Stand-Up Economist

As the Specialized Co-Editor for Miscellany of Economic Inquiry (which offers additional innovations such as a no-revisions option), I am delighted to put out this request for submissions that expose the lighter side of the dismal science:

• Humorous articles, such as Leijonhufvud’s “Life among the Econ”, (Economic Inquiry, 1973), Gregor W. Smith’s “Japan’s Phillips Curve looks like Japan” (Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 2008), or my own “Principles of economics, translated”, which is available in text format (Annals of Improbable Research, 2003) or on YouTube. (See below for a semi-complete list of funny articles.)
• News headlines, real or imagined, such as a 2004 CNN.com article that was originally headlined “Iraqis polled: War did more harm than good but worth it.”
• Original economics jokes, such as “You might be an economist if…” Please don’t send me “assume a can-opener” or other jokes that are online, e.g., on JokEc.
• Cartoons, anecdotes, and other funny stuff. I’ll even consider amusing excerpts from rejection letters, such as the 2003 referee report by a reviewer who failed to notice that the 20th century was over.

See the list below for my stab at a compendium of economics humor, and note some of these articles (and many others) can be found in Clotfelter’s On the Third Hand: Wit and Humor in the Dismal Science. If you have additions to this list, please let me know!

Instructions for submissions

If you have a joke or cartoon or other short piece, email it (with a subject line of “Economics miscellany”) to me at yoram@standupeconomist.com. If you have a multi-page “serious” submission, send it through the usual process, beginning with a careful read of the Submission Information. (Make sure to write on your paper that it is intended for the Miscellany section, and yes you will have to pay the submission fee.) If you are not sure whether your paper is “serious” or not, email it to me and ask me.

Funny economics articles

Please send me additions (I’m just starting this compendium), and please note that some of these articles (and many others) can be found in Clotfelter’s On the Third Hand.

• Experienced advice for “lost” graduate students in economics by Ariel Rubinstein, 2011: “Even better, volunteer for reserve duty in the Israeli army. These have been my most fruitful periods of research.” (!)
• Wouldn’t it be nice (to have a bit more inflation)? by Pierre-Louis Vézina, 2011. Abstract: “Central bankers have in their hands policy tools that allow them to optimize society‟s wellbeing. This paper argues that the latter is best captured by the quality of music and then provides estimates based on a reduced-form non-linear smoother as well as a quadratic fit that suggest the Federal Reserve should aim for a rate around 6.2%, way above the holy-grail target of 2%.”
• “An option value problem from Seinfeld“ by Avinash Dixit, Economic Inquiry, forthcoming. The abstract: “This is a paper about nothing.”
• Economics “Yo momma” jokes. Some funny, some lewd, etc.
• “Male organ and economic growth: Does size matter?” by Tatu Westling, Helsinki Center of Economic Research Discussion Paper, July 2011.
• “The theory of interstellar trade” by Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate, 2008). Economic Inquiry, 48: 1119-1123 (2010). The original version of this paper is from 1978 but was never published. Krugman blogs about the paper (and posts a PDF of his earlier unpublished version) here.
• “Monopoly® pricing” by John Cawley and Donald S. Kenkel. Economic Inquiry 48: 517-520 (2010).
• “The effect of prayer on God’s attitude toward mankind” by James J. Heckman (Nobel laureate, 2000). Economic Inquiry 48: 234-235 (2010).
• “The contractual view of marriage” by Luke Froeb (Jan 29 2010)
• “Market madness” by Allen Sanderson. An NCAA-style tournament to determine the cause of the financial crisis, this appeared first in the U of Chicago alumni magazine in fall 2009, in the Milken Institute Review (1st qtr 2010), David Warsh’s “Economic Principles” in spring 2010, and (linked above) in the AEA program in Atlanta in January 2009.
• “A rational choice model for the Dakota Effect” by Jac C. Heckelman, PS: Political Science and Politics 41: 677-678 (2008).
• “Why I don’t have a girlfriend” by Peter Backus (2008-ish). Not an economics article, but it’s written by an economist. Hat tip to Kate Cell.
• “Contest submissions on a TV show about economists”, organized in early 2009 by Sultan. Here were the rules, here were the entries, and here was the voting. My favorite submission copied here.
• “On the efficiency of AC/DC: Bon Scott versus Brian Johnson” by Robert J. Oxoby. Economic Inquiry 47(3):598-602, 2009. (Congrats to Rob for having a second publication in the same issue! It’s “Game theory for playing games: Sophistication in a negative-externality experiment”, by John M. Spraggon and Robert J. Oxoby. Economic Inquiry 47(3):467-81, 2009.)
• “Clerihews in merry hues: An A-to-Z of the lives and times of economists in jolly rhymes“ by S. Subramanian. Royal Economic Society Newsletter 146, July 2009, pp17-18.
• “A poem on poverty” by S. Subramanian. Challenge 52:4, July/Aug 2009.
• “A day in the life of a supply-side economist” by Samuel K. McSweeney’s, April 13, 2009. (Hat tip to Andrew Gianni.)
• “Japan’s Phillips Curve looks like Japan” by Gregor W. Smith. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 40:1325-26 (2008). (Hat tip to Evren Damar.) Smith’s webpage used to link to a version of the paper with a note that “the title is also the abstract and, frankly, most of the text.”
• “Why is language vague?” by Barton L. Lipman. Working paper, Dec 2006. (Hat tip to an anonymous friend, who notes that it’s a serious paper but that it has the funniest abstract ever: “I don’t know.”)
• “JEL review of The Undercover Economist“ by R. Preston McAfee. Journal of Economic Literature 54:722-47 (2006).
• “Counterfactuals in wonderland” by Dov Samet. Games and Economic Behavior 51:537-41 (2005). Note the eight year review lag—maybe we should have a contest for longest review lag :)
• “Mankiw’s ten principles of economics, translated”, by Yoram Bauman. Annals of Improbable Research 9:2 (March/April 2003). Also available on YouTube.
• “Up or down? A male economist’s manifesto on the toilet seat etiquette” by Jay Pil Choi (2002). (Hat tip to Andy Meyer.)
• “Deluge economics” by Eban Goodstein. Ecological Economics 39:1-2 (2001).
• “Cricket versus baseball as an engine of growth” by Howard J. Wall. Royal Economic Society Newsletter 90:2-3 (July 1995). (Hat tip to Gregor Smith.)
• “The cookie caper” by R. Preston McAfee. Unpublished (1994-ish).
• “The Cinderella Paradox resolved” by Edward L. Glaeser. Journal of Political Economy 100:430-432 (Apr 1992). (Hat tip to René Böheim.) See also Glaeser’s NY Times blog post on “The economics of fairy tales” (Sept 1, 2009).
• “The lighter side of the dismal science: The humor of economics by Margaret A. Ray. Social Science Journal 28:227-242 (1991). (Hat tip to René Böheim.)
• “Chickens, eggs, and causality, or Which came first?” by Walter N. Thurman and Mark E. Fisher. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70:237-38 (1988). (Hat tip to Chris Bollinger.)
• “American economic growth and the voyage of Columbus” by R. Preston McAfee. American Economic Review 73:735-40 (1983).
• “The Transylvanian problem of renewable resources” by R. Hartl and A. Mehlmann [Richard F. Hartl and Alexander Mehlmann]. RAIRO – Operations Research 16:379-390 (1982). (Hat tip to Rich Steinberg; see also the next item.)
• “Macroeconomic policy and the optimal destruction of vampires” by Dennis J. Snower. Journal of Political Economy 90:647-655 (1982). (See also the previous item.)
• “The conference handbook” by George J. Stigler (Nobel laureate, 1982). Journal of Political Economy 85:441-43 (1977).
• “On romantic love—An analysis of open system economic behavior “ by K. K. Fung. Policy Sciences 11:179-186 (1979). Not I think an intentionally funny article, but here’s the start of the abstract: “Romantic love is characterized by a preoccupation with a deliberately restricted set of perceived characteristics in the love object which are viewed as means to some ideal ends. In the process of selecting the set of perceived characteristics and the process of determining the ideal ends, there is also a systematic failure to assess the accuracy of the perceived characteristics and the feasibility of achieving the ideal ends given the selected set of means and other pre-existing ends.” (Hat tip: Cyril Morong.)
• “On some debates in capital theory” by Amartya K. Sen (Nobel laureate, 1998). Economica 41:328-35 (1974).
• “The economics of brushing teeth” by Alan S. Blinder. Journal of Political Economy 82:887-91 (1974).
• “The quantity theory of drink—A restatement” by O.E. Covick. Australian Economic Papers 13:171-177 (Dec 1974). Hat tip to Le Parisien (in the comments section below).
• “The Quality Theory of Money (or Glued Money Does Not Drive Out Bad Money)” by E. R. Weintraub, P. Gusen and T. Havrilesky. Intermountain Economic Review, vol. 5 no. 1 (Summer, 1974), pp. 107-108. (Hat tip to Jeff Rubin, who notes that the article “Basically discusses how we could use epoxy and other types of glues to slow the velocity of money and keep inflation under control including many examples of the use of similar ‘strategies’ in other countries.”)
• “Life among the Econ” by Axel Leijonhufvud. Economic Inquiry 11:327-37 (1973). At the time, Economic Inquiry was called Western Economic Journal.
• “The Inverted Tetrahexahedron: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of the ICBM” by Dudley G. Luckett. Journal of Political Economy 79:933-37 (1971). (Hat tip to S. Subramanian.)
• “A first lesson in econometrics” by John J. Siegfried. Journal of Political Economy 78:1378-79 (1970).
• “The Golden Rule of Accumulation: A Fable for Growthmen” by Edmund Phelps (Nobel laureate, 2006). American Economic Review 51:638-643 (1961). Called “an entertaining classic” by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

The “assume a can opener” joke (from JokEc)

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, “Lets smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Lets build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Lets assume that we have a can-opener…”