Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
from the wow dept
Stuart sends over a column from a Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Terry Savage, that I could have sworn was satire until someone convinced me that it’s not. Savage is apparently a “financial” columnist, who apparently is a bit confused about her basic economics. Over the long weekend, she decided to celebrate the American way by berating and lecturing some children who set up a lemonade stand because they wanted to give away the lemonade for free. According to Savage, these kids represent all that is wrong with America. I’m not joking.
“No!” I exclaimed from the back seat. “That’s not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They’re giving away their parents’ things — the lemonade, cups, candy. It’s not theirs to give.”
I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.
“You must charge something for the lemonade,” I explained. “That’s the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs — how much the lemonade costs, and the cups — and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money.”
I was confident I had explained it clearly. Until my brother, breaking the tension, ordered a raspberry lemonade. As they handed it to him, he again asked: “So how much is it?”
And the girls once again replied: “It’s free!” And the nanny looked on contentedly.
No wonder America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy. We all act as if the “lemonade” or benefits we’re “giving away” is free.
Shockingly enough, you can read Savage’s column — for free — online. I’m guessing she doesn’t get the irony. Savage seems confused about a whole lot of things, from the concept of philanthropy and sharing to some very, very basic economics. For someone who presents themselves as a financial expert, this one column seems to undermine any credibility in the field.
Of course, the kids aren’t expecting that they should get government handouts for free. They’re getting marginal benefit from making (most) people happy in giving them free lemonade. Economics is not about cash, it’s about benefits vs. costs. Yes, they’re often calculated in cash terms, but if the marginal benefit to the children is greater in giving away the lemonade, there is nothing wrong with that at all, and it’s certainly not against “basic economics” as she claims later in her column.
Again, I need to remind everyone, that you can read her column for free on the Chicago Sun-Times website. Why? Because the marginal benefit to the Sun Times and to Savage herself is higher in giving away the content for free. In the case of the Sun Times, it’s from the ad revenue it receives, and in Savage’s case whatever (probably too high) sum the Sun-Times pays — and also for the “free promotion” it’s supposed to give to help her sell her books. In other words, the marginal benefit to having her columns online for free is greater than the marginal cost. Just as the marginal benefit to the little girls from seeing happy people by giving them lemonade outweighs the “costs.”
If we can’t teach our kids the basics of running a lemonade stand, how can we ever teach Congress the basics of economics?
Why don’t we start by teaching our “financial experts” the basics of economics?
If that’s what America’s children think — that there’s a free lunch waiting — then our country has larger problems ahead. The Declaration of Independence promised “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It didn’t promise anything free. Something to think about this July 4th holiday weekend.
Wait, what? You know what the Declaration of Independence also didn’t include? Anything about how much “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” costs. You know why? Because it has nothing to do with whether or not something costs money or is free. So that’s not “something to think about” because it makes no sense.
But, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that someone who thinks it’s a good idea to lecture little children against sharing lemonade isn’t exactly the most logical of thinkers out there.
Filed Under: economics, free, lemonade, terry savage
Comments on “Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America”
This weekend I’m attending an event held by the local chapter of the Society For Creative Anachronism. This weekend, as I do on many weekends, I will show my membership card, that I paid for, and pay my entry fee to attend.
I’ll spend part of my time there taking the foodstuffs that I purchased, without reimbursement, and my labor, which I am not charging for, to the waterbearing stations, which are responsible for offering refreshments to event-goers, in the interest of keeping them from getting heat stroke. (In a nutshell)
What do I get out of this? The pleasure of service. But I guess that’s not worth anything, because I’m not getting a section of green paper for it. Really, that’s a decidedly odd way to think.
Re: Re:
“Society For Creative Anachronism”
I know TAM, and his lowercase bretheren, would be dressed as the TROLLs at one of these events. What do you dress up as?
Re: Re: Re:
My time is worth a lot to me so I have decided to do the following:
I will charge you $0.XX a minute for every minute I have to talk to you and charge $0.XX a minute to listen to you. Other taxes and surcharges may apply.
/sarcasm
This lady sounds like she wants to quanitify every little transaction to prove her point. I understand everything has a price but the cost of things can’t always be measured in $$ though, but through our actions, thoughts, and feelings.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, trolls wouldn’t be allowed, because they didn’t actually exist pre-1599. 😛
I’m interested in the arts and sciences, not the clothing, so I generally just throw on a chiton for comfort.
Re: Re:
@Rose: “…I’m attending an event held by the local chapter of the Society For Creative Anachronism.”
Oh, for a minute there I thought you were going to bring up a serious point.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because if I don’t make my point in the very first sentence, I must not have one. Oh, wait…
Yeah...
This is a troll column. At least I hope it is. Who in their right mind would do this?
Then again, there are plenty of “journalists” who are clearly not in their right mind.
My guess is that she made the entire story up as a straw horse to attack the Left. The story just doesn’t make sense, why would the parents even let the kids give away lemonade? And who stops and gives kids lessons on economics?! And it’s just too perfect that that the kids don’t get just like those idiot Left wingers don’t get it. Because, as we all know, Left wingers are ignorant about the real world.
In the immortal words of Digg followers: pics or it didn’t happen.
Re: Re:
I would let my kids give away lemonade. I agree it sounds a bit staged though.
Re: Re:
i think the parents could be trying to teach the value of sharing and giving. that seems like an important lesson to teach kids. of course, miss savage never got that lesson and is now a hag.
Re: Re:
The more I think about it the more I’m convinced she made this story up.
When does any kid ever make a real profit on a lemonade stand?! I’m not saying it never happens. Sure somewhere some kid made a fortune selling lemonade.
What I’m saying is that the vast majority of lemonade stands are never intended to make a profit. For the vast majority of such stands, no cost benefit analysis is ever done. Having a lemonade stand is just another activity parents have kids do. Like play baseball, swim in a kiddie-poll, play cops and robbers, etc.
My point is that this lady could have stopped at 99.999% of the world’s lemonade stands and made the exact same speech. Because in those 99.999% the stands were not profitable and were never intended to be profitable.
But that story would not have been as good. So she made up a stand where the kids were giving it for free.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe they didn’t charge money because they didn’t want to pay for a business license. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/08/06/73160/california-city-shuts-down-girls.html)
A-holes are everywhere, and this Terry moron is one of them.
Not Free
I have to see ads when I go to the article. It’s not free: it takes some of my attention for its advertisers. This is a basic concept. In exchange for my attention, I get to read the article.
Re: Not Free
I have to see ads when I go to the article. It’s not free: it takes some of my attention for its advertisers. This is a basic concept. In exchange for my attention, I get to read the article.
As I noted in the post.
Similarly, the girls giving away lemonade aren’t doing it “for free,” either. They’re doing it for the marginal benefit in terms of satisfaction for giving it away.
Re: Re: Not Free
talk about twisting logic. mike, you are a sad, sad little man.
Re: Re: Re: Not Free
TROLLALERT!!!
Re: Re: Re: Not Free
I’m a pastry arts student these days. Yesterday as I was sitting on the porch the thought occurred to me to set up a table to give away the stuff I make at home for practice. Why give it away, because if I sold it then I would have to get a license.
As hot as it is I don’t see why it wouldn’t occur to some kids that other people must be hot and want to give lemonade to them. If they want to learn the basics of economics by selling it then great, if they feel like learning how to do nice things for other people and how that has a reward of its own then that’s great as well.
Re: Re: Re:2 Not Free
again, your story is different. if you are making food just to throw it away, giving it away is your choice. the kids did not have a house with too much lemonade being made or someone practicing to be a lemonade maker inside, otherwise throwing it away.
see, your situation isnt a parallel at all, read the story more closely and you might even understand why.
Re: Re: Re:3 Not Free
the kids did not have a house with too much lemonade being made or someone practicing to be a lemonade maker inside, otherwise throwing it away.
That information is not in the article. Where did you get it? How do you know what they have and what they do not have in their homes?
Re: Re: Re:4 Not Free
Because they’re trolling, for dollars.
Re: Re: Re:3 Not Free
see, your situation isnt a parallel at all, read the story more closely and you might even understand why.
Because you sure can’t explain it, can you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Not Free
Do you ever donate to charity? Do you expect anything in return?
Do you ever do any community work? Oh wait, no, you don’t, you just like to troll on the sideline. Go F4 yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4 Not Free
“Do you ever donate to charity?”
HELL, NO! That would be socialism! What do you think I am, some kind of Obamanut? I believe in social Darwinism and the survival of the strongest!
Re: Re: Not Free
The Declaration of Independence promised “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It didn’t promise anything free.
“Pursuit of happiness” is exactly what these girls are achieving by giving away the lemonade. I think their behavior is the very core of the American ideal.
Re: Re: Re: Not Free
I forget now–how much did the founding fathers charge for writing the declaration of independence, anyway? I bet Jefferson cleaned up on that deal.
Re: Not Free
Using your logic the lemonade is not free either you have to spend your time getting it and drinking it. Your time is worth something so it is not free. Does your website count as free?
Re: Not Free
No one is forcing you to pay any attention to the ads. It’s optional.
Re: Not Free
Ads don’t cost me money. Therefore they are free.
They make money for the advertiser. Therefore they are profitable.
Free = profitable.
This is a bit off-topic but the image from the article attracted my attention.
Have a look: http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2464228,070510savage.fullimage (Oops! Will this link infringe?)
Re: Re:
Well the photo is “stamped” by the AP!!
Gasp
I never thought I’d ever say this publically but; that woman is a stunned cunt.
Re: Gasp
She is what I have come to expect of our current educational system. A politically correct drone, that doesnt understand that things change, and cant conceive of or imagine anything different.
Re: Re: Gasp
I am sorry, I don’t see what part of Savage’s rant counts as politically correct.
Re: Re: Re: Gasp
There’s right wing political correctness and left wing political correctness. It’s kinda a code so that neither entity can understand what the other is saying.
/sacrasm off
Sadly too true, though
Some people just don't get it.
When leading a financial class at church, I gave the example of a lady who found jeans at local discount stores and was able to sale them online to people who were willing to pay more.
Thinking I had inspired the group to think creatively about ways to make some extra money, one of the students piped up
“I don’t think that is right or ethical to buy something for less and sell it for more” I promptly reminded her that she worked for Wal-Mart and that is exactly their business model.
She couldn’t see the intangibles that she/Wal-mart or the online jean lady were offering. Just like this columnist can’t see the intangibles the lemonade girls were receiving.
Re: Some people just don't get it.
@johnjac: “…I promptly reminded her that she worked for Wal-Mart and that is exactly their business model.”
You’ve got to be kidding me, no one is that retarded. How old was this Walmart valedictorian, 12?
Re: Re: Some people just don't get it.
Alot of people are that dumb. Alot of them. Especially here in Oklahoma.
I didn’t read the column, just this post. But usually, the purpose of a lemonade stand *is* to teach basic economics. If they were giving away the lemonade, then what economics were they learning? Sure, just because it’s free doesn’t mean there’s not a beneficial transaction taking place – I totally get that.
Was the purpose of the lemonade stand NOT to teach economics in some way? Then what was the purpose? It’s fine if it wasn’t, but like I said, that’s usually why kids have these things.
Re: Re:
The purpose was that the kids were bored and wanted to do something fun. They decided the satisfaction of giving lemonade to thirsty patrons was worth the effort for them, and their parents decided that the 3-dollar container of lemonade mix was worth the money to give the kids something to do.
Re: Re:
Offhand, when I did these things, it was for the marginal benefit to my parents of getting me out of the house.
Re: Re: Re:
Gotta love that one!
Re: Re:
“I didn’t read the column, just this post. But usually, the purpose of a lemonade stand *is* to teach basic economics.”
People teach their kids basic economics now using e-bay … 😉
Re: Re:
It could be to teach philanthropy or volunteering. Presumably, these girls are from a wealthy family. They’re being overseen by the nanny.
Re: Re: Re:
and will likely live off of trust funds and never contribute to society by working a day, just by hiring people to wipe their bottoms. nice.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and will likely live off of trust funds and never contribute to society by working a day, just by hiring people to wipe their bottoms. nice.
In that case, they shouldn’t be charging for lemonade, they should be calling the cops on all the other lemonade stands.
That way, they’d have bright and shiny futures as RIAA executives.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct, everyone who has a nanny growing up lives the rest of their lives without working a productive job.
/sarcasm
Re: Re:
I grew up in a historical reenactment group, where the point of the lemonade stand (which also had fresh fruit) was to keep people hydrated in the heat. It had zip to do with an economics lesson.
Free advice
“I was confident I had explained it clearly.”
So she gave the children the benefit of her expertise. Did she charge them for it? Is she going to send the parents a bill? Wasn’t that something for nothing?
Re: Free advice
So she gave the children the benefit of her expertise. Did she charge them for it? Is she going to send the parents a bill? Wasn’t that something for nothing?
Heh. Excellent point. Should have pointed that out in the post as well.
Re: Free advice
AMEN!
now i understand why chicago is the way it is.
Re: Re:
Sadly, the only good reporters we have in the entire city are sports columnists, of which we have many fine men and women….
Dear Mike...
“Stuart sends over a column from a Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Terry Savage, that I could have sworn was satire until someone convinced me that it’s not.”
Perhaps you need someone in Chicago who can give you the skinny on local people and happenings? I wonder who could do such a thing….
Anyway, Terry Savage is a typical partisan moron. The entire point of her writing for the Sun Times (a liberal paper), is to present an over the top conservative viewpoint to rile up readers. Paying attention to her is like paying attention to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mike Malloy, or Alan Colmes. They aren’t there to do anything other than make noise and play their caricatures…
Oh, and we aren’t getting LeBron, Bosh, or Wade either, which is while I’ll be sticking to my Hawks jersey for now….
Maybe they were being taught how to make flavored lemonade, and the pleasure the kids received in seeing people enjoy their creation led them to want to give it away…..because that is not an emotion a kid would ever have?
I dont remember being charged for macaroni installations or hand-turkeys either, you cant give art away for free!
This Financial Columnist is exactly what’s wrong with America. Charity is wrong, exploiting others is perfectly OK.
Re: Re:
Bu-ha-ha
The biggest charity contributors in this country also happen to be the biggest exploiters of other people
Take a good look at Billy Gates & Co
Why must there be an economical benefit? To me it would seem the girls were just being nice to others. It would seem to me that more people could learn lessons of charity and kindness.
Re: Re:
Actually if you do a little research, it was actually free to cause the other three lemonade stands on the block to fold, allowing these children to have a monopoly during the hottest part of the summer … 😉
Or, maybe, as I have seen many times, the lemonade was given free, but there was a tip jar on the table. You don’t have to pay, but enough people will feel compelled to dramatically overpay that the few who take advantage and don’t give anything won’t matter. It is still giving a valuable lesson about economics, without holding firm to the “outdated business models” that I hear so much whining about on here.
What if they had come from a culture that always haggles and had therefore overpriced it in the hopes of settling at a lower price? Would that have not been an important economic lesson because it doesn’t follow the exact model this lady seems to prefer?
The world is not black and white people. Embrace the grey.
Re: Re:
Why embrace the grey when there is the entire spectrum of colours between black and white? I’d rather embrace that! 🙂
maybe the lemonade was poisoned as part of a vast conspiracy.
Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Mikey, when you have a bunch of kids (which I doubt will ever happen) tell them to set up a lemonade stand and give lemonade to every passerby for free
I hope you go broke soon
Whats wrong with you, dude ?
Read too much of Marx or Lenin ?
I recommend warm bath and enema followed by good night sleep
Doctor’s order !
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
I thought the anti-capitalists were the Angry Dudes who beg the government for monopoly protections.
Re: Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Right, because water, sugar and lemons, are so expensive, and the average Chicago family is so poor…
I guess every volunteer in the world are idiots because what they do goes against “economic principles.”
The problem is that American economics are flawed, based on speculation over growth.
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Maybe he read too much common sense.
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Thank you for your valuable contribution in which you cogently address every point of the opposing argument.
I look forward to your future posts with great enthusiasm.
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Do you realize how long that would take to go broke on lemonade? I think the kids would get board first. 😛
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
ding, a winner. mike is slowly but surely sinking into a weird sort of socialist / marxist funk, where anything that actually makes money is bad, and everyone needs to get everything for free all the time. in the 60s, they would call him a hippie and he would probably live on a commune. these days we just call him a nutjob with a blog. its pretty much the same thing, minus the “toke toke, pass to the left”.
Re: Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
but you would still be a troll.
Re: Re: Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
nope. just someone pointing out the truth. mike never wants to admit it, but more and more he is proposing a socialist agenda that makes most liberals sound like rush limbaugh.
Re: Re: Re:2 Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
You know TAM is getting weaker when he has to resort to calling an advocate for *less* government intervention and market interference a socialist.
Re: Re: Re:2 Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Do you actually know what socialism means? You are saying that Mike is in favor of more government regulation? Now if you wanted to say he was a communist that at least would shade toward reality. Granted that’s not your strong point, but you could at least try.
Re: Re: Re:2 Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
FUCKINGMORONALERT!!!
Re: Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
mike is slowly but surely sinking into a weird sort of socialist / marxist funk, where anything that actually makes money is bad, and everyone needs to get everything for free all the time.
Stinky IP troll, your idea of having the government support you by granting you monopolies so that you don’t have to compete in an open market is far closer to socialism than anything I’ve ever seen Mike propose.
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
TROLLALERT!!!
Re: Mikey is an anti-capitalistic moron
Angry Dude,
Maybe you need to calm down. Personally, I am financially conservative, and I agree that it’s a problem when people view government benefits as being “free.” But come on! Letting kids give away some free lemonade is not communism, and it’s sure not going to break the bank.
At the dollar store I can get 100 paper cups, a plastic pitcher, a can of powdered lemonade, and a package of paper napkins for about $5. I could let each of my SEVEN kids have their very own “Free Lemonade Stand” for less money than my husband and I spend on one date night. Doesn’t sound like a bad way to spend an afternoon to me!
To me, the worst part of Savage’s article was the way she presumes to know best for these little girls, and tried to “teach” them better than their parents. It’s MY job to teach my children the value of a dollar, not the job of some passing know-it-all newspaper columnist. If she tried to lecture MY kids, she’d be learning about another important American value — refusing to put up with elitist jerks who think they get to tell everyone else what to do.
Illegal
It is illegal in our town to have lemonade stands. The lemonade could make somebody sick! You need a business license and inspection to sell (or give away) food! Also, you can’t have a garage sale either. You need a permit and a deposit and have to show how much you actually made and are taxed on it. Otherwise they keep your $500 deposit.
Re: Illegal
They tax you on it?
How is liquidating your assets at a garage sale income?
Re: Re: Illegal
no shit, wish he said where he lived so i can avoid it for the rest of my life.
Re: Re: Illegal
Seriously. Isn’t it pretty much accepted that everything at a garage sale is sold for a loss?
Re: Illegal
Sounds like a money-grab by your town council.
Free Lunch
But…many children DO have a free lunch waiting for them, thanks to the School Lunch Program that many schools, especially public ones, employ…not sure what Terry was going for but that analogy was way off. lol
Savage gotta be a joy at the office
Think she pulls a big dramatic snit every time someone brings in donuts for the office? Makes a big overblown show of slamming 50 cents down on the table before she takes one?
Re: Savage gotta be a joy at the office
no, because the intentions are different. there is really no parallel here.
Re: Re: Savage gotta be a joy at the office
FACEPALM!
Now you know what the kids/parents intentions were?
Sigh. This has been such a landmark day for TechDirt comment stupidity. Are these rating buttons actually going to DO something at some point? I mean, I may not be the most informative guy on these threads, but some of the silliness that has been espoused today has been epic….
Re: Re: Re: Savage gotta be a joy at the office
the entire article is about the parents intentions and what they are and are not teaching their children.
the only silly comments here are from people who cannot see how stupid it is to teach your children nothing about earning a living, and everything about giving away stuff someone else paid for. helmet, you are usually smarter than that.
now, is savage took all of the office donuts and went out on the street and gave them away, you might have something. but geez, come on.
Re: Re: Re:2 Savage gotta be a joy at the office
It’s just a lemonade stand! Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar! Why is it not plausible that the kids knew it was hot, lived on a street that had some traffic, and wanted to give away lemonade? Not everything has to be a teaching moment, does it?
Why does it have to be so different from these:
http://www.hkqkids.org/helmet.shtml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259576/Kwik-Save-tycoon-gives-away-fortune-fulfil-promise-God.html
Re: Re: Re:2 Savage gotta be a joy at the office
if i gave my kids a bunch of stuff to make lemonade (that i paid for) and they went outside and started giving it to people walking down the street on a hot day (for free) i’d be a pretty proud dad.
Re: Re: Re:2 Savage gotta be a joy at the office
How do you know that?
What if the children where being taught a lesson in civics?
What if the children where there because they needed to learn another thing.
How can you a clueless outsider define the parameters and run with it as if it was the only possibility?
The only silly comment comes from people like you, that try to make everything fit into your views without taking into consideration any other possibilities.
Different people need different lessons in life, greedy child will sell and extort other for money so they need to be taught how to give, people who give a lot and never receive anything need to learn to be a bit greedy that is how life works now what never worked is to jump into a situation without asking any question and just deriving a whole picture from a moment in time that is just stupid, that is why business in the U.S. have died, because American business men can’t see the whole picture, they don’t look outside their own little boxes and get trashed in the global market.
Re: Re: Re:2 Savage gotta be a joy at the office
So all of that time I spent growing up and working at refreshment stands at events that gave away free refreshments for the purpose of keeping people hydrated and not, you know, dying of a heat stroke, was stupid and taught me bad things, huh? Wow. Good to know.
Re: Re: Re:2 Savage gotta be a joy at the office
Yes, obviously. *MY* entire reaction is about a random passerby making judgments on what a parent is or isn’t teaching based on five minutes of interaction (with what sound like polite, gracious children), and deciding that it’s *her* job to correct them.
BTW, there’s a big difference between giving away what someone CHOSE to provide for that express purpose, and giving away taxes which someone was legally obliged to pay. If I buy a bunch of food and clothes and give them to my church, and the church in turn gives these items away, that’s a far cry from the government taxing me and giving the money away.
Re: Re: Re: Savage gotta be a joy at the office
No, because we can’t down rate anyone.
from terry
Savage, Terry to me
Thank you for your thoughtful note about my column.
Have you actually read it? If not, here’s a link:
http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2464546,CST-NWS-savage05.savagearticle
I merely explained how kids’ lemonade stands have worked for all time — as a cute way to introduce kids to the real world of starting a small business. I believe that’s what America is all about — the opportunity to join the free enterprise system.
Now if they were charging money for the lemonade to make a profit OR to give it to a charity — well, either way, that would be wonderful. But simply taking “stuff” out of their parents’ kitchen and giving it away to strangers doesn’t strike me as responsible behavior on a number of levels.
Isn’t it great that we live in America, so we can disagree with each other civilly!
Terry Savage
Re: from terry
Responsible behavior?
Re: from terry
So this self-professed lemonade-stand expert is declaring that every lemonade stand that has ever existed has charged for its lemonade?
Is there any evidence for that or is this just the dogmatic babbling of a journalist in total cognitive surrender?
Re: from terry
Where does she get the impression that the kids are “taking” the supplies as opposed to the parents having given them to them? That is a completely illogical assumption if you ask me.
Plus, even if they were not given the supplies how is
“simply taking “stuff” out of their parents’ kitchen and giving it away to strangers “
any worse than
simply taking “stuff” out of their parents’ kitchen and selling it to strangers
Re: from terry
Assuming that you are indeed Terry Savage, you decided to blissfully ignore the unknowns in your situations and you sure as heck did not read comments here. So here we go:
1) How do you know parents were not letting the kids do it?
2) Your stance denies existence of voluntarism, altruism and philanthropy. Might want to try aligning it with real life.
3) You gave advice to the kids for free. Or did you charge them?
4) Your column that you are linking online is free to view. I paid nothing for it. Thanks!
5) You also posted here for free. Aren’t you going to pay Mike for doing so? Free enterprise and all.
Re: Re: from terry
I believe this was a cut and paste from Terry to monkeygrudge. She was responding to his note to her not this blog. She doesn’t have comments on the lemonade column,
Re: Re: Re: from terry
Well I emailed Terry with a couple of questions hoping to get a response and I got that response, word for word, as a reply a few minutes later. It would appear someone doesn’t like criticism or answering any questions about what they wrote.
Tax Breaks?
Maybe the kids were in a higher bracket and needed the charitable donations to write off on their taxes?
You missed the point of the column
I think what the columnist is complaining about is that the parents and/or nanny of these kids are not taking advantage of this opportunity to teach them economics, but are instead promoting the entitlement mentality. The kids are giving away lemonade (a limited resource) that they did not pay for. To them Mommy and Daddy have unlimited funds, so why not share the wealth. The problem starts when they grow up and think of the government the same way. The government has billions of dollars so why shouldn’t we all get free stuff? What the entitlement crowd doesn’t get is that someone is working for that money and it is being taken away to give us the free stuff. Eventually those that work to support the rest will have had enough and will jump on the gravy train too. Then we’ll all live in squalor. A little free lemonade is not a big deal but it is a lost opportunity to teach them to be solid citizens instead of leaches on society. And for the record, this has nothing to do with file sharing, which is an unlimited resource.
Re: You missed the point of the column
Giving away lemonade does not promote an “entitlement mentality” on the part of either the giver or the recipient.
This is a radical assumption about the motives and worldview of some people that you have never met. I have never met any child old enough to operate a lemonade stand who actually thought that “mommy and daddy” have unlimited wealth.
You really think that their entire worldview of social wealth is going to derive from one experience in which they gave away lemonade? You really think they will extrapolate from that to believe that a government has unlimited money and thus they should be given something for nothing?
Don’t you think there is a value in teaching children to give gifts to their neighbors and interact with them? If someone would be developing an entitlement mentality from this, don’t you think it would be the recipients of the free lemonade and not those who gave it?
You have not demonstrated that there is any “entitlement crowd”, nor have you shown that anyone has failed to understand that lemonade ultimately costs money.
Giving away lemonade is a gained opportunity to teach children about sharing, about being friendly, about socializing, about their neighbors, and about service.
I can’t believe I just rebutted the argument that giving away free lemonade will destroy the character of children…ugh. I feel dirty now.
Re: Re: You missed the point of the column
That was wonderful, but that sad thing is that you had to explain to another person what a lemon stand is and for what it stands for, WTF?
Re: Re: Re: Savage missed the point.
Sharing is a virtue that most people try to instill in children.
A Mad Max approach to society leads to well… a Mad Max style society. You can’t have a functional society that is made up of nothing but self-centered sociopaths. Greed as the singular defining virtue just doesn’t work out in the end.
At some point, people need to be willing to give as well as take.
The no-share mentality will eventually ensure that there is no one to do those things that are seen as benefiting the “customer” more than the “seller”.
Re: You missed the point of the column
Oh no, I don’t think anybody missed her point. Her point is as obvious as all outdoors.
Problem is, her point is a completely stale economic conservative’s cookie-cutter response to everything under the sun. And this column proves it. Anybody who would seriously write a column complaining that little girls giving away free lemonade shows what is wrong with the country is obviously much much much much much more obsessed with getting across point 157(b) of the Conservative Economic Manifesto, come hell or high water, than with talking about real things that happen in the real world for real reasons.
Re: You missed the point of the column
I think what the columnist is complaining about is that the parents and/or nanny of these kids are not taking advantage of this opportunity to teach them economics, but are instead promoting the entitlement mentality.
What the rabidly capitalistic columnist was complaining about was parents teaching their children about things like charity and altruism, which are antithetical to capitalism.
The kids are giving away lemonade (a limited resource) that they did not pay for.
Do you really think the kids parents were doing this without their parents permission? Get real. Just because you can’t imagine yourself ever giving anything away for free doesn’t mean their parents were likewise so greedy.
Then we’ll all live in squalor.
I’m sure if you had things your way everyone but you would live in squalor.
Re: Re: You missed the point of the column
charity and altruism are not antithetical to capitalism. Striving for individual greatness and wanting to help others go hand in hand. You must make yourself stronger to better help others.
Re: Re: Re: You missed the point of the column
“charity and altruism are not antithetical to capitalism.”
I don’t think you’re familiar with the concept of capitalism if you believe that. Nowhere do charity and altruism fit in.
“You must make yourself stronger to better help others.”
The capitalist makes himself stronger in order to help himself.
Are you all missing the point?
Pointing out how the children gain from the satisfaction of giving something away is missing Savage’s point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn’t theirs. This obviously apocryphal story isn’t about yelling at children or even about lemonade, it’s about the problems with the government giving “free” hand-outs of all kinds to people using someone else’s money.
I don’t care if you agree with Savage or not, but could you at least address the real issue she raises, instead of focusing on the children? I know berating her for yelling at children is easier than talking about her real point, but you should give it a shot anyway.
Re: Are you all missing the point?
The kids were obviously given the supplies from their parents. Whether they are selling the lemonade or giving it away, there is no indication that they stole the supplies from their parents.
Re: Re: Are you all missing the point?
Which, would obviously be wrong (the stealing part, not the giving away, or the selling)
Re: Are you all missing the point?
“This column is a true story — every word of it.” First sentence. You didn’t read the column did you?
Re: Are you all missing the point?
“Savage’s point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn’t theirs.“
So the children stole the lemonade? Because certainly stealing and giving away what you stole is wrong. Unless you’re Robin Hood, of course.
I also agree that this story never happened, she’s basically making an analogy by saying those in the Left think like children. They live in a world where nothing really costs money because their parents pay for everything.
But the analogy fails because parents willingly pay for everything. Parents give kids lemonade for their stand in the same way they might give a kid a baseball and bat to start a game with his friends. Not to make a profit, as you and Terry Savage seem to think. But because it’s fun.
That’s why everyone here is focusing on the fun the imaginary kids had by starting their imaginary lemonade stand. Because that’s the point of having such a stand. That’s the point of buying your kid a kiddie-pool. That’s the point of buying your kid a football. Etc., etc., etc.
And that’s why Terry Savage is utterly wrong in the issue she made up, then raised.
She’s erroneously comparing childhood games which are not conducted for profits to situations where profits are expected. She’s erroneously comparing situations where people willingly give money to situations where people are forced to pay money via taxes (except for the rich, of course.)
Re: Re: Are you all missing the point?
How about this one? The people who reap the most financial benefits from laws and from lobbying the government are in a bracket where their tax contribution is felt the least. There’s your entitlement mentality, that even though the government either directly or indirectly enabled you to get rich, you shouldn’t have to contribute much (if at all) to maintain the system.
The people who actually do work get to pay both the government and the rich, yet when they engage in constructive social behaviors like sharing (be it lemonade or information) they are ridiculed by those same people for their entitlement mentality.
Ridiculous.
Re: Are you all missing the point?
Pointing out how the children gain from the satisfaction of giving something away is missing Savage’s point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn’t theirs.
The children did chores around their house and were given lemonade materials in return. They decided to give this lemonade away.
See? Anyone can make assumptions!
Re: Are you all missing the point?
Savage’s point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn’t theirs.
No, she didn’t present any evidence whatsoever that the children had stolen the lemonade (you’re just making stuff up).
Her point was that she was outraged that anyone would give anything to anyone else for free. In Savage’s world, the parents of these children should be keeping track of the cost of raising them and demanding repayment, plus profits, as soon as the children are old enough to begin working.
Re: Are you all missing the point?
What if they had a lemon tree? Then they stole the lemons from the tree and should be charged with theft for not paying royalties on the lemonade.
The whole story is stupid. Kids gave away lemonade, America is going to hell, blah-blah-blah. Let kids be kids.
Free fall
With stellar journalism such as this, it’s any wonder why traditional news outlets are floundering.
Actually, it's precisely The Rich who are "entitled".
The whole derivation of “titled”, and “entitlement” is that some *get* an income without doing *any* labor for it, while others are doomed to a life at hard labor. There’s no practical difference between a “prince” and a kid who’s given a trust fund. Both just walk up to laborers and present a demand for goods and services, completely without any exchange of labor between them.
What’s that to do with the topic? Well, at least it clears up the definition of “entitlement”, which is bandied around only as a pejorative against the poor getting *subsistence*, while The Rich, who get thousands of times more for no reason either, are never made to feel like they’re mooching.
Choices
They obviously valued kindness higher than money for such a simple thing.
I may buy a co-worker a soda, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to give them a new car.
legal age
Perhaps, Ms Savage was refering to the idea that if the children were not Illinois age of adulthood they could not own anything so if they were giving something away it could not be theirs even if the parents “gave” them the materials.
I have to add that the picture of a couple of 18 year olds giving away lemonade with their nanny is amusing however.
Re: legal age
Yes, I am sure she was thinking to teach the children that some legal technicality means when their parents give them something, it wasn’t *really* given to them and it is not ok to give it away or share it with anyone else.
Somehow, it is still ok to sell it though.
Cost of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness
<pedantry>
“Wait, what? You know what the Declaration of Independence also didn’t include? Anything about how much ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ costs”
Actually, it does, and its fairly expensive… it’s only one of the famous lines: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
</pedantry>
Hope you know my name
There’s about 100 commenters, and many others who didn’t comment who never heard of Terry Savage, nor read Terry’s articles. Now they have.
Sounds like the columnist got what they wanted.
Go with the bro
Yep, never happened and the analogy is a lousy one. I’d be with the brother, though, if it happened: Take a lemonade and be happy.
Re: Go with the bro
I’m actually wondering if she is still going to have a job next week. This is one of the most ridiculous political essays I have read in my 55 years, and it is bound to stir up a ton of stink. If I were her employer I would be thinking very seriously about the future. In the journalism business, all publicity is NOT good publicity.
Free is a great price to try something. There is no monetary risk therefore you get a larger number of people you can “potentially” sell to.
She knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
”Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
KJV
A Special Gift Meal
Some years ago, I was sitting in a fast-food restaurant, a Burger King, when about a dozen pre-teen girls bounced in, accompanied by three or four moms. It turned out that the girls had served up a Sunday dinner at the Ronald McDonald house attached to the local teaching hospital, and were being taken to Burger King as a reward. As you may know, the Ronald McDonald houses are hostels for people who have seriously ill children in the hospital, eg. leukemia, cystic fibrosis, stuff like that. Such people often have to travel considerable distances to a facility which specializes in such cases, which are rare enough to be beyond the competence of an ordinary hospital, and they don’t necessarily have the funds to stay in motels. As the name suggests, the houses are funded by the McDonald’s chain.
Well, at any rate, the girls had done the whole thing from start to finish: they had planned, cooked, and served a slap-up dinner, “nutritionally balanced” as one of the moms put it, watching her daughter chow down on french fries, and entirely aware of the irony. I don’t know who paid for the groceries, but the work of cooking from scratch would be more significant in any case. That’s the kind of thing people do in small towns.
I don’t know what Terry Savage would make of this. I know pretty well what Ayn Rand would have made of it, of course (“…a voice commanding… ‘to a gas chamber go’,” as Whitaker Chambers put it).
One thing that has been overlooked is that maybe these kids were selling their lemonade and the city/county/state came and warned they were going to get shut down if they didn’t have a certificate of operation/health inspection/whatever. Probably their parents told them: screw the government just give the stuff away.
The parents should’ve called the cops on that perv bitch.
“Free” being wrong in some way is a right wing myth from the lunatic fringe.
Free is the grease that keeps the wheels of commerce turning.
I wonder how “wrong” it is when my local grocery store has “BUY 1 GET 1 FREE” deals on select items to move more product, much like they did on countless high-demand items for the 4th of July holiday.
I really have to wonder how that “FREE Canon Printer with Laptop Purchase” deal at Office Depot can possibly be wrong. You get something free as incentive to buy a (likely overpriced) laptop.
How about the “FREE” cellphone I got with my 2 year contract with AT&T? Must be that AT&T has no freaking clue what they’re doing… or that this lady is a moron masquerading as “financial expert”.
I bet my cable company is a true example of “what is wrong with America” because I got a “FREE” DVR cable box, a “FREE” cable modem and a “FREE” VoIP unit when I ordered their tri-service bundle.
Free is everywhere. Leveraging it’s power is what separates the failures from the successful. The fact that the article which attacks “FREE” so deliberately from a column which is, in fact, free to view just goes to show how disconnected the writer must be from reality.
Interestingly enough, “pursuit of happiness” replaced John Locke’s “property.” This implies that at the core of “American values” is the concept that profit is not the sole path towards fulfillment and that people have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way they choose.
My eldest son’s birth was unexpectedly free because he was delivered by myself and a state-funded EMT on my living room floor. There was no bill issued by the state. Clearly, I stole my own first born, seeing as his birth was free to my checkbook. He is the living, breathing embodiment of “everything that is wrong with America” and I’m damn proud he’s mine.
I have to admit that if I caught him standing in front of our home giving away lemonade to our neighbors, I would rush out to buy him more lemons, sugar and cups. How would it really be any different than a cookout or any other neighborly get together which has costs associated with it? We’re talking about less than $50 in materials for my child to learn a very important lesson in morality which is aligned with my own.
Nothing is truly free, but there is a point where it becomes about principle. I believe principles should always trump profit.
Sharing is caring, and I seriously have to wonder if the virtues of generosity were simply not taught in Terry Savage’s home. I suppose it’s possible they merely got it backwards… profit trumps principles. Or perhaps profit is the only principle known to her.
Either way, I’m very proud to be so different from this line of thinking. The biggest failure for me would be to see my son develop into a callous, profit-centric a-hole when it is so different from my own and my wife’s feelings on the importance of generosity and compassion above material possessions and profitable remuneration.
Um... not sure if we covered this
Hmm.
Granted the following… They were supplied the materials at no cost. Then they sold the product for no cost. They investited their time – and were paid in smiles and thanks.
Geez I hope my kids figure this one out… smiles and thanks are infitite and yet each and every one of them is both unique and valuable.
Just HTF (How the Fluffy-duck) can anyone realistically claim they did NOT make a profit?
Do values still mean anything?
I think the point being glossed over here is that these are *children*. Unless they’re part of some evil communist conspiracy to destroy American values. Or some such other tinfoil-hat nonsense.
No one is trying to teach them to be entitled brats. It’s a lesson about *community* and sharing something nice with others.
Our church holds a potluck once a month for our congregation of around 200 people. We know that not everyone can afford to chip in and that not everyone who chips in can donate a lot. Maybe I go to one of those “liberalized” churches, but I think it really fosters a sense of friendship and trust in our church.
What Savage has done is taken something completely harmless and extrapolated it out to it’s most illogical extreme. You don’t know the children’s parents personally. You don’t know how they raise them or with which values they are being raised. It’s based completely on assumption.
I taught my children to be fiscally responsible as well as moral individuals. Since when did Christian kindness become socialistic in this society? How many cynics must there be to produce this kind of hostile viewpoint? It’s a sad day for America when we accuse kids of destroying our nation.
This is just the view of one ol’ libertarian gal. Maybe I’ve become jaded with age, but it just seems wrong to me.