| 
| Featured Products | 
|
|
 | Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
Cover
| 
|
 2008-08-25 - Computers
Computers, not abortion are the reason for the drop in crime in the 90's.
Think about it.
2008-08-25 - Rogue? What rogue?
Even if his research interests are cheating, corruption, and crime, Steven D. Levitt - MIT PhD, John Bates Clark Medal winner and father of four - makes a poor rogue. And it is sometimes hard to tell if he is an economist, statistician or sociologist. Other than those minor points, the title is fairly accurate.
Levitt is best known for his controversial argument that legalized abortion was largely responsible for the unexpected drop in US crime rates during the 1990s. But the book covers many other topics. Suspicious patterns of right and wrong answers on multiple choice tests are used to catch cheating (by teachers!). Consistent wins against the odds in crucial sumo bouts put the finger on colluding wrestlers. Real estate agents keep their own homes on the market longer, and sell them for higher prices, than they do with clients' homes. And a retired economist and college educated gang leader happen to keep unusually good records of their respective bagel and crack cocaine businesses.
Like Seinfeld, Freakonomics claims not to be about anything. This disclaimer, however, is somewhat undermined by the list of themes (conveniently highlighted in italics) in the introduction. Themes, moreover, stunning in their banality and vacuity. "Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life . . . The conventional wisdom is often wrong . . . Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes . . . Experts use their informational advantages to serve their own agenda . . . Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so . . . morality represents the way we would like the world to work, and economics represents the way it does work."
The authors liked the last line so much they could not resist repeating it throughout the book, even when what they are writing shows the exact opposite. Economic incentives can backfire if they weaken social and moral incentives - imposing a small fine on tardy parents at a day-care centre or paying donors for blood. And their explantion of incentives is gruesomely bad:
"If you toddle over to the hot stove and touch it, you burn a finger. But if you bring home straight A's from school, you get a new bike. If you are spotted picking your nose in class, you get ridiculed. But if you make the basketball team, you move up the social ladder." (Followed by three more pairs of totally unrelated opposites.)
Freakonomics is full of interesting stories, even if each finding could be (and has been) questioned individually. (After all, is there anything interesting in the social sciences that has not attracted criticism?) If anecdotes are all you want, the book is great. If you want anything more . . .
Originally published in the Economic Record, March 2006.
 2008-08-23 - Freakonomics
This is the most fascinating book I have read this year. I could not resist sending copies to my friends and relatives
 2008-08-13 - Good with flaws
For those that don't know, the basic idea behind this book is that it applies economics to weird questions that aren't normally thought of as economics, like:
- Are teachers cheating on standardized exams?
- Are sumo wrestlers rigging matches?
- Will real estate dealers get the best deal for clients? (Hint: they tend to get better prices when selling their own houses than when selling clients' houses).
His results are often intriguing, and this results in a very interesting and readable book. Even people who hated economics in college or swore they would never take it will enjoy this book.
However, it seems like the authors let their own political views bias their work in places. For example, one of their more controversial claims is that abortion led to decreases in crime because the people most likely to be aborted are also the people most likely to be criminals. While this may be intuitive, other economists, such as Dr. John Lott, have largely discredited this finding. One of the many problems with their finding is that the decrease in crime in the 90's (which the authors chalk up to abortion) was greatest among people born before Roe v. Wade, which is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if their analysis was correct.
Other than their occasional slips to political bias, this book is very well written and makes for a good read, and I recommend it overall.
2008-08-12 - DANGEROUS BOOK
This would be a dangerous book if Americans werent stupid and corrupt.
Its a page-flipper and definitely interesting.
|
| |
|
|
|
| 
|
