Reader warning: This article contains numerous spoilers for The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy: The Curse of the Desert Princess (2001).
This year marks the 25th anniversaryNumber A memorable day for the classic film starring Rachel Weisz, Brendan Fraser and Oded Fehr mummy (1999). Wielding gold tomes and steel trowels, the battle between a high-priest mummy and a bumbling Egyptologist librarian captivated an entire generation. This action-packed adventure also inspired a book series, multiple rollercoaster rides, and one memorable sequel (we’ll leave it to you to prove which one).
But when we think about this 1999 cinematic masterpiece, we can also think about the economic themes that guided the actions and decisions of its main characters. Rewatching The Mummy offers an opportunity to consider how economic thinking can help us solve problems, or at least avoid the Curse of the Homdai. The film has nuances and themes for both those new to economics and educators like Medjai who want to ensure that economic knowledge isn’t used to bring about the end of the world.
A classic question in economics
Especially for those new to economics, mummy and The Mummy It provides clear examples of subjective values, rational choice behavior, trade-offs, and cost-benefit analysis.
One of the core principles of economics is that value is subjective to individuals. Rick proves this in the first film by stating, “They’re desert people, they value water, not gold.” We see Rick, Evelyn (Evie), and Jonathan use market transactions to solve sudden supply shortages. mummyJonathan complains about the cost of the camels (and yet he pays for them). Market transactions also do not require currency, and may instead be supported by the exchange of goods and services between two or more parties who can exchange items that have a recognized value for the benefit of the participants.
in The MummyIn The 1990s, Rick is seen bartering with Izzy to secure passage across the desert in Izzy’s airship. The gold scepter that Rick took from Jonathan draws Izzy’s attention to Rick’s complaint that he is getting nowhere even if he calls for help. The market price for the gold scepter would probably be much higher if he sold it to a jeweler or collector, but Rick’s demand is inelastic; they need to leave soon, and there are few alternatives to travel. With a perfect market that is safe in all states of nature, the amount exchanged for the scepter would certainly be higher than the cost of the round-trip airship flight, but in an incomplete market the gains from trade are not fully realized.
Most characters in both films display rational choices, even if their actions seem outwardly ridiculous or absurd. For example, Rick’s old friend Benni: Cost-benefit analysisat least in the short term. When his team attempts to induce a curse by removing the sacred urn from the sealed box, he flees the scene rather than remaining in a place where the curse could reach him. It is later revealed that Beni made the optimal decision, as the life (and organs) of the American who removed the urn is lost. Beni similarly displays rational choice behavior in working for Imhotep, as the cost of losing a life far outweighs the benefits of refusing to align with the undead. However, Beni also displays high time preference, as his focus on present wealth at the risk of his own life leads to his death. His economic analysis is… one might even say buggy.
The calculation of short-term gains from exploitation versus long-term gains from living longer isn’t the only example of trade-offs in the film: they’re found throughout, such as when Evelyn tells Rick to leave them with Imhotep. mummyBecause they needed to return her to The Mummy, they had to keep her safe in exchange for Rick’s life. Game theory She is at a disadvantage against Imhotep and Beni because she treats the kidnapping as a multi-period game rather than a single-period game with different solutions. The Mummy: Reborn Medjai Ardeth must choose between helping save his friend’s son Alex or warning the Medjai of the impending emergence of another immortal monster.
A core principle of economics is that at the edge of the boundary of possibility, choosing one outcome often means forfeiting another. For example, in order to awaken the Scorpion King, Hafez lost the skin and muscle of his arm to attach the bracelet to the statue. If Hafez had been as familiar with the hieroglyphics and hieratics on the reliquary bracelet as the Bembridge scholars and Evelyn, he might have been able to avoid this fate. information Whether it is perfect, imperfect, or asymmetric, it matters whether the selection matrix and efficient results are achieved.
Finally, the film also provides a good opportunity to discuss the broken windows fallacy and sunk costs: when Imhotep destroys Cairo to complete the curse, one might argue that at least it can be rebuilt. Frederic Bastiat Written What is visible and what is invisible“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: a bad economist focuses on the visible effects; a good economist considers both the visible effects and those that must be foreseen.” Instead of being forced to rebuild, Cairo could have invested its resources elsewhere, such as in human capital and innovation. Similarly, when Am Shea sank into the desert, we might lament the loss of such an oasis. But what is lost is lost, and the opportunity cost of chasing the wealth of Hamunaptra or Am Shea comes at a high economic cost.
But that’s not all! In the next post, more Economic concepts such as labor markets, comparative advantage, and externalities.
Darwin Deyo is an associate professor of economics at San Jose State University.
