Photo: Editor BA few weeks back, I upset many people when I posed the question “How are prostitutes and rice alike?” You’ll have to read that old post to understand why I would ask that particular question.
I was accused by those posting comments of being insensitive, misogynistic, and worse. The people criticizing me probably do not have a sense of humor, but just in case they do, here is the latest contest. Whoever comes up with the most creative answer (as judged by me and my crack team at the Becker Center) to the following question wins Freakonomics schwag:
What do economists have in common with garbage?
I know it is a horrible, unforgivable thing to objectify any human being (even an economist) by comparing him or her to an inanimate object. And to compare economists to garbage, well that obviously means that I think all economists are garbage, including myself. I’m sure that tears will be in the eyes of all of my colleagues when they hear how I have demeaned them with this insensitive comparison.
So let’s get the fun started.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
You don’t really notice them until things start to stink.
1. Nobody cries when either is buried in the ground.
2. When burned, both give off a horrible stench.
This doesnt equal that. LOL.
Garbage tends to accumulate when people consume casually and without thought of the future. Economists tend to accumulate to justify said pointless consumption.
a twist on the joke about girls from
“trash gets picked up”
Both are discarded by society, despite they could be really useful if they are used properly.
Wasting, which is inefficient, creates garbage. Economists aren’t fans of waste.
They both illustrate the past in great detail, but are all over the place with regard to the future.