Fun & interesting - Rated 
This is a really interesting romp through some fairly random questions like "How is the KKK like a group of estate agents". The answers to the questions that drive this book are well discussed and backed up with research. Logical thought processes which bring to light some interesting answers. I particularly liked the discussion about reduction in crime rates being related to abortion policy (rather than policing or improved government crime prevention policies).
I'd agree with other reviewers in that it was a bit light on content...I got to the end and wanted more, but worth a read.
If you only read one book about economics, make sure this is the one - Rated
One could maybe argue that this isn't an economics book at all but instead a collection of connected essays drawing on concepts from economics and statistics to get the point across.
I find the style of writing very easy to get on with, and the book as a whole very easy to read. In many ways I wish this book had been written before I studies economics all those years ago as it would have been a good introduction to some concepts from the world of economics presented in a way which means that anyone can enjoy this book.
Many other reviews on here have already mentioned a lot of the good points about this book so I won't go on and repeat it all here. All that's left for me to say is ... go for it, give this book a go.
Fun, informative read - Rated 
I am 23, studying Physics with strong interest in finance/market and investments. I found this book very interesting and fun as well.
English is not my mother tongue, but this book is so well written that didn't give me any trouble.
Totally recommended
A welcome dose of empiricism - Rated
One of the troubles with economics is the woeful scientific illiteracy of economists. Much of this can be traced to their frequent failure to check their assumptions (leave alone their predictions) against the real world - which is why so many economics texts are unconvincing to specialists in the exact sciences.
For that reason I like popular economics books that look at the minutiae, present real life situations and apply economic reasoning to them. As a genre they are a mixed bunch but I like this one by Levitt, mostly because the examples it gives are all ones in which the more simplistic interpretations of of conventional economic analysis give predictions that are at variance with reality.
Sherlock Holmes famously said that when the theories don't fit the facts, you change the theories. In this book Levitt directs our attention to situations in which economic theory does fit the facts but where careful empirical investigation is needed to see why they fit. Such empiricism is to be applauded. Ultimately it is only by accurately describing reality that economics will shed its currently still deserved reputation as a dismal science.
Question Everything, Look for Patterns, Challenge Conventional Wisdom - Rated
Why did the crime rate in major US cities decrease in the late 90's contrary to expert opinion? What do shool teachers and the Ku klux Klan have in common? In this interesting book, the authors explore the hidden side of these questions and many more such as the Black-White education divide, the organisation of drug gangs in Chicago and the apparent improvement in test scores in Chicago. They show, with remarkable wit, that people of all kinds respond to incentives and that we ignore this at our disadvantage.
Take the authors approach to the unexpected decrease in crime in big US cities. Conventional wisdom has it that the decrease in crime in these metropolises was due to a number of factors among which are better policing strategies, tougher sentencing for offenders (the broken glass concept) and an increase in the number of policemen. Messrs Levitt and Dubner argue instead that the precipitous decrease in crime rates was principally due to the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs Wade, which legalised abortion in the US. This is where it gets interesting: Women who took advantage of the Roe vs Wade decision in the mid 1970's were likely to be teenagers, poor and uneducated; precisely the type of mothers who were least likely to care adequately for the kids, whoo in turn are most likely to be criminals. Roe vs Wade then prevented the birth of these potential criminals and in the process, large US cities were "spared" the existence of these kids. The crime rate decreased in the mid-1990's just are these "Roe vs Wade" babies would have reached their peak crime years: late teens to mid twenties
The authors asked, "If dealing drugs is so profitable why do crack dealers live with their mothers?" This question was answered through the research on an inner city Chicago drug gang. The gang was shadowed by an Indian-American researcher for 3 years in which time he was lucky enough to obtain the gangs' detailed financial records. The gang had a well-ordered pyramidal management structure, which resembled McDonald's franchises. Tellingly, the financial records showed that the gang leader made much more money than all his minions combined; the crack dealers on the lowest rung of the ladder barely made minimum wage. However, these "runners" were willing to endure hardships and prove their mettle on the streets in order to move up the gang ladder into "upper management". The gang members, like the rest of us, respond to incentives. There is much else I like about the book that I will not rehash in this review because they have been covered by other reviewers.
Now some aspects of the book that I did not like. It was not clear to me what Dubner's role in the book was. His sole purpose seemed to have been to continuously massage Levitt's ego. Yes, we know that Levitt is a brilliant unorthodox economist but do you have to remind us of this fact at every turn? Luckily, Dubner's article, which inspired the book, was attached as an appendix for those who may or may not have been interested therein. The book was focused on the US. This is understandable because the authors and their target audience are American and, I imagine, are more familiar with the socio-economic situation in that country. For my money, I thought that the book was too short. It was over before I knew it. It took me all of one Sunday to finish reading it. That's a shame really. I expected a bit more. Maybe, the book was deliberately short in order to pique the readers' interest in a sequel?
For all its shortcomings, the salient message in this book is that we should challenge conventional wisdom; if it sounds too simple and convenient, then it probably is. The authors tackle sensitive issues such as race and racism with remarkable wit and honesty. In presenting their ideas they let the data speak as much as possible. They use the tools of economic analysis to question the data and confirm what I Iearnt in engineering school: if you flog the data hard enough, it'll sing. Freakonomics deserves my 4 stars.
|
