- Save 10% on selected children’s books, compliments of Amazon Family Promotion exclusive for Prime members .
More Sex is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics Paperback – 6 Jul 2009
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Special offers and product promotions
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
"Long before the 'pop economists' there was Steven Landsburg, writing funny, jargon-free, shocking, and true essays on our material circumstances. But Landsburg knows something that other authors of bestsellers on the subject don't. He knows everything. Economics is not the study of money; it's the study of value. Everything is determined by our values. The science of everything is what economics is. And here, in "More Sex", what the reader will find is -- everything." -- P. J. O'Rourke
"Steve Landsburg proves once again that he is better than anyone else at making economics interesting to noneconomists. Landsburg is provocative and playful in his mission to demonstrate how an understanding of economics will change the way you live your daily life. I loved this book." -- Steven D. Levitt, coauthor of "Freakonomics"
"Steve Landsburg is one of my favorite economics writers, and his new book is no exception. While I don't always agree with him, he usually gets me thinking, and he always entertains." -- Greg Mankiw, former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and author of "Principles of Economics"
About the Author
Steven E. Landsburg is a Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester. He is the author of The Armchair Economist, Fair Play, More Sex is Safer Sex, The Big Questions, two textbooks in economics, a forthcoming textbook on general relativity and cosmology, and over 30 journal articles in mathematics, economics and philosophy.
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Top customer reviews
That being said, this book is full of the most brilliant and logically thought out arguments. Landsburg develops his thesis that all humans are driven by benefits and incentives with gusto and sheer brilliance. For instance he argues that jurors would deliver far better justice if they were in possession of all the facts including hearsay, and justice would better be served if jurors were really made to pay the consequence of any acquittals or damning judgements - if they were later proved to be wrong. Currently, jurors fail to get it right too many times as there simply is not enough incentive for them to get it right. In the present system, whether jurors are right or wrong ultimately matters not to them. And Landsburg argues why this is a flawed system, open to injustices, which could be improved by making jurors more responsible for their decisions. That makes perfect sense! But you have to read this book just to see how brilliantly he argues this and many many other points in this most refreshing attack on the all too slumbering common sense of our age.
Frankly, this is a most excellent and must have book, which I enjoyed even more than his other books. Anyone with a working brain should find delight from reading his straight minded, iconoclastic & maverick approach to life. As the Financial Times Review puts it this is a book which is: "original, arresting... entirely correct."
For this is truly a most thought provoking work by its author. For even if you disagree at first with Landsburg, if you just think some more then you'll see how he was entirely correct throughout this book. He is after all, no idiot by any stretch of the imagination. Try reading the first few pages on this site and you'll have a taste for why the few negative reviewers are very mistaken.
Eg, in calculating whether sexual history is relevant in rape cases, the author could have factored in the fact that only a small percent actually get to court, and that this amount of relevant information massively outweighs the small amount of relevant information from a person's history, if we're going to draw conclusions about individual cases from statistics and encourage behaviour and decisions accordingly.
Loved freakonomics, and would recommend you read that instead, or anything by Malcolm Gladwell - more thought provoking, rigorous and generally entertaining than this boring monotony of repeated half-investigated statements.
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...
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Most recent customer reviews
This would work well if it was also well-reasoned and backed up by good evidence.Read more