I'm re-reading because this is one of the most adapted works in the English language and so it's hard to separate my memories of the adaptations from the texts, but the impression I have is that Scrooge's main business is the equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.
-
-
I don't think Marely or Scrooge were good businessmen. I think they were cheap and greedy and had enough capital to leverage those qualities in order to stay afloat. I don't see how they created wealth or opportunities for others. Fezziwig at least was a job creator.
Show this thread -
Yes, the description of Scrooge's solitude in the opening is very strikingly at odds with the image of a person who is "good at business". Who's he doing business with? It seems only those desperate enough to have no other recourse.https://twitter.com/tmdoyle2/status/1342568471016726531 …
Show this thread -
He no more creates wealth and opportunity than a predatory payday lender does.
Show this thread -
You could criticize A Christmas Carol as a capitalist critique by saying that Ebenezer Scrooge is an unrealistic strawman of a capitalist *because* he is miserable and wallows in misery in ways that aren't even profitable for him.
Show this thread -
But the thing is, qualities like keeping his employee miserable and lending money in ways that ruin rather than aid his borrowers... that mean-spirited short-sightedness... is abundantly on display in modern business.
Show this thread -
Nowadays it's done in the name of Growth rather than Thrift, but it's the same impulse.
Show this thread -
If we accept the text as true within itself -- and the WSJ's quibble with Dickens isn't that he got the events wrong, only their meaning -- then Scrooge doesn't go broke when he starts paying Cratchit more and treating him better.
Show this thread -
And again, Scrooge himself within the text is the one who realizes it doesn't cost an employer anything to regard their employees kindly, and it makes the employees' lives better for nothing.
Show this thread -
We know that Marley died with money and that he left it to Scrooge. When Scrooge dies, one imagines his money would have gone to Fred, who at least would have enjoyed it. There's no indication in the source that they enriched society materially with all their thrift.
Show this thread -
To make a long story short (TOO LATE!), the premise of the WSJ editorial is at best not supported by the text and arguably directly contradicted by it. Scrooge's wealth was hoarded for its own sake, not invested. He was more a slumlord than a captain of industry.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.