And you thought freakonomics was dead:
We use tools from experimental economics to address the age-old debate regarding who was a better singer in the band AC/DC. Our results suggest that (using wealth maximization as a measure of "better") listening to Brian Johnson (relative to listening to Bon Scott resulted in "better" outcomes in an ultimatum game. These results may have important implications for settling drunken music debates and evironmental design issues in organizations.
That's from the paper "On the Efficiency of AC/DC: Bon Scott vs. Brian Johnson by the University of Calgary's Robert Oxoby that is in the current issue (July 2009) of Economic Inquiries. Here's an unblocked version also available here.
And lest you think we economists are a bunch of tweed-wearing, bow-tie tightening, SAS-programming, wine-sipping, integral-solving, unassuming*, humorless geeks, here's a bit from the acknowledgements in the paper.
We also thank a delayed Air Canada flight and a bar in the Vancouver airport for providing the time, space, and resources necessary to pursue this research. All errors are attributable to Air Canada.
Take a chance while you've still got the choice. Cheers, Dr. Oxoby.
*Show me an economist who is truly unassuming and I'll show you an out-of work economist.