To be a great economist, you have to be something other than an economist
920548
The title tells you everything you need to know:  that the good doctor thinks that laissez faire capitalism had anything to do with our current woes demonstrates how little he actually knows.

When the dollar bubble bursts, I'd recommend his book...for toilet paper.
2847045
I liked this book because now people can see how it is a curse to be an economist!!!!  The daily observations of an economist is pretty interesting stuff to the non-economist I guess...
4226097
This book really made me think about some important issues in a fresh way. Surely we can be living fabulous lives but WITHOUT ruining this world of ours. Some chapters I found more my cup of tea than others. But I liked his review of how economists often seem to get their predictions wrong. I liked his questioning that the GDP absolutely must come down to save the planet. (depends) I liked the way he cuts through well accepted ideas for example, of what happiness is and how to acheive it. And a brief new consideraton of Carl Marx .... and much more.
3558163
Few people seem to understand that economics is the study of the use of limited resources which have virtually unlimited alternative uses. While this book is not intended for those with an education in economics, I suggest they read it anyhow. This is one great book.

The focus of the book is not how individuals make money, but on how whole societies create prosperity or poverty for their people by the method they choose (or have imposed upon them) to organize their economies. Prosperous countries with few natural resources (such as Japan and Switzerland) are as common as poor countries with rich resources (such as Russia or Mexico).

What determines whether a culture or country is rich or poor, is a political and philosophical issue--not luck.
1016055
David Orell has written a gem of a book. He systematically lays bear the myths of mainstream economics in a lucid, accessible and entertaining fashion. Orell shows how orthodox economics is hopelessly mired in a reductionist, atomistic mindset based on defunct 19th century physics. Science has moved on but economics lags more than a century behind.  Mainstream economists claim that our present economic system is stable, rational and the most efficient way of allocating resources. Economyths convincingly demonstrates this to be a fiction; the economy is actually unstable, unfair and unsustainable. Insights from complexity theory and other areas of science are applied to show how mainstream economics fails to explain reality - Don't worry, the author uses plain English so no math knowledge is required. Orell draws just as much on findings from fields outside mathematics and science such as psychology, sociology, ecology, feminism (as a red-meat-eating, beer-drinking, football-watching male I was surprised by how enjoyable this chapter was), anthropology and non-orthodox economics to devastating effect, hammering nail after after nail into the coffin of  economic pseudoscience. By the end of this book you should be in no doubt that mainstream economics is an intellectually stagnant, morally bankrupt, outmoded ideology whose main use is to excuse rampant greed, environmental degradation and social injustice. This book deserves to be read  by a wide audience and should appeal to a broad range of readers as its subject matter concerns everybody on the planet. As Orell says:

"One of the things missing from neoclassical economics - and it's a big one - is the rest of the planet."
3166626
This book reads very easily. It describes a lot of debates about economic ideas, mostly about the role of the state and the markets. It contains a lot of interesting information, and some forgotten ideas you don't find in modern textbooks, are in it. The tries - but does not success - to give both sides of the debate and lets the authors speak instead of giving his own ideas. His historic account is a blessing in these times of theoretical economics.
After some chapters, you immediately find the preferences of the author. In nearly every chapter the ideas of the Austrian school pop up, and Hayek is his favorite. Many chapters are balanced, some not at all. When he treats public goods and public choose theory, he gives his own opinion - against public goods theory. There is also a lot of material on monetary policy, which is not bad in these times where economic theory has forgotten the influence of money on the real economy.
This is a must read for everybody who wants to understand why mainstream economic thinking is where it is. But I can only give 3 stars because of the American-British view and, more importantly, because of the bias in favor of the Austrian school - which should not be the case for an historical account.
2184968
First of all, Wheelan forced his class to buy his book, which is always annoying, although I like him as a person otherwise. People compare this to Freakonomics but Wheelan, who used to write for the Economist, is less engaging than his competition. Secondly, this is not a book to be using for a 2nd or 3rd year economics course, especially not at a university renowned for its economics and public policy departments. I ended up giving mine to a high school aged cousin, who found it to be a good overview but commented that he wasn't really sure why he should be accepting the prescriptions offered and left wondering if there were alternatives (which he framed in terms of opportunity cost so I guess it did the job there).
413515
Overall: I recommend this book to people who have an intermediate knowledge of economics or work in finance.

This is one of the more thought-provoking books I've read in a while.  Karabell does a good job explaining where and why important economic indicators (e.g. GDP and inflation) arose.  How the idea of "the economy" is relatively new.  He then goes on to explain whether they measure what we think they (ought) to measure.  Each of these important indicators has its limits in describing our well-being, but at the same time that's not why they were created.

I could have done without chapters 10 and the conclusion.  But since it's not a terribly long book anyway, it wasn't too much of a waste of time.

Overall, a recommend for econ nerds.
623514
As a casual (but avid) economist, Johan Van Overtveldt's book was extremely interesting and intellectually satisfying.

To the author's credit, the book attempts to organize its story around several core beliefs and attitudes of the Chicago school (suggested by Van Overtvelt) and generally topical chapters.  Despite this effort, the book instead reads as a number of short stories, tracking particular economic ideas through their various participants and generations.

Summarizing my reaction to the book:

As a human interest piece, the stories of various lives and the inspirations that brought each to the Chicago School and their various economic specializations is extremely compelling.  With much material extracted from personal interviews, it brings life to the "bibliography" of Chicago.

As a review of economic concepts, the book also scores very well.  In a little under 400 pages, the author blends in hundreds of subjects and numerous associated citations.  To anything but another economic historian, this is a satisfying review of some of the most interesting subjects in economics and offers a crious individual (who might not otherwise have been introduced to this diversity) plenty of opportunities to expand their studies.

As a unification of themes into any sort of organized whole, the book fails miserably.  Chapters jump from subject (and economists) to subject (and economist) with little regard for flow or meta-organization.  Each chapter may be dedicated and true to a topic, but this seems to offer merely a de facto excuse to lump threads together.  When I was done, I was neither convinced that the authors major themes were proven nor satisfied that I had a better holistic understanding of the Chicago School and its history.

With that in mind, I STRONGLY SUGGEST this book to anyone who's broadly interested in economics and particularly the Chicago school.  The human interest side turned a potentially dry history into an absorbing read and copious references tease the curious mind with hundreds of other opportunties to learn.  But read the book for these wonderful features and not for some distillation or summarization of a unified Chicago school or the economics of its members... as you'd be disappointed.
3005983
Toby Moscowitz is a brilliant young economist, and he knows it. The book is a collection of stories about sport, mostly showing the inefficiency of what professionals do, or how economics or psychology helps explain some of the athletes' behavior.

Some of the stories represent new discoveries of Dr. Moscowitz & his partner. Most of them have been written about many times before by less famous authors. But in very few cases does Dr. Moscowitz acknowledge previous work, or show humility or give credit to those who have looked at these issues before.

You can almost hear him say: "have no fear, Dr. Moscowitz is here." Never mind previous work. Those guys were amateur economists & statisticians. Never mind years of sports tradition. I found this attitude grating, and it took away from my enjoyment of some good stories.

In a few cases, he even maked major mistakes.

For example, Dr. Moscowitz rejects the concept of "replacement value" for production in baseball, which has been an established concept of baseball research for at least a decade. It contends that any major league team can get an approximated 20th percentile player production for free, from the minors. Therefore an *average* player has some value, and only production beyond this freely available level is valuable. Conversely, Dr. Moscowitz compares all performance either to average, or to 0-level performance. No serious baseball researcher should make this mistake.

If Toby Moscowitz wants to show that his research is superior to that of dedicated amateurs (especially in baseball), then he had better acquaint himself with what has already been done. Otherwise, he should write his stories with a little more humility.
3230462
This book is more about sociology than merely economics. One classic example from the book is how the children are given names and how these names change in popularity over time. How the poor vs rich people give names to children and whether giving specific names to children actually make their outcomes different.

Ovearall, an  enjoyable read.
2715225
Dan Ariely, the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University, writes about "the hidden forces that shape our decisions" in Predictably Irrational. This book is not as diverse as some of the other behavioral economics books out there, but Ariely makes up for breadth with depth. Many of the subjects tackled are explored in detail.
Ariely writes about how he first became interested in the field of economics. You can skip the introduction to most economics book, but Ariely's story is worth reading. Ariely received third degree burns on over 70% of his body as an eighteen year old. His experiences in the hospital, including three years of recovery and therapy, convinced him to study what shapes our decisions.

For the most part, the subjects Ariely tackles will keep your interest. Some of the broader financial subjects, like supply and demand, could have been tightened. The information is good but too much time is spent explaining the experiments used to prove it.

Ariely spends a lot of his time in the more traditional economics arena, albeit with examples that make the subject interesting to anyone. Unfortunately for the reader, the most fascinating subjects are also the shortest. There are at least two chapters that I will refer to in the future, one on the influence of arousal and the other on the context of our character.

In Chapter Six, Ariely tackles arousal. Ariely concludes that we make bad decisions when we are controlled by lust. Not just bad decisions either . . . he shows how right and wrong become very gray when we are trapped in temptation. He offers two solutions, but focuses in on the second. He concludes that the best way to avoid bad decisions is to avoid putting ourselves in that situation. Some parents have decided that once they teach their kids to say "no" that their job is done. This book easily disproves that theory . . . it is often the parents job to say "no" so their children will be protected from uncontrollable situations.

Another great chapter covered the influence of the Ten Commandments on cheating. Long story short, reflecting on any part of the Ten Commandments was enough to stop cheating. Ariely goes on to test the same with different honor codes and has similar results. The results seemed to have surprised the experimenters. Right and wrong prove to be powerful influencers . . . there is much to reflect on here.

Books like this are important for people of all walks of life to read. This book is recommended for anyone who is interested in why we behave the way we do.
2512403
I am a senior economist who finished his Ph. D in the mid eighties in Moscow at the Plejanow Institute and wanted a book that could gave me a whole picture (at once) of the current advances in mathematics for economists. This is an excelent book for that porpouse. I don't think this is a book for begginers. There are some tipographical errors (that I hope will be corrected for the next edition)that deteriorates in some way the overall quality of the book. Nontheless if you have some background in mathematics for economistas it will help you reinforcing your knowledge. I think this book could be named the pocket Bible of mathematics for economists. This is an excelent book.
4293364
Methinks that many of the critics of SuperFreakonomics are missing the point. The book is about a way of thinking, rather than necessarily about specific solutions. Whether or not you believe that car seats provide additional benefits relative to seatbelts for toddlers, or that pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere is a appropriate mitigant for global warming is not terribly important. The important message is a way of thinking about problems - vignettes of how you can utilize an economic approach and an open mind to tackle challenges.

Economics is okay, but the whole 'open mind' thing seems to give a lot of folks pause - one is aghast when you read about 1 million witches being burned at the stake in the middle ages, then you listen to a good vituperative global warming discussion and realize things haven't changed much.

The book is a bit of a hodgepodge, but nonetheless an enjoyable and thought-provoking read. Dubner spent most of the first book repeatedly reminding the reader how smart Levitt was, which was annoying. His or their insecurities are under better control in the sequel.

Economics has divided into three branches.
The first branch cloaks often pedestrian thinking and trivial insights in enough calculus to scare away the laity; it's the social sciences equivalent of deconstructivism in western literature.

The second branch uses economics as a pseudo-scientific beard for what are essentially political beliefs. There is nothing like a nobel prize to give your partisan pontifications useful heft.

Freakonomics represents the third branch of economics - a tool kit for analyzing and predicting behaviors of individuals and systems - it's still in its infancy, but holds significant potential to actually be useful.

So read the book for what it is - if your mind isn't hopelessly closed, it will at least get you thinking.
861098
I missed the book when it first came out.  Readers with an economics background can appreciate Skidelsky's writing for its insight into Keynesian and classical economics, and their respective newer neo Keynesian and neoclassical versions. Those who have little or no knowledge of economics would have to read the book more carefully and sometimes backtrack to grasp some of the concepts and the theoretical underpinnings of these two schools of thought.  But it will be worth their while to do so. It is unfortunate that the author did not resort to simple graphs -a vital tool to understand economic theories- to illustrate some of the concepts he discusses.

The author reviews the causes of the financial crisis and the subsequent Great Recession of 2008-2009, when the US economy lost over 8 million jobs just in those two years. He contrasts explanations of the financial debacle offered by the two schools that have dominated the economic policy debate over the last 100 years. Neoclassical (or neoliberal) economists or rational expectation theorists (i.e., The Chicago School) blame loose monetary and fiscal policy for the financial collapse. Neo Keynesian economists place responsibility on (1) higher interest rates which brought the housing market down, (2) deregulation -especially the 1999 repeal of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 which opened the door for banks to enter into all sorts of financial speculation- and (3) the 2004 SEC ruling allowing banks to raise the liability to net worth ratio from10: 1 to 30:1.

He concludes that the neoclassical view with its premises of flexible wages and prices, the use of money strictly for transactions or as a medium of exchange, and the role played by the interest rate in equilibrating savings and investment  defy common sense because it does not reflect the reality of the world. Alternatively, the Keynesian view subscribes to the idea that market uncertainty and business and consumer expectations are not easily predicted, are difficult to incorporate into financial risk and macroeconomic models, and undermine the suppositions of the neoclassical theory.  Further, wages are inflexible downwards because they are fixed by contract, custom and tradition.

Neoclassical economists believe that unemployment is only a short run problem and it is caused primarily by the slow growth of the money supply, i.e., insufficient money to purchase the surplus output of goods and services. In other words, recession and depression are a strictly a monetary phenomenon.  Thus, monetary policy alone (i.e., increasing the money supply and reducing interest rates) will turn the economy around and reduce unemployment.  While recognizing the important role of monetary policy (i.e., lower interest rates), the neo Keynesians explain unemployment by inadequate aggregate demand. Consumers simply do not buy enough goods and services and business do not spend enough on buildings and equipment to employ the entire labor force. Thus, only government can fill the void by spending sufficient money to provide a boost to the economy.  Therefore, Keynesians emphasize the role of fiscal policy (i.e., increasing government spending, decreasing taxes, or both) as a more effective way to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.

The author also criticizes current economic thinking due to the heavy emphasis on mathematical models and esoteric algorithms that defy adequate measurement and common sense. According to the author, economics is a moral science, so economists should be concerned as much with social justice and fairness as with efficiency in the market place.
1881888
This is a classic in economics. I began reading it and, considering the date it was written, realized it must have been an eye-opener when published. But, with an advanced degree that was heavy in economics, and after working in industry and banking for several decades, I found that it was teaching me what I already know at a deeper level than Adam Smith, so I put it on my reference shelf. This would be perfect for a bright middle school or high school student who thinks they might be interested in a career in business or economics. Come to think of it, I have two grandchildren brothers who I will send it to when the first one reaches middle school.
845209
Samuel Bowles is a remarkable economist and this book is not properly a text book. Is a creative study on the importante to combine associativism and cooperation in the analysis of choice and individual behavior. It is not a book for people aiming to have the first lessons on microeconomics. Is a book to think on the new framework relation individual behavior, game theory, cooperative behaviour and evolutionary paths. All of this with brillant insights on the importanc of power in economics. Power is not embedded in rational decisions. Power make decisions seems to be rational.
For graduate studants with capacity of reflect on economics and society.