Books : Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Rating: - FREAKEN WRONG
IF LEVITT TITLED HIS BOOK ECONOMICS 101, NO ONE WOULD BUY OR READ IT. HE SHOULD GO BACK & READ ECONOMICS 101, TO REFRESH HIS UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
FIRST, BLUE CRIME RATE GOES DOWN IN GOOD TIMES (UNDER CLINTON) & GOES UP IN BAD TIMES (UNDER REPUBILCANS). WHITE COLLAR CRIME GOES UP WITH DEREGULATION (UNDER REPUBLICANS). IT DOES DOWN WITH REGULATION & OVERSIGHTS UNDER DEMOCRATS. TO SUGGEST THAT THE INCREASE IN ABORATIONS AMONG MINORITIES CAUSES A DECREASE IN CRIME IS SOME KIND OF JOKE. FUNNY, ONLY TO LEVITT. WHEN YOU JUDGE WHITE COLLAR CRIME, VS BLUE COLLAR CRIME. WHITE COLLAR CRIME WINS HANDS DOWN WITH THE DAMMAGE TO SOCIETY. IT DISTROYES THE INTRASTRUCTURE, CREATING CHAOS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTURE WITH ITS TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT ON THE WORLD ECONOMY & MARKETS. REAGANOMICS & IT'S EXTENSION BUSHONOMICS ARE NOT RANDOM BY CHANCE PLANS. BUT A WELL PLANNED REVISION OF THE WILLIE SUTTON PLAN (ROB BANKS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS). THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MILTON FREIDMAN MENTALITY SUCKS.

---

Rating: - This book came as a complete frustration
Well, I felt very enthusiastic as I started reading it. But eventually, the book appeared to have so many flaws, I don't even know where to start.

First of all, it has little or nothing to do with economics. Except, let's say the "humans respond to incentives" premise, which is not new, by any account. And you don't even have to be familiar with Mankiw's famous principles, which, by the way, are not even referenced. Second, I still don't get what is there so extraordinary and creative about Levitt's views. Don't we all understand and doesn't our personal experience prove that when it comes to mercenary objectives, self usually comes first? Haven't you ever had a chance to face a person in charge (including a teacher) who would help you out just to look better and receive some kind of a bonus, be that a praise, or a prize? And you don't even have to go through all of the boring figures and calculations to see that people (including, naturally, sumo fighters) will tend to come to arrangements, where they can give up a short term benefit for the sake of receiving a long term one, or, for what it's worth, a peer's approval.

Not to go into much more detail, I found the book outright boring and way too lengthy. It says the same thing over and over again. In fact, the authors could have made their point on 50 pages at most. At times, the book just felt like a pile of sentences overloaded with some factual statements. And yes, as the introductory part says, there is no leading, unifying theme. Which, in my opinion, did put the whole undertaking at a serious disadvantage.

---

Rating: - Breaking the rules
This book serves a valuable purpose in challenging some of those long held beliefs that are perpetuated in media; and if this is purpose of the authors then I think they have done well. However, I think we need to be careful in accepting some of the statements of Levitt and Dubner as fact in their own right.

Some other reviewers have pointed out that there is a distinct lack of econometric rationale behind the conclusions. Drawing causation arguements (even if ceterus parabus has been observed) without providing so much as a reference to the study is hardly academic, rather an editorial opinion. This is a confusing aspect of the book as there are numerous references to other authors and people of note (especially if their views are supporting) about all manner of topics, but when the actual effect of variables needs to be discussed there is a complete void (so what is the actual % decrease in crime resulting from % changes in abortion rates which may have occured through changes in abortion law?). The non-specific reference to authors et al gives the impression of a well researched academic book, but the core conclusions have no stated and verifiable statistical basis. Would it have been so hard to provide the figure (ceteris paribus) and a reference to the published analysis, if it exists?

It is not that I disagree with any of the statements, it's just that I don't see anything to make me agree with them either. This book could benefit from a few enhancements, such as reference to the actual analysis so that I can verify the results myself. Otherwise this is just a long editorial.

Oh, and one last point, Chapter 6 on names is such a stretch that it threatens the credibility of the whole book, it is really quite rediculous.

---

Rating: - Surprised
I had to buy this book for a class and was surprised at how much I liked it.

---

Rating: - Interesting read
For most people the notion economics is dull and that economists are concerned only with finance itself. 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 raises the controversial hypothesis the the drop in violent crime rates is due 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. A fast read and a fascinating book.