Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
More counterintuitive economics from Landsburg, 13 Jan 2008
Following on from 'the armchair economist' Steven Landsburg has released this book. It's in a similar vein to 'Freakonomics' and the 'Undercover Economist' so if you enjoyed those you'll probably like this (but I'm sure Amazon has probably already worked that out and told you). Landsburg tends to more closely focus on what could be termed 'traditional economics' supply demand etc than Freakonomics, but he takes the same counterintuitive lines of argument which have you gripped by the frustration of being certain his conclusion should be wrong but knowing that his logic is right. There are occasional lapses where you see an underlying falacy poking through but they didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the book. After all, thinking that some of the arguments are disprovable and trying to do so is probably half the fun. Would recommend to any Economics students or armchair economists as proof that there is indeed more to the dismal science than meets the eye.
|
|
|
16 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Meretricious claptrap, 16 Jun 2008
Another dismal potboiler from the underwhelming Landsburg. To my mind three quotes from the book tell you all you need to know:
page 174: "... Early in this century, the eminent economist Alfred Marshall offered this advice to his colleagues: when confronted with an economic problem, first translate into mathematics, then solve the problem, then translate back into English and burn the mathematics. I am a devotee of Marshall and frequently follow his advice ..."
If you burn the mathematics, none of your readers has a clear idea of what your assumptions and premises are - which leaves you free to adopt an arrogant, glib and superficial style that obfuscates more than it enlightens.
page 245: "... Terri Schiavo, a woman attached to a ventilator and believed to be in a permanent state of unconsciousness tantamount to death, became a cause celebre when her husband and parents could not agree on whether to unplug her. ... The Schiavo battle was over control of a resource, namely Ms. Schiavo's body, and was well within the purview of economic analysis ..."
Regarding people's bodies as an economic resource was an approach once advocated by a certain Adolf Eichmann. The Jewish Landsburg might do well to reflect soberly upon that fact.
page 19: "... The principle of comparative advantage explains why some people become medical doctors, while other, different, people go into fields (such as economics) that require at least a minimal ability to think logically ..."
It also explains why some people become economists, while other, different, people go into fields (such as mathematics) that require an exceptional ability to think logically.
I can see three uses for this book (1) It provides useful illustrations of sloppy thinking whence students may learn not to reason without an accompanying sanity check. (2) The Appendix contains references to the original literature where readers may find better-written discussions of the material. (3) Readers who follow up the original references can subsequently separate the book's 275 pages and hang them on hooks next to lavatories.
The tragedy of this book is the opportunity cost of the woodpulp that went into its production. Fortunately, however, used toilet tissue can be composted.
|
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
However, back in the real world..., 20 Jan 2009
This book is proof that economists don't inhabit the same planet as the rest of us. Economists start from the premise that humans are rational beings, weighing up costs and benefits before making a decision about "resources". The rest of us know that human beings are irrational creatures, driven by prejudices, fears, ideologies, group pressures, and so on.
Whilst the subjects discussed in the book could be thought-provoking, the thought is more often along the lines of "that's a bit of a leap of logic" or "you've omitted an equally valid conclusion".
The example that leads to the title is a prime example of the failure to think a little more carefully. In essence, the idea is that if an uninfected guy goes out and picks up an uninfected woman, she will be saved from a one night stand with an infected partner and thus the spread of AIDS is reduced; whereas if he stays home, she will end up with the infected guy and spread the disease. There is no mention of the odds she'll become infected, no mention of what happens when the virtuous cycle is broken (a massive *increase* in infection rates); just a rather simplistic approach to the problem.
Another example: he postulates two groups, one a religious group that adamantly opposes porn, and the second a porn-loving group that wants to abolish religion. His view is that by abolishing both porn and religion, everybody becomes happier because the object of their ire has been removed. Unfortunately, the opposite (never mentioned) is the more likely outcome: everybody is now unhappy. Why? Because people put more weight on issues that affect them personally than on those that affect others. Therefore, by removing something they love, you have taken away something personal, which will outweigh any happiness gained from knowing that at least their opponents are now deprived of their particular "object of desire", for want of a better term.
Finally, if you're a liberal, you may find some parts cause you to become rather agitated...
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Steven E. Landsburg
by Tyler Cowen
by Tim Harford
