Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life by Steven E. Landsburg Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.80 You Save: $10.20 (73%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.99 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life
Book Review: Very sharp
Summary: 5 Stars
Aggressively controversial and now something of a classic, this book has aged well. Landsburg delights in winding his readers up, but the writing is a lot of fun, the analysis is always sharp, and the book is strongly recommended. Economists will look at their subject differently after finishing it, I suspect. My only reservation: David Friedman's "Hidden Order" covers a lot of the same ground, and is perhaps even better.Book Review: Proof Publishers and Editors Need Economic Training
Summary: 2 Stars
Three facts about economists teaching laypeople:
1: Economists love to be counter-intuitive.
2: Economists love to be controversial.
3: Economists love to go on about their personal opinions as though they were fact because, after the above two points, no one feels he or she can defend any contradicting opinion
This book suffers from the worst of these points. Yes, economics is sometimes quite the opposite of what one might think and is very often "politically inviable" because of its conclusions, but Mr. Landsburg goes far too much into the rhelm of "I'm the author, you have to do what I say." I, too, agree that, for example, enviromental policies are often extremely ineffecient. However, if these policies are important to others, if they bring happiness or, in other words, "utility" to a degree greater than the opportunity costs incured, that's their business. The book is scattered with his belittlement of the poor idiots who don't understand economics and if they did they would think like him.
This is the sort of reason why people don't like econmists. This is why people think we're heartless prigs. If the people through whom this book must have gone before it was published knew enough about economics to defend their positions instead of just accepting the author as their better, they would have perhaps reminded him to tone down some of his particulars that he forms into generalities.
To summize: Mr. Landsburg is an insufferable know-it-all, who does, in all fairness, know-it-some.
Book Review: good, fun, introductory book to economics
Summary: 4 Stars
I really enjoy Landsburg's style of writting. His many numerous examples of how to apply economics to everyday life are humerous, interesting, and instructive. However, I'm not a complete beginner to economics and I'd already heard or read many of the examples he gave which took away from a lot of the fun in reading the book.
In addition, as I am a scientist doing research a major university trying to develop new theories to explain how to engineer better catalysts I must state that I didn't agree with his explanation of why some scientists produce more theories than others, etc. He didn't seem to believe that it was difficult to develop new original scientific theories which I strongly disagree with, and so I lowered my rating of the book from 5 to 4 stars.
If you're new to economics then buy the book. It's great! But if you've been around the block a few times, you'll probably find it a bit boring.
Book Review: sometimes misses the point of opposing arguments
Summary: 3 Stars
Landsburg's book is entertaining and often witty, and written in a conversational, easy-to-read style. The book is very good at presenting often unintuitive and novel (to the non-economist) ways of looking at things. This is an invaluable book for pointing out common fallacies in arguments about deficits, inflation, unemployment, and other major political issues. At the same time, however, I can't help but think that Landsburg occasional misses significant relevant issues, most glaringly in the final chapter on environmentalism. For example, Landsburg describes a case where Jack wants a woodland at the expense of Jill's parking space and vice versa, and argues that the desires are exactly symmetrical. While environmentalists claim that the wilderness should take precedence "because a decision to pave is 'irrevocable'", Landsburg says "a decision _not_ to pave is _equally_ irrevocable" because "Unless we pave today, my opportunity to park tomorrow is lost as irretrievably as tomorrow itself will be lost" (p. 224). While this is correct, this misses the environmentalist's point that it is much easier to convert woodland to parking lot than to do the reverse. The environmentalist fears taking actions that are irrevocable in the sense that they cannot be undone in the future. Landsburg's perspective throughout the book seems to me to ignore the possibility of actions taken which may have consequences which may adversely effect the very existence of mankind (or economic institutions).
Another example in the same chapter is when he suggests that the best way for environmentalists to support the existence of cattle is to eat beef: "If you want ranchers to keep a lot of cattle, you should eat a lot of beef" (p. 225). This presumes that environmentalists care about the number of cattle in existence, irrespective of their living conditions. Would Landsburg have told abolitionists during the Civil War to buy more cotton as a way of improving the plight of slaves?
Yet a third example in the same chapter is about preservation of the Amazon rain forest, because a new species of monkey was discovered there in October 1992. Landsburg writes that this gives him reason _not_ to preserve the rain forest, since he "lived a long time without knowing about this monkey and never missed it" (p. 226). Would he make the same argument if it was a tribe of people whose existence depended on the rain forest rather than a species of monkey? If not, then he's missing the point of those who argue that animals (or the environment) have inherent value. It is clear from his writing that he disagrees, yet his own position does assign inherent value to the interests of people and so is not neutral. He seems to admit at the end of this chapter--in the letter he wrote to his child's teacher--that his view on environmentalism amounts to a religious view that is not subject to discussion (just as he thinks environmentalism itself amounts to a religion being inappropriately taught to his child).
Despite my complaints, I found the book as a whole to be entertaining and informative, and would recommend it along with David Friedman's _Law's Order_ (I haven't read Friedman's _Hidden Order_) for insight into economic analysis of issues of the day.
Book Review: Interesting thoughts; shame about the attitude
Summary: 3 Stars
This is the first book that has moved me sufficiently to write a review on Amazon.I found it an entertaining read, with some though-provoking ideas often wittily written up. It is such a shame, though (and I read a review here from someone else with similar views) that the text is threaded so liberally with the author's private conceits. What a very smug and self-satisfied man.
Again agreeing with a previous review here, in the end the sheer arrogance becomes offensive and begins to overshadow the arguments being put forward.
I'm glad I read the book. I'm also glad, however, that I shall likely never meet Steven E Landsburg.