What do you think?
Rate this book
賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿: 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賷賵賲賷丞
賷乇鬲亘胤 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賮賶 兀匕賴丕賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻貙 廿賳 賱賲 賷賰賳 噩賲賷毓賴賲貙 亘丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賯丿丞 賲孬賱 丕賱亘賵乇氐丞 賵爻賵賯 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱鬲噩丕乇丞 丕賱丿賵賱賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕 賲賳 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 丕賱賲亘賴賲丞貙 賰賲丕 兀賳 丕賱賰孬賷乇 兀賷囟丕 賷毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 毓丕賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賴賵 卮禺氐 鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 毓賱賲 睾丕賷丞 賮賶 丕賱鬲毓賯賷丿 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 賮賴賲賴. 鬲乇賶 賴賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 氐丨賷丨丞責
賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷孬亘鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 禺胤兀 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 賮賴賵 賷賵囟丨 亘賲賳鬲賴賶 丕賱亘爻丕胤丞 賵亘胤乇賷賯丞 賲乇丨丞 噩丿丕 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 鬲卮乇丨 賳賮爻賴丕 賵匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 卮乇丨賴 丕賱賵丕賮賶貙 賵丕賱亘爻賷胤 賮賶 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲貙 賱賱胤乇賯 丕賱鬲賶 賷賮賰乇 亘賴丕 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賲乇 毓賱賷賳丕 賷賵賲賷丕 賴賶 兀賰亘乇 賲丕 賷賵囟丨 匕賱賰: 兀賱丕 賷爻鬲噩賷亘 丕賱賳丕爻 賱賲賳 賷丨賮夭賴賲責 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賷爻鬲噩賷亘賵賳 (賴匕賴 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 兀賴賲 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿) 賵毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賴噩 賷亘丨乇 亘賳丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 爻鬲賷賮賳 賱丕賳丿夭亘乇噩 賮賶 賰賱 賲丕 賴賵 賲兀賱賵賮 賱丿賷賳丕 賵賷噩毓賱賳丕 賳賳馗乇 廿賱賷賴 亘胤乇賷賯丞 睾賷乇 鬲賯賱賷丿賷丞 賵賷卮乇丨 賱賳丕 賰賱 賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘卮賰賱 賯氐氐賶 兀賰孬乇 賲賳賴 鬲毓賱賷賲賶 禺賱丕賱 賮氐賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱乇丕卅毓.
賮賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷孬亘鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 禺胤兀 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 賮賴賵 賷賵囟丨 亘賲賳鬲賴賶 丕賱亘爻丕胤丞 賵亘胤乇賷賯丞 賲乇丨丞 噩丿丕 賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 鬲卮乇丨 賳賮爻賴丕 賵匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 卮乇丨賴 丕賱賵丕賮賶貙 賵丕賱亘爻賷胤 賮賶 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲貙 賱賱胤乇賯 丕賱鬲賶 賷賮賰乇 亘賴丕 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵賰賷賮 兀賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱鬲賶 鬲賲乇 毓賱賷賳丕 賷賵賲賷丕 賴賶 兀賰亘乇 賲丕 賷賵囟丨 匕賱賰: 兀賱丕 賷爻鬲噩賷亘 丕賱賳丕爻 賱賲賳 賷丨賮夭賴賲責 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賷爻鬲噩賷亘賵賳 (賴匕賴 賵丕丨丿丞 賲賳 兀賴賲 賯賵丕毓丿 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿) 賵毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賳賴噩 賷亘丨乇 亘賳丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮 爻鬲賷賮賳 賱丕賳丿夭亘乇噩 賮賶 賰賱 賲丕 賴賵 賲兀賱賵賮 賱丿賷賳丕 賵賷噩毓賱賳丕 賳賳馗乇 廿賱賷賴 亘胤乇賷賯丞 睾賷乇 鬲賯賱賷丿賷丞 賵賷卮乇丨 賱賳丕 賰賱 賲賮丕賴賷賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘卮賰賱 賯氐氐賶 兀賰孬乇 賲賳賴 鬲毓賱賷賲賶 禺賱丕賱 賮氐賵賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱乇丕卅毓.
344 pages
First published January 1, 1993
427 people are currently reading
9148 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews
January 31, 2012
I wasn't going to bother commenting on this book but in regard to some of the other comments I feel I must. Those that rated this book a 1 or 2 and then jumped into politically-motivated negative comments - shame on you. You are intellectually dishonest to yourselves and those that read these reviews. There is nothing in this book that pushes a political agenda unlike MOST of the more recent psuedo-economics books being published. What IS presented by Landsburg are sound, economic analysis and discussion. Nothing more and nothing less. And they stand the test of time.
I don't always agree with him in my heart, BUT my brain has a hard time arguing the ideas he puts forward. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Read the book and then think about what is in it. Put some of the techniques he teaches into looking at the problems we see in today's economy.
It is a sad thing that when logic does not match someone's view of the world that they then have to start hurling insults and result to name calling rather than take a hard look at the facts in front of them.
I don't always agree with him in my heart, BUT my brain has a hard time arguing the ideas he puts forward. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Read the book and then think about what is in it. Put some of the techniques he teaches into looking at the problems we see in today's economy.
It is a sad thing that when logic does not match someone's view of the world that they then have to start hurling insults and result to name calling rather than take a hard look at the facts in front of them.
March 27, 2007
Abysmal, condescending, illogical and mean-spirited book on social economics. Absolutely no sources named for "statistics". The author seems to think that a significant number of people go to the movies solely to eat popcorn and that the benefits of recycling are outweighed by the fact that he doesn't feel like doing it.
November 6, 2010
毓丕丿丞賸 賲丕 賷爻毓賶 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賱賶 丕孬亘丕鬲 賮乇囟賷丕鬲賴 亘丕賱乇爻賵賲 丕賱亘賷丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賯丿賾丞 .. 賱賰賳 丕賱丕賲乇 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱匕賷 賷賯丿賲 氐賵乇 賲噩丕夭賷丞 賵賯氐氐 賯氐賷乇丞 賵丕囟丨丞 賵亘爻賷胤丞 丕賱賮賴賲 貙 賵賯乇賷亘丞 亘丕賱賵丕賯毓. .
賰賱 賮氐賱 賲賳 賮氐賵賱賴 乇丨賱丞 賱丨賱 賱睾夭 賲丕 賷爻鬲孬賷乇賰 賵賷爻丕毓丿賰 毓賱賶 賮賴賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賳馗乇丞 毓丕賱賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 匕賰賷 賵馗乇賷賮 ..
賮賷禺賱賯 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲賴 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕爻鬲賮賴丕賲丕鬲 - 丨鬲賶 丕賳 賰賳鬲 賱賲 兀鬲賮賯 賲毓賴 賮賷 亘毓囟 鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 氐購丿賲鬲 賵鬲毓噩亘賾鬲購 賲賳賴丕 -貙 賱賰賳 賱丕亘兀爻 ..賮賰賲 賴賵 乇丕卅毓 兀賳 鬲爻鬲賰卮賮 丌乇丕亍 噩丿賷丿丞貙睾賷乇 鬲賯賱賷丿賷丞 賵賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賲丕 賳丿乇購爻賴 賮賷 兀爻丕爻賷丕鬲 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿
賲賳 賮氐賵賱賴 :
-爻乇 丕乇鬲賮丕毓 孬賲賳 賰賷爻 丕賱賮卮丕乇 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賳賲丕 賵禺胤兀 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 丕賱亘丿賷賴賷丞
-賲鬲賶 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱亘胤丕賱丞 賮賷 氐丕賱丨賰
-丕賱胤亘 賵丕賱丨賱賵賶 賵丕賱賯胤丕乇丕鬲 賵丕賱卮乇乇
- 禺乇丕賮丞 丕賱毓噩夭 丕賱丨賰賵賲賷
-賴賱 賰丕賳 丌賷賳卮鬲賷賳 兀賴賱丕賸 賱賱孬賯丞責
- 賱賲丕匕丕 賱賲 兀賰購賳 賷賵賲賸丕 賲賳 丨購賲丕丞 丕賱亘賷卅丞 責
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓!
賰賱 賮氐賱 賲賳 賮氐賵賱賴 乇丨賱丞 賱丨賱 賱睾夭 賲丕 賷爻鬲孬賷乇賰 賵賷爻丕毓丿賰 毓賱賶 賮賴賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賳馗乇丞 毓丕賱賲 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 匕賰賷 賵馗乇賷賮 ..
賮賷禺賱賯 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲賴 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丕爻鬲賮賴丕賲丕鬲 - 丨鬲賶 丕賳 賰賳鬲 賱賲 兀鬲賮賯 賲毓賴 賮賷 亘毓囟 鬲丨賱賷賱丕鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 氐購丿賲鬲 賵鬲毓噩亘賾鬲購 賲賳賴丕 -貙 賱賰賳 賱丕亘兀爻 ..賮賰賲 賴賵 乇丕卅毓 兀賳 鬲爻鬲賰卮賮 丌乇丕亍 噩丿賷丿丞貙睾賷乇 鬲賯賱賷丿賷丞 賵賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賲丕 賳丿乇購爻賴 賮賷 兀爻丕爻賷丕鬲 丕賱廿賯鬲氐丕丿
賲賳 賮氐賵賱賴 :
-爻乇 丕乇鬲賮丕毓 孬賲賳 賰賷爻 丕賱賮卮丕乇 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賳賲丕 賵禺胤兀 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 丕賱亘丿賷賴賷丞
-賲鬲賶 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱亘胤丕賱丞 賮賷 氐丕賱丨賰
-丕賱胤亘 賵丕賱丨賱賵賶 賵丕賱賯胤丕乇丕鬲 賵丕賱卮乇乇
- 禺乇丕賮丞 丕賱毓噩夭 丕賱丨賰賵賲賷
-賴賱 賰丕賳 丌賷賳卮鬲賷賳 兀賴賱丕賸 賱賱孬賯丞責
- 賱賲丕匕丕 賱賲 兀賰購賳 賷賵賲賸丕 賲賳 丨購賲丕丞 丕賱亘賷卅丞 責
賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓!
August 7, 2013
賱賲丕匕丕 兀丿賶 爻賳 賯丕賳賵賳 廿乇鬲丿丕亍 丨夭丕賲 丕賱兀賲丕賳 廿賱賶 夭賷丕丿丞 賳爻亘丞 丨賵丕丿孬 丕賱爻賷丕乇丕鬲責
賱賲丕匕丕 鬲亘丕毓 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱爻賱毓 亘爻毓乇 佗.侃侃 丿賵賱丕乇 賮賷 丨賷賳 賱丕 賷亘丕毓 爻賵賶 丕賱賯賱賷賱 噩丿賸丕 亘爻毓乇 伲 丿賵賱丕乇丕鬲責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷賮囟賱 丕賱賳丕爻 卮乇丕亍 丕賱賴丿丕賷丕 亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 兀賳 賷鬲賴丕丿賵丕 亘丕賱賲丕賱責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷賯丿賲 丕賱亘丕卅毓 丕賱鬲禺賮賷囟丕鬲 賱賱賰亘丕乇 賮賷 丕賱爻賳 -乇睾賲 鬲賲鬲毓賴賲 亘賲爻鬲賵賶 賲毓賷卮賷 賲乇鬲賮毓 賮賷 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤-貙 賵賷乇賮囟 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 兀賳 賷禺賮囟 爻毓乇 兀賷 爻賱毓丞 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賷 卮丕亘賸丕責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷賰賵賳 爻毓乇 賰賷爻 丕賱賮卮丕乇 賲乇鬲賮毓賸丕 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賳賲丕 賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘爻毓乇賴 禺丕乇噩賴丕責
賷噩賷亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賲鬲毓 毓賱賶 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賱睾丕夭 -賵睾賷乇賴丕- 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲丿賮毓賰 亘毓丿 丕賱丕賳鬲賴丕亍 賲賳 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 廿賱賶 賲爻丕亍賱丞 賰賱 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賷胤 亘賰 賵賱賲 鬲鬲賵賯賮 賷賵賲賸丕 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷賴丕!
賷賯賵賱 爻鬲賷賮賳 賱丕賳丿爻亘賷乇噩 -賲丐賱賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘: 兀賯氐賶 賲丕 賷鬲賲賳丕賴 毓丕賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賱賷爻 兀賳 賷睾賷乇 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賱 兀賳 賷賮賴賲賴.
賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷爻 爻賵賶 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱賮賴賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲
賱賲丕匕丕 鬲亘丕毓 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱爻賱毓 亘爻毓乇 佗.侃侃 丿賵賱丕乇 賮賷 丨賷賳 賱丕 賷亘丕毓 爻賵賶 丕賱賯賱賷賱 噩丿賸丕 亘爻毓乇 伲 丿賵賱丕乇丕鬲責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷賮囟賱 丕賱賳丕爻 卮乇丕亍 丕賱賴丿丕賷丕 亘丿賱丕賸 賲賳 兀賳 賷鬲賴丕丿賵丕 亘丕賱賲丕賱責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷賯丿賲 丕賱亘丕卅毓 丕賱鬲禺賮賷囟丕鬲 賱賱賰亘丕乇 賮賷 丕賱爻賳 -乇睾賲 鬲賲鬲毓賴賲 亘賲爻鬲賵賶 賲毓賷卮賷 賲乇鬲賮毓 賮賷 丕賱賲鬲賵爻胤-貙 賵賷乇賮囟 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 兀賳 賷禺賮囟 爻毓乇 兀賷 爻賱毓丞 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賲卮鬲乇賷 卮丕亘賸丕責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷賰賵賳 爻毓乇 賰賷爻 丕賱賮卮丕乇 賲乇鬲賮毓賸丕 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賳賲丕 賲賯丕乇賳丞 亘爻毓乇賴 禺丕乇噩賴丕責
賷噩賷亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲賲鬲毓 毓賱賶 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賱睾丕夭 -賵睾賷乇賴丕- 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲丿賮毓賰 亘毓丿 丕賱丕賳鬲賴丕亍 賲賳 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 廿賱賶 賲爻丕亍賱丞 賰賱 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱氐睾賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨賷胤 亘賰 賵賱賲 鬲鬲賵賯賮 賷賵賲賸丕 賱賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賮賷賴丕!
賷賯賵賱 爻鬲賷賮賳 賱丕賳丿爻亘賷乇噩 -賲丐賱賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘: 兀賯氐賶 賲丕 賷鬲賲賳丕賴 毓丕賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賱賷爻 兀賳 賷睾賷乇 丕賱毓丕賱賲 亘賱 兀賳 賷賮賴賲賴.
賵賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷爻 爻賵賶 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱賮賴賲 丕賱毓丕賱賲
March 2, 2008
I have to give this book a three since I did learn something, although I really hold it in remarkable contempt. For the first time ever while reading an economics book, I felt like I understood the contempt held for the 'dismal science'.
I feel like delving into this a bit. The author makes a claim that taxes don't add value to a society, because what you take from Peter, you pay to Paul, and in a sense of absolute value, it is true. If I have a million millionaires, who each earn 10 million a year, and I tax 1 million from them and give it to the poor, I have not made my society richer in absolute monetary terms, but this completely ignores one of his other insightful claims.
In a previous example, when discussing logging, he claimed that the actual economic benefit of cutting down trees, has to not only take into consideration the positive economic impact for the company, loggers, etc., but it also must factor in the emotional cost to the environmentalist who is upset about loosing said trees. Critically, and I must give credit where credit is due, the economist in question recognizes that labour is not valuable in and of itself, but the fruits of said labour are. So if I work my ass off and buy an Ipod, it is my enjoyment out of the purchase which is the true reward...this is what I work for. Hopefully, what I spend my money on brings me some form of satisfaction.
Now this is critical because this explains the real monetary value of walking along the beach. Non-economists might gag that this activity has a value, but it does. I could have done anything with my time, like work, but I chose to spend it in this particular manner, and that is worth something. So if enjoying nature means something, there could theoretically be a dollar value attached. In fact, there often is. My friend Judy owns a fat pad in Marin county (which she got for a song from a person shortly thereafter indited for international drug smuggling...but that story is for another time :-) Anyway, you would be hard pressed to find someone who loves nature more...for walking in it...swimming in it...and merely knowing it exists. But it does have a value. I don't know the number, but I would imagine that if a suitably ludicrous offer was made for 40 acres in Marin, that love of nature could be quantified. This insight, the fact that value must be attached, as hard as it may be, to non nuts-and-bolts numbers is true....and valuable...and then completely ignored as evident by the aforementioned millionaires example.
So lets look at those folk again. Let us say, that we tax the million millionaires earning 10 million dollars a year at 100,000 dollars annually. In actual dollar transfers, no one is richer or poorer. The big wage earners have lost 1% of their salary, and now there are 100,000,000,000 floating about to disperse to the poor. So lets play with my imaginary (but inspired from the book example) and up this tax to 5%, leaving our society, in the form of taxation from these sole 1 million millionaires 500 BILLION dollars to play with. Now, recognizing the principle of the need to weigh emotional benefits and costs with any economic plan, (accepting the complete dollar exchange equality) 1 million people have suffered. Now, how much they have suffered is hard to quantify. They have been taxed at 5%, and that is real. There may be an extra cottage in Aspen un-purchased, a Mazzerati (sp) undriven, or some classy couture unworn. Now, to say that the tax generated no value is to assume that the net emotional worth/perception of the 500 Billion to the poor is equal to the ennui suffered from the mega-wealthy, knowing that they have had a small percentage of their earnings accosted. So what emotive benefits do our poor people gain from this. That list is extensive, so how about we focus on the emotive benefit of what the wealthy gain from giving.
While some might wish they had an extra 10 Ferragamo shoes to wear, I am guessing others feel happy that the poor are better off. If nothing else, seeing poor people beg around you does have a tendency to be a wee bit depressing. Oh yeah, and when people are less desperate, they tend to not commit crimes...a portion of which maybe (just maybe) directed at the aforementioned wealthy....so maybe rich people might enjoy not living with constant security and behind gated fences....they may like having competent servants....rich people do have to interact with poor people, even if the later only serve them, and maybe they would like them to be able to do simple sums (only in terms of effective service mind you :-)...which they are likely to learn in school. Oh...and health care...poor people can spread infectious diseases...but not so likely if they have health care and last I checked rich people don't like dysentery either....and rich people might like the emotional value of living in a stable society unlikely to suffer from a despotic overthrow....also less likely in a country with people not at the mere level of starvation. Still think taxes don't produce anything Mr Economist? And I haven't even gotten to the benefits the poor might feel not living in the gutter.
I feel like delving into this a bit. The author makes a claim that taxes don't add value to a society, because what you take from Peter, you pay to Paul, and in a sense of absolute value, it is true. If I have a million millionaires, who each earn 10 million a year, and I tax 1 million from them and give it to the poor, I have not made my society richer in absolute monetary terms, but this completely ignores one of his other insightful claims.
In a previous example, when discussing logging, he claimed that the actual economic benefit of cutting down trees, has to not only take into consideration the positive economic impact for the company, loggers, etc., but it also must factor in the emotional cost to the environmentalist who is upset about loosing said trees. Critically, and I must give credit where credit is due, the economist in question recognizes that labour is not valuable in and of itself, but the fruits of said labour are. So if I work my ass off and buy an Ipod, it is my enjoyment out of the purchase which is the true reward...this is what I work for. Hopefully, what I spend my money on brings me some form of satisfaction.
Now this is critical because this explains the real monetary value of walking along the beach. Non-economists might gag that this activity has a value, but it does. I could have done anything with my time, like work, but I chose to spend it in this particular manner, and that is worth something. So if enjoying nature means something, there could theoretically be a dollar value attached. In fact, there often is. My friend Judy owns a fat pad in Marin county (which she got for a song from a person shortly thereafter indited for international drug smuggling...but that story is for another time :-) Anyway, you would be hard pressed to find someone who loves nature more...for walking in it...swimming in it...and merely knowing it exists. But it does have a value. I don't know the number, but I would imagine that if a suitably ludicrous offer was made for 40 acres in Marin, that love of nature could be quantified. This insight, the fact that value must be attached, as hard as it may be, to non nuts-and-bolts numbers is true....and valuable...and then completely ignored as evident by the aforementioned millionaires example.
So lets look at those folk again. Let us say, that we tax the million millionaires earning 10 million dollars a year at 100,000 dollars annually. In actual dollar transfers, no one is richer or poorer. The big wage earners have lost 1% of their salary, and now there are 100,000,000,000 floating about to disperse to the poor. So lets play with my imaginary (but inspired from the book example) and up this tax to 5%, leaving our society, in the form of taxation from these sole 1 million millionaires 500 BILLION dollars to play with. Now, recognizing the principle of the need to weigh emotional benefits and costs with any economic plan, (accepting the complete dollar exchange equality) 1 million people have suffered. Now, how much they have suffered is hard to quantify. They have been taxed at 5%, and that is real. There may be an extra cottage in Aspen un-purchased, a Mazzerati (sp) undriven, or some classy couture unworn. Now, to say that the tax generated no value is to assume that the net emotional worth/perception of the 500 Billion to the poor is equal to the ennui suffered from the mega-wealthy, knowing that they have had a small percentage of their earnings accosted. So what emotive benefits do our poor people gain from this. That list is extensive, so how about we focus on the emotive benefit of what the wealthy gain from giving.
While some might wish they had an extra 10 Ferragamo shoes to wear, I am guessing others feel happy that the poor are better off. If nothing else, seeing poor people beg around you does have a tendency to be a wee bit depressing. Oh yeah, and when people are less desperate, they tend to not commit crimes...a portion of which maybe (just maybe) directed at the aforementioned wealthy....so maybe rich people might enjoy not living with constant security and behind gated fences....they may like having competent servants....rich people do have to interact with poor people, even if the later only serve them, and maybe they would like them to be able to do simple sums (only in terms of effective service mind you :-)...which they are likely to learn in school. Oh...and health care...poor people can spread infectious diseases...but not so likely if they have health care and last I checked rich people don't like dysentery either....and rich people might like the emotional value of living in a stable society unlikely to suffer from a despotic overthrow....also less likely in a country with people not at the mere level of starvation. Still think taxes don't produce anything Mr Economist? And I haven't even gotten to the benefits the poor might feel not living in the gutter.
May 21, 2017
賰賵賷爻 噩丿丕 賮賷 賲噩賲賱賴貙 亘毓囟 丕賱賮氐賵賱 賮囟賱鬲 氐毓亘丞 乇睾賲 賲丨丕賵賱丕鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賱噩毓賱賴丕 亘爻賷胤丞
July 26, 2020
I don't usually review books for the benefit of others. If I do, I usually make a brief statement for me to remember what I felt at a later time. But for those who want to read this book, which has been touted as the predecessor of "Freakonomics", or as a layman's introduction to economics, I have to say that it has been the worst book I've read in a long time.
I am sure that Professor Landsburg is knowledgeable in several fields, one of them being economics, but he is surely lacking information in many others. Throughout the book he makes use of similes, analogies and other devices to explain economic theory -- or as he puts it, "how an economist sees the world." But this view often comes off as illogical, simplistic or, in the worst essays, immoral and despicable. He states that economics is a science devoid of feelings or personal preferences. It's true and no one can say otherwise. But it is his applications of economic theory toward political, social or scientific problems that reveal glaring omissions and scary rhetoric.
He helped me learn some economic theory, especially in the second half of the book, but he has also planted some dubious arguments and social theories. When it comes to the discussion of societal problems, he presents economical solutions as "common sense" but denies the reader any counter-arguments or reasons as to why they have not been implemented.
One of these cases is his view of judicial settlements. He states that a judge settling a case between buying mining safety equipment and letting the workers work without it does not matter. Either way the economic costs are the same. Workers without safety equipment will be compensated with higher wages, and the rate of mining accidents will stay the same because they're being more careful; workers who are given safety equipment will be deducted the cost of the safety equipment and will be more reckless given that they can take more risks. At the end of this essay, he figures that the cost of ruling for the safety equipment might actually cost the company more (if the miners are reckless and keep getting into accidents).
He deliberately avoids discussing the weight of human life, health or rights and their place in economics. Why a society demands the safety of people in hazardous situations is not completely attached to an economic cost is something he avoids commenting on. This book enforces the view that economists see everything in material cost (dollars, resources, production) without appropriately giving any importance to the unseen costs (happiness, quality of life, satisfaction) of economic policies.
Environmentalism is discussed, in a rather controversial essay at the end of the book, as something akin to a religion of sensationalized individuals looking to convert the whole world. He discusses the extinction of a species of monkeys as something worthless and without cost because their existence -- or nonexistence -- brings him no personal grievance. An environmentalist's anger about the relocation of a polluting factory from America to an unnamed third world country is declared irrational. He ignores that even if it now does not directly affect the American individual, the factory is still polluting -- something that continues to spout emissions and cause environmental damage. It is as if he is shocked that an individual might still care about a problem not directly affecting them.
He implies that recycling will result in fewer trees being planted by paper companies. But he does not mention that recycling policies are usually accompanied by anti-deforestation policies and planting initiatives, which directly make his argument mute.
It is true that a discipline lacks values and morals. Science can't tell you whether lying is bad or whether your wife cheating was deserved. So, too, is economics unable to tell right from wrong. But it is not the science of economics who was written this book. It is a man who, like any of us, is flawed and biased. He presents solid economic views with weak, subjective opinions that do not weigh more than his obsessive, simplistic book.
I am sure that Professor Landsburg is knowledgeable in several fields, one of them being economics, but he is surely lacking information in many others. Throughout the book he makes use of similes, analogies and other devices to explain economic theory -- or as he puts it, "how an economist sees the world." But this view often comes off as illogical, simplistic or, in the worst essays, immoral and despicable. He states that economics is a science devoid of feelings or personal preferences. It's true and no one can say otherwise. But it is his applications of economic theory toward political, social or scientific problems that reveal glaring omissions and scary rhetoric.
He helped me learn some economic theory, especially in the second half of the book, but he has also planted some dubious arguments and social theories. When it comes to the discussion of societal problems, he presents economical solutions as "common sense" but denies the reader any counter-arguments or reasons as to why they have not been implemented.
One of these cases is his view of judicial settlements. He states that a judge settling a case between buying mining safety equipment and letting the workers work without it does not matter. Either way the economic costs are the same. Workers without safety equipment will be compensated with higher wages, and the rate of mining accidents will stay the same because they're being more careful; workers who are given safety equipment will be deducted the cost of the safety equipment and will be more reckless given that they can take more risks. At the end of this essay, he figures that the cost of ruling for the safety equipment might actually cost the company more (if the miners are reckless and keep getting into accidents).
He deliberately avoids discussing the weight of human life, health or rights and their place in economics. Why a society demands the safety of people in hazardous situations is not completely attached to an economic cost is something he avoids commenting on. This book enforces the view that economists see everything in material cost (dollars, resources, production) without appropriately giving any importance to the unseen costs (happiness, quality of life, satisfaction) of economic policies.
Environmentalism is discussed, in a rather controversial essay at the end of the book, as something akin to a religion of sensationalized individuals looking to convert the whole world. He discusses the extinction of a species of monkeys as something worthless and without cost because their existence -- or nonexistence -- brings him no personal grievance. An environmentalist's anger about the relocation of a polluting factory from America to an unnamed third world country is declared irrational. He ignores that even if it now does not directly affect the American individual, the factory is still polluting -- something that continues to spout emissions and cause environmental damage. It is as if he is shocked that an individual might still care about a problem not directly affecting them.
He implies that recycling will result in fewer trees being planted by paper companies. But he does not mention that recycling policies are usually accompanied by anti-deforestation policies and planting initiatives, which directly make his argument mute.
It is true that a discipline lacks values and morals. Science can't tell you whether lying is bad or whether your wife cheating was deserved. So, too, is economics unable to tell right from wrong. But it is not the science of economics who was written this book. It is a man who, like any of us, is flawed and biased. He presents solid economic views with weak, subjective opinions that do not weigh more than his obsessive, simplistic book.
May 9, 2014
亘毓賷丿丕賸 毓賳 丕賱兀乇賯丕賲 賵丕賱賲毓丕丿賱丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賯丿丞 賵鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱乇爻賵賲丕鬲 丕賱亘賷丕賳賷丞貙 賷胤乇丨 賱賰 賱丕賳丿爻亘賷乇睾 兀賴賲 賲亘丕丿卅 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘兀爻賱賵亘 賯氐氐賷 賵亘丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱亘爻賷胤丞 賵丕賱胤乇賷賮丞 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱賵賯鬲 賱鬲賳馗乇 亘毓丿賴丕 廿賱賶 馗賵丕賴乇 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賵賲爻丕卅賱賴 亘毓賷賳 毓丕賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 兀賵 "賮賷賱爻賵賮 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿" 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 丕賱馗賵丕賴乇 賱鬲丨賱賷賱賴丕 兀賵賱丕賸 孬賲 鬲賮爻賷乇賴丕
賵賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱鬲賷 禺丕囟 賮賷 鬲賮氐賷賱賴丕 賴賷:
- 賲亘丿兀 "丕賱賳丕爻 賷爻鬲噩賷亘賵賳 賱賱鬲丨賮賷夭" 兀賵 賲丕 賷毓乇賮 亘賭"鬲賰賱賮丞 丕賱賮乇氐丞 丕賱亘丿賷賱丞" 賵賴賵 丕賱卮丕卅毓
- 賰賱 丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞
- 毓丿賲 鬲賵丕賮乇 丕賱賯丿乇 丕賱賰丕賮賷 賲賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲
-賲亘丿兀 丕賱兀賲賵乇 賰賱賴丕 爻賵丕亍 兀賷 賰賱 丕賱兀賳卮胤丞 鬲鬲爻丕賵賶 賲賳 丨賷孬 乇睾亘丞 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷賴丕
- 賲亘丿兀 丕賱爻毓賷 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 兀賯氐賶 賳賮毓 賱兀賰亘乇 毓丿丿 賲賲賰賳 賲賳 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕賸 賲賳 賲賮賴賵賲
丕賱賮毓丕賱賷丞 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵丕賱匕賷 亘丿賵乇賴 賷鬲囟賲賳 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱賮乇毓賷丞 賵賲賳賴丕:
*賱丕 鬲毓丿 毓丕卅丿丕鬲 丕賱囟乇丕卅亘 賲賳賮毓丞 禺丕賱氐丞貙 賵賱丕 賷毓丿 丕賳禺賮丕囟 毓丕卅丿丕鬲 丕賱囟乇丕卅亘 賲賳賮毓丞 鬲賰賱賮丞 禺丕賱氐丞
*兀賷丞 鬲賰賱賮丞 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 鬲賰賱賮丞貙 亘氐乇賮 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賲賳 賷鬲丨賲賱賴丕
*兀賷丞 爻賱毓丞賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 鬲賰賱賮丞貙 亘氐乇賮 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賲賳 賷賲鬲賱賰賴丕
*丕賱丕爻鬲賴賱丕賰 丕賱鬲胤賵毓賷 兀賲乇 噩賷丿
*丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賰賱賴丕 賱賱兀賮乇丕丿
*賰賱 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 賷鬲爻丕賵賵賳 賮賷 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞
賰賲丕 兀賳賴 賳丕賯卮 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 爻丕毓賷丕賸 賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕賱賴丕 亘賲賮丕賴賷賲 兀禺乇賶 丨賷孬 乇賰夭 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賱賶 鬲胤亘賷賯 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱爻賵賯 毓賱賶 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞
兀賲丕 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賲賳丕賯卮丕鬲賴 賮賯丿 賰丕賳 兀亘乇夭賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱鬲丕賱賷丞:
禺乇丕賮丞 丕賱毓噩夭 丕賱丨賰賵賲賷
丕賱廿丨氐丕卅賷丕鬲 丕賱賰丕匕亘丞
丕賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 賵兀爻毓丕乇 丕賱亘賵氐丞
丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賱賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱毓賱賲賷
毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賮賷 賲賵丕噩賴丞 毓賯賷丿丞 丨賲丕賷丞 丕賱亘賷卅丞
丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲丕賱賴丕 賵賲丕 毓賱賷賴丕
賵兀禺賷乇丕賸 乇丕亘胤 賱鬲丨賲賷賱 丕賱賳爻禺丞 丕賱廿賱賰鬲乇賵賳賷丞
賵賲賳 兀賴賲 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱鬲賷 禺丕囟 賮賷 鬲賮氐賷賱賴丕 賴賷:
- 賲亘丿兀 "丕賱賳丕爻 賷爻鬲噩賷亘賵賳 賱賱鬲丨賮賷夭" 兀賵 賲丕 賷毓乇賮 亘賭"鬲賰賱賮丞 丕賱賮乇氐丞 丕賱亘丿賷賱丞" 賵賴賵 丕賱卮丕卅毓
- 賰賱 丕賱爻賱賵賰賷丕鬲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞
- 毓丿賲 鬲賵丕賮乇 丕賱賯丿乇 丕賱賰丕賮賷 賲賳 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲
-賲亘丿兀 丕賱兀賲賵乇 賰賱賴丕 爻賵丕亍 兀賷 賰賱 丕賱兀賳卮胤丞 鬲鬲爻丕賵賶 賲賳 丨賷孬 乇睾亘丞 丕賱賳丕爻 賮賷賴丕
- 賲亘丿兀 丕賱爻毓賷 賱鬲丨賯賷賯 兀賯氐賶 賳賮毓 賱兀賰亘乇 毓丿丿 賲賲賰賳 賲賳 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕賸 賲賳 賲賮賴賵賲
丕賱賮毓丕賱賷丞 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賵丕賱匕賷 亘丿賵乇賴 賷鬲囟賲賳 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱賮乇毓賷丞 賵賲賳賴丕:
*賱丕 鬲毓丿 毓丕卅丿丕鬲 丕賱囟乇丕卅亘 賲賳賮毓丞 禺丕賱氐丞貙 賵賱丕 賷毓丿 丕賳禺賮丕囟 毓丕卅丿丕鬲 丕賱囟乇丕卅亘 賲賳賮毓丞 鬲賰賱賮丞 禺丕賱氐丞
*兀賷丞 鬲賰賱賮丞 賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 鬲賰賱賮丞貙 亘氐乇賮 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賲賳 賷鬲丨賲賱賴丕
*兀賷丞 爻賱毓丞賴賷 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 鬲賰賱賮丞貙 亘氐乇賮 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賲賳 賷賲鬲賱賰賴丕
*丕賱丕爻鬲賴賱丕賰 丕賱鬲胤賵毓賷 兀賲乇 噩賷丿
*丕賱兀賴賲賷丞 賰賱賴丕 賱賱兀賮乇丕丿
*賰賱 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 賷鬲爻丕賵賵賳 賮賷 丕賱兀賴賲賷丞
賰賲丕 兀賳賴 賳丕賯卮 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 爻丕毓賷丕賸 賱丕爻鬲亘丿丕賱賴丕 亘賲賮丕賴賷賲 兀禺乇賶 丨賷孬 乇賰夭 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賱賶 鬲胤亘賷賯 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱爻賵賯 毓賱賶 賲禺鬲賱賮 賲噩丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞
兀賲丕 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賲賳丕賯卮丕鬲賴 賮賯丿 賰丕賳 兀亘乇夭賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賮氐賵賱 丕賱鬲丕賱賷丞:
禺乇丕賮丞 丕賱毓噩夭 丕賱丨賰賵賲賷
丕賱廿丨氐丕卅賷丕鬲 丕賱賰丕匕亘丞
丕賱丨乇賰丞 丕賱毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 賵兀爻毓丕乇 丕賱亘賵氐丞
丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷 賱賱賲賳賴噩 丕賱毓賱賲賷
毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賮賷 賲賵丕噩賴丞 毓賯賷丿丞 丨賲丕賷丞 丕賱亘賷卅丞
丕賱丿賷賲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賲丕賱賴丕 賵賲丕 毓賱賷賴丕
賵兀禺賷乇丕賸 乇丕亘胤 賱鬲丨賲賷賱 丕賱賳爻禺丞 丕賱廿賱賰鬲乇賵賳賷丞
January 17, 2012
Recommended to my wife as 鈥� better predecessor (Armchair Economist was originally published in 1993), Landsburg describes his work as 鈥渁 chronicle of what [he] learned at lunch鈥� (p. viii). Now, even granting the University of Rochester economics professor latitude befitting his choice of lunchtime companions, I was heartily disappointed to discover that the text indeed lives down to the author鈥檚 own humble description.
The tone is fine; Landsburg is chatty and informally fun. But each chapter is one series after another of economic or sociological examples tossed off and left unanalyzed. Why do concert promoters for acts that consistently sell-out choose to set prices lower than the maximum the market will bear? Yeah, that鈥檚 a good one, and here鈥檚 another: why should irrelevant celebrity endorsements (politicians for luggage) help sell products? And why would single diners tip waitstaff anonymously, with no one to impress? Why do movie theater owners charge so much for popcorn, when they could make up the difference on the movie ticket itself? All intriguing questions, which the author has no intention of fully exploring. I got fed up after five or so chapters in this vein. This book has conversation fodder aplenty, but nary a real insight. What, no mention of social proof, status theory, or even a passing familiarity with the Hollywood distribution model? Here, Steven, let me introduce you to and . With due respect to the gentleman who preferred Landsburg鈥檚 efforts to those of his fellow Stevens and , at least the Freakonomics guys show some passing familiarity with their library.
P.S. Since I joined GoodReads, I鈥檝e tried to make a habit of reviewing everything I鈥檝e read more or less right after I finished it, if only as a reminder to myself of what it was and what I thought of it. For the most part, it鈥檚 proven to be a pretty good discipline, and I鈥檝e enjoyed it, and in the process, encountered some fascinating fellow readers in the world, so bonus points there, and now just you shut up about the narcissism of it all, if you please.
Bird Brian has started and invited/dared me to participate (well, Choupette dared me to use a fake Aussie accent, which is close enough). At any rate, now that I can compound my natural pretension with hamminess, there鈥檚 no telling what I might accomplish. This is one of three books that I read, thought little of, and never got around to that form
The tone is fine; Landsburg is chatty and informally fun. But each chapter is one series after another of economic or sociological examples tossed off and left unanalyzed. Why do concert promoters for acts that consistently sell-out choose to set prices lower than the maximum the market will bear? Yeah, that鈥檚 a good one, and here鈥檚 another: why should irrelevant celebrity endorsements (politicians for luggage) help sell products? And why would single diners tip waitstaff anonymously, with no one to impress? Why do movie theater owners charge so much for popcorn, when they could make up the difference on the movie ticket itself? All intriguing questions, which the author has no intention of fully exploring. I got fed up after five or so chapters in this vein. This book has conversation fodder aplenty, but nary a real insight. What, no mention of social proof, status theory, or even a passing familiarity with the Hollywood distribution model? Here, Steven, let me introduce you to and . With due respect to the gentleman who preferred Landsburg鈥檚 efforts to those of his fellow Stevens and , at least the Freakonomics guys show some passing familiarity with their library.
P.S. Since I joined GoodReads, I鈥檝e tried to make a habit of reviewing everything I鈥檝e read more or less right after I finished it, if only as a reminder to myself of what it was and what I thought of it. For the most part, it鈥檚 proven to be a pretty good discipline, and I鈥檝e enjoyed it, and in the process, encountered some fascinating fellow readers in the world, so bonus points there, and now just you shut up about the narcissism of it all, if you please.
Bird Brian has started and invited/dared me to participate (well, Choupette dared me to use a fake Aussie accent, which is close enough). At any rate, now that I can compound my natural pretension with hamminess, there鈥檚 no telling what I might accomplish. This is one of three books that I read, thought little of, and never got around to that form
February 15, 2015
賱丕 亘丕爻 賷丕 爻鬲賷賮賳貙賲丨丕賵賱丞 胤賷亘丞貙賱賰賳 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰丕賳 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 賲賲賱 噩丿丕 噩丿丕貙賵丕賱賯氐氐 禺賷丕賱賷丞 禺賷丕賱賷丞貙亘丨賷孬 丕賳 賮賰乇鬲 賮賷 丕賱賯氐丞 賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 孬丕賳賷丞 賱賵噩丿鬲 丕賳賴 賮賷 賰賱丕賲賴 亘毓囟 丕賱丕禺胤丕亍貙賵丕賱賳賯胤丞 丕賱孬丕賳賷丞 賷丕 氐丿賷賯賷 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 賰賷賮 鬲賯賵賱 亘丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 賱賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷賷賳責責責丕氐亘鬲 亘丕賱丕毓賷丕亍 賲賳 賰孬乇丞 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨丕鬲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 丕賱睾賷乇 賲賮賴賵賲丞 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 亘胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱丨丕賱 賱爻鬲 賲鬲禺氐氐 賮賷 丕賱丕丿丕乇丞 丕賵 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿...
賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰賱丕賲:丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷毓噩亘賳賷
賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰賱丕賲:丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷毓噩亘賳賷
November 14, 2017
I generally enjoy books that cover Economics topics for laymen, but I didn't like this one very much. The basics of the field are presented in a clear way, but the examples were often oversimplified to the point that they were distracting. His focus on economics isolated from all other aspects of society lead to him saying ridiculous things like, "taxes have no effect on the economy".
February 21, 2008
There are a few books that when you read them they change your perspective on everything. This on one of those books. I did not realize how woefully uneducated I was on how economies work. What was a real insight was how small choices of people can make all the difference. Everyone could benefit from a few turns in these pages.
June 21, 2015
賰鬲丕亘 賷兀禺匕賰 賮賷 乇丨賱丞 爻賷丕丨賷丞 賮賷 丕賱氐毓亘 丕賱賲賲鬲賳毓 賲賳 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘丕爻賱賵亘 丕賱"丿乇丿卮丞" 賲毓 丕賱賯丕乇卅 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐.
賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賲丐賱賮 兀賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 賱丕 鬲賴鬲賲 亘丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 亘賷賳賲丕 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賴賵 賮賱爻賮丞 丨賯賵賯 賷賴鬲賲 亘丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賵丿 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱賳賮毓.
賱丕丨馗 丌丿賲 爻賲賷孬 - 兀賵賱 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賱丨丿賷孬 - 兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱賷賳 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱鬲噩丕乇丞 賯賱賲丕 賷賱鬲賯賵賳 廿賱丕 賵賷賳鬲賴賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘鬲丿亘賷乇 賲丐丕賲乇丞 囟丿 毓丕賲丞 丕賱賳丕爻 兀賵 賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 賵囟毓 賲禺胤胤 賱乇賮毓 丕賱兀爻毓丕乇.
賷胤乇丨 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱兀賱睾丕夭 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賮賲孬賱丕 賱賲丕匕丕 賷丿賱賷 丕賱賳丕爻 亘兀氐賵丕鬲賴賲 賮賷 丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 賲毓 賰賵賳 賰賱 賮乇丿 賲賳賴賲 賷丿乇賰 兀賳 氐賵鬲賴 賵丨丿賴 賱賳 賷丨爻賲 丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 貙 兀賵 賱賲丕匕丕 賷賴丿賷 丕賱賳丕爻 亘毓囟賴賲 賴丿丕賷丕 賵賱賷爻 賲丕賱丕賸 責 賵丕賱匕賷 賯丿 賷卮賷乇 賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲購賴丿賷 賯丿 禺氐氐 噩夭亍丕 賲賳 賵賯鬲賴 賱丕賳鬲賯丕亍 丕賱賴丿賷丞 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 貙 兀賵 賱賲丕匕丕 鬲亘丕毓 丕賱爻賱毓 亘爻毓乇 佗.侃侃 丿賵賱丕乇 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 匕丕鬲 丕賱伲 丿賵賱丕乇丕鬲 責 賲毓 兀賳賴丕 賲賵乇賵孬丞 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱佟侃 丨賷孬 禺賮囟 賲丕賱賰 丕賱賲鬲噩乇 爻毓乇 丕賱亘囟丕毓丞 爻賳鬲丕 賵丕丨丿丕 賱賷鬲兀賰丿 賲賳 毓丿賲 丨氐賵賱 爻乇賯丞 賲賳 丕賱賲丨丕爻亘 丕賱匕賷 爻賷囟胤乇 賱廿乇噩丕毓 丕賱爻賳鬲 賱賱賲卮鬲乇賷 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 賵囟毓 丕賱丿賵賱丕乇 賰丕賲賱丕 賮賷 噩賷亘賴.
賵丕禺鬲賮丕亍 丕賱爻噩丕卅乇 賲賳 毓丕賱賲賳丕 爻賷毓賳賷 丨乇賲丕賳 卮乇賰丕鬲 丕賱鬲兀賲賷賳 賲賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賷賴 賮賷 鬲氐賳賷賮 毓賲賱丕卅賴丕 貙 毓賳丿賴丕 爻賷毓丕賲賱 丕賱噩賲賷毓 亘丕賱鬲爻丕賵賷 賵賱賳 賷丿賮毓 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丿禺賳 兀賯賱 賲賳 丕賱賲丿禺賳.
賵亘丿賵賳 賮囟丕卅丨 噩賳爻賷丞 爻賵賮 賳噩丿 賲夭賷丿丕 賲賳 丕賱賲乇卮丨賷賳 賮賷 丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 丕賱乇卅丕爻賷丞 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷丞 賵爻鬲夭丿丕丿 氐毓賵亘丞 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賱賲鬲爻丕亘賯賷賳 丕賱賮毓賱賷賷賳 貙 賵賵囟毓 乇爻賲 -賵賱賵 乇賲夭賷- 賱丿禺賵賱 賲鬲丨賮 亘丨乇賷 爻賷賯賱賱 爻丕毓丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賮賷 丕賱胤丕亘賵乇 亘丿賵賳 兀賳 賷丐孬乇 毓賱賶 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱夭賷丕乇丞 賵亘丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賱賮 丕賱夭丕卅乇 卮賷卅丕 賵賷乇噩毓 亘丕賱賮丕卅丿丞 毓賱賶 廿丿丕乇丞 丕賱賲鬲丨賮 貙 賵乇賮毓 乇賵丕鬲亘 兀毓囟丕亍 丕賱亘乇賱賲丕賳 爻賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 夭賷丕丿丞 毓丿丿 丕賱賲鬲乇卮丨賷賳 賵夭賷丕丿丞 丕賱廿賳賮丕賯 毓賱賶 丕賱丨賲賱丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘賷丞.
賷爻鬲噩賷亘 丕賱賳丕爻 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賱丕賮鬲丞 賱賱鬲丨賮賷夭 賵兀馗賴乇鬲 丿乇丕爻丞 噩丿賱賷丞 賱"廿賷乇賱賷鬲卮" 兀賳 鬲胤亘賷賯 廿毓丿丕賲 賵丕丨丿 賷賲賳毓 丨丿賵孬 侉 噩乇丕卅賲 賯鬲賱 貙 賵賵噩賴鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 亘丨賲賱丞 賵丕爻毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賳賯丿 賵賰丕賳 賲賲丕 兀禺匕 毓賱賷賴丕 賴賵 毓丿賲 鬲毓乇囟賴丕 賱丿丕賮毓 丕賱噩乇賷賲丞 丕賱賲丨亘胤丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 噩乇賷賲丞 卮乇賮 兀賵 賯鬲賱 賱丿丕賮毓 丕賱爻乇賯丞 貙 毓賱賶 兀賷 丨丕賱 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 廿賴賲丕賱 賲亘丿兀 賯賵丞 丕賱鬲丨賮賷夭 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲睾丕囟賷 毓賳 丕丨鬲賲丕賱 賰賵賳 丕賱鬲丨賮賷夭 賱賴 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賳 賲乇丕丿賴丕 貙 賮賲孬賱丕 賯丿 鬲丐丿賷 丕賱爻噩丕卅乇 賲賳禺賮囟丞 丕賱賯胤乇丕賳 廿賱賶 丕乇鬲賮丕毓 賳爻亘丞 丕賱廿氐丕亘丞 亘爻乇胤丕賳 丕賱乇卅丞 賵賯丿 鬲丐丿賷 丕賱丿賴賵賳 丕賱氐賳丕毓賷丞 賯賱賷賱丞 丕賱爻毓乇丕鬲 廿賱賷 夭賷丕丿丞 賲鬲賵爻胤 丕賱賵夭賳.
賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賲丐賱賮 兀賳 丕賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賷丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 賱丕 鬲賴鬲賲 亘丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 亘賷賳賲丕 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賴賵 賮賱爻賮丞 丨賯賵賯 賷賴鬲賲 亘丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賵丿 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱賳賮毓.
賱丕丨馗 丌丿賲 爻賲賷孬 - 兀賵賱 毓賱賲丕亍 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賱丨丿賷孬 - 兀賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱賷賳 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱鬲噩丕乇丞 賯賱賲丕 賷賱鬲賯賵賳 廿賱丕 賵賷賳鬲賴賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬 亘鬲丿亘賷乇 賲丐丕賲乇丞 囟丿 毓丕賲丞 丕賱賳丕爻 兀賵 賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 賵囟毓 賲禺胤胤 賱乇賮毓 丕賱兀爻毓丕乇.
賷胤乇丨 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱毓丿賷丿 賲賳 丕賱兀賱睾丕夭 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賮賲孬賱丕 賱賲丕匕丕 賷丿賱賷 丕賱賳丕爻 亘兀氐賵丕鬲賴賲 賮賷 丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 賲毓 賰賵賳 賰賱 賮乇丿 賲賳賴賲 賷丿乇賰 兀賳 氐賵鬲賴 賵丨丿賴 賱賳 賷丨爻賲 丕賱賳鬲賷噩丞 貙 兀賵 賱賲丕匕丕 賷賴丿賷 丕賱賳丕爻 亘毓囟賴賲 賴丿丕賷丕 賵賱賷爻 賲丕賱丕賸 責 賵丕賱匕賷 賯丿 賷卮賷乇 賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲購賴丿賷 賯丿 禺氐氐 噩夭亍丕 賲賳 賵賯鬲賴 賱丕賳鬲賯丕亍 丕賱賴丿賷丞 丕賱賲賳丕爻亘丞 貙 兀賵 賱賲丕匕丕 鬲亘丕毓 丕賱爻賱毓 亘爻毓乇 佗.侃侃 丿賵賱丕乇 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 匕丕鬲 丕賱伲 丿賵賱丕乇丕鬲 責 賲毓 兀賳賴丕 賲賵乇賵孬丞 賲賳 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱佟侃 丨賷孬 禺賮囟 賲丕賱賰 丕賱賲鬲噩乇 爻毓乇 丕賱亘囟丕毓丞 爻賳鬲丕 賵丕丨丿丕 賱賷鬲兀賰丿 賲賳 毓丿賲 丨氐賵賱 爻乇賯丞 賲賳 丕賱賲丨丕爻亘 丕賱匕賷 爻賷囟胤乇 賱廿乇噩丕毓 丕賱爻賳鬲 賱賱賲卮鬲乇賷 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 賵囟毓 丕賱丿賵賱丕乇 賰丕賲賱丕 賮賷 噩賷亘賴.
賵丕禺鬲賮丕亍 丕賱爻噩丕卅乇 賲賳 毓丕賱賲賳丕 爻賷毓賳賷 丨乇賲丕賳 卮乇賰丕鬲 丕賱鬲兀賲賷賳 賲賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賷賴 賮賷 鬲氐賳賷賮 毓賲賱丕卅賴丕 貙 毓賳丿賴丕 爻賷毓丕賲賱 丕賱噩賲賷毓 亘丕賱鬲爻丕賵賷 賵賱賳 賷丿賮毓 睾賷乇 丕賱賲丿禺賳 兀賯賱 賲賳 丕賱賲丿禺賳.
賵亘丿賵賳 賮囟丕卅丨 噩賳爻賷丞 爻賵賮 賳噩丿 賲夭賷丿丕 賲賳 丕賱賲乇卮丨賷賳 賮賷 丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘丕鬲 丕賱乇卅丕爻賷丞 丕賱兀賲乇賷賰賷丞 賵爻鬲夭丿丕丿 氐毓賵亘丞 丕賱兀賲乇 賱賱賲鬲爻丕亘賯賷賳 丕賱賮毓賱賷賷賳 貙 賵賵囟毓 乇爻賲 -賵賱賵 乇賲夭賷- 賱丿禺賵賱 賲鬲丨賮 亘丨乇賷 爻賷賯賱賱 爻丕毓丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲馗丕乇 賮賷 丕賱胤丕亘賵乇 亘丿賵賳 兀賳 賷丐孬乇 毓賱賶 賲鬲毓丞 丕賱夭賷丕乇丞 賵亘丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賱賮 丕賱夭丕卅乇 卮賷卅丕 賵賷乇噩毓 亘丕賱賮丕卅丿丞 毓賱賶 廿丿丕乇丞 丕賱賲鬲丨賮 貙 賵乇賮毓 乇賵丕鬲亘 兀毓囟丕亍 丕賱亘乇賱賲丕賳 爻賷丐丿賷 廿賱賶 夭賷丕丿丞 毓丿丿 丕賱賲鬲乇卮丨賷賳 賵夭賷丕丿丞 丕賱廿賳賮丕賯 毓賱賶 丕賱丨賲賱丕鬲 丕賱丕賳鬲禺丕亘賷丞.
賷爻鬲噩賷亘 丕賱賳丕爻 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賱丕賮鬲丞 賱賱鬲丨賮賷夭 賵兀馗賴乇鬲 丿乇丕爻丞 噩丿賱賷丞 賱"廿賷乇賱賷鬲卮" 兀賳 鬲胤亘賷賯 廿毓丿丕賲 賵丕丨丿 賷賲賳毓 丨丿賵孬 侉 噩乇丕卅賲 賯鬲賱 貙 賵賵噩賴鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 亘丨賲賱丞 賵丕爻毓丞 賲賳 丕賱賳賯丿 賵賰丕賳 賲賲丕 兀禺匕 毓賱賷賴丕 賴賵 毓丿賲 鬲毓乇囟賴丕 賱丿丕賮毓 丕賱噩乇賷賲丞 丕賱賲丨亘胤丞 賵丕賱鬲賷 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 噩乇賷賲丞 卮乇賮 兀賵 賯鬲賱 賱丿丕賮毓 丕賱爻乇賯丞 貙 毓賱賶 兀賷 丨丕賱 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 廿賴賲丕賱 賲亘丿兀 賯賵丞 丕賱鬲丨賮賷夭 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賱鬲睾丕囟賷 毓賳 丕丨鬲賲丕賱 賰賵賳 丕賱鬲丨賮賷夭 賱賴 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 毓賳 賲乇丕丿賴丕 貙 賮賲孬賱丕 賯丿 鬲丐丿賷 丕賱爻噩丕卅乇 賲賳禺賮囟丞 丕賱賯胤乇丕賳 廿賱賶 丕乇鬲賮丕毓 賳爻亘丞 丕賱廿氐丕亘丞 亘爻乇胤丕賳 丕賱乇卅丞 賵賯丿 鬲丐丿賷 丕賱丿賴賵賳 丕賱氐賳丕毓賷丞 賯賱賷賱丞 丕賱爻毓乇丕鬲 廿賱賷 夭賷丕丿丞 賲鬲賵爻胤 丕賱賵夭賳.
July 5, 2018
丕丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 爻鬲丞 丕亘賵丕亘 賲賯爻賲丞 毓賱賶 毓丿丞 賮氐賵賱 賱鬲氐賱 丕賱賶 24 賮氐賱.
賮賮賷 賰賱 賮氐賱 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 卮賷亍 賰丕賳 賲毓賱賵賲丞 丕賵 鬲毓乇賷賮 亘卮賷 丕賵 丿丨囟 賱禺乇丕賮丞 賲賳鬲卮乇丞 丕賵 卮乇丨 賱賳馗乇賷丞 賲毓鬲賲丿丕 毓賱賶 卮乇丨賴 丕賱亘爻賷胤 賵 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱鬲賷 丕毓鬲賲丿賴丕 賱丕賷氐丕賱 丕賮賰丕乇賴 賵 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 .
賰鬲丕亘 賷毓乇賮賰 賰賷賮 賷賮賰乇 乇噩賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘兀爻賱賵亘 亘爻賷胤 睾賷乇 賲賯毓丿 賱丕賷丨鬲丕噩 丕賱賶 賲鬲賲乇爻 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賵 賲禺鬲氐 賮賴賵 賲賵噩賴 賱賰賱 賮卅丕鬲 賲禺鬲氐丞 賵 睾賷乇賴丕 .
賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲丿禺賱 噩賷丿 賱毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 .
賮賮賷 賰賱 賮氐賱 鬲丨丿孬 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳 卮賷亍 賰丕賳 賲毓賱賵賲丞 丕賵 鬲毓乇賷賮 亘卮賷 丕賵 丿丨囟 賱禺乇丕賮丞 賲賳鬲卮乇丞 丕賵 卮乇丨 賱賳馗乇賷丞 賲毓鬲賲丿丕 毓賱賶 卮乇丨賴 丕賱亘爻賷胤 賵 丕賱賯氐氐 丕賱鬲賷 丕毓鬲賲丿賴丕 賱丕賷氐丕賱 丕賮賰丕乇賴 賵 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 .
賰鬲丕亘 賷毓乇賮賰 賰賷賮 賷賮賰乇 乇噩賱 丕賯鬲氐丕丿 亘兀爻賱賵亘 亘爻賷胤 睾賷乇 賲賯毓丿 賱丕賷丨鬲丕噩 丕賱賶 賲鬲賲乇爻 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕賵 賲禺鬲氐 賮賴賵 賲賵噩賴 賱賰賱 賮卅丕鬲 賲禺鬲氐丞 賵 睾賷乇賴丕 .
賷毓鬲亘乇 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲丿禺賱 噩賷丿 賱毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 .
May 18, 2019
鬲毓亘鬲 丨鬲賶 兀賳賴賷鬲賴 .. 賲乇賴賯 賵丿爻賲 賵鬲乇噩賲鬲賴 賱賷爻鬲 丕賱兀賮囟賱
兀賰孬乇 賲丕 兀毓噩亘鬲 亘賴 賴賵 丕賱爻乇丿 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賱賱賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丨鬲賶 丕爻鬲禺賱丕氐 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賮賷 兀賷 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賷賳丕賯卮賴丕
賵兀賷囟丕 賰孬乇丞 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賲賲丕 賷丨爻亘 賱賱賰鬲丕亘
賵賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賲噩賲賱 .. 賱丕 兀賳氐丨 亘賴
兀賰孬乇 賲丕 兀毓噩亘鬲 亘賴 賴賵 丕賱爻乇丿 丕賱賲賳胤賯賷 賱賱賲賯丿賲丕鬲 丨鬲賶 丕爻鬲禺賱丕氐 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賮賷 兀賷 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賷賳丕賯卮賴丕
賵兀賷囟丕 賰孬乇丞 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賲賲丕 賷丨爻亘 賱賱賰鬲丕亘
賵賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賲噩賲賱 .. 賱丕 兀賳氐丨 亘賴
August 22, 2014
My obsession with economics is starting to become a bit of a problem. Here is an example of actual post-coital dialogue between me and my girlfriend:
(I wish I could say that this was a clever fiction I devised to make a point and a joke, but I鈥檓 nowhere near that clever.)
So yes, I'm a little obsessed. I鈥檝e subscribed to The Economist for the last four years or so, reading it each and every time I use the toilet, and mind you: I need a lot more fiber in my diet. I wrote a about game theory, one of the most important areas of mathematics with direct applications to economics. And for the last year and half, I鈥檝e spent most of my working days listening continuously to economics podcasts, including Freakonomics, Planet Money, the London School of Economics, and The Economist podcast, to catch up on what I鈥檝e missed in the print version, in case I鈥檝e been eating a lot of bran muffins.
A little knowledge is a notoriously dangerous thing, and when I read popular (and clearly intentionally provocative) economics treatises such as this book, I just have an overwhelming urge to argue with their authors. Over beers or coffee. It would all be very civilized. But my local watering holes do nothing to attract flocks of economists, and there is almost zero chance of sneaking it into romantic pillow talk with one, as described above.
I鈥檇 recommend The Armchair Economist to anyone with an interest in economics, but I would caution: Landsburg is cranky, curmudgeonly, opinionated and rude. Delightfully so. I think he and I would get along very well, even if we don鈥檛 agree on everything, which we don鈥檛. He knows far more about economics than I do, and I wouldn鈥檛 presume to suggest otherwise. But I know enough to recognize the difference between economic fact and economic opinion. He supplies boatloads of both, and presents them very well. If you鈥檝e already gone through all the Freakanomics titles, and this has stimulated your own personal aggregate demand for more popular works of economics, I think you鈥檒l find this entertaining and educational. Take it all with a grain of salt, though. And while you are at it, eat some more fiber.
...........................................................
P.S. The girlfriend and I make arguably too many 鈥渢hat鈥檚 what she said鈥� jokes. If you enjoy that sort of thing, you might find amusing.
Me: (after a few merciful moments of blissful silence): One principle difference between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank in the former鈥檚 focus on stimulating growth, contrasted with the latter鈥檚 anti-inflationary position, as a result of historical and cultural precedents. As such, the ECB tends toward what Americans would view as a tight monetary policy. And of course, with interest rates so low, the Fed has no recourse but to resort to quantitative easing to attempt to stimulate aggregate demand, but such a course is a virtual anathema to Mario Draghi, let alone Angela Merkel . . .
Girlfriend: All this sexy talk is making me wet all over again.
(I wish I could say that this was a clever fiction I devised to make a point and a joke, but I鈥檓 nowhere near that clever.)
So yes, I'm a little obsessed. I鈥檝e subscribed to The Economist for the last four years or so, reading it each and every time I use the toilet, and mind you: I need a lot more fiber in my diet. I wrote a about game theory, one of the most important areas of mathematics with direct applications to economics. And for the last year and half, I鈥檝e spent most of my working days listening continuously to economics podcasts, including Freakonomics, Planet Money, the London School of Economics, and The Economist podcast, to catch up on what I鈥檝e missed in the print version, in case I鈥檝e been eating a lot of bran muffins.
A little knowledge is a notoriously dangerous thing, and when I read popular (and clearly intentionally provocative) economics treatises such as this book, I just have an overwhelming urge to argue with their authors. Over beers or coffee. It would all be very civilized. But my local watering holes do nothing to attract flocks of economists, and there is almost zero chance of sneaking it into romantic pillow talk with one, as described above.
I鈥檇 recommend The Armchair Economist to anyone with an interest in economics, but I would caution: Landsburg is cranky, curmudgeonly, opinionated and rude. Delightfully so. I think he and I would get along very well, even if we don鈥檛 agree on everything, which we don鈥檛. He knows far more about economics than I do, and I wouldn鈥檛 presume to suggest otherwise. But I know enough to recognize the difference between economic fact and economic opinion. He supplies boatloads of both, and presents them very well. If you鈥檝e already gone through all the Freakanomics titles, and this has stimulated your own personal aggregate demand for more popular works of economics, I think you鈥檒l find this entertaining and educational. Take it all with a grain of salt, though. And while you are at it, eat some more fiber.
...........................................................
P.S. The girlfriend and I make arguably too many 鈥渢hat鈥檚 what she said鈥� jokes. If you enjoy that sort of thing, you might find amusing.
December 22, 2015
this book was good until the last chapter "why I am not an environmentalist". overall it was simple to understand and not totally filled with jargon unlike some other economics textbooks. sufficient details with relatable real life scenarios that make it easy to be understood.
however that last chapter was just ..... it just pisses me off seeing that he thinks all these "benefits" outweighs the cost of what we are doing to the environment. smfh. people like him is the reason for global warming.
however that last chapter was just ..... it just pisses me off seeing that he thinks all these "benefits" outweighs the cost of what we are doing to the environment. smfh. people like him is the reason for global warming.
July 1, 2014
賰鬲丕亘 亘爻賷胤 貙 爻賴賱 貙 賲賲鬲毓 貙 賷鬲賰賱賲 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 賲賳 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱毓丕賲賷 亘兀爻賱賵亘 賲賲鬲毓 ..噩丿丕 貙 賵賷胤乇丨 鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 賮賱爻賮賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賮賷 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 ..
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 禺丕賱 賲賳 丕賱乇爻賵賲 丕賱亘賷丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲毓丕丿賱丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賯丿丞貙 賱賯丿 賳噩丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 鬲賯丿賷賲 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇賵丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 亘兀爻賱賵亘 賷爻賴賱 毓賱賶 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐賷賳 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 禺丕賱 賲賳 丕賱乇爻賵賲 丕賱亘賷丕賳賷丞 賵丕賱賲毓丕丿賱丕鬲 丕賱賲毓賯丿丞貙 賱賯丿 賳噩丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 鬲賯丿賷賲 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇賵丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 亘兀爻賱賵亘 賷爻賴賱 毓賱賶 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲禺氐氐賷賳 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿 丕爻鬲賷毓丕亘賴.
March 7, 2024
tbh when i picked up this book in the library i did not expect it to be mostly an explanation of microeconomics concepts,,, i was expecting this to be something like freakonomics where it's less theory-focused and more of argumentation coupled with statistics and data on relevant social issues (even tho this did mention everyday life so ig thats my bad then). microeconomics is the trickiest part of economics by far for me ...it's very theoretical/ technical and sometimes the logic is either oversimplified or difficult to grasp because of how economics perceives things like benefit, cost and welfare etc in a way different from our own normative views. and although my favourite part of econ is how it turns big subjective ideas into principles and neat diagrams and quantitative variables, i think reading this book probably exposed a lot of the flaws of perceiving the world in terms of pure theory in a way that the book sometimes criticises and sometimes perpetuates. in the end, i have mixed feelings bc idk how much of it is due to the book itself and the explanations provided or if econs is just weird Like That,, maybe the latter. but i think there are some problems anyway.
for the micro bits, as someone taking economics rn, this was pretty accessible to me (idk about everyone else this is supposed to be a layman's intro to econ) on a high school level. def helped me understand resource allocation, cost/benefit analysis more in-depth. and the part on monopolies and price discrimination part was genuinely kind of intriguing. in econ at skl we think of price as standardised in a market, so knowing how discounts and targeted pricing work is pretty cool, and also the evil but creative ways in which firms try to exploit consumers through marketing and pricing etc (my incredible naivete made me assume that prices were purely based on production costs and not producers being sneaky). also some introduction to coase theorem, indifference principle etc ...those parts were interesting and not covered in IB so that was nice. (market failure/externalities were glossed over unfortunately). overall i think the tricky micro principles were explained somewhat decently without being too off-putting . however i think logic was a bit hard to follow at times. moreover the analogies were mostly useful and engaging but sometimes overly simplistic since the author took so many assumptions to make those arguments apply properly...like the whole recycling/seatbelt examples involved some serious logical leaps. and some things were def left underanalysed. but tbh irl it's so hard to isolate one variable and the overall theory is communicated well enough. in most instances this wasnt a big problem tho i genuinely enjoyed the part on monopoly power in everyday life. the application to relationships and dating was such a wild thing to read.
the macro part is pretty good. the author drew a clear distinction between normative and positive parts of econ, like how we can measure income through statistics but we cant conflate that with happiness and wellbeing. e.g. how after national disasters GDP and 'productivity' can increase but thats not necessarily good bc it's mostly ppl rebuilding, and how inflation can trick ppl into returning to job market for perceived higher wages etc so a lot of stats are blown out of proportion to justify ineffective policies. logic makes sense here and i understood it. yay macro!!!
side note other reviews have mentioned the ostentatious and frankly mean-spirited tone as distracting...this i agree with. there's many parts of the book where the author just (for lack of better phrasing) absolutely fucking shits on the "economic illiteracy" of the ppl he criticizes. to quote he refutes an argument abt how taxing drugs could be a net benefit bc it benefits specific actors
with the line "a fiasco of this magnitude deserves more recognition" (bc apparently in the extremely 'objective' econ view the word 'benefits' dont favour particular actors, so governments gaining from this policy is not a net benefit but a transfer or something like that). he also uses very black and white statements like "costs are costs, goods are goods, consumers know best and consumer surplus is always a good thing" etc in a way that frames econ principles as uncomfortably dogmatic. however to give the author credit this did help me differentiate between my subjective idea of what's subjectively beneficial and what the economics idea of beneficial is in a very memorable way, so i prolly wont be making the mistake of conflating the two in whatever abysmal paper i write for the finals. and the tone/style was quite entertaining. langlit ahh book fr (this would unironically make good paper 1... help). hopefully suvash will appreciate the same snarky writing in my econ paper 3 policy rec.
overall do i agree with every single one of the author's opinions/analysis? no. especially the final chapter on environmentalism...that pissed me off (the whole 'consumption incentivises preservation of resources' arg was absolute fucking bullshit considering most resources are damaging to maintain at best and straight-up nonrenewable at worst. also the trade-off between personal comfort and environmental damage is a hard position to defend, esp using supposedly 'objective' theory.). was it a good explanation/application of theory? mostly, but there are def flaws (neglecting externalities was a big gripe for me). was it worth a read? probably. the parts where he briefly mentioned how we can convert theoretical arguments from yap to actual math through econometrics etc definitely picqued my interest the most. unfortunately he did not elaborate much on that so maybe another time. back to fiction/literature it is.
for the micro bits, as someone taking economics rn, this was pretty accessible to me (idk about everyone else this is supposed to be a layman's intro to econ) on a high school level. def helped me understand resource allocation, cost/benefit analysis more in-depth. and the part on monopolies and price discrimination part was genuinely kind of intriguing. in econ at skl we think of price as standardised in a market, so knowing how discounts and targeted pricing work is pretty cool, and also the evil but creative ways in which firms try to exploit consumers through marketing and pricing etc (my incredible naivete made me assume that prices were purely based on production costs and not producers being sneaky). also some introduction to coase theorem, indifference principle etc ...those parts were interesting and not covered in IB so that was nice. (market failure/externalities were glossed over unfortunately). overall i think the tricky micro principles were explained somewhat decently without being too off-putting . however i think logic was a bit hard to follow at times. moreover the analogies were mostly useful and engaging but sometimes overly simplistic since the author took so many assumptions to make those arguments apply properly...like the whole recycling/seatbelt examples involved some serious logical leaps. and some things were def left underanalysed. but tbh irl it's so hard to isolate one variable and the overall theory is communicated well enough. in most instances this wasnt a big problem tho i genuinely enjoyed the part on monopoly power in everyday life. the application to relationships and dating was such a wild thing to read.
the macro part is pretty good. the author drew a clear distinction between normative and positive parts of econ, like how we can measure income through statistics but we cant conflate that with happiness and wellbeing. e.g. how after national disasters GDP and 'productivity' can increase but thats not necessarily good bc it's mostly ppl rebuilding, and how inflation can trick ppl into returning to job market for perceived higher wages etc so a lot of stats are blown out of proportion to justify ineffective policies. logic makes sense here and i understood it. yay macro!!!
side note other reviews have mentioned the ostentatious and frankly mean-spirited tone as distracting...this i agree with. there's many parts of the book where the author just (for lack of better phrasing) absolutely fucking shits on the "economic illiteracy" of the ppl he criticizes. to quote he refutes an argument abt how taxing drugs could be a net benefit bc it benefits specific actors
with the line "a fiasco of this magnitude deserves more recognition" (bc apparently in the extremely 'objective' econ view the word 'benefits' dont favour particular actors, so governments gaining from this policy is not a net benefit but a transfer or something like that). he also uses very black and white statements like "costs are costs, goods are goods, consumers know best and consumer surplus is always a good thing" etc in a way that frames econ principles as uncomfortably dogmatic. however to give the author credit this did help me differentiate between my subjective idea of what's subjectively beneficial and what the economics idea of beneficial is in a very memorable way, so i prolly wont be making the mistake of conflating the two in whatever abysmal paper i write for the finals. and the tone/style was quite entertaining. langlit ahh book fr (this would unironically make good paper 1... help). hopefully suvash will appreciate the same snarky writing in my econ paper 3 policy rec.
overall do i agree with every single one of the author's opinions/analysis? no. especially the final chapter on environmentalism...that pissed me off (the whole 'consumption incentivises preservation of resources' arg was absolute fucking bullshit considering most resources are damaging to maintain at best and straight-up nonrenewable at worst. also the trade-off between personal comfort and environmental damage is a hard position to defend, esp using supposedly 'objective' theory.). was it a good explanation/application of theory? mostly, but there are def flaws (neglecting externalities was a big gripe for me). was it worth a read? probably. the parts where he briefly mentioned how we can convert theoretical arguments from yap to actual math through econometrics etc definitely picqued my interest the most. unfortunately he did not elaborate much on that so maybe another time. back to fiction/literature it is.
November 29, 2019
A little intriguing, a little disappointing
At first I was really into this. I was picking up the examples like a sponge, nodding along with stuff that made sense, and recalling the fun experience of graphing every problem in my Econ 202 class. (Which really helps visualize things, for me at least)
Then about halfway through, the author has a whole section dedicated to points where the media "said something stupid about economics" (not a direct quote but Lord does it make me roll my eyes). Suddenly we went from fun simplified theoretical economical problems and solutions - to bashing people for stating things that the author doesn't agree with. Maybe he has a point but all it served to do was enlighten me to his arrogance. And his condescending attitude. This soured the rest of the book.
While I did find myself falling back into enjoyment with these over simplified problems, solutions, explanations... The last chapter served to show that roll-my-eyes condescending arrogance again. So annoying.
Overall, I guess I kinda liked it because the writing is easy to follow and the "real world" examples used to explain econonic concepts was certainly fun. In the sense that it's like reading one sided conversations that happen at the lunch table. But whatever. Not bad I guess.
At first I was really into this. I was picking up the examples like a sponge, nodding along with stuff that made sense, and recalling the fun experience of graphing every problem in my Econ 202 class. (Which really helps visualize things, for me at least)
Then about halfway through, the author has a whole section dedicated to points where the media "said something stupid about economics" (not a direct quote but Lord does it make me roll my eyes). Suddenly we went from fun simplified theoretical economical problems and solutions - to bashing people for stating things that the author doesn't agree with. Maybe he has a point but all it served to do was enlighten me to his arrogance. And his condescending attitude. This soured the rest of the book.
While I did find myself falling back into enjoyment with these over simplified problems, solutions, explanations... The last chapter served to show that roll-my-eyes condescending arrogance again. So annoying.
Overall, I guess I kinda liked it because the writing is easy to follow and the "real world" examples used to explain econonic concepts was certainly fun. In the sense that it's like reading one sided conversations that happen at the lunch table. But whatever. Not bad I guess.
August 14, 2017
Hey friends, long time no see飦� Well I am to blame for that as under pressing circumstances, I got sidetracked from this wonderful addiction ;P
Well, let's talk about this new book that I just finished
This is the best book I've read so far folks and I'm not exaggerating. Well if an armchair economist, as the title suggests, can observe things the way Steven has done, I wonder what would an active economist running here and there will pull off. If you stop right wherever you are and go back in time, you would realize that there have been many instances when you have faced an argument, contrary of which would've seemed impossible because of the unpopularity of the it but still you were left with a nagging sensation. The problem you faced in such a situation was that you were unable to concoct a simulation based on the principles, just opposite to what is popularly believed in order to check whether populist opinions are right or wrong. For ex飪� Once we used to believe that earth is flat or earth is the centre of universe/solar system, in order to check whether this was true, it was required to give an equal opportunity to the contrary versions of these beliefs as well in order to empirically verify as to which of the two belief is factually correct. We all know how people like Copernicus and Galileo were treated when they suggested the same. Maybe mankind is not doomed yet as there are few who always think differently and are immune to the herd mentality. Well, this book will to help you to think differently by presenting you with those simulations with a bend of economics at every turn
I will provide you with some of the insights and questions that I faced while reading and I would be more than happy to have discussion on any of these:-
1) Selfish Gene--> I have come across this idea plenty of times and across disciplines be it economics or evolutionary biology. It states that human genes are selfish in nature i.e. they compel the organism to undertake only those actions which have an incentive attached to them. The incentive can be biological in nature(Making as many copies of one's genes as one can--> If you know what I mean!!) or monetary in nature. Monetary incentives are dealt by the economists and as the book suggests, people don't respond to instances, events, policy decisions or any other such thing but only to incentives. The best example of this is the riddle of seat belts. We believe that making it mandatory for people to wear seat belts is equivalent to increasing their safety but it can have opposite results as well. How? Well wearing seat-belts can ensure that in an accident, seat-belts will reduce the probability of your death. But can it control the rate of accidents itself? What if we assume that seat-belts in-fact are acting as an incentive to the driver to drive faster than usual as he/she knows that he/she has better chance to survive that accident? How is this wrong?
2) Truth or Consequences--> Meaning of these two words and especially their attribution to an occurrence are often confused. Lets directly jump to an example飪� Shareholders of a listed company want to see their invested money in the company, multiply. In order to this risky job, management and executives are employed. Logically speaking, their performance should be linked to the pay package. Now since the expectations of the shareholders are always sky high, more often than not it happens that executives fail to deliver on their promise of increasing the business by x%. Following the logic, this would mean that they will have to take riskier decisions to increase the business by x% and we all know that risk is directly proportional to returns. Now higher the risk, higher the probability that the decision might backfire. Thus, these executives are provided with a golden parachute/higher compensation packages as their salary is directly linked to their performance. Now it's very famous to protest against higher packages awarded to the senior management of the company. This is an indirect protest against sky high expectations of shareholders. Do we realize this? Debatable
3) The Indifference Principle-->"Unless you are unusual in some or the other way, nothing can make you happier than the next best alternative" Lets unravel this. If there are 2 options in the world to choose from, for instance, whether to go to a fair or to go to a park then the only way you will feel special about your choice of going to either of the places depends of the fact that it has to be relatively unique. This means that suppose you choose to go to the fair, then going there holds that special value to because not everyone else chose that option. Isn't this equivalent to enslaving our satisfaction at the hand of others?
4) Why money is good?-->There is one instance shared by the author in which he and his wife fight over the movie to be watched while having dinner. They come up with a novel solution to decide which movie will play and the method of selection will create a win-win situation. Both of them allotted an amount of money to their choice of movie. Whichever amount will be higher will win and that movie will be played. Here's the catch, the winner will have to pay the smaller amount to the loser. The decision has been reached upon by the simple logic that how much monetary value does one attribute to the movie or how much money are you willing to lose to watch that movie. Novel, isn鈥檛 it?
What is common in all of these rubrics? For one, they all invite healthy discussion and most importantly, if the proponent cannot prove it right, the dissenter cannot prove it wrong either so that makes all of these topics a moot point
Every book has something or the other to offer, but the most important take away from this book is that it will keep you safe from the subliminal indoctrination of belief systems inside you which you might be able to realize only when it'll be too late. So, I would suggest all of you to read as it'll come handy to you no matter what background you come from
"The hallmark of science is a commitment to follow arguments to their logical conclusions whereas the hallmark of certain kinds of doctrine is a slick appeal to logic followed by a hasty retreat if it points in the other direction "飪� Steven Landsburg
Well, let's talk about this new book that I just finished
This is the best book I've read so far folks and I'm not exaggerating. Well if an armchair economist, as the title suggests, can observe things the way Steven has done, I wonder what would an active economist running here and there will pull off. If you stop right wherever you are and go back in time, you would realize that there have been many instances when you have faced an argument, contrary of which would've seemed impossible because of the unpopularity of the it but still you were left with a nagging sensation. The problem you faced in such a situation was that you were unable to concoct a simulation based on the principles, just opposite to what is popularly believed in order to check whether populist opinions are right or wrong. For ex飪� Once we used to believe that earth is flat or earth is the centre of universe/solar system, in order to check whether this was true, it was required to give an equal opportunity to the contrary versions of these beliefs as well in order to empirically verify as to which of the two belief is factually correct. We all know how people like Copernicus and Galileo were treated when they suggested the same. Maybe mankind is not doomed yet as there are few who always think differently and are immune to the herd mentality. Well, this book will to help you to think differently by presenting you with those simulations with a bend of economics at every turn
I will provide you with some of the insights and questions that I faced while reading and I would be more than happy to have discussion on any of these:-
1) Selfish Gene--> I have come across this idea plenty of times and across disciplines be it economics or evolutionary biology. It states that human genes are selfish in nature i.e. they compel the organism to undertake only those actions which have an incentive attached to them. The incentive can be biological in nature(Making as many copies of one's genes as one can--> If you know what I mean!!) or monetary in nature. Monetary incentives are dealt by the economists and as the book suggests, people don't respond to instances, events, policy decisions or any other such thing but only to incentives. The best example of this is the riddle of seat belts. We believe that making it mandatory for people to wear seat belts is equivalent to increasing their safety but it can have opposite results as well. How? Well wearing seat-belts can ensure that in an accident, seat-belts will reduce the probability of your death. But can it control the rate of accidents itself? What if we assume that seat-belts in-fact are acting as an incentive to the driver to drive faster than usual as he/she knows that he/she has better chance to survive that accident? How is this wrong?
2) Truth or Consequences--> Meaning of these two words and especially their attribution to an occurrence are often confused. Lets directly jump to an example飪� Shareholders of a listed company want to see their invested money in the company, multiply. In order to this risky job, management and executives are employed. Logically speaking, their performance should be linked to the pay package. Now since the expectations of the shareholders are always sky high, more often than not it happens that executives fail to deliver on their promise of increasing the business by x%. Following the logic, this would mean that they will have to take riskier decisions to increase the business by x% and we all know that risk is directly proportional to returns. Now higher the risk, higher the probability that the decision might backfire. Thus, these executives are provided with a golden parachute/higher compensation packages as their salary is directly linked to their performance. Now it's very famous to protest against higher packages awarded to the senior management of the company. This is an indirect protest against sky high expectations of shareholders. Do we realize this? Debatable
3) The Indifference Principle-->"Unless you are unusual in some or the other way, nothing can make you happier than the next best alternative" Lets unravel this. If there are 2 options in the world to choose from, for instance, whether to go to a fair or to go to a park then the only way you will feel special about your choice of going to either of the places depends of the fact that it has to be relatively unique. This means that suppose you choose to go to the fair, then going there holds that special value to because not everyone else chose that option. Isn't this equivalent to enslaving our satisfaction at the hand of others?
4) Why money is good?-->There is one instance shared by the author in which he and his wife fight over the movie to be watched while having dinner. They come up with a novel solution to decide which movie will play and the method of selection will create a win-win situation. Both of them allotted an amount of money to their choice of movie. Whichever amount will be higher will win and that movie will be played. Here's the catch, the winner will have to pay the smaller amount to the loser. The decision has been reached upon by the simple logic that how much monetary value does one attribute to the movie or how much money are you willing to lose to watch that movie. Novel, isn鈥檛 it?
What is common in all of these rubrics? For one, they all invite healthy discussion and most importantly, if the proponent cannot prove it right, the dissenter cannot prove it wrong either so that makes all of these topics a moot point
Every book has something or the other to offer, but the most important take away from this book is that it will keep you safe from the subliminal indoctrination of belief systems inside you which you might be able to realize only when it'll be too late. So, I would suggest all of you to read as it'll come handy to you no matter what background you come from
"The hallmark of science is a commitment to follow arguments to their logical conclusions whereas the hallmark of certain kinds of doctrine is a slick appeal to logic followed by a hasty retreat if it points in the other direction "飪� Steven Landsburg
Read
July 23, 2016Much like Freakonomics, this book uses a number of case studies to illustrate different points on economics theories and is quite a fun read - however, I would say it goes slightly deeper than Freakonomics as it's slightly more detailed and erudite.
The last chapter, "Why I am Not an Environmentalist" really made me think, as Landsburg outlines the reasons why commonly-held beliefs on the behaviours that help the environment may not be as effective as we think. For example, he says that people think recycling paper saves trees, but if we recycle paper the demand for planting trees actually goes down and therefore the are fewer of them.
Interesting stuff!
The last chapter, "Why I am Not an Environmentalist" really made me think, as Landsburg outlines the reasons why commonly-held beliefs on the behaviours that help the environment may not be as effective as we think. For example, he says that people think recycling paper saves trees, but if we recycle paper the demand for planting trees actually goes down and therefore the are fewer of them.
Interesting stuff!
January 17, 2020
I give this book 3.5 stars. The author should have left out the economic analysis of law and legal disputes (how the economy is better or worse off depending on which party wins), his economic musings that have no answers, and his views on environmentalism (similar to his views on religion - don't impose on those who don't believe). This book is probably more interesting for people who want study economics rather than the general public.
January 3, 2015
Interesting subjects presented but most lacked the critical analysis I was hoping for. The author seemed to oscillate between objective presentation and lecturing from personal opinion. The last chapter on environmentalism was intriguing but ending with the letter to the teacher seemed arbitrary and very ostentatious.
May 17, 2022
A spiritual forefather of Freakonomics style of books, this one has some interesting premises but the explanations don't really add up to too many eye openers.
Also, maybe the whole field of Behavioral economics was just opening up (?) and a lot of conventional thinking has changed often since then. But i can imagine how alluring a book like this may have been when it came out.
Also, maybe the whole field of Behavioral economics was just opening up (?) and a lot of conventional thinking has changed often since then. But i can imagine how alluring a book like this may have been when it came out.
November 1, 2019
The author tends to reduce arguments to simplistic strawman versions of the original problem to draw the conclusion that he wants to achieve. He also engages in unnecessary amounts of insults and condescension. If it weren't for one or two passable chapters, it would have been 1 star.
May 31, 2021
There were parts of this which I would recommend to many people - explanations of commerce and government spending that made a hell of a lot of sense and which cut through the rubbish we see all the time in social and news media, stuff which I'd encourage everyone to take on board to avoid lazy assumptions and being a bit gullible. Some of the key discussions of 'zero sum' games/situations had great clarity.
Perhaps though I was looking for more of some aspects of what Landsberg had to say, and less of others. At times it felt repetitive, as if the same point (albeit important) was being laboured and expressed in several different ways. At times I felt the analogies were slightly irresponsible in their simplicity with 'real world' variables ignored in order to make for a more elegant example for the man in the street. At times I wanted something a little more amusing and fun, where the author chose instead to stress a point of drier nature (I recall a more quirky book of a similar ilk - Time Harford 'The Logic of Life') instead. It also felt US-centric and slightly dated.
Nevertheless, for a book of just over 200 pages this made for a well-packed and interesting read.
Perhaps though I was looking for more of some aspects of what Landsberg had to say, and less of others. At times it felt repetitive, as if the same point (albeit important) was being laboured and expressed in several different ways. At times I felt the analogies were slightly irresponsible in their simplicity with 'real world' variables ignored in order to make for a more elegant example for the man in the street. At times I wanted something a little more amusing and fun, where the author chose instead to stress a point of drier nature (I recall a more quirky book of a similar ilk - Time Harford 'The Logic of Life') instead. It also felt US-centric and slightly dated.
Nevertheless, for a book of just over 200 pages this made for a well-packed and interesting read.
September 7, 2018
Contrary to Naked Economics, this book actually taught me something new and that was quite unexpected. The last essay about environmentalism was certainly eye-opening for me. I see a lot of things about it differently now and just can't stop thinking about it.听
I'm glad that I've found out about this book and it made me to feel proud of being an economist (even if just by education).听
Contrary to Naked Economics, this book actually taught me something new and that was quite unexpected. The last essay about environmentalism was certainly eye-opening for me. I see a lot of things about it differently now and just can't stop thinking about it.
I'm glad that I've found out about this book and it made me to feel proud of being an economist (even if just by education).
I'm glad that I've found out about this book and it made me to feel proud of being an economist (even if just by education).听
Contrary to Naked Economics, this book actually taught me something new and that was quite unexpected. The last essay about environmentalism was certainly eye-opening for me. I see a lot of things about it differently now and just can't stop thinking about it.
I'm glad that I've found out about this book and it made me to feel proud of being an economist (even if just by education).
February 26, 2021
A concise guide to the basics of economics with the content being accessible to non-economist. Landsburg focuses on presenting difficult and abstract concepts of economics in a form which is easily assimilated by the average reader. The central subject of this book, as outlined by the author, is that economics can be mostly defined in four words: People respond to incentives.
June 25, 2021
I will be honest here and say this book was a bit more than I can chew; as someone with a general interest in the topic rather than an actual student of the field. I enjoyed a lot of the big ideas but will definitely revisit this book at a later date to really take my time with the details.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 251 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.