly does Scrooge produce? Not specified. His business involves “cash-boxes, keys, padlocks, ledgers, deeds, and heavy purses.” Scrooge maintains a “counting house,” and “banker’s book,” and retained clerk to copy letters.) In particular, Scrooge states that he invested 100% of his time on his business, which “occupies [him] constantly,” leaving him no time to learn about the plight of the poor. (Scrooge does find time to read “all the newspapers,” however.)

2. While producing much, as Landsburg notes, Scrooge does not appear to consume much. Scrooge lives simply. Admittedly, Scrooge’s house is rather elaborate, with a wide staircase and ornate fireplace, but Scrooge appears to have inherited it from Marley, and Scrooge rented out many of its rooms as offices.

3. However, the story suggests that Scrooge is being wasteful by squandering his life – “life’s opportunities misued.” It seems to me that Scrooge failed to invest in maintaining the social networks that are associated with a prolonged productive life. But more importantly, Scrooge failed to engage directly in promoting the welfare of those around him. The Spirits of Christmas Past and Present emphasize the role that direct, interpersonal actions play in enhancing people’s utility – acts that might command no market value, but create experiences that give life meaning. Marley acknowledges that work contributes to the public welfare, but concludes that “The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

4. Landsburg suggests that people who produce and save (in effect, lend) are better philanthropists than those who produce and give. Scrooge is clearly in the former category. (Note that Scrooge does not express opposition to aiding the poor, but professes that he already contributes — via taxes? — to the maintenance of institutions that feed and house the poor: prisons, Union workhouses, “the Treadmill and the Poor Laws.” I believe that prisons housed both criminals and people who failed to pay debts.) Whether you embrace Landsburg’s analysis might depend upon your faith in the efficiency of markets to promote the welfare of the poor, especially in the London of the early 1800s. As an initial matter, we’d have to conclude that Scrooge’s miserliness would have achieved a better outcome than saving Tiny Tim’s life.

5. Scrooge clearly produces negative externalities in that he produces bad feelings in everyone he encounters. People flee his presence on public streets. This quality strikes people as especially pernicious at Christmastime, when people expect greater goodwill from even passing strangers, and when Scrooge seems especially cross. How you score this aspect of Scrooge will depend upon your outlook: We don’t like negative externalities, but generally tolerate some externalities in the interest of maintaining personal autonomy.

6. In the final analysis, how productive was the unreformed Scrooge? He produced. But the burden of the story was that he produced less than he could have; he had the power to enrich himself and those around him beyond his current practices, but didn’t realize it. The purpose of the Spirits was to free Scrooge from his Galbrathian-induced demand (i.e., demand induced by false belief) for his then-current lifestyle. After the end of his hauntings, Scrooge freely chooses a different lifestyle.

Arguably, the larger econ lesson in A Christmas Carol is to challenge the idea that people always know what is best for themselves. Ultimately people need to make their own choices, but sometimes those choices need to be informed by an intervention – even an unwelcome one.

An environmentally-friendly way to destroy money is to make a “gift” to the Treasury:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

It’s just like paying taxes only voluntary. You can see how much has been collected year by year. Over $3 million in fiscal 2011. Somehow I doubt that this will become a popular mode of philanthropy.