Freakonomics review

[the_wanlorn]

 
Stacy and I have the same taste in books, so it was no surprise to see Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner sitting on her desk. I'd been wanting to get my hands on that book for a while. It seemed like an interesting book on economics, and I'm always looking for interesting non-fiction books.

I can't say that I was disappointed. It was a very, very, very fascinating book. I blew through it in two days or so, not solely because I needed to give it back to Stacy by the time classes started. As much as I like non-fiction books, I rarely gobble them up as quickly as I do fiction. This book, however, was the exception.

Mostly, this was because it isn't written in a lecturer's tone. You're not sitting in a lecture hall, listening to an interesting - albeit dry - lecture, as with most non-fiction books. It's much closer to sitting around, having an after-dinner conversation with a very animated friend. The topics jump, and things that were skimmed over in the beginning are suddenly explained full-out later on.

And, most importantly, it's understandable. I am, by no means, an economist. Everything I know comes from listening to Stacy or my sister blather on. And perhaps I didn't fully understand some deeper things he was hinting at, but I was able to comprehend the vast majority of the book. So shoo! Off you go! Borrow it from your local library and read read read!

It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that the death penalty, as currently practiced in the United States, exerts any real influence on crime rates. Even many of its onetime supporters have come to this conclusion. "I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed," said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmum in 1994, nearly twenty years after he had voted for its reinstatement. "I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."
~Freakonomics, p.125

Emphasis mine. *sputters with moral outrage* Look, I am all for the death penalty. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and all that jazz. Hammurabi had it right. But for chrissakes! "the death penalty experiment"?? Hell no, you do not play around with life.

I was always under the assumption that the death penalty was put in place because it was shown - through studying other cultures or work on a sociological lab, whatever - that it worked to deter violent crime. Not that a bunch of officials were just fucking about one day and said "Hey! Why not we try this!" and the Death Penalty was born. Testing a hypothesis, as opposed to implementing something based on a certainty.

While it's probably just an unfortunate choice of working on the Justice's part, bloody hell. No on!

The next two quotes go together:

But guns are not the whole story. In Switzerland, every adult male is issued an assault rifle for militia duty and is allowed to keep the gun at home. On a per capita basis, Switzerland has more firearms than just about any other country, and yet it is one of the safest places in the world. In other words, guns do not cause crime.
~Freakonomics, p. 131

Regardless of whether the data were faked, Lott's admittedly intriguing hypothesis doesn't seem to be true. When other scholars have tried to replicate his results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime.
~Freakonomics, p. 134

The authors spent a lot of time talking about correlation vs. causality, and the stupid shit people do when they get the two mixed up. There were a few examples of what happens when the two are confused, or when the causality is reversed. I believe one of them went something along the lines of, [Famous ruler] noticed that there were fewer sick people in towns with fewer doctors. So he had all the doctors killed.

So, the quote about Switzerland suggests that guns don't kill people. But also potentially hints at guns being the reason why there's less crime. Or, at least, seems it to me that they might be correlated somehow. However, according to the scholars in then second quote, that's not true.

I want to know what's so special about Switzerland that it has the most guns per capita and still manages to be one of the safest places in the world. I'm taking that to mean that there's less violent crime at the least, but probably less crime in general. So what does that, if not the guns? I demand answers, damnit!


Anyway, it's time to go to orchestra rehearsal now. Later gators.
 

Comments

[taranhero.livejournal.com]

Truly, this is a great book and more people should read it. I'm glad you did.

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

Seriously, I expected it to be like all my other non-fiction books: I'd be really interested in the subject matter, but it'd take me a year to finish the entire book 'cause I could only read small bits at a time.

But no! It took me two days! YAY!

[(Anonymous)]

haha, I am always impressed by our seeming oneness... I finally got MY hands on a copy the other day, and am about halfway through. Couldn't agree more.

--Lando

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

Truly, we are the same people, just on opposite ends of the US. =D

HAVE YOU GO TO THE PART ABOUT ABORTIONS YET?!

[princessdot.livejournal.com]

~pet economist~

Most of the Swiss immigrants I know are from Canton, Ticino so take that for what it's worth. Theirs is a much more homogenous society. They are given a firearm after being trained with it and its uses. They are not only aware of proper use but of its lethality. Also? not handguns. None of the manufacture of which is regulated here.

As for the death penalty? pfft, it's just a mess. It's not applied equitably, if you have money you can get off, and it takes SO long that the psychological deterrent is just not there.

reposting to fix html ugliness!

[carlanime.livejournal.com]

They are given a firearm after being trained with it and its uses.

I was going to say the exact same thing. Newfoundland has a pretty high rate of gun ownership, too, but people regard them as tools, and expect everyone to handle them responsibly. It's not viewed as "manly" or "hardcore" to wave one around like an idiot. Um, there's a book called Men of Blood (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Blood-Murder-Everyday-Life/dp/0771053126/sr=1-8/qid=1157640092/ref=sr_1_8/104-3628045-6747944?ie=UTF8&s=books) that says that more eloquently than I just did. :)

Also: I've been meaning to buy Freakonomics for my father, who enjoys political/economic stuff, so thanks for reminding me, the_wanlorn. Will go do that now.

Re: reposting to fix html ugliness!

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

Ooo, I'll add Men of Blood to my library list. Thank you!

Re: reposting to fix html ugliness!

[sarek007.livejournal.com]

aren't the firearms the swiss are given mostly rifles?

Re: reposting to fix html ugliness!

[carlanime.livejournal.com]

I believe so.

Re: reposting to fix html ugliness!

[sarek007.livejournal.com]

that might be why its safer then. You may still have violent tendencies, but its hard to do a driveby with a rifle

Re: reposting to fix html ugliness!

[the-wanlorn.livejournal.com]

Clearly you've never lived in the middle of nowhere. ;-)

[sarek007.livejournal.com]

Freakonomics was an interesting book. If you want more stuff in the same vein, try The tipping Point and Blink, both of them by Malcom Gladwell. They're pretty cool books on why we do what we do.