Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life by Steven E. Landsburg

by Steven E. Landsburg

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.

-- Joe Queenan, The Wall Street Journal

The Armchair Economist is a wonderful little book, written by someone for whom English is a first (and beloved) language, and it contains not a single graph or equation...Landsburg presents fascinating concepts in a form easily accessible to noneconomists.

-- Erik M. Jensen, The Cleveland Plain Dealer

...enormous fun from its opening page...Landsburg has done something extraordinary: He has expounded basic economic principles with wit and verve.

-- Dan Seligman, Fortune

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Business, Finance, Politics, Science, Social Science

Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wasn't going to bother commenting on this book but in regard to some of the other comments I feel I must. Those that rated this book a 1 or 2 and then jumped into politically-motivated negative comments - shame on you. You are intellectually dishonest to yourselves and those that read these reviews. There is nothing in this book that pushes a political agenda unlike MOST of the more recent psuedo-economics books being published. What IS presented by Landsburg are sound, economic analysis and discussion. Nothing more and nothing less. And they stand the test of time.

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.

It is a sad thing that when logic does not match someone's view of the world that they then have to start hurling insults and result to name calling rather than take a hard look at the facts in front of them.

[Summer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Abysmal, condescending, illogical and mean-spirited book on social economics. Absolutely no sources named for "statistics". The author seems to think that a significant number of people go to the movies solely to eat popcorn and that the benefits of recycling are outweighed by the fact that he doesn't feel like doing it.

[Alanood · Rating 4 out of 5]

عادةً ما يسعى الإقتصاد الى اثبات فرضياته بالرسوم البيانية والتحليلات المعقدّة .. لكن الامر مختلف مع هذا الكتاب الذي يقدم صور مجازية وقصص قصيرة واضحة وبسيطة الفهم ، وقريبة بالواقع. .

كل فصل من فصوله رحلة لحل لغز ما يستثيرك ويساعدك على فهم العالم بنظرة عالم اقتصاد ذكي وظريف ..

فيخلق الكاتب من خلال تحليلاته العديد من الاستفهامات - حتى ان كنت لم أتفق معه في بعض تحليلاته التي صُدمت وتعجبّتُ منها -، لكن لابأس ..فكم هو رائع أن تستكشف آراء جديدة،غير تقليدية ومختلفة عما ندرُسه في أساسيات الإقتصاد

من فصوله :
-سر ارتفاع ثمن كيس الفشار في السينما وخطأ الإجابة البديهية
-متى تكون البطالة في صالحك
-الطب والحلوى والقطارات والشرر
- خرافة العجز الحكومي
-هل كان آينشتين أهلاً للثقة؟
- لماذا لم أكُن يومًا من حُماة البيئة ؟


كتاب ممتع!

[Mohamed Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

لماذا أدى سن قانون إرتداء حزام الأمان إلى زيادة نسبة حوادث السيارات؟

لماذا تباع الكثير من السلع بسعر ٢.٩٩ دولار في حين لا يباع سوى القليل جدًا بسعر ٣ دولارات؟

لماذا يفضل الناس شراء الهدايا بدلاً من أن يتهادوا بالمال؟

لماذا يقدم البائع التخفيضات للكبار في السن -رغم تمتعهم بمستوى معيشي مرتفع في المتوسط-، ويرفض في المقابل أن يخفض سعر أي سلعة إذا كان المشتري شابًا؟

لماذا يكون سعر كيس الفشار مرتفعًا في السينما مقارنة بسعره خارجها؟

يجيب هذا الكتاب الممتع على هذه الألغاز -وغيرها- بطريقة تدفعك بعد الانتهاء من قراءته إلى مساءلة كل التفاصيل الصغيرة التي تحيط بك ولم تتوقف يومًا للتفكير فيها!

يقول ستيفن لاندسبيرج -مؤلف الكتاب: أقصى ما يتمناه عالم الاقتصاد ليس أن يغير العالم بل أن يفهمه.

وهذا الكتاب ليس سوى محاولة لفهم العالم

[Tony Cohen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to give this book a three since I did learn something, although I really hold it in remarkable contempt. For the first time ever while reading an economics book, I felt like I understood the contempt held for the 'dismal science'.

I feel like delving into this a bit. The author makes a claim that taxes don't add value to a society, because what you take from Peter, you pay to Paul, and in a sense of absolute value, it is true. If I have a million millionaires, who each earn 10 million a year, and I tax 1 million from them and give it to the poor, I have not made my society richer in absolute monetary terms, but this completely ignores one of his other insightful claims.

In a previous example, when discussing logging, he claimed that the actual economic benefit of cutting down trees, has to not only take into consideration the positive economic impact for the company, loggers, etc., but it also must factor in the emotional cost to the environmentalist who is upset about loosing said trees. Critically, and I must give credit where credit is due, the economist in question recognizes that labour is not valuable in and of itself, but the fruits of said labour are. So if I work my ass off and buy an Ipod, it is my enjoyment out of the purchase which is the true reward...this is what I work for. Hopefully, what I spend my money on brings me some form of satisfaction.

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.

So lets look at those folk again. Let us say, that we tax the million millionaires earning 10 million dollars a year at 100,000 dollars annually. In actual dollar transfers, no one is richer or poorer. The big wage earners have lost 1% of their salary, and now there are 100,000,000,000 floating about to disperse to the poor. So lets play with my imaginary (but inspired from the book example) and up this tax to 5%, leaving our society, in the form of taxation from these sole 1 million millionaires 500 BILLION dollars to play with. Now, recognizing the principle of the need to weigh emotional benefits and costs with any economic plan, (accepting the complete dollar exchange equality) 1 million people have suffered. Now, how much they have suffered is hard to quantify. They have been taxed at 5%, and that is real. There may be an extra cottage in Aspen un-purchased, a Mazzerati (sp) undriven, or some classy couture unworn. Now, to say that the tax generated no value is to assume that the net emotional worth/perception of the 500 Billion to the poor is equal to the ennui suffered from the mega-wealthy, knowing that they have had a small percentage of their earnings accosted. So what emotive benefits do our poor people gain from this. That list is extensive, so how about we focus on the emotive benefit of what the wealthy gain from giving.

While some might wish they had an extra 10 Ferragamo shoes to wear, I am guessing others feel happy that the poor are better off. If nothing else, seeing poor people beg around you does have a tendency to be a wee bit depressing. Oh yeah, and when people are less desperate, they tend to not commit crimes...a portion of which maybe (just maybe) directed at the aforementioned wealthy....so maybe rich people might enjoy not living with constant security and behind gated fences....they may like having competent servants....rich people do have to interact with poor people, even if the later only serve them, and maybe they would like them to be able to do simple sums (only in terms of effective service mind you :-)...which they are likely to learn in school. Oh...and health care...poor people can spread infectious diseases...but not so likely if they have health care and last I checked rich people don't like dysentery either....and rich people might like the emotional value of living in a stable society unlikely to suffer from a despotic overthrow....also less likely in a country with people not at the mere level of starvation. Still think taxes don't produce anything Mr Economist? And I haven't even gotten to the benefits the poor might feel not living in the gutter.

[Guillermo Pons · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't usually review books for the benefit of others. If I do, I usually make a brief statement for me to remember what I felt at a later time. But for those who want to read this book, which has been touted as the predecessor of "Freakonomics", or as a layman's introduction to economics, I have to say that it has been the worst book I've read in a long time.

I am sure that Professor Landsburg is knowledgeable in several fields, one of them being economics, but he is surely lacking information in many others. Throughout the book he makes use of similes, analogies and other devices to explain economic theory -- or as he puts it, "how an economist sees the world." But this view often comes off as illogical, simplistic or, in the worst essays, immoral and despicable. He states that economics is a science devoid of feelings or personal preferences. It's true and no one can say otherwise. But it is his applications of economic theory toward political, social or scientific problems that reveal glaring omissions and scary rhetoric.

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.

One of these cases is his view of judicial settlements. He states that a judge settling a case between buying mining safety equipment and letting the workers work without it does not matter. Either way the economic costs are the same. Workers without safety equipment will be compensated with higher wages, and the rate of mining accidents will stay the same because they're being more careful; workers who are given safety equipment will be deducted the cost of the safety equipment and will be more reckless given that they can take more risks. At the end of this essay, he figures that the cost of ruling for the safety equipment might actually cost the company more (if the miners are reckless and keep getting into accidents).

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.

Environmentalism is discussed, in a rather controversial essay at the end of the book, as something akin to a religion of sensationalized individuals looking to convert the whole world. He discusses the extinction of a species of monkeys as something worthless and without cost because their existence -- or nonexistence -- brings him no personal grievance. An environmentalist's anger about the relocation of a polluting factory from America to an unnamed third world country is declared irrational. He ignores that even if it now does not directly affect the American individual, the factory is still polluting -- something that continues to spout emissions and cause environmental damage. It is as if he is shocked that an individual might still care about a problem not directly affecting them.

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.

It is true that a discipline lacks values and morals. Science can't tell you whether lying is bad or whether your wife cheating was deserved. So, too, is economics unable to tell right from wrong. But it is not the science of economics who was written this book. It is a man who, like any of us, is flawed and biased. He presents solid economic views with weak, subjective opinions that do not weigh more than his obsessive, simplistic book.

[Nada Elshabrawy · Rating 3 out of 5]

كويس جدا في مجمله، بعض الفصول فضلت صعبة رغم محاولات الكاتب لجعلها بسيطة

[Shane Moore · Rating 1 out of 5]

I generally enjoy books that cover Economics topics for laymen, but I didn't like this one very much. The basics of the field are presented in a clear way, but the examples were often oversimplified to the point that they were distracting. His focus on economics isolated from all other aspects of society lead to him saying ridiculous things like, "taxes have no effect on the economy".

[Bruce · Rating 2 out of 5]

Recommended to my wife as Freakonomics’ better predecessor (Armchair Economist was originally published in 1993), Landsburg describes his work as “a chronicle of what [he] learned at lunch” (p. viii). Now, even granting the University of Rochester economics professor latitude befitting his choice of lunchtime companions, I was heartily disappointed to discover that the text indeed lives down to the author’s own humble description.

The tone is fine; Landsburg is chatty and informally fun. But each chapter is one series after another of economic or sociological examples tossed off and left unanalyzed. Why do concert promoters for acts that consistently sell-out choose to set prices lower than the maximum the market will bear? Yeah, that’s a good one, and here’s another: why should irrelevant celebrity endorsements (politicians for luggage) help sell products? And why would single diners tip waitstaff anonymously, with no one to impress? Why do movie theater owners charge so much for popcorn, when they could make up the difference on the movie ticket itself? All intriguing questions, which the author has no intention of fully exploring. I got fed up after five or so chapters in this vein. This book has conversation fodder aplenty, but nary a real insight. What, no mention of social proof, status theory, or even a passing familiarity with the Hollywood distribution model? Here, Steven, let me introduce you to Edward Jay Epstein and Harold Vogel. With due respect to the gentleman who preferred Landsburg’s efforts to those of his fellow Stevens Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner, at least the Freakonomics guys show some passing familiarity with their library.

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.

Bird Brian has started a collection of audio book reviews called The Big Audio Project and invited/dared me to participate (well, Choupette dared me to use a fake Aussie accent, which is close enough). At any rate, now that I can compound my natural pretension with hamminess, there’s no telling what I might accomplish. This is one of three books that I read, thought little of, and never got around to that form my (first?) contribution to Brian's project.

[raeed zakzouk · Rating 2 out of 5]

لا باس يا ستيفن،محاولة طيبة،لكن الكاتب كان بالنسبة لي ممل جدا جدا،والقصص خيالية خيالية،بحيث ان فكرت في القصة من وجهة نظر ثانية لوجدت انه في كلامه بعض الاخطاء،والنقطة الثانية يا صديقي المترجم كيف تقول بان هذا الكتاب ليس فقط للاقتصاديين؟؟؟اصبت بالاعياء من كثرة المصطلحات الاقتصادية الغير مفهومة بالنسبة لي بطبيعة الحال لست متخصص في الادارة او الاقتصاد...
نهاية الكلام:الكتاب لم يعجبني

[Sarazen · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are a few books that when you read them they change your perspective on everything. This on one of those books. I did not realize how woefully uneducated I was on how economies work. What was a real insight was how small choices of people can make all the difference. Everyone could benefit from a few turns in these pages.

[Andrew Breslin · Rating 3 out of 5]

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:

Me: (after a few merciful moments of blissful silence): One principle difference between the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank in the former’s focus on stimulating growth, contrasted with the latter’s anti-inflationary position, as a result of historical and cultural precedents. As such, the ECB tends toward what Americans would view as a tight monetary policy. And of course, with interest rates so low, the Fed has no recourse but to resort to quantitative easing to attempt to stimulate aggregate demand, but such a course is a virtual anathema to Mario Draghi, let alone Angela Merkel . . .

Girlfriend: All this sexy talk is making me wet all over again.

(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.)

So yes, I'm a little obsessed. I’ve subscribed to The Economist for the last four years or so, reading it each and every time I use the toilet, and mind you: I need a lot more fiber in my diet. I wrote a book about game theory, one of the most important areas of mathematics with direct applications to economics. And for the last year and half, I’ve spent most of my working days listening continuously to economics podcasts, including Freakonomics, Planet Money, the London School of Economics, and The Economist podcast, to catch up on what I’ve missed in the print version, in case I’ve been eating a lot of bran muffins.

A little knowledge is a notoriously dangerous thing, and when I read popular (and clearly intentionally provocative) economics treatises such as this book, I just have an overwhelming urge to argue with their authors. Over beers or coffee. It would all be very civilized. But my local watering holes do nothing to attract flocks of economists, and there is almost zero chance of sneaking it into romantic pillow talk with one, as described above.

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.

...........................................................

P.S. The girlfriend and I make arguably too many “that’s what she said” jokes. If you enjoy that sort of thing, you might find this link amusing.

[عمر الحمادي · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب يأخذك في رحلة سياحية في الصعب الممتنع من علم الاقتصاد باسلوب ال"دردشة" مع القارئ غير المتخصص.

يعتبر المؤلف أن الفلسفة الأخلاقية بشكل عام لا تهتم بالنتائج بينما علم الاقتصاد هو فلسفة حقوق يهتم بالنتائج التي تعود عليه بالنفع.

لاحظ آدم سميث - أول علماء الاقتصاد الحديث - أن العاملين في نفس التجارة قلما يلتقون إلا وينتهي الحديث بتدبير مؤامرة ضد عامة الناس أو يؤدي إلى وضع مخطط لرفع الأسعار.

يطرح المؤلف العديد من الألغاز العقلية في علم الاقتصاد فمثلا لماذا يدلي الناس بأصواتهم في الانتخابات مع كون كل فرد منهم يدرك أن صوته وحده لن يحسم النتيجة ، أو لماذا يهدي الناس بعضهم هدايا وليس مالاً ؟ والذي قد يشير لكون المُهدي قد خصص جزءا من وقته لانتقاء الهدية المناسبة ، أو لماذا تباع السلع بسعر ٢.٩٩ دولار أكثر من ذات ال٣ دولارات ؟ مع أنها موروثة من القرن ال١٩ حيث خفض مالك المتجر سعر البضاعة سنتا واحدا ليتأكد من عدم حصول سرقة من المحاسب الذي سيضطر لإرجاع السنت للمشتري بدلا من وضع الدولار كاملا في جيبه.

واختفاء السجائر من عالمنا سيعني حرمان شركات التأمين من العامل الوحيد الذي تعتمد عليه في تصنيف عملائها ، عندها سيعامل الجميع بالتساوي ولن يدفع غير المدخن أقل من المدخن.

وبدون فضائح جنسية سوف نجد مزيدا من المرشحين في الانتخابات الرئاسية الأمريكية وستزداد صعوبة الأمر للمتسابقين الفعليين ، ووضع رسم -ولو رمزي- لدخول متحف بحري سيقلل ساعات الانتظار في الطابور بدون أن يؤثر على متعة الزيارة وبدون أن يكلف الزائر شيئا ويرجع بالفائدة على إدارة المتحف ، ورفع رواتب أعضاء البرلمان سيؤدي إلى زيادة عدد المترشحين وزيادة الإنفاق على الحملات الانتخابية.

يستجيب الناس بطريقة لافتة للتحفيز وأظهرت دراسة جدلية ل"إيرليتش" أن تطبيق إعدام واحد يمنع حدوث ٨ جرائم قتل ، ووجهت هذه الدراسة بحملة واسعة من النقد وكان مما أخذ عليها هو عدم تعرضها لدافع الجريمة المحبطة والتي قد تكون جريمة شرف أو قتل لدافع السرقة ، على أي حال لا يمكن إهمال مبدأ قوة التحفيز ولا يمكن التغاضي عن احتمال كون التحفيز له ردة فعل مختلفة عن مرادها ، فمثلا قد تؤدي السجائر منخفضة القطران إلى ارتفاع نسبة الإصابة بسرطان الرئة وقد تؤدي الدهون الصناعية قليلة السعرات إلي زيادة متوسط الوزن.

[Connor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting subjects presented but most lacked the critical analysis I was hoping for. The author seemed to oscillate between objective presentation and lecturing from personal opinion. The last chapter on environmentalism was intriguing but ending with the letter to the teacher seemed arbitrary and very ostentatious.

[Rihab · Rating 4 out of 5]

احتوى الكتاب على ستة ابواب مقسمة على عدة فصول لتصل الى 24 فصل.
ففي كل فصل تحدث الكاتب عن شيء كان معلومة او تعريف بشي او دحض لخرافة منتشرة او شرح لنظرية معتمدا على شرحه البسيط و القصص التي اعتمدها لايصال افكاره و وجهة نظره .
كتاب يعرفك كيف يفكر رجل اقتصاد بأسلوب بسيط غير مقعد لايحتاج الى متمرس في الاقتصاد او مختص فهو موجه لكل فئات مختصة و غيرها .
يعتبر الكتاب مدخل جيد لعلم الاقتصاد .

[Mahrous · Rating 2 out of 5]

تعبت حتى أنهيته .. مرهق ودسم وترجمته ليست الأفضل
أكثر ما أعجبت به هو السرد المنطقي للمقدمات حتى استخلاص النتائج في أي مشكلة اقتصادية يناقشها
وأيضا كثرة الأمثلة مما يحسب للكتاب
ولكن في المجمل .. لا أنصح به

[Juraj Spilda · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author tends to reduce arguments to simplistic strawman versions of the original problem to draw the conclusion that he wants to achieve. He also engages in unnecessary amounts of insults and condescension. If it weren't for one or two passable chapters, it would have been 1 star.

[Anthea · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book was good until the last chapter "why I am not an environmentalist". overall it was simple to understand and not totally filled with jargon unlike some other economics textbooks. sufficient details with relatable real life scenarios that make it easy to be understood.

however that last chapter was just ..... it just pisses me off seeing that he thinks all these "benefits" outweighs the cost of what we are doing to the environment. smfh. people like him is the reason for global warming.

[Awfa Bostani · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب بسيط ، سهل ، ممتع ، يتكلم في الاقتصاد من منظور الرجل العامي بأسلوب ممتع ..جدا ، ويطرح تساؤلات فلسفية جديدة في الاقتصاد ..

الكتاب خال من الرسوم البيانية والمعادلات المعقدة، لقد نجح الكاتب في تقديم مجموعة من الأفكاروالنظريات الاقتصادية بأسلوب يسهل على غير المتخصصين في علم الاقتصاد استيعابه.

[mich 🩶 · Rating 3 out of 5]

tbh when i picked up this book in the library i did not expect it to be mostly an explanation of microeconomics concepts,,, i was expecting this to be something like freakonomics where it's less theory-focused and more of argumentation coupled with statistics and data on relevant social issues (even tho this did mention everyday life so ig thats my bad then). microeconomics is the trickiest part of economics by far for me ...it's very theoretical/ technical and sometimes the logic is either oversimplified or difficult to grasp because of how economics perceives things like benefit, cost and welfare etc in a way different from our own normative views. and although my favourite part of econ is how it turns big subjective ideas into principles and neat diagrams and quantitative variables, i think reading this book probably exposed a lot of the flaws of perceiving the world in terms of pure theory in a way that the book sometimes criticises and sometimes perpetuates. in the end, i have mixed feelings bc idk how much of it is due to the book itself and the explanations provided or if econs is just weird Like That,, maybe the latter. but i think there are some problems anyway.

for the micro bits, as someone taking economics rn, this was pretty accessible to me (idk about everyone else this is supposed to be a layman's intro to econ) on a high school level. def helped me understand resource allocation, cost/benefit analysis more in-depth. and the part on monopolies and price discrimination part was genuinely kind of intriguing. in econ at skl we think of price as standardised in a market, so knowing how discounts and targeted pricing work is pretty cool, and also the evil but creative ways in which firms try to exploit consumers through marketing and pricing etc (my incredible naivete made me assume that prices were purely based on production costs and not producers being sneaky). also some introduction to coase theorem, indifference principle etc ...those parts were interesting and not covered in IB so that was nice. (market failure/externalities were glossed over unfortunately). overall i think the tricky micro principles were explained somewhat decently without being too off-putting . however i think logic was a bit hard to follow at times. moreover the analogies were mostly useful and engaging but sometimes overly simplistic since the author took so many assumptions to make those arguments apply properly...like the whole recycling/seatbelt examples involved some serious logical leaps. and some things were def left underanalysed. but tbh irl it's so hard to isolate one variable and the overall theory is communicated well enough. in most instances this wasnt a big problem tho i genuinely enjoyed the part on monopoly power in everyday life. the application to relationships and dating was such a wild thing to read.

the macro part is pretty good. the author drew a clear distinction between normative and positive parts of econ, like how we can measure income through statistics but we cant conflate that with happiness and wellbeing. e.g. how after national disasters GDP and 'productivity' can increase but thats not necessarily good bc it's mostly ppl rebuilding, and how inflation can trick ppl into returning to job market for perceived higher wages etc so a lot of stats are blown out of proportion to justify ineffective policies. logic makes sense here and i understood it. yay macro!!!

side note other reviews have mentioned the ostentatious and frankly mean-spirited tone as distracting...this i agree with. there's many parts of the book where the author just (for lack of better phrasing) absolutely fucking shits on the "economic illiteracy" of the ppl he criticizes. to quote he refutes an argument abt how taxing drugs could be a net benefit bc it benefits specific actors
with the line "a fiasco of this magnitude deserves more recognition" (bc apparently in the extremely 'objective' econ view the word 'benefits' dont favour particular actors, so governments gaining from this policy is not a net benefit but a transfer or something like that). he also uses very black and white statements like "costs are costs, goods are goods, consumers know best and consumer surplus is always a good thing" etc in a way that frames econ principles as uncomfortably dogmatic. however to give the author credit this did help me differentiate between my subjective idea of what's subjectively beneficial and what the economics idea of beneficial is in a very memorable way, so i prolly wont be making the mistake of conflating the two in whatever abysmal paper i write for the finals. and the tone/style was quite entertaining. langlit ahh book fr (this would unironically make good paper 1... help). hopefully suvash will appreciate the same snarky writing in my econ paper 3 policy rec.

overall do i agree with every single one of the author's opinions/analysis? no. especially the final chapter on environmentalism...that pissed me off (the whole 'consumption incentivises preservation of resources' arg was absolute fucking bullshit considering most resources are damaging to maintain at best and straight-up nonrenewable at worst. also the trade-off between personal comfort and environmental damage is a hard position to defend, esp using supposedly 'objective' theory.). was it a good explanation/application of theory? mostly, but there are def flaws (neglecting externalities was a big gripe for me). was it worth a read? probably. the parts where he briefly mentioned how we can convert theoretical arguments from yap to actual math through econometrics etc definitely picqued my interest the most. unfortunately he did not elaborate much on that so maybe another time. back to fiction/literature it is.

[Stephanie Carr · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little intriguing, a little disappointing

At first I was really into this. I was picking up the examples like a sponge, nodding along with stuff that made sense, and recalling the fun experience of graphing every problem in my Econ 202 class. (Which really helps visualize things, for me at least)

Then about halfway through, the author has a whole section dedicated to points where the media "said something stupid about economics" (not a direct quote but Lord does it make me roll my eyes). Suddenly we went from fun simplified theoretical economical problems and solutions - to bashing people for stating things that the author doesn't agree with. Maybe he has a point but all it served to do was enlighten me to his arrogance. And his condescending attitude. This soured the rest of the book.

While I did find myself falling back into enjoyment with these over simplified problems, solutions, explanations... The last chapter served to show that roll-my-eyes condescending arrogance again. So annoying.

Overall, I guess I kinda liked it because the writing is easy to follow and the "real world" examples used to explain econonic concepts was certainly fun. In the sense that it's like reading one sided conversations that happen at the lunch table. But whatever. Not bad I guess.

[Parth Agrawal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hey friends, long time no see Well I am to blame for that as under pressing circumstances, I got sidetracked from this wonderful addiction ;P

Well, let's talk about this new book that I just finished

This is the best book I've read so far folks and I'm not exaggerating. Well if an armchair economist, as the title suggests, can observe things the way Steven has done, I wonder what would an active economist running here and there will pull off. If you stop right wherever you are and go back in time, you would realize that there have been many instances when you have faced an argument, contrary of which would've seemed impossible because of the unpopularity of the it but still you were left with a nagging sensation. The problem you faced in such a situation was that you were unable to concoct a simulation based on the principles, just opposite to what is popularly believed in order to check whether populist opinions are right or wrong. For ex Once we used to believe that earth is flat or earth is the centre of universe/solar system, in order to check whether this was true, it was required to give an equal opportunity to the contrary versions of these beliefs as well in order to empirically verify as to which of the two belief is factually correct. We all know how people like Copernicus and Galileo were treated when they suggested the same. Maybe mankind is not doomed yet as there are few who always think differently and are immune to the herd mentality. Well, this book will to help you to think differently by presenting you with those simulations with a bend of economics at every turn

I will provide you with some of the insights and questions that I faced while reading and I would be more than happy to have discussion on any of these:-

1) Selfish Gene--> I have come across this idea plenty of times and across disciplines be it economics or evolutionary biology. It states that human genes are selfish in nature i.e. they compel the organism to undertake only those actions which have an incentive attached to them. The incentive can be biological in nature(Making as many copies of one's genes as one can--> If you know what I mean!!) or monetary in nature. Monetary incentives are dealt by the economists and as the book suggests, people don't respond to instances, events, policy decisions or any other such thing but only to incentives. The best example of this is the riddle of seat belts. We believe that making it mandatory for people to wear seat belts is equivalent to increasing their safety but it can have opposite results as well. How? Well wearing seat-belts can ensure that in an accident, seat-belts will reduce the probability of your death. But can it control the rate of accidents itself? What if we assume that seat-belts in-fact are acting as an incentive to the driver to drive faster than usual as he/she knows that he/she has better chance to survive that accident? How is this wrong?

2) Truth or Consequences--> Meaning of these two words and especially their attribution to an occurrence are often confused. Lets directly jump to an example Shareholders of a listed company want to see their invested money in the company, multiply. In order to this risky job, management and executives are employed. Logically speaking, their performance should be linked to the pay package. Now since the expectations of the shareholders are always sky high, more often than not it happens that executives fail to deliver on their promise of increasing the business by x%. Following the logic, this would mean that they will have to take riskier decisions to increase the business by x% and we all know that risk is directly proportional to returns. Now higher the risk, higher the probability that the decision might backfire. Thus, these executives are provided with a golden parachute/higher compensation packages as their salary is directly linked to their performance. Now it's very famous to protest against higher packages awarded to the senior management of the company. This is an indirect protest against sky high expectations of shareholders. Do we realize this? Debatable

3) 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?

4) Why money is good?-->There is one instance shared by the author in which he and his wife fight over the movie to be watched while having dinner. They come up with a novel solution to decide which movie will play and the method of selection will create a win-win situation. Both of them allotted an amount of money to their choice of movie. Whichever amount will be higher will win and that movie will be played. Here's the catch, the winner will have to pay the smaller amount to the loser. The decision has been reached upon by the simple logic that how much monetary value does one attribute to the movie or how much money are you willing to lose to watch that movie. Novel, isn’t it?

What is common in all of these rubrics? For one, they all invite healthy discussion and most importantly, if the proponent cannot prove it right, the dissenter cannot prove it wrong either so that makes all of these topics a moot point
Every book has something or the other to offer, but the most important take away from this book is that it will keep you safe from the subliminal indoctrination of belief systems inside you which you might be able to realize only when it'll be too late. So, I would suggest all of you to read as it'll come handy to you no matter what background you come from

"The hallmark of science is a commitment to follow arguments to their logical conclusions whereas the hallmark of certain kinds of doctrine is a slick appeal to logic followed by a hasty retreat if it points in the other direction " Steven Landsburg

[Alice Furse]

Much like Freakonomics, this book uses a number of case studies to illustrate different points on economics theories and is quite a fun read - however, I would say it goes slightly deeper than Freakonomics as it's slightly more detailed and erudite.

The last chapter, "Why I am Not an Environmentalist" really made me think, as Landsburg outlines the reasons why commonly-held beliefs on the behaviours that help the environment may not be as effective as we think. For example, he says that people think recycling paper saves trees, but if we recycle paper the demand for planting trees actually goes down and therefore the are fewer of them.

Interesting stuff!

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I give this book 3.5 stars. The author should have left out the economic analysis of law and legal disputes (how the economy is better or worse off depending on which party wins), his economic musings that have no answers, and his views on environmentalism (similar to his views on religion - don't impose on those who don't believe). This book is probably more interesting for people who want study economics rather than the general public.

[Vijay Chengappa · Rating 3 out of 5]

A spiritual forefather of Freakonomics style of books, this one has some interesting premises but the explanations don't really add up to too many eye openers.
Also, maybe the whole field of Behavioral economics was just opening up (?) and a lot of conventional thinking has changed often since then. But i can imagine how alluring a book like this may have been when it came out.

[Nick Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were parts of this which I would recommend to many people - explanations of commerce and government spending that made a hell of a lot of sense and which cut through the rubbish we see all the time in social and news media, stuff which I'd encourage everyone to take on board to avoid lazy assumptions and being a bit gullible. Some of the key discussions of 'zero sum' games/situations had great clarity.

Perhaps though I was looking for more of some aspects of what Landsberg had to say, and less of others. At times it felt repetitive, as if the same point (albeit important) was being laboured and expressed in several different ways. At times I felt the analogies were slightly irresponsible in their simplicity with 'real world' variables ignored in order to make for a more elegant example for the man in the street. At times I wanted something a little more amusing and fun, where the author chose instead to stress a point of drier nature (I recall a more quirky book of a similar ilk - Time Harford 'The Logic of Life') instead. It also felt US-centric and slightly dated.

Nevertheless, for a book of just over 200 pages this made for a well-packed and interesting read.

[Alona · Rating 4 out of 5]

Contrary to Naked Economics, this book actually taught me something new and that was quite unexpected. The last essay about environmentalism was certainly eye-opening for me. I see a lot of things about it differently now and just can't stop thinking about it. 


I'm glad that I've found out about this book and it made me to feel proud of being an economist (even if just by education). 

Contrary to Naked Economics, this book actually taught me something new and that was quite unexpected. The last essay about environmentalism was certainly eye-opening for me. I see a lot of things about it differently now and just can't stop thinking about it.

I'm glad that I've found out about this book and it made me to feel proud of being an economist (even if just by education).

[Moinuddin.95 · Rating 3 out of 5]

A concise guide to the basics of economics with the content being accessible to non-economist. Landsburg focuses on presenting difficult and abstract concepts of economics in a form which is easily assimilated by the average reader. The central subject of this book, as outlined by the author, is that economics can be mostly defined in four words: People respond to incentives.

[St Olms · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will be honest here and say this book was a bit more than I can chew; as someone with a general interest in the topic rather than an actual student of the field. I enjoyed a lot of the big ideas but will definitely revisit this book at a later date to really take my time with the details.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will get you thinking. It’s written for non-economists and does relate well with parables and examples, but its logic is sophisticated . It will likely appeal most to people with some experience reading economics and a willingness to keep an open mind.