| In Association With... |  |
|
|
|
| 
 enlarge | Author: Tim Harford
Publisher: Random House
Category: Book
List Price: $25.00
Buy New: $6.99
You Save: $18.01 (72%)
New (46) Collectible (1) from $6.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  30 reviews
Sales Rank: 2679
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 272
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 9.4 x 6.4 x 1.2
ISBN: 1400066425
Dewey Decimal Number: 339
EAN: 9781400066421
ASIN: 1400066425
Publication Date: January 15, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Condition: Brand New. Ships within 24hrs.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Logical Economics April 26, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
If you enjoyed Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt you will love this book. The author will take you below the surface of reality and show why things are the way they are. This book does have some shocking things. (Like why oral sex increased dramatically among teenagers in the last few years:because of the fear of Aids). He explains why it costs so much to live in Manhattan versus rural areas, supply and demand, people chose to live in big cities for the opportunities that they provide. He also discusses that most of the time people make logical decisions based on reward and punishment. Yes even criminals the majority of the time think about the risk of getting caught and the severity of the punishment. The author backs up his conclusions with many notes and cites studies and facts to back up his conclusion. Why do CEOs and vice presidents make so much? Is anyone really worth the millions they make? The author argues no, a vice president's compensation is more of an incentive to motivate all the assistant vice presidents to work very hard to achieve the next level than it is a reflection of the current VPs worth. The author believes that most corporations run more on a tournament system where the employees that are winners on promotions win big with pay and that is the underlying motivation for all instead of current pay.
I found the book very enjoyable and hard to put down. If you love free market capitalism, economics, or psychology you will enjoy this book. Also check out Tim Harfords other book The undercover economist for more interesting and thought provoking reading.
 Math Applied to Common Decisions April 23, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
Many of the popular books about economics seek to convince you that human beings are wildly illogical. Why? Because the dollars and sense of what people say and do don't always match up well. Tim Harford gets past that problem by mostly ignoring the academic studies that seem far removed from reality by emphasizing what people do when they are new to something.
The book is at its best when he's explaining how systemic biases can create large shifts in human behavior. For instance, a slight preference for having neighbors who are like oneself can lead to quite substantial segregation along race, religion, education, and economic lines.
For me, the book lacked any big "gotcha" like the finding that abortions may have contributed to lowering crime.
In almost every section, I thought that Mr. Harford was arguing (or at least haranguing) beyond the limits of his evidence.
When he moves beyond being an observer into someone trying to convince you what people are like, I found he was often offensive. There's a section about how those who aren't native to Africa "solved" the problem of dying from malaria by transferring slaves from Africa to milder climates that's insensitive at best.
To Mr. Harford's eye, we are so much creatures of economics, comfort, and the pursuit of gain that there's no role for any other human motives. That's a too limited view of people . . . and hardly an uplifting one.
Unless you are addicted to Mr. Harford's writing, skip this book. It won't tell you much that you need to know.
Initial Review April 23, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Only ~100 pages into it.
May make a good introdution to economics for teenagers. Undercover Economist was better, but this may appeal more to mainstream teenagers.
UPDATE: Read a little further. Gets much better. The chapters on neighborhood and race are excellent. If I could, I'd change from 3 to 4 stars.
Nothing original April 11, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Some books set a trend and become best sellers and many others follow. However, the first is mostly the best. This is my logic and personal experience on books.
"Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt was a trail blazer on the topic of rational economics, soon followed by Harford's "The Undercover economist". Both these books made excellent reading. If two is company and three is a crowd, and if one wants to be away from crowds, better stay away from this one. (Else read "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki, to be in good company)
The depth of analysis of issues, translating complex economic, social and political jargon into simple, elegant and entertaining style of writing, deserves appreciation. However, sometimes one tends to rationalize everything, and is likely to be trapped in "one size fits all" syndrome, applying the same theory to all phenomenons. There is more to life than rational economics. Rationalizing things the way it is done in this book fully engages all the grey cells of the left side of our brain. Please be reminded that the other half is waiting to be tapped. I recommend "A whole new mind" by Daniel Pink to those of us enslaved by left brained education.
In addition, some conclusions arrived in the book appear flawed. In the analysis of subsidies it is concluded that the minority always gains at the expense of the majority in the USA. I request the author to apply the same methodology to politics in the world's largest democracy on similar issues.
Excellent references at appropriate points, and a generous dose of humor to retain attention.
 not so logical, not so clever, and not so new April 11, 2008
9 out of 18 found this review helpful
Uncle Miltie says I have the Freedom of Choice & I should have chosen to not read this book. I'm not sure why it's the latest craze for economists to tell me how the world really works. Here's an idea: you're an economist, tell me how the economy works first & build some credibility. Why can't the Fed stabilize growth and minimize inflation? What are the solutions to rural & inner-city poverty? How about a plan to fix Medicare? I suppose those are easy questions to answer so better for Harford to tackle the complete Pleistocene history of man.
This book is mostly a collection of anecdotal stories and random lab studies that can be found elsewhere. Some of them have little or no support from academia, but are presented by Harford in a manner that makes them seem like fact with statements like "here is what is really going on".
The "new breed" of economists like Harford are essentially applying statistical measures in an overly simplified manner and making conclusions that sound semi-reasonable. But the problem with statistical analysis is that it's generally descriptive and not prescriptive. And before you know it, a speed dating event is the foundation for explaining divorce. The sunny day theory demonstrates that stocks on average go higher on sunny days than rainy days. That is, there is a positive correlation that is statistically significant between weather and the DOW. Is that because people are happier on sunny days? Rain makes you a pessimist? Propose a theory - it doesn't matter because there's no determined cause & effect relationship between the two.
Harford solves the mystery of the disappearance of Neanderthal man by summarily declaring it was due to the lack of division of labor. Are you serious? How about some supporting evidence from an Anthropologist, Archeologist, Biogeneticist, or other Social Scientist? It is a widely accepted fact that modern humans coexisted and interacted with Neanderthal communities; their behaviors would have been similar in those areas. The support for his theory apparently comes from a computer simulation exercise, which might be plausible if there were really a method to isolate every environmental variable and there were hard scientific evidence that backed it up. I have a simulation exercise called Risk & when I put enough soldiers in Kamchatka, I can conquer all of Russia and Mongolia - that doesn't mean it can or ever will happen.
There is also a discussion of technology growth and global industrialization. Harford's position is that it can all be attributed to population growth and "incentives" - nothing else matters. So as long as there are more people, civilization will advance. Jaw dropping. It took an economist to tell the entire scientific community the formula for growth and development of the planet.
Are you ready? Here it is:
More = More
Brilliant.
Now all I have to do is find an exception to dispute this...hmmm...I wonder...how about China ?
Here we have the largest Empire on the planet, with the largest population, the broadest natural resources, a highly developed ancient history, cheap labor, and plenty of incentives for technological advancements - all the ingredients required of the Harford theory. So why didn't they develop iron smelters, steamships, machinery, and railways? How about vaccines, refrigeration, air flight, washing machines, automobiles, and velcro? They built a great wall to defend their land and culture, used gunpowder for almost 1,000 years before the first rifle put it to use(not by the Chinese of course), and they were experts at metal working for swords, shields, and armor. poof is the sound of that theory evaporating.
It will be sunny tomorrow, spare me your new breed of insights & tell me what the stock market is really going to do tomorrow.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
