Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukah, Eid or Festivus, I've got news for you: gift-giving is so-o-o-o ten minutes ago. A series of initiatives -- large and small -- suggest that presents -- at least in the wrapped-with-a-bow, purchased-in-a-store variety -- are rapidly going the way of the Post Office.

Get the new
PD toolbar!
It all began a few years ago when the Oscars did away with their large-scale goody bags. Let's ignore the fact that this was driven more by the tax implications of the (gulp) $100,000 bag-o-treats than any other . . . um . . . inconvenient truth. But no matter. Their hearts were in the right place. In 2007, all attendees at the Academy Awards received a year's worth of carbon offsets (along with an oddly phallic-shaped glass sculpture). What can I say? This is Hollywood . . .

Nor did participants receive their swag at this year's Clinton Global Initiative. Instead, they got 200 points, which they could allocate to their choice of charitable projects, funded by corporations.

This un-gifting trend has also taken hold on a smaller scale as well. I just read about a writer who gives out beehives from the Heifer Foundation to her colleagues as her annual holiday present, to thank them for keeping her a "busy bee" throughout the year. (For the record, you can also buy a sheep, a goat, a water buffalo or a heifer, which then goes to a family in a developing country. )

But why stop there?

Yesterday, I read about the latest rage in non-gift giving here across the pond: the Whittle-Down-The-Debt initiative. That's right. In case you were really at a loss as to what to get that special someone, you can now defray the U.K.'s national debt by making a donation to the Treasury in the person's name.

All of this is reinforced by a new book by economist Joel Waldfogel, entitled, appropriately, "Scroogenomics." Waldfogel argues that gift-giving is actually wildly inefficient because of the difference between how much a person values the gift and its actual price. (His estimate of this differential: $12 billion annually).

Inefficiencies aside (I'm not sure how much most consumers actually think in these terms), it is worth asking what is driving this new trend away from traditional gift-giving.

One answer is obviously the global recession, which makes lavish gift-giving both distasteful (and expensive.)

But I wonder if -- underneath this -- we aren't also experiencing a cultural shift in our attitudes toward consumerism similar to those we've experienced toward smoking, drinking, and junk food in recent years. As with so many things (thank you, Donna!), we just don't think giving presents is good for us anymore.

Who knows?

All I can say for sure is that as this holiday season approaches, I'm getting my requests in early: For the record, I'll take the goat.


Follow Delia on Twitter.



Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!