A priest, a minister, and a rabbi walk into an economics lab. Which one is most likely to increase contributions to the public good? A new study found that Protestants were more likely than Jews or Catholics to contribute money to a public pool. The Protestants also worked hardest for wages in a labor market game. Consider it evidence for the Protestant work ethic. (HT: Chris Blattman) [%comments]
Of God and Money
TAGS:
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Still waiting for the punchline….
The so-called “Protestants” were probably non-Christian Unitarians and/or “Friends” — believers in cause and effect. I suspect generosity and religiosity do NOT correlate.
That may also be due to the fact that in general, a catholic priests and Jewish Rabi would work full time in a position paid by their own church. Protestants pastors are more likely to have an alternative occupation (like, they earn money somewhere else, even if they receive church support)… so sure, put them in a lab, and protestants will work… not out of work ethics, but of institutional differences
the punchline is we’re all gonna need LOTS of charity when the USA completes it’s economic transmorgification into Brazil circa the late 1980′s.
don’t worry, only AIG bankers *get* that one.
Your question asks which of the three is most likely to increase contributions to the public.
Your answer assumes that the only contributions that “count” are those that go into a “public pool.”
Why?
If a Catholic directs his contribution to Catholic poor and a Jew directs his contribution to Jewish poor, are the Catholic or Jewish recipients not members of the public as much as anyone else is?
That was a lot less funny than I expected.
I get it. We just need to get folks motivated, focused on the next step. Part of what drove the early protestants was getting away from something ( a taxing mother church), and creating something new.
We need to get away from politics and supporting the status quo, and start doing things that give us freedom.
Don’t argue about climate change, take a few steps that happen to lesson your being an energy hog.
For example, would anyone here, anyone at all, give up their cherished rat race for a quiet life on the farm?
Sustainable agriculture not only feeds people, it feeds freedom and quality of life. Small farms (with big screen televisions helping to heat the house) will be important to helping to ensure quality of life for nine billion people.
As for climate change, whatever happens will happen. Worrying about climate change instead of quality of life ( more free time with family, better quality food, feeling better about saving energy and Earth) – is a red herring, like saying that either the Democrats or the Republicans favor big business or big government to the exclusion of the economic viability of mom and pop (small business owner [farmer]).
Both the Republicans and the Democrats favor big business and big government. This is the nature of economic corruption.
So don’t get hung up on global warming, per se.
It’s okay to have big corporations, some of them sending grain half way around the world to help feed hungry people, but most of us should be focused on how to increase our quality of life by scaling down a little.
It will feel better, too.
http://www.milyunair.com/
This study did not actually look at donations or charity. It took 4 people and gave them the opportunity to put in some money, have it matched by the researchers, and then have it spread amongst all 4 participants. This means that rather than “donating” money, the participants are paying for the privilege of redistributing the lab’s money to the study participants.
Not really sure how redistributing money from a researcher to a subject really counts as charity.