Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
Economics is not widely considered to be one of the sexier sciences. The annual Nobel Prize winner in that field never receives as much publicity as his or her compatriots in peace, literature, or physics. But if such slights are based on the notion that economics is dull, or that economists are concerned only with finance itself, Steven D. Levitt will change some minds. In Freakonomics (written with Stephen J. Dubner), Levitt argues that many apparent mysteries of everyday life don't need to be so mysterious: they could be illuminated and made even more fascinating by asking the right questions and drawing connections. For example, Levitt traces the drop in violent crime rates to a drop in violent criminals and, digging further, to the Roe v. Wade decision that preempted the existence of some people who would be born to poverty and hardship. Elsewhere, by analyzing data gathered from inner-city Chicago drug-dealing gangs, Levitt outlines a corporate structure much like McDonald's, where the top bosses make great money while scores of underlings make something below minimum wage. And in a section that may alarm or relieve worried parents, Levitt argues that parenting methods don't really matter much and that a backyard swimming pool is much more dangerous than a gun. These enlightening chapters are separated by effusive passages from Dubner's 2003 profile of Levitt in The New York Times Magazine, which led to the book being written. In a book filled with bold logic, such back-patting veers Freakonomics, however briefly, away from what Levitt actually has to say. Although maybe there's a good economic reason for that too, and we're just not getting it yet. --John Moe Book Description
Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime? These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much heralded scholar who studies the stuff and riddles of everyday life -- from cheating and crime to sports and child rearing -- and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. He usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: freakonomics. Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives -- how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they set out to explore the hidden side of ... well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Ku Klux Klan. What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and -- if the right questions are asked -- is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter. Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world. Download Description
"Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime? These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much heralded scholar who studies the stuff and riddles of everyday life -- from cheating and crime to sports and child rearing -- and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. He usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: freakonomics. Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives -- how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they set out to explore the hidden side of ... well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Ku Klux Klan. What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and -- if the right questions are asked -- is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter. Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world. " |
Customer Reviews
1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
 Just Wild Ideas and Fiction Here - Skip it, Sep 6, 2023
The author says there is a correlation that Roe v. Wade helped reduce the number of unwanted children who typically commit violent crimes, therefore justifying the millions of aborted babies. What?
Levitt really lost me when he argued that parenting methods don't really matter much. He fails to see any correlation that the latchkey kids from the go-go 80's recognized they didn't want to repeat that empty materialism lifestyle. He didn't recognize the importance of having two parents that raise the children, especially fathers that stick around for the long haul. These latchkey kids are now creating families with a dad, a stay-at-home mom, and kids.
This short book proves anyone can produce hype and a product to sell, I'd skip it.
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
 Everyday application of "rational man" assumption, Sep 6, 2023
Interesting demonstration of two basic points that economists have argued for many years: First, when there appear to be clear pay-offs for certain actions, people will engage in those actions. Second, the more data you have the more likely it is you can separate truth from fiction.
Levitt is clearly a smart, imaginative guy, who has a knack for asking good questions and then working the data to prove that his question was worth asking. However, there is a certain hubris in some of his pronouncements, such as, the decline in crime was due to the legalization of abortion. However, I do like the meta message and his dig at experts who interpret data in a way to create problems that they can continue to be paid to study. See point #1 above. Advocates of global warming, global cooling, global starvation, global extinction, and other forms of Malthusian despair... please take note!
I was a bit disappointed with the depth of the book given the hype. It reads more like a 20 page New Yorker article crammed into a 200 page book. Caveat emptor!!
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
 Fascinating!!!, Sep 5, 2023
I believe a true maek of a genius is the ability to explain the most complex theories to a simple layman. This book does exactly that. It is amazing how the authors can translate complex economic theory into commonday examples and applications. If you want insight into how to breakaway from the conventional wisdom or how to make sense of the often craziness in this world. This is the book.
The cons though, is that it hardly explains anything about economics, there is no unifying topic/theme in the book and it makes some outlandish and often times offensive theories.
But as these three things were some of the main intents of the book, it is certainly forgiveable.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
A thought-provoking teaser!, Sep 4, 2023
While I agree with some of the previous reviewers that more detail would have been enjoyable, I take exception to that being the reason for lowering their rating of the book. I mean, c'mon, the book (including bibliography and index) is less than 250 pages long - how much detail did you expect? I believe the authors' intent was to awaken the curiosity of people who accept "conventional wisdom" as the last word on social issues and I think they did a marvelous job of it. As a "question everything" advocate, I found the book entertaining and I look forward to tracking down some of the papers and books referenced so that I can make my own determinations. In short, it's a quick, witty and interesting read - go for it!
9 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
 Overlysimplified Analyses of "Social Myths", Sep 3, 2023
Too often articles or books written by economists are couched in arcane verbiage and statistics. Levitt avoids this, and the result is a very interesting, thought-provoking review of several social myths. Unfortunately, it is also greatly over-simplified and in error on key points.
He begins by summarizing the status of crime in the mid-1990's - high, and projected to go much higher with the coming "teenager boom." Instead, it began a long, steep decline. The most common "explanations" were "roaring economy," "gun control," and "innovative policing." Levitt then goes on to summarize data that attempt to refute them all. For example, a good economy might decrease economic crimes, but why did violent crimes drop even more? Further, why didn't crime also fall during the booming '60s? As for innovative policing, Levitt reports that the declines began prior to this initiative, and that its prime contribution was through adding policeman (accounting for about 10% of the drop). Similarly he refutes the logic for crediting increased rights of citizens to carry guns, and gun buy-backs, while the drop in crack prices is credited with 15% of the drop.
Levitt then reports the results of Romania's strong anti-abortion posture in the 60s - a large contingent of resented children, many of whom became serious problems when they grew up. Finally, the "shocker" - Levitt presents various data that provide a solid case for concluding that the drop in crime was primarily due to Roe v. Wade making abortions available to lower-income women - many of whom would have had problems raising the unwanted children. Another important factor was the greatly increased incarceration rate - accounting for about 1/3 of the decline.
ON THE OTHER HAND, in 1993 there were 1,927 murders in NYC, and only 1,181 - the year after significant police reforms were introduced by Commissioner Bratton. In 2003, there were 596 - a level that had not been reached since the early 1960's. The rapidity of this drop cannot possibly be explained by increased abortions! Additional evidence is provided by reviewing murder rates by age groupings (per Professor James Q. Wilson). In the late 1990's, roughly a quarter-century after Roe, the murder rate was falling for offenders aged twenty-six and older-a class of offenders much too old to have been affected by Roe one way or the other. As for the youngest offenders, those between sixteen and twenty, their murder rate had jumped up in the early 1990's, probably because of involvement in the crack cocaine trade. Again, no Roe effect. Finally, Freakonomics' claim that increases in police staffing helped is countered by the fact that NYPD staff DECREASED post 9/11, while the murder rate has continued to fall.
Other topics addressed by Levitt include documenting cheating associated with "high-stakes" (eg. potential job loss, raises, school closure) pupil testing (estimated at about 5% in Chicago Public Schools), documenting and explaining the lack of drug traffic profits for most of those involved (rakeoffs by those at higher levels). Another interesting and useful topic covered is how society often misplaces efforts into low-payoff efforts to protect children (eg. child-resistant packaging, flame-retardant pajamas, avoiding being seated near front-seat airbags, and keeping their children out of homes with guns), instead of the much higher-payoff of keeping children away from homes with swimming pools.
Throughout the book, Levitt carefully summarizes supporting data, while also informing readers of how similar data are often misused. His "bottom-line," so to speak, is for the reader to become more aware of the effect of incentives, and the frequent lack of factual bases for conventional thinking.
Another area where the authors go astray is in reporting achievement similarity between African-American and Caucasion children upon entering school - after controlling for key background variables. The inference is that low African-American pupil achievement in subsequent grades is simply the result of poor schools. Reality, however, is not so simple. While Levitt does point out that blacks exhibit serious self-defeating behaviors in school, he also fails to report that even in schools with strict management of behavior and very strong black parental support, a racial achievement gap does develop and grow over the years. (This result is similar to the finding that U.S. pupils generally score well in early-grade international comparisons, but then steadily deteriorate vs. their counterparts as they advance through the grades.)
An interesting, though questionable, two-hour read. However, in addition to the questionable assertions already pointed out, I wish that it had also covered the evidence regarding the linkages between education expenditures and pupil achievement (none), and healthcare spending vs. patient outcomes (negative - the more errors a hospital makes, the greater its reimbursement) - far too much money is wasted in these areas. (See John Wennberg's data on variations in Medicare spending, Hanushek's on relationships between class size and pupil achievement.) On the other hand, they'd probably get those wrong also!
|
Cart | 
Based on 442 reviews.