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.

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. There is evidence that people respond significantly to incentives even in situations where we do not usually imagine their behavior to be rational. Apparently psychologists have discovered by experiment that when you hand a person an unexpectedly hot cup of coffee, he typically drops the cup if he perceives it to be inexpensive but manages to hang on if he believes the cup is valuable.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. This question cannot be answered by pure logic. One must look at actual numbers. In the middle 1970s, Sam Peltzman of the University of Chicago did just that. He found that the two effects were of approximately equal size and therefore cancelled each other out. There were more accidents and fewer driver deaths per accident, but the total number of driver deaths remained essentially unchanged. An interesting side effect appears to have been an increase in the number of pedestrian deaths; pedestrians, after all, gain no benefit from padded dashboards. The extensively revised and updated edition of Steven Landsburg’s hugely popular book, The Armchair Economist—“a delightful compendium of quotidian examples illustrating important economic and financial theories” ( The Journal of Finance). 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.

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: Most of economics can be summarized in four words: "People respond to incentives." The rest is commentary. This is not just the worst book masquerading as an introduction to economics I've read - it's a textbook example of the kind of malicious tunnel vision logic that causes people who've taken a bad quality econ 101 course to go around extolling the virtues of the perfect free market with the typical disdain that half knowledge and bad actors bring when they maliciously try to wow interested novices into a field they might have little to no experience in - but using 'logic' will bamboozle the reader into aligning with the author's rather crazy and fringe ideas about political theory, policy and human behavior.

Table of Contents

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? I wish I could say that this was a clever fiction I devised to make a point and a joke, but I’m nowhere near that clever.)

Lccn 2011051923 Ocr ABBYY FineReader 11.0 (Extended OCR) Ocr_converted abbyy-to-hocr 1.1.20 Ocr_module_version 0.0.16 Old_pallet IA17340 Openlibrary_edition How can this be? Are not many murders crimes of passion or acts of irrationality? Perhaps so. But there are two responses to this objection. First, Ehrlich's results indicate that each execution prevents 8 murders; it does not indicate which 8 murders are prevented. As long as some murderers can be deterred, capital punishment can be a deterrent. The second response is this: Why should we expect that people engaged in crimes of passion would fail to respond to incentives? We can imagine a man who hates his wife so much that under ordinary circumstances he would do her in if he thought he had a 90% chance of escaping execution. Perhaps in a moment of rage, he becomes so carried away that he will kill her even if he has only a 20% chance of escaping execution. Then even in the moment of rage, it matters very much whether he perceives his chances to be 15% or 25%. In the book Armchair Economist, Steven Landsburg argues that the reason behind cows' population growth is the ranchers' self interest. Due to the fact that ranchers' profits depend on breading more cows they will make sure that this specie will never go extinct. On the other hand existence of tigers will not benefit any body and that makes them prone to extinction. Following the same chain of reasoning Landsburg argues that recycling will have a counter effect on trees' population. By recycling the loggers' business will be less profitable which will decrease their interest in keeping forests full of trees and thus forests will be more in danger of deterioration.Occasionally people are tempted to respond that nothing -- or at least none of the things I've listed -- is worth any risk of death. Economists find this objection particularly frustrating, because neither those who raise it nor anybody else actually believes it. All people risk death every day for relatively trivial rewards. Driving to the drugstore to buy a newspaper involves a clear risk that could be avoided by staying home, but people still drive to drugstores. We need not ask whether small pleasures are worth any risk; the answer is obviously yes. The right question is how much risk those small pleasures are worth. It is perfectly rational to say, "I am willing to search for a cassette while driving if it leads to a one-in-a-million chance of death, but not if it leads to a one-in-a-thousand chance of death." That is why more people search for cassettes at 25 miles per hour than at 70. I remember the late 1970s and waiting half an hour to buy a tank of gasoline at a federally controlled price. Virtually all economists agreed that if the price were allowed to rise freely, people would buy less gasoline. Many noneconomists believed otherwise. The economists were fight: When price controls were lifted, the lines disappeared. Witty economists are about as easy to find as anorexic mezzo-sopranos, natty mujahedeen, and cheerful Philadelphians. But Steven E. Landsburg...is one economist who fits the bill. In a wide-ranging, easily digested, unbelievably contrarian survey of everything from why popcorn at movie houses costs so much to why recycling may actually reduce the number of trees on the planet, the University of Rochester professor valiantly turns the discussion of vexing economic questions into an activity that ordinary people might enjoy.

In other words many reviewers don't know what they are talking about and do not understand economics. They don't understand that preferences for recycling are not shared by everyone. For them, that's okay- they'll impose their preferences through legislation, mandating recycling. This decreases the overall wealth of society because this legislation denies people the opportunity to negotiate, maximizing happiness and productivity. The legislation categorically declares recycling superior always, in every situation.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. P.S. Since I joined GoodReads, I’ve tried to make a habit of reviewing everything I’ve 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’s proven to be a pretty good discipline, and I’ve 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. I’d 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’t agree on everything, which we don’t. He knows far more about economics than I do, and I wouldn’t 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’ve 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’ll find this entertaining and educational. Take it all with a grain of salt, though. And while you are at it, eat some more fiber. After this slight digression into the challenges of empirical research, let me return to my main topic: the power of incentives. It is the economist's second nature to account for that power. Will the invention of a better birth control technique reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies? Not necessarily -- the invention reduces the "price" of sexual intercourse (unwanted pregnancies being a component of that price) and thereby induces people to engage in more of it. The percentage of sexual encounters that lead to pregnancy goes down, the number of sexual encounters goes up, and the number of unwanted pregnancies can go either down or up. Will energy-efficient cars reduce our consumption of gasoline? Not necessarily -- an energy-efficient car reduces the price of driving, and people will choose to drive more. Low-tar cigarettes could lead to a higher incidence of lung cancer. Low-calorie synthetic fats could increase the average weight of Americans.