Customer Rating: 
Summary: Great Read!
Comment: This is an accessable, fun read. I also read Fair Play and More Sex is Safe Sex by Landsburg. He is the best author in this area.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Bad economics, bad writing, or both?
Comment: Before I review the book, I have to provide a digression (I have to lay down these foundations before I can critique the book): There is nothing wrong with economics, it is a beautiful social science (I am a Ph.D. student in economics myself). What one has to bear in mind is that economics explains certain aspects of human behavior and how society works, it is a science, but not one without bounds. When applied methodically and correctly, it gives powerful insights in the subjects it studies. But one must understand that it is not without limitations, to name just a couple: economics is the study of "homo economus", it is by definition anthropocentric. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but certainly there are people who do not share the same view (environmentalists may think, for example, other species have rights too); another foundation of economics is that people are rational, but even economists admit that under certain conditions humans can be "unpredictable" or appear "irrational", and their preferences can be unstable (e.g. see Richard Thaler's works).
Now back to the book. Landsburg labels himself as a libertarian economist, and he takes such doctrine as "free market" as religion. It is true that under perfect competition, low transaction cost, etc., free market will achieve the most efficient allocation of resources. However, we must not forget that the real world is full of obstacles to competition and transaction costs can be forbiddingly high. But though Landsburg claims that he is trying to apply economic principles to "real world" problems, but more often than not, he retreats into the simplistic assumptions of first year college microeconomics.
Parts of the book are simply bad economics. For example, when one reader complains about the quality of air is getting unbearable in the city he lives, Landsburg comments: the fact that he did not move away proves that he is indifferent (between living there and moving away) after all (I actually couldn't locate this in the book at the moment, but I am pretty certain he said something along that line), completely ignoring elasticity (people are not perfectly mobile and can't just move from one city to another on a whim) and transaction costs.
Parts of the book are bad writing. I've read the chapter about popcorns at theaters at least 3 times, to date I am still trying to figure out what he tried to say. Also as other readers point out, his arrogant and snobbish attitude permeates the whole book. He sounds like as if he's the only one who knows the answers to all the questions of the universe. Anyone who does not accept his logic is simply branded "unscientific". One gets the impression that Landsburg is not just impatient, but also a deeply insecure person.
Parts of the book are not easy to tell whether they are bad economics, bad writing, or both. For example, in Chapter 7, he says that he is not sure why he spends a 3 cents worth of effort to grab a one-dollar bill. I understand that the whole chapter is about cost-benefit analysis, but to say that he "is not sure why" is misleading to say the least, because his private gain from this action is 97 cents so it makes perfect sense to do so. I am sure Landsburg actually understands this, but the way he tells the story is just a bad presentation and will make the layman scratch his head (as Landsburg puts it himself): are economists really so "dense"?
Landsburg's attitude toward environmentalism and conservation is appallingly ignorant. He calls environmentalism "the religion of ecology" to imply how unscientific it is, but his own stubborn hatred toward the environment (not just environmentalism) and single-minded faith in libertarian economics are not a shred less unreasonable or zealous than any religious beliefs. I don't consider myself to be in the environmentalist group, and certainly extreme environmentalism has its pitfalls. But from Landsburg's writing, it is apparent that he never bothered to read the other side's arguments at all. For example, he says that if "you want large forests, your best strategy might be to use paper as wastefully as possible" (yes, he actually said "wastefully", chapter 24), but that is assuming people strictly care about the number of trees, and not the composition (diversity of the biota, native species vs. introduced species, etc.) of the ecosystem, not to mention the disturbance, distress and destruction logging can cause to the environment. To an environmentalist, a coastal Californian redwood surviving from Aristotelian times may well give her more "utility" (to use economists' jargon) than newly planted timber crop from lumber companies. It is pretty clear that Landsburg has not the faintest idea about these issues. In the same chapter, he also suggests that "we can pick up a lot of valuable knowledge by wiping out a few species to see what happens", well, have we humans been doing that for, uh, the last few centuries? Need we count the number of species that have been wiped out and are being wiped out everyday? Have we not learned anything yet? (certainly not Landsburg).
Actually, one should not equate Landsburg with the word "economist". Fortunately for us, there are other economists with more reasonable, patient and perhaps humble minds. For example, for the topic of environmental economics, I suggest the reader (and Landsburg) read John Krutilla's "Conservation reconsidered" for a more sophisticated and reasoned argument about conservation.
Customer Rating:
Summary: A brilliant book to explain those things that you never thought about
Comment: This was a great book.
A lot of people don't bother to think arguments all the way through when they make them, and this author did a great job when he took sample letters (from the paper) and carried the arguments contained therein to their logical conclusions. (The Sound and the Fury chapter).
In addition, sometimes people who like to read about Economics as a hobby don't notice a lot of the little things around them that need explaining. (Popcorn prices at movies.) This book does explain many of those things.
Lastly, the author does his best work by uncloaking the environmental movement as a religion and NOT as science. It is telling that he went against a coreligionist (a Jew) in stating his objection to the indoctrination of his child with a religion just as quickly as he went against a Christian for brining Santa Claus into the classroom.
The entire book was worth the purchase price if for no other reason than the chapter on environmentalism.
Customer Rating:
Summary: If you like Pop Economics (like Freakonomics) & you read alot, then this is a good book
Comment: Nothing spectacular. Nothing splashy. But it kept me awake for about 3 hours & I think I'm smarter afterward.
Customer Rating:
Summary: What would Landsburg think of this one?
Comment: Here is an example the kind of question that Prof. Landsburg asks, but not one in this book.
In Europe - at least all the parts of Europe I have visited or lived in - Chinese restaurants are almost always empty. Typically these restaurants are plush inside: they are heavily carpeted, exotic objects such as vases and jade Buddha statues are commonly seen, and expensive furniture, often in dark wood with a high polish, is found. Beautifully folded serviettes are seen on the tables. The restaurants are usually empty.
Italian restaurants, on the other hand, are often full. If one neglects to make a booking, there is a high probability of finding no place at dinner time. These establishments are usually cheaply done out: chipped Formica tables and tubular steel chairs of unfashionable vintage are common. Decoration may include plastic grape vines hanging from nails in the wall or ceiling, and perhaps clusters of old Chianti bottles gathering dust. Wall murals, naively painted, of fictional Roman ruins might decorate the plastered walls.
Both Chinese and Italian restaurants make a significant proportion of their income from take-away food. Pizzas, especially, from the Italian restaurants. The Chinese restaurant in my village makes 80% of its turnover from take away food. The Italian restaurant less than 50%.
Why have the proprietors of Chinese restaurants so obviously over invested in their establishments?
My theory is this. There is a sufficient degree of racism in Europe that Chinese restaurateurs are obliged to display the equivalent of the marble facades of 19th Century banks. They must brand themselves as sophisticated luxury establishments in order to sell take-away food. Otherwise, too many people would suspect that the chicken may be rat meat and the pork, stray dog chops. But I am not sure. I wonder what Landsburg would think?
What do you think?
Read this book to find out how Landsburg formulates and answers these kind of questions. Have fun.
Summary: Great Read!
Comment: This is an accessable, fun read. I also read Fair Play and More Sex is Safe Sex by Landsburg. He is the best author in this area.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Bad economics, bad writing, or both?
Comment: Before I review the book, I have to provide a digression (I have to lay down these foundations before I can critique the book): There is nothing wrong with economics, it is a beautiful social science (I am a Ph.D. student in economics myself). What one has to bear in mind is that economics explains certain aspects of human behavior and how society works, it is a science, but not one without bounds. When applied methodically and correctly, it gives powerful insights in the subjects it studies. But one must understand that it is not without limitations, to name just a couple: economics is the study of "homo economus", it is by definition anthropocentric. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but certainly there are people who do not share the same view (environmentalists may think, for example, other species have rights too); another foundation of economics is that people are rational, but even economists admit that under certain conditions humans can be "unpredictable" or appear "irrational", and their preferences can be unstable (e.g. see Richard Thaler's works).
Now back to the book. Landsburg labels himself as a libertarian economist, and he takes such doctrine as "free market" as religion. It is true that under perfect competition, low transaction cost, etc., free market will achieve the most efficient allocation of resources. However, we must not forget that the real world is full of obstacles to competition and transaction costs can be forbiddingly high. But though Landsburg claims that he is trying to apply economic principles to "real world" problems, but more often than not, he retreats into the simplistic assumptions of first year college microeconomics.
Parts of the book are simply bad economics. For example, when one reader complains about the quality of air is getting unbearable in the city he lives, Landsburg comments: the fact that he did not move away proves that he is indifferent (between living there and moving away) after all (I actually couldn't locate this in the book at the moment, but I am pretty certain he said something along that line), completely ignoring elasticity (people are not perfectly mobile and can't just move from one city to another on a whim) and transaction costs.
Parts of the book are bad writing. I've read the chapter about popcorns at theaters at least 3 times, to date I am still trying to figure out what he tried to say. Also as other readers point out, his arrogant and snobbish attitude permeates the whole book. He sounds like as if he's the only one who knows the answers to all the questions of the universe. Anyone who does not accept his logic is simply branded "unscientific". One gets the impression that Landsburg is not just impatient, but also a deeply insecure person.
Parts of the book are not easy to tell whether they are bad economics, bad writing, or both. For example, in Chapter 7, he says that he is not sure why he spends a 3 cents worth of effort to grab a one-dollar bill. I understand that the whole chapter is about cost-benefit analysis, but to say that he "is not sure why" is misleading to say the least, because his private gain from this action is 97 cents so it makes perfect sense to do so. I am sure Landsburg actually understands this, but the way he tells the story is just a bad presentation and will make the layman scratch his head (as Landsburg puts it himself): are economists really so "dense"?
Landsburg's attitude toward environmentalism and conservation is appallingly ignorant. He calls environmentalism "the religion of ecology" to imply how unscientific it is, but his own stubborn hatred toward the environment (not just environmentalism) and single-minded faith in libertarian economics are not a shred less unreasonable or zealous than any religious beliefs. I don't consider myself to be in the environmentalist group, and certainly extreme environmentalism has its pitfalls. But from Landsburg's writing, it is apparent that he never bothered to read the other side's arguments at all. For example, he says that if "you want large forests, your best strategy might be to use paper as wastefully as possible" (yes, he actually said "wastefully", chapter 24), but that is assuming people strictly care about the number of trees, and not the composition (diversity of the biota, native species vs. introduced species, etc.) of the ecosystem, not to mention the disturbance, distress and destruction logging can cause to the environment. To an environmentalist, a coastal Californian redwood surviving from Aristotelian times may well give her more "utility" (to use economists' jargon) than newly planted timber crop from lumber companies. It is pretty clear that Landsburg has not the faintest idea about these issues. In the same chapter, he also suggests that "we can pick up a lot of valuable knowledge by wiping out a few species to see what happens", well, have we humans been doing that for, uh, the last few centuries? Need we count the number of species that have been wiped out and are being wiped out everyday? Have we not learned anything yet? (certainly not Landsburg).
Actually, one should not equate Landsburg with the word "economist". Fortunately for us, there are other economists with more reasonable, patient and perhaps humble minds. For example, for the topic of environmental economics, I suggest the reader (and Landsburg) read John Krutilla's "Conservation reconsidered" for a more sophisticated and reasoned argument about conservation.
Customer Rating:
Summary: A brilliant book to explain those things that you never thought about
Comment: This was a great book.
A lot of people don't bother to think arguments all the way through when they make them, and this author did a great job when he took sample letters (from the paper) and carried the arguments contained therein to their logical conclusions. (The Sound and the Fury chapter).
In addition, sometimes people who like to read about Economics as a hobby don't notice a lot of the little things around them that need explaining. (Popcorn prices at movies.) This book does explain many of those things.
Lastly, the author does his best work by uncloaking the environmental movement as a religion and NOT as science. It is telling that he went against a coreligionist (a Jew) in stating his objection to the indoctrination of his child with a religion just as quickly as he went against a Christian for brining Santa Claus into the classroom.
The entire book was worth the purchase price if for no other reason than the chapter on environmentalism.
Customer Rating:
Summary: If you like Pop Economics (like Freakonomics) & you read alot, then this is a good book
Comment: Nothing spectacular. Nothing splashy. But it kept me awake for about 3 hours & I think I'm smarter afterward.
Customer Rating:
Summary: What would Landsburg think of this one?
Comment: Here is an example the kind of question that Prof. Landsburg asks, but not one in this book.
In Europe - at least all the parts of Europe I have visited or lived in - Chinese restaurants are almost always empty. Typically these restaurants are plush inside: they are heavily carpeted, exotic objects such as vases and jade Buddha statues are commonly seen, and expensive furniture, often in dark wood with a high polish, is found. Beautifully folded serviettes are seen on the tables. The restaurants are usually empty.
Italian restaurants, on the other hand, are often full. If one neglects to make a booking, there is a high probability of finding no place at dinner time. These establishments are usually cheaply done out: chipped Formica tables and tubular steel chairs of unfashionable vintage are common. Decoration may include plastic grape vines hanging from nails in the wall or ceiling, and perhaps clusters of old Chianti bottles gathering dust. Wall murals, naively painted, of fictional Roman ruins might decorate the plastered walls.
Both Chinese and Italian restaurants make a significant proportion of their income from take-away food. Pizzas, especially, from the Italian restaurants. The Chinese restaurant in my village makes 80% of its turnover from take away food. The Italian restaurant less than 50%.
Why have the proprietors of Chinese restaurants so obviously over invested in their establishments?
My theory is this. There is a sufficient degree of racism in Europe that Chinese restaurateurs are obliged to display the equivalent of the marble facades of 19th Century banks. They must brand themselves as sophisticated luxury establishments in order to sell take-away food. Otherwise, too many people would suspect that the chicken may be rat meat and the pork, stray dog chops. But I am not sure. I wonder what Landsburg would think?
What do you think?
Read this book to find out how Landsburg formulates and answers these kind of questions. Have fun.