To call Steven Levitt a rogue may be a bit over the top. In reality he just goes about solving, or at least trying to solve, questions that economists tend to overlook. Instead, of moving into the private sector or focusing on economic policy, Levitt explores "freakish" problems in society. Regression analysis is his main tool for answering questions like "Why do crack dealers still live with their moms?", "What's more dangerous a hand gun or a swimming pool?", and "Is there corruption in sumo-wrestling?". The result is that economic principles that normally perplex the average fellow, like you and me, can be laid out and made quite simple yet interesting.
Admittedly, this book is not very difficult to get through. I think at one point it was assigned to one of the Macro-Econ classes at my high school. One of my professors in college essentially used this book as the basis of the class. In hindsight I realize that his sweet ideas on solving collective action problems were straight out of Freakonomics. That being said the book is a good tool for anyone interested in solving problems. It teaches analysis and thinking outside the box that we don't necessarily get in our everyday lives. Often, our problem solving process is "If problem A use solution B". This is not only dull, but it can also overlook other variables, and underestimate the complexity of a situation.
Freakonomics is an examination of one of Adam Smith's underlying themes as a Philosopher and Economist.
"Smith's true subject was the friction between individual desire and societal norms." - Freakonomics, Pg. 14 How do we act in terms of larger society? We are driven by our own preferences, but we are also social creatures who realize that if we do not fit somewhere productively inside the whole of society it doesn't matter what our preferences are. The constraints of society really seem to dictate a great deal of our actions.
Levitt's book asks obscure questions, really they are questions we should be asking anyway, about things like the real interests of "experts" and the role of information asymmetry in our everyday lives. Information asymmetry is the notion of a "lemon's market" where one part has more information than other in a transaction. We rely on experts to help guide us through the purchase of cars, homes, and diversifying our portfolios. The reliance on these experts is based upon the fact that they know more than we do and we pay them for their resource. Freakonomics simply calls into question the reliance on an "expert" noting that sometimes the incentives for a real estate agent are not always enough to truly have their interests aligned with their customer.
It should be noted that I am not saying to avoid using car salesmen, realtors, or financial experts. In the case of my father you should all think about using his services more. DIVERSIFY YOUR PORTFOLIOS. Mike Hagerty can be trusted. Just take into account the interests of the "expert". My view of Freakonomics is that the books purpose is to ask questions, and take the many things around us we tack up to conventional wisdom with a grain of salt.
My view is slightly skewed towards a more syncratic perspective. I have said before that there is no magic bullet to anything. Common knowledge is a tool for simplifying the world around us. Freakonomics simply introduces us to the possibilities of other variables at work that may even defy common knowledge. Understanding the world around us is a matter of looking at it from as many perspectives as possible.
"On the road from the City of Skepticism, I had to pass through the Valley of Ambiguity."
- Adam Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment