This page should eventually be split into: Jokes to convey ideas, Humor, Satire. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ruskin: 'The labour of two days is that for which you ask two hundred guineas?' Whistler: 'No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime.' Whistler v. Ruskin (1878)
"Two and two continue to make four, in spite of the whine of the amateur for three, or the cry of the critic for five." --Whistler v. Ruskin (1878)
A Russian meets up with an American.
"We have freedom of speech," the Russian says. "I can post that Russian elections are falsified on social media."
"What's the big deal?" asks the American. "I too can write that Russian elections are falsified on social media."
Did you hear about the explosion in the cheese factory? There was nothing left but debris.
I haven't laughed so hard since the suggestion that Joe and Kamala run off to Las Vegas and get inaugurated without telling anybody.
Those who study the moon are real optimists, they tend to look at the bright side.
Why should you eat eggs benedict on a hubcap for Christmas dinner?
--because there's no plate like chrome for the hollandaise.
(Here write my better version, the Joke Convention, with the jolly guy rolling ont he floor who hadn't heard it befre.)
George Stigler's version in "The Conference Handbook" Journal of Political Economv, 1977, vol. 85, no. 2, is
There is an ancient joke about the two traveling salesmen in the age of the train. The younger drummer was being initiated into the social life of the traveler by the older. They proceeded to the smoking parlor on the train, where a group of drummers were congregated. One said, "87," and a wave of laughter went through the group. The older drummer explained to the younger that they traveled together so often that they had numbered their jokes. The younger drummer wished to participate in the event and diffidently ventured to say, "36." He was greeted by cool silence. The older drummer took him aside and explained that they had already heard that joke. (In another version, the younger drummer was told that he had told the joke badly.)
Stigler published an economists' version. I've improved it here, in the spirit of joketelling:
A. Here is what the author was trying to say.
B. The paper admirably solves the problem which it sets for itself. Unfortunately, this was the wrong problem.
C. What a pity that the vast erudition and industry of the author were so misdirected
D. I am an amateur in this field so my remarks must be diffident and tentative. However, even a novice must find much to quarrel with in this piece. E. I can be very sympathetic with the author; until 2 years ago I was thinking along similar lines. F. It is good to have a nonspecialist looking at our problem. There is always a chance of a fresh viewpoint, although usually, as in this case, the advantages of the division of labor are reaffirmed. G. This paper contains much that is new and much that is good. H. Although the paper was promised 3 weeks ago, I received it as I entered this room. Comments 1. Adam Smith said that. 2. Unfortunately, there is an identification problem which is not dealt with adequately in the paper. 3. The residuals are clearly nonnormal and the specification of the model is incorrect. 4. Theorizing is not fruitful at this stage: we need a series of case studies. 5. Case studies are a clue, but no real progress can be made until a model of the process is constructed. 6. The second-best consideration would of course vitiate the argument. 7. That is an index number problem (obs., except in Cambridge). 8. Have you tried two-stage least squares? 9. The conclusions change if you introduce uncertainty. 10. You didn't use probit analysis? 11. I proved the main results in a paper published years ago. 12. The analysis is marred by a failure to distinguish transitory and permanent components. 13. The market cannot, of course, deal satisfactorily with that externality. 14. But what if transaction costs are not zero? 15. That follows from the Coase theorem. 16. Of course, if you allow for the investment in human capital, the entire picture changes. 17. Of course the demand function is quite inelastic. 18. Of course the supply function is highly inelastic. 19. The author uses a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. 20. What empirical finding would contradict your theory? 21. The central argument is not only a tautology, it is false. 22. What happens when you extend the analysis to the later (or earlier) period? 23. The motivation of the agents in this theory is so narrowly egotistic that it cannot possibly explain the behavior of real people. 24. The flabby economic actor in this impressionistic model should be replaced by the utility-maximizing individual. 25. Did you have any trouble in inverting the singular matrix? 2 6. It was unfortunate that the wrong choice was made between M1 and M2. 27. That is alright in theory, but it doesn't work out in practice (use sparingly). 28. The speaker apparently believes that there is still one free lunch. 29. The problem cannot be dealt with by partial equilibrium methods: it requires a general equilibrium formulation. 30. The paper is rigidly confined by the paradigm of neoclassical economics, so large parts of urgent reality are outside its comprehension. 31. The conclusion rests on the assumption of fixed tastes, but of course tastes have surely changed. 32. The trouble with the present situation is that the property rights have not been fully assigned.
Babylon Bee reports:
Patient: Doctor, what should I do to get over my cold?
Doctor: I'm afraid we have no cure for the common cold.
Patient: Surely you can think of something!
Doctor: Well, yes: take a shower and then go naked into your yard in the 20-degree weather for half an hour.
Patient: But then I'll get pneumonia!
Doctor: Right. And *that*, we can cure.
Alex [email protected]