“The down payment dipped a bit into the following week’s projected earnings, but he wasn’t concerned.”

As the projected earnings didn’t come. But I doubt that was the point.

@Bookrat and @Chaon

I believe the reason it was a net loss is that by responding to the incentive of more money, the pastor worked hard and continually improved his sermon to earn more and more income. This short term gain also brought longer term obligations that are not immediately apparent during ‘hot pursuit’ of the sort term gains. The story highlights how we irrationally pursue a short term gain without contemplating its long term implications or sustainability.

I though it was almost a metaphor for today’s banking crisis. Investment bankers pursued short term loans for an immediate improved bottom line with no regard for the long term implications of their actions.

Please correct me if I am wrong Dr. Ariely.

I don’t get it.

(spoilers below. You’ve been warned.)

I mean, I *understand* it all — how it was nerve-wracking the first time, how it got easier, how he got overconfident, how he blew it. How he was desperate for another chance. How those five weeks were legendary in peoples’ minds. It all hangs together, it all makes sense (in a parable-like way).

But then I get lost on the last two paragraphs. Why are crumbling walls and broken computers his legacy? How did he ‘set the parish back’ (which I am reading as ‘retard its progress’) for years?

The only thing I can think of is that people were blaming him for ending the gravy train… but the story makes pains to say that the arrangement had been kept secret, so that doesn’t make sense.

Can someone (perhaps the author) explain what I’m missing?

It provide to me to think think think ask ask ask and answered how to avoid firms traps.
And sometimes I laughed so much:) to myself(my behaviour according to your resaerc) and your stories.

Again thank you so much…