Assume a can opener
{{Short description|Mocking catchphrase}}
{{use mdy dates |date=June 2020}}
File:HK_開罐頭刀_Fork_sharp_can_opener_October_2018_IX2_02.jpg
{{Critique of political economy sidebar}}
"Assume a can opener" is a catchphrase used to mock economists and other theorists who base their conclusions on unjustified or oversimplified assumptions.{{cite book|last=Mankiw|first=N. Gregory|title=Macroeconomics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UT64rsFG1b0C&pg=PA238 |edition=7th|year=2010|publisher=Worth Publishers|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4292-1887-0|pages=238–239}}{{cite book|last=Kaletsky|first=Anatole|title=Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis|url=https://archive.org/details/capitalism40birt0000kale |url-access=registration|year=2010|publisher=Public Affairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group|location=New York|isbn=978-1-58648-871-0|page=[https://archive.org/details/capitalism40birt0000kale/page/156 156]|chapter=11 "There is no can opener"}}
The phrase derives from a joke which dates to at least 1970 and possibly originated with British economists.{{cite web |authorlink=Barry Popik |first=Barry |last=Popik |url=http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/assume_you_have_a_can_opener_economics_joke_about_opening_a_food_can |title='Assume you have a can opener' (economics joke about opening a food can) |work=The Big Apple |date=December 5, 2010 }} The first book mentioning it is likely Economics as a Science (1970) by Kenneth E. Boulding:Kenneth E. Boulding: Economics as a Science. McGraw-Hill, 1970, p. 101
There is a story that has been going around about a physicist, a chemist, and an economist who were stranded on a desert island with no implements and a can of food. The physicist and the chemist each devised an ingenious mechanism for getting the can open; the economist merely said, "Assume we have a can opener"!
The phrase was popularized in a 1981 book and has become sufficiently well known that many writers on economic topics use it as a catchphrase without further explanation.{{cite news|url=https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/first-assume-can-opener|title=First, Assume a Can Opener.....|last=Drum|first=Kevin|date=August 18, 2010|work=Mother Jones|accessdate=18 March 2013}}{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/11/monetary-policy-5|title=Monetary policy: First, assume a can-opener|date=November 28, 2012|newspaper=The Economist|accessdate=18 March 2013}}
Examples of usage
The joke and its application to economists were taken up in the 1981 book Paper Money by George Goodman (under the pseudonym "Adam Smith"),{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/books/bullish-about-the-system.html|title=Bullish about the system|last=Silk|first=Leonard|date=March 22, 1981|work=The New York Times|accessdate=March 18, 2013}} wherein he applied the story to the then-tendency of economists to assume that inflation would go away, and mocked the notion that economists are "the high priests of this esoteric mystery."{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PylGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6867,2372868 |title=Straight talk given on economic mess|date=March 28, 1981|work=Daily Times|accessdate=18 March 2013}} In contrast, he asks "why the economists are always wrong."{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/09/books/books-of-the-times-books-of-the-times.html|title=Books of the Times: Review of Paper Money by Adam Smith|last=Lehmann-Haupt|first=Christopher|date=March 9, 1981|work=The New York Times|accessdate=18 March 2013}} The phrase "assume a can opener" became "his nagging accusation against the deductive logic and analytical models of economists."{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/books/bullish-about-the-system.html|title=Bullish about the system|last=Silk|first=Leonard|date=March 22, 1981|work=The New York Times|accessdate=18 March 2013}}
US President Ronald Reagan told the joke to students and faculty at Purdue University on April 9, 1987, saying: "It seems an economist, a chemist, and an engineer were stranded on a desert island. And between them they had only a single can of beans, but no can opener. The engineer suggested that he climb a palm tree to a precise height, then throw the beans a precise distance at a precise angle. 'And when the can hits,' he said, 'it will split open.' 'No,' said the chemist. 'We'll leave the can in the sun until the heat causes the beans to expand so much the can will explode.' 'Nonsense,' said the economist. 'Using either method we'd lose too many beans. According to my plan, there will be no mess or fuss and not a single bean will be lost.' Well, the engineer and the chemist said, 'We're certainly willing to consider it. What's your plan?' And the economist answered, 'Well, first assume we have a can opener.'"{{Cite web|url=https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-students-and-faculty-purdue-university-west-lafayette-indiana|title = Remarks to Students and Faculty at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana}}
Italian finance minister Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa used the phrase in 2006 to illustrate that "Very often, when economists comment, they assume politics away."{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/24/business/24norris.html |title=High and low finance: Temptations of a minister of finance|last=Norris|first=Floyd|date=November 24, 2006|work=The New York Times|accessdate=18 March 2013}} It has been used in Australia to describe "a treasurer who has lost all touch with reality"{{cite news|url=https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccrann/swans-speech-a-laugh-a-minute/news-story/e1e0760a02faff73498fdab8a3502e00 |title=Swan's speech a laugh a minute|last=McCrann|first=Terry|author2=Herald-Sun|date=June 8, 2011|work=Herald Sun|accessdate=18 March 2013}}{{Opinion|date=January 2023}} and politicians "assuming away" the problem of getting a global greenhouse gas deal.{{cite news|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/doing-nothing-as-preferable-to-this/story-e6frg6zo-1226014408604 |title=Doing nothing is preferable to this|last=Carmody|first=Geoff|date=March 2, 2011|work=The Australian|accessdate=18 March 2013}}{{Opinion|date=January 2023}} It was used in India to describe American economic policy toward China.{{cite news|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-56134720110405|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170413071958/http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-56134720110405|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 13, 2017|title=Easy money will keep pressure on commodities|last=Kemp|first=John|date=April 5, 2011|work=Reuters India|accessdate=18 March 2013}}
It has been extended beyond economics to describe diplomats and negotiators working toward peace in the Middle East, who have been described as behaving "as if the conflict were just a big misunderstanding" and "[assuming] leaders who did not exist, as a way to conjure a preferable reality."{{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EE5AAAAAIBAJ&pg=4988,1702377&dq=assume-a-can-opener&hl=en|title=Peace Processing 101|last=May|first=Cliff|date=February 17, 2009|work=Gettysburg Times|accessdate=18 March 2013}}
See also
- {{annotated link|Existence theorem}}
- {{annotated link|Occam's razor}}
- {{annotated link|Spherical cow}}