Steven D. Levitt

If you liked their first book, you'll like this one too. More usages of "economics" in odd, human situations, like prostitution and terrorism, etc.

Of course, is it economics if it isn't about the economy? If it's about human behavior, isn't it something different? "Psychology/sociology with mathematics and statistics"? "Microeconomics"? (p. 211). Or "freakonomics"? But what if it isn't freaky? Just normal?

Anyway, I don't always agree with the idea that numbers can tell us everything about show more human beings. Numbers are rational and human beings are often irrational. And sometimes even the biases of the author show. As good liberals, the authors have to say women are discriminated against, even in pay (pp. 20-22). (Of course, they make the simple economic mistake of adding up male salaries and adding up female salaries and dividing by workers.) But then they admit later that most women have different priorities than men which accounts for most, if not all of the supposed pay gap (pp. 43-46).

But, eye-openingly, is their chapter on global warming (chap. 5). They accept that the globe is warming and that it is probably warming partially because of human actions. Okay. But they point out that humans only contribute about 2% of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And that requiring the US and the developed world to stop carboning and letting developing nations (like China and India) to keep polluting is unfair and wouldn't work. And getting everyone to quit carbon would not be fair to the nations that haven't had the chance to develop yet is unfair and wouldn't work. They point out that volcanoes pollute more. And lower the temperature. So the authors don't really buy the proposals most people have to "fix" the issue. The ideas, like Gore's (or in 2020, the Green New Deal) would cost quadrillions of dollars. And probably wouldn't work. They offer a bunch of relatively cheap solutions to global warming, all of which cost less than $1 billion and would be pretty easy to do. A good chapter.

The epilogue on monkeys was cute and interesting. Notes and index. show less

This book begins and ends with a comment about "unifying themes" and discards any need for them. Subsequently a series of unrelated curiosities are subjected to economic analysis, yielding interesting and indeed boggling results. The most controversial analysis reveals the impact of Roe v. Wade on the crime rate. The economic interest involved in Sumo wrestlers who take a dive we can easily extrapolate to other sports arenas -- World Cup soccer comes to my mind. I especially applaud Levitt's show more debunking of "experts," child psychologists, and marketeers who hawk their products while shamelessly twanging our heartstrings. I know it's easy to cheer for those we agree with, but this guy does his regression analysis in an extremely readable way, and analyzes things I'd never thought much about, like drug dealer board rooms. I suspect co-author Dubner's contribution has been to supply some kind of unifying thread anyway, via questions like "What do schoolteachers and Sumo wrestlers have in common?" The final one-two punch surprise ending, where Levitt shamelessly abandons all pretense of scholarship for showmanship, seems to have Dubner's thumbs all over it. But it still packs a wallop. Steven D. Levitt's voice is a clarion tenor in the swelling chorus of bahumbuggery. show less

I've had this book on my shelves for ages, and I finally got around to reading it after my husband picked it up to see what it was all about. Who knew economics could be so fascinating? The book is clear and easy to read, presenting a random assortment of concepts, facts, and figures based around Levitt's own personal research to answer questions like "What do sumo wrestlers and grade-school teachers have in common?". You'd be shocked at the connection.

The most interesting (and show more controversial) chapters in the book dealt with Levitt's research and analysis on the substantial reduction in crime in major American cities that occurred in direct correlation with the legalization of abortion. He says some shocking things, but the evidence he presents is pretty clear... anyway, I'll leave it to you to read the book and see what he says. The least interesting chapters, for me, came at the end of the book when he did some analysis on popular names, but I think that's because my sister and I were discussing something similar recently and came to similar conclusions (and neither of us are economists).

On the whole, a very quick and fascinating read. show less

Freakonomics was a blast to read, both entertaining and thought provoking. The authors (an economist and a journalist) sift through a ton of data and come up with some interesting relationships. For instance, they say Roe v Wade has a lot to do with the decline of crime in the early 1990s. Prior to Roe v Wade, wealthier and better educated women were able to get abortions. Once abortion became legal, poor, uneducated, unmarried women were able to get abortions. Having fewer children born to show more mothers who don't want them and can't properly care for them translates to fewer criminals being born and thus a lower crime rate. The authors say that other factors also contributed to lower crime rates (more police, more prisons), but Roe v Wade is the most significant explanation. Some of their conclusions seem a bit wild but everything is backed up with data. If you liked Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point, you'll like Freakonomics. show less