Note to the readers: This article contains many spoilers for both The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001).
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the cinematic masterpiece starring Rachel Weisz, Brendan Fraser, and Oded Fehr The Mummy (1999). With books of gold and trowels of steel, the battle between the mummy of a high priest and the clumsy Egyptologist librarian stole the hearts of an entire generation. This action-packed adventure movie also inspired a book series, multiple roller coaster rides, and ONE impressive sequel (we leave the proof of which it is to the reader).
However, when you think of this 1999 cinematic classic, you could also think about the economic themes guiding the behavior and decisions of the major characters. Revisiting Hamunaptra provides us with an opportunity to think about how the economic way of thinking can help us solve problems – or at least help us avoid the curse of the Hom-Dai. This movie has nuances and themes for both the introductory student of economics and for the Medjai-like educators who ensure that economic knowledge is not used to bring about the end of the world.
Classic Questions in Economics
Especially for an introductory student of economics, The Mummy and The Mummy Returns present clear examples of subjective value, rational choice behavior, trade-offs, and cost-benefit analysis.
One of the core principles in economics is that value is subjective to the individual. Rick demonstrates that value is subjective when he notes in the first film that “These men are a desert people; they value water, not gold.” We see Rick, Evelyn (Evy), and Jonathan use market exchange to solve their sudden supply shortage in The Mummy, although Jonathan gripes about the cost of the camels (but – he still pays for the camels). Market exchange also does not require currency, and instead may be supported by any exchange of goods and services between two or more parties where items with perceived value may be exchanged for the gain of the participants.
In The Mummy Returns, we instead see Rick using barter exchange with Izzy to secure passage across the desert on Izzy’s airship. The golden scepter that Rick grabbed from Jonathan, catches Izzy’s attentions with Rick’s appeals for help get him nowhere. The market price for the gold scepter would likely be much higher if sold to a jeweler or collector, but Rick has an inelastic demand – they need to leave immediately, and have few substitutes for travel. If there were a complete market with security in all states of nature, the amount exchanged for the scepter would certainly be more than the cost of one round-trip dirigible flight, but with incomplete markets, the gains from trade are not fully realized.
Most characters in both films also exhibit rational choice behavior, even if their behavior appears outwardly humorous or ridiculous. For example, Rick’s old buddy Beni understands cost-benefit analysis, at least in the short-term. When his team is about to trigger a curse by removing the sacred jars from a sealed box, he flees the scene rather than remain where a potential curse could reach him. Later, the lost lives (and organs) of the Americans who removed the jars reveal that Beni made the optimal decision. Beni similarly exhibits rational choice behavior in working for Imhotep, as the cost of losing his life far outweighs any benefit he would receive from refusing to partner with the undead. Beni also exhibits the consequences of a high time preference, however, as his focus on wealth in the present at the risk of his own life leads to his death. You might even say that his economic analysis has…bugs.
Calculating between the short-term gains of wealth extraction and the long-run gains of a long life are not the only example of trade-offs in this film. Trade-offs are everywhere, such as when Evelyn tells Rick to leave her with Imhotep in The Mummy, as he still needed to return her to Hamunaptra, trading Rick’s life for her perceived safety. Evelyn is also engaging in game theory against Imhotep and Beni, as she is treating her kidnapping as a multi-period game, rather than a single-period game with a different solution. Similarly, in The Mummy Returns, Medjai Ardeth has to choose between helping to save his friends’ son Alex and warning the Medjai of the imminent rise of another immortal monster.
A core principle of economics is that often, on the edge of the possibility frontier, the choice of one outcome does ensure you will lose another. For example, to awaken the Scorpion King, Hafez loses the skin and muscle on his arm in order to place the bracelet into the statue. Hafez may have been able to avoid this fate if he had been as well versed in hieroglyphics and hieratics on the relic bracelet as the Bembridge scholars or Evelyn. The set of information – be it perfect, imperfect, or asymmetric – matters for the choice matrix and whether we achieve efficient outcomes.
Lastly, the films also provide good opportunities for discussion of the broken window fallacy and sunk costs. When Imhotep destroys Cairo in his quest to complete the curse, some might argue that at least Cairo could rebuild. However, as Frederic Bastiat wrote in What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen, “There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.” Instead of having to rebuild, Cairo could have instead invested its resources elsewhere, such as human capital investment or innovation. Similarly, when Ahm Shere sinks back into the desert, we might lament the loss of such an oasis. However, what is lost is lost – and the opportunity cost of going after either the wealth of Hamunaptra or Ahm Shere comes with high economic costs.
But that’s not all! In our next post, we’ll turn to more economic concepts, such as labor markets, comparative advantage, and externalities.
Darwyyn Deyo is an Associate Professor of Economics at San José State University.
