essays by Tyler Cowen
https://marginalrevolution.com/
Marginal REVOLUTION
2023-04-13
Tyler Cowen
<div><div>
 <main>
 
 
 <article>
 
 
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>A <a href="https://cims.nyu.edu/~sbowman/eightthings.pdf">good overview</a> from computer scientist <a href="https://cims.nyu.edu/~sbowman/">Samuel R. Bowman</a> of NYU, currently at Anthropic:</p>
<blockquote><p>1. LLMs predictably get more capable with increasing investment, even without targeted innovation.<br />
2. Many important LLM behaviors emerge unpredictably as a byproduct of increasing investment.<br />
3. LLMs often appear to learn and use representations of the outside world.<br />
4. There are no reliable techniques for steering the behavior of LLMs.<br />
5. Experts are not yet able to interpret the inner workings of LLMs.<br />
6. Human performance on a task isn’t an upper bound on LLM performance.<br />
7. LLMs need not express the values of their creators nor the values encoded in web text.<br />
8. Brief interactions with LLMs are often misleading.</p></blockquote>
<p>Bowman doesn’t put it this way but there are two ways of framing AI risk. The first perspective envisions an alien superintelligence that annihilates the world. The second perspective is that humans will use AIs before their capabilities, weaknesses and failure modes are well understood. Framed in the latter way, it seems inevitable that we are going to have problems. The crux of the dilemma is that AI capability is increasing faster than our AI understanding. Thus AIs will be widely used long before they are widely understood.  You don’t have to believe in “foom” to worry that capability and control are rapidly diverging. More generally, AIs are a tail risk technology, and historically, we have not been good at managing tail risks.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <blockquote><p>We detail a scientific roadmap for advancing the understanding of communication of whales that can be built further upon as a template to decipher other forms of animal and non-human communication. Sperm whales, with their highly developed neuroanatomical features, cognitive abilities, social structures, and discrete click-based encoding make for an excellent model for advanced tools that can be applied to other animals in the future. We outline the key elements required for the collection and processing of massive datasets, detecting basic communication units and language-like higher-level structures, and validating models through interactive playback experiments. The technological capabilities developed by such an undertaking hold potential for cross-applications in broader communities investigating non-human communication and behavioral research.</p></blockquote>
<p>That is from <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222006642">a new research paper</a> by Jacob Andreas, et.al., and the (ungated) article offers considerable detail on exactly how to do this.  They already have funding from both Dalio and Audacious.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Colin Kidd, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Union-Unionisms-Political-Scotland-1500-2000/dp/0521880572/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24AUS86AVMR5H&amp;keywords=colin+kidd+union&amp;qid=1680922500&amp;sprefix=colin+kidd+union%2Caps%2C149&amp;sr=8-1&amp;ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc">Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500-2000</a>.  A very good and well-written look at Scottish views on the Union over the centuries.  Explained conceptually in a nice way, not just a catalog, and tied to religion as well.</p>
<p>Thomas Bartlett, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ireland-Thomas-Bartlett/dp/1107422345/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1UH73YSN85DUN&amp;keywords=ireland+a+history+thomas+bartlett&amp;qid=1680922461&amp;sprefix=thomas+bartlett%2Caps%2C179&amp;sr=8-1">Ireland: A History</a>.  One of the best one-volume introductions to Irish history.</p>
<p>W. Paul Reeve, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lets-Talk-About-Race-Priesthood/dp/1639931198/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1GK882Y5UV2EL&amp;keywords=w.+paul+reeve&amp;qid=1680922395&amp;sprefix=w.+paul+reeve%2Caps%2C218&amp;sr=8-1">Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood</a>.  Argues that the Mormons had relatively universalistic origins, and that Brigham Young was the one who introduced the later segregationist ideas.</p>
<p>There is Peter Turchin, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Counter-Elites-Political-Disintegration-ebook/dp/B0BF8PBQK9/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1NSAWIKK6Q3SW&amp;keywords=peter+turchin+end+times&amp;qid=1680922583&amp;sprefix=Peter+Turchin%2Caps%2C171&amp;sr=8-1">End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration</a>.</p>
<p>The impressive Jon Elster has just published <a href="https://www.amazon.com/America-before-1787-Unraveling-Colonial/dp/0691242658/ref=sr_1_1?crid=14U9X5YA5RBQ9&amp;keywords=jon+elster+america+before&amp;qid=1680922626&amp;sprefix=jon+elster+america+before%2Caps%2C182&amp;sr=8-1">America Before 1787: The Unraveling of a Colonial Regime</a>.</p>
<p>Do not forget John Cochrane’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fiscal-Theory-Price-Level/dp/0691242240/ref=sr_1_1?crid=36BX2H7A6PBPQ&amp;keywords=john+cochrane+fiscal+theory&amp;qid=1680922681&amp;sprefix=John+Cochrane%2Caps%2C167&amp;sr=8-1&amp;ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc">The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level</a>, as presented on John’s blog as well.</p>
<p>Coming out is Robin Douglass, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mandevilles-Fable-Pride-Hypocrisy-Sociability/dp/0691218676/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1BG4W2RUD3MS5&amp;keywords=robin+douglass+mandeville%27s+fable&amp;qid=1680922739&amp;sprefix=robin+douglass+mandeville%27s+fable%2Caps%2C164&amp;sr=8-1">Mandeville’s Fable: Pride, Hypocrisy, and Sociability</a>.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>1. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecin.13145">Who benefits most from name visibility bias during the journal editorial process?</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2023/the-wolf-family-collection-spirit-of-america/easter-procession-st-marks?locale=en">Prendergast watercolor for 500-700k</a>, truly a splendid piece, St. Marks in Venice.  The collection as a whole, while not my taste (“too American” in a very particular direction), shows exquisite taste.  You can learn a lot by studying their choices.  From the Wolf family.  Here is <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2023/the-wolf-family-collection-modern-america?cmp=emk5000000975&amp;locale=en&amp;utm_campaign=Dedicated_Auction_Series_WolfNY202304_May_23&amp;utm_content=email_dedicated_auction_series_wolfny202304_apr_23&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=zaius">more from their collection</a>.</p>
<p>3. <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/ai-policy-guide">AI Policy Guide, by Matthew Mittelsteadt at Mercatus</a>.  And <a href="https://twitter.com/SullyOmarr/status/1645828811680800768">a clear explanation of the new “autonomous” AIs</a>.</p>
<p>4. <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1645610760775581696">Current U.S. defense spending is, in historical terms, at a relative low point</a>.</p>
<p>5. <a href="https://www.miaminativemag.com/">Miami Native</a>, new (non-leftist) magazine on the way, presenting and explicating and enhancing the status of the culture of Miami.  They are looking for contributors.  Mainly a physical copy magazine, planning only a limited presence on-line.</p>
<p>6. <a href="https://twitter.com/lefineder/status/1645763138975944704">Genetic timeline of humans?</a> (speculative)  And <a href="https://twitter.com/bern_identity/status/1645493732240949248">I believe in hiring talented 14- to 15-year olds</a>.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>That is the topic of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-11/the-biomedical-revolution-needs-a-few-good-economists?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_content=view&amp;cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&amp;sref=htOHjx5Y">my latest Bloomberg column</a>.  Note that for most economic gains, total gdp and per capita gdp give roughly the same answers.  But when it comes to lifesaving, that may no longer be the case.  Here is one excerpt:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Take the vaccines against Covid. Of course the most important fact about them is that they reduce the amount of death and suffering. But what is their economic impact? The vaccines have been most helpful to the most vulnerable, namely the elderly or those with preexisting medical conditions. These are not the most productive cohorts of the economy. So the effectiveness of the vaccines might have actually lowered various social averages, such as per-capita GDP or per-capita productivity.</p>
<p>The extra life is a pure benefit. But to capture that benefit in numbers requires looking at the totals, not just the averages. Labor productivity per hour, for example, won’t necessarily increase. But total labor supply and total population will.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And this:</p>
<blockquote><p>And what about those subpar returns on biomedical investments? That is a sign that most of the gains from innovation are being reaped by patients, users and consumers — not capitalists. Is that not exactly what everyone has been asking for?</p></blockquote>
<p>There is much more at the link.  The bottom line is that many of the gains will come through “n,” not per hour productivity.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>I haven’t done  <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/?s=my+favorite+things">many of these</a> in a while, mostly because I haven’t been in many new states or countries recently.  But Alaska I had never visited before (my remaining state, in fact), so here goes:</p>
<p><strong>Classical music</strong>: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Luther_Adams">John Luther Adams</a>.  “The other John Adams,” his reputation continues to rise, now I would like to see one performed live.  I am fan of the sound textures and the broad expanses of his works, even if the programmatic aspects do not always delight me.  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGva1NVWRXk">Become Ocean</a> is his best known piece.</p>
<p><strong>Popular music</strong>: There is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_(singer)">Jewel</a>, I guess she is OK, and I can’t think of anyone else.</p>
<p>This is tough!  Nor did <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Marrou">Andre Marrou</a> acquit himself especially well over the years.  How about “theatre builder-upper”?  Then I can cite <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Frontier_Theatre_Conference">Edward Albee</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Affiliated writer</strong>: Jack London, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=jack+london+alaska+tales&amp;source=hp&amp;ei=4sY0ZIn2POic0PEPyuaBkAw&amp;iflsig=AOEireoAAAAAZDTU8x1Y6c7Ra2LqufGkRQ_inyPuFgLE&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiJ75T-5KD-AhVoDjQIHUpzAMIQ4dUDCAs&amp;uact=5&amp;oq=jack+london+alaska+tales&amp;gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIICAAQigUQhgMyCAgAEIoFEIYDOgQILhADOgsILhCKBRCxAxCDAToLCC4QgAQQsQMQgwE6BQguEIAEOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToICC4QgAQQsQM6BQgAEIAEOgsIABCKBRCxAxCDAToLCC4QgAQQsQMQ1AI6CwguEIAEEMcBEK8BOg4ILhCABBDJAxDHARCvAToRCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQxwEQ0QM6CAgAEIAEELEDOhEILhCDARCvARDHARCxAxCKBToRCC4QigUQsQMQgwEQxwEQrwE6DgguEK8BEMcBELEDEIAEOggILhDUAhCABDoICC4QgAQQ1AJQAFioFmDCGmgAcAB4AIABrAOIAaUvkgEJMC43LjcuOC4xmAEAoAEB&amp;sclient=gws-wiz">obviously</a>.  Still worth reading, not archaic, has held up remarkably well.</p>
<p><strong>Movies, set in</strong>: Plenty of competition here.  There is Herzog’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man">Grizzly Man</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Cry_Wolf_(film)">Never Cry Wolf</a> (oddly forgotten but moving, plus the protagonist is named Tyler, which was rare in the early 1980s), and of course Chaplin’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gold_Rush">The Gold Rush</a>.  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Wild_(film)">Into the Wild</a> I haven’t seen.  Maybe I watched Abbott and Costello <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYwJgPlFyE">Lost in Alaska</a> as a kid?  What am I missing?</p>
<p><strong>Artist</strong>: Taking the entire cake has to be Alaskan indigenous art, but who should be the favorite?  I can’t bring myself to elevate <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Florence+Nupok+Malewotkuk&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiD5PqN4aD-AhX4ADQIHQ0kDS4Q0pQJegQIBhAC&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=609&amp;dpr=1.5">Florence Nupok Malewotkuk</a> to the number one position, so perhaps <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=nathan+jackson+alaska&amp;tbm=isch&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjS6KDJ4qD-AhWlEDQIHV6MDFMQ2-cCegQIABAA&amp;oq=nathan+jackson+alaska&amp;gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIHCAAQGBCABDoKCAAQigUQsQMQQzoICAAQgAQQsQM6DQgAEIoFELEDEIMBEEM6BwgAEIoFEEM6BggAEAcQHlDXCFikIGCrI2gAcAB4AIABtQGIAacUkgEEMC4xNpgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&amp;sclient=img&amp;ei=W8Q0ZJLPCqWh0PEP3piymAU&amp;bih=609&amp;biw=1280">Nathan Jackson</a>, who did Tlingit art?</p>
<p><strong>Watercolor, affiliated with</strong>: Try <a href="https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2023/the-wolf-family-collection-modern-america/entrance-to-the-vai-te-piha-river-cooks-anchorage?locale=en">this John La Farge</a>, currently up at auction.</p>
<p><strong>Throat singer</strong>: A strong area, but which ones exactly are from Alaska rather than Canada?  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGM0BlA95I">Janet Aglukkaq</a>?  Don’t ask me!</p>
<p>Here is <a href="https://www.akwildlife.org/news/the-history-and-significance-of-totem-poles">a good essay on Alaskan totem poles</a>, from Eyak, Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian cultures.</p>
<p>I can’t name a mask-maker, but <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=alaska+mask+indigenous&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiyxvf_kKP-AhWdIzQIHYl2BUkQ0pQJegQIBRAC&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=609&amp;dpr=1.5">the masks</a> are arguably the highlight of the Alaskan indigenous tradition.</p>
<p>Any NBA players?  Am I supposed to like Carlos Boozer?</p>
<p><strong>The bottom line</strong>: There is more than you might think at first.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>This is from <a href="https://www.richardcngo.com/">Richard Ngo</a>, who works on the governance team at OpenAI:</p>
<blockquote><p>A few points:<br />
1. I agree that the alignment community has generally been remiss in not trying hard enough to clarify the arguments in more formal papers.<br />
2. The only peer-reviewed paper making the case for AI risk that I know of is: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aaai.12064. Though note that my paper (the second you linked) is currently under review at a top ML conference.<br />
3. I don’t think that a formal model would shed much light here. My goal in writing my paper was to establish misaligned power-seeking AGI as a credible scientific hypothesis; I think that most who think it’s credible would then agree that investigating it further should be a key priority, whether or not their credences are more like 10% or more like 90%.</p></blockquote>
<p>From <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/04/this-gpt-4-answer-speaks-for-itself.html#comments">this batch of comments</a>.  Here is <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardMCNgo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Richard on Twitter</a>.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>1. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/04/05/katie-porter-book-why-congress/">Review of the new Philip Wallach book on Congress</a> (Rep. Katie Porter’s book too).</p>
<p>2. <a href="https://english.elpais.com/sports/2023-04-09/nepomniachtchi-and-ding-go-head-to-head-in-astana-to-succeed-magnus-carlsen.html">Good Ding vs. Nepo coverage</a>.</p>
<p>3. <a href="https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1645239508613431298">On properly translating Macron</a> (having dealt with French diplomats, both through translation and not, I agree with the general points about context).  That said, the whole world has to receive the proper message, as a matter of common knowledge, and arguably he failed in that regard.</p>
<p>4. <a href="https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/ais-inhuman-advantage/">How AI differs in warfare</a>.  And <a href="https://twitter.com/pictobit/status/1645477658958888973?s=46&amp;t=FJgXVgHgo-AUPu_YVPpRkA">something about “BabyAGI.”</a>  Self-improving AI making its debut?  And <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dcoxvEhAfYcov2LA6/agentized-llms-will-change-the-alignment-landscape#comments">lots of discussion</a>.</p>
<p>5. <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/10/the-genesis-of-todays-recruiting-crisis/">The roots of our military recruiting crisis</a>, good and interesting piece.</p>
<p>6. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/10/investing/tupperware-trouble/index.html?utm_source=twCNN&amp;utm_content=2023-04-11T02%3A01%3A03&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_term=video">Is Tupperware toast?</a> And <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/garden-compost-fertilizer-organic-6b8a977b">upscale compost</a> (WSJ).</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Here is <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Odtc4xt8kI1SQFXLYHdWfhI9W-KehjLj3Xval7GEhCg/edit#">one from Katja Grace</a>, by the way I know her a bit and very much like her and find her very smart (<strong>NB</strong>: not interested in comments mocking Katja, put them somewhere else, I will delete them).  But that is not my main point today.  Do such documents work?  I have been hearing of them more often lately.  And how should we model them?</p>
<p>Should we think of them as batch auctions of a sort, namely wanting to get in a lot of bids at once rather than sequentially?  Which kinds of people should prefer such a batch auction?  (Btw, is there any paper in Science or Nature on this?  Should there be?)</p>
<p>Are they better suited for polyamory than monogamy?  Are batch auctions better suited for polyamory?  Because the process is more like <a href="https://twitter.com/j_asminewang/status/1644417083520819203?s=20">assembling a portfolio</a>?</p>
<p>Is this all somehow better suited for San Francisco and other “Woke” cultures, where perhaps asking someone out on a date counts as a microaggression?  I suppose the Date Me document gives you permission to reach out?  I am curious to read or hear some serious takes on this phenomenon.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Public services such as police, fire, and traffic control in South Africa are breaking down. <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-south-africa-insurers-fix-potholes-sponsor-fire-brigades-and-direct-traffic-b5ba6a98?mod=hp_listc_pos1">Private firms are stepping in</a> to take some of the burden. Twenty two percent of Johannesburg’s fire engines are owned and operated by private firms.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fire Ops employs more than 60 firefighters across seven fire stations in Johannesburg and owns two fire engines—including one now sporting the same shade of blue Discovery uses for its logo and much of its branding—as well as six smaller high-pressure-pump response vehicles.</p>
<p>Discovery says the blue firetruck responded to 172 building fires between Fire Force’s launch through the end of January.</p>
<p>Mr. Ossip said the Discovery-branded truck promotes the insurer’s brand and lowers damages, including to multimillion-dollar homes in some of Johannesburg’s toniest areas. “You need to just save one or two of those a year and it is substantial savings,” he said.</p>
<p>The service helps alleviate a shortage of operational fire engines in Johannesburg, a spread-out city of more than 5.5 million residents, in situations where minutes can make the difference between a blaze limited to a couple of rooms and one that destroys an entire house or spreads to neighboring homes.</p>
<p>Robert Mulaudzi, a spokesman for the City of Johannesburg Emergency Management Services, said the city currently has about seven operational fire engines across 30 fire stations.</p>
<p>…Fire Ops, which invoices buildings’ owners for fire services, says that while it responds to all calls, it will give priority to clients, including Discovery policyholders, when simultaneous fires break out. Other insurers usually pick up the bill when the company puts out a fire in a home not insured by Discovery, said De Wet Engelbrecht, Fire Ops’s chief executive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In 19th century Great Britain prosecution assocations and insurance firms were responsible for much of the policing (see Stephen Davies in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0472088378?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=marginalrevol-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0472088378">The Voluntary City</a>.) In <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/15788_10.html">Lessons from Gurgaon, India’s Private City</a> (<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2514652">working paper</a>) Shruti Rajagopolan and I discuss private police and fire services in modern day Gurgaon. In general, the private firms provide excellent service relative to their public counterparts but, as in Gurgaon, there are limits to how much the private firms can do without large economies of scale:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…Fire Ops also has to navigate public infrastructure that doesn’t always work, including traffic lights, fire hydrants and municipal water supplies….In September, both Fire Ops and the city’s fire department responded to a blaze at Little Forest Centre, a private special-needs school in Johannesburg, but a water shortage in the area meant all fire hydrants were empty, said Kate More, the school’s owner and principal, who isn’t a Discovery policyholder.</p>
<p>Despite Fire Ops sourcing water from a neighbor’s pool, the school burned down.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Addendum</strong>: In unrelated news, just one year after its grand opening <a href="https://sfstandard.com/business/downtown-san-francisco-whole-foods-market-closing/">Whole Foods is closing its downtown San Francisco store</a> because they can’t ensure the safety of their employees.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <blockquote><p><strong>TC</strong>: Which is the leading attempt to publish a canonical paper on AGI risk, in a leading science journal, refereed of course. The paper should have a formal model or calibration of some sort, working toward the conclusion of showing that the relevant risk is actually fairly high. Is there any such thing? Please answer as would a leading scientific expert in the relevant fields, including computer science and possibly also population ecology, systems theory, and other possible areas.</p>
<p><strong>GPT-4</strong>: As a leading scientific expert, I must clarify that while there are numerous papers discussing various aspects of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) risk, no single paper can be labeled as the “canonical” paper on the subject. It is worth noting that the field of AGI risk is interdisciplinary, involving computer science, artificial intelligence, ethics, population ecology, systems theory, and other domains. Consequently, the body of research on AGI risk is diverse, with various approaches and models, some of which may involve formal calibration.</p>
<p>One paper that may be of interest to you is “The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation” by Brundage et al., published in 2018. This paper, co-authored by experts from various institutions, including OpenAI, the University of Oxford, and the Center for a New American Security, discusses potential risks from the malicious use of AI and offers recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and industry practitioners. While this paper does not provide a formal calibration model, it does shed light on the potential risks associated with AGI.</p>
<p>Another important work in the field is Nick Bostrom’s book “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” which discusses the risks associated with the development of AGI and offers possible strategies to mitigate those risks. Bostrom’s work has been influential in shaping the discourse on AGI risk, but it is not a refereed journal article….[and some concluding GPT blather]</p></blockquote>
<p>Perhaps I am too quick to the draw here, but I don’t see this answer as far from “nothing, there is no such paper.”  Comments are open, of course, if you can surpass GPT-4, which perhaps is better at evolving into a world-destroying entity than it is at finding citations.  Further prods did not change the basic answer, and if anything GPT models tend to confabulate or hallucinate entries, not deny them.  Or perhaps in this case it is hiding the refereed articles and deceiving us?</p>
<p>And maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve also never seen Scott Alexander or Zvi point to such a paper, or even a good example of a rejected paper aiming in this direction.  Nor have I seen them make a big stink about the absence of such a paper, though in virtually any other area they will hit you with a fire hose of citations and links to published models in referred journals.</p>
<p>I’ve also asked a whole bunch of “people who ought to know” and not received a single concrete answer, one such individual responding immediately with the answer “zero.”</p>
<p>In part, I would like to encourage those fascinated with AGI risk to try to create and publish such a paper, or perhaps to fund it or otherwise encourage it.  Something more systematically fleshed out than “<a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dcoxvEhAfYcov2LA6/agentized-llms-will-change-the-alignment-landscape">10 reasons why lists of 10 reasons might be a winning strategy</a>.”  It would go a long way to giving the idea more credibility in the scientific community, not to mention with yours truly.  How about <em>Nature</em>?  <em>Science</em>?  Somewhere else?  I know top journals can be closed or unfair, but at the very least you can put the paper and the associated referee reports on-line for the rest of us to judge.  And then try it in a lesser journal, it still will get traction and you will get valuable feedback, of a very different kind than from on-line forums.</p>
<p>If the chance of existential risk from AGI is 99 percent, or <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/04/does-natural-selection-favor-ais-over-humans-model-this.html">80 percent</a>, or even 30 percent, surely some kind of modeled demonstration of the basic mechanics and interlocking pieces is possible.  Indeed a certain kind of clarity should be evident, at least conditional on the more extreme views being correct.  In general, I am not a fan of the “you should work on this!’ strategy, but if you think the whole future of the entire world is at stake…shouldn’t you be <em>obsessed</em> with working on such a thing, if only to convince the rest of us?  And in as many different formats as possible, including the methods most commonly recognized by the scientific community?</p>
<p>In the meantime, if you are a young person interested in this issue, and you observe such a paucity of refereed, published model-based papers in the area — consider any area just to get your mind off the fraught and emotional topic of AGI existential risk — what would you infer from that absence?</p>
<p>And what if said community of commentators almost universally insisted they were the most extreme of rationalists?</p>
<p>Now none of this means the claims about extreme risk are wrong.  But you can think of it as a kind of propaedeutic to reading the literature and current debates.</p>
<p><strong>Addendum</strong>: I have looked at papers such as these:</p>
<p>https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.13353, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00626, https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13916</p>
<p>Whatever you think of them, they are not close to counting for my search.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <div>
<blockquote>
<p>The Biden administration is launching a $5 billion-plus program to accelerate development of new <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2">coronavirus</a> vaccines and treatments, seeking to better protect against a still-mutating virus, as well as other coronaviruses that might threaten us in the future.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<p>“Project Next Gen” — the long-anticipated follow-up to “Operation Warp Speed,” the Trump-era program that sped coronavirus vaccines to patients in 2020 — would take a similar approach to partnering with private-sector companies to expedite development of vaccines and therapies. Scientists, public heath experts and politicians have called for the initiative, warning that existing therapies have steadily lost their effectiveness and that new ones are needed…</p>
<p>Jha and others said the new effort will focus on three goals: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/11/21/monoclonal-antibodies-covid-variants/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8">creating long-lasting monoclonal antibodies</a>, after an evolving virus rendered many current treatments ineffective; accelerating development of<b> </b>vaccines that produce mucosal immunity, which is thought to reduce transmission and infection risks; and speeding efforts to develop<b> </b><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/02/14/universal-covid-vaccine/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8">pan-coronavirus vaccines</a> to guard<b> </b>against new SARS-CoV-2 variants, as well as other coronaviruses.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/10/operation-warp-speed-successor-project-nextgen/">the WaPo article</a>, here is <a href="https://erictopol.substack.com/p/project-next-gen-the-united-states?utm_source=post-email-title&amp;publication_id=587835&amp;post_id=113920598&amp;isFreemail=true&amp;utm_medium=email">commentary from Eric Topol</a>.</p>
</div>
 </div>
 
</article>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>1. <a href="https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/rethinking-benevolent-sexism">Benevolent sexism</a>.  And <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/style/finding-love-romance-abroad.html?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur">should single American women look for suitors abroad?</a></p>
<p>2. <a href="https://sociologicalscience.com/articles-v10-8-251/">Does summer learning loss replicate?</a> And on <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w31113#fromrss">Covid learning loss recovery</a>: “On average, we find that 20% of test score losses are recovered in English language arts (ELA) by 2022, compared to 37% in math.”</p>
<p>3. <a href="https://www.ssense.com/en-us/men/product/balmain/beige-unicorn-sneakers/11877001?gbraid=0AAAAAD9ouUst-ugqdgD-S1rRLbdlPtNCU&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwxMmhBhDJARIsANFGOSuDFE7SsX_vdjvetgnNGeLMn5dr2Ukw2DIQZctE83bE_INQOKsMVJUaAmOaEALw_wcB">Balenciega beige unicorn sneakers</a>.  And, via Yana, <a href="https://www.balenciaga.com/en-us/trash-bag-large-pouch--black-811010641.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxMmhBhDJARIsANFGOSutKAKfaoctUKrjduYt9EiH46sEbXueL8_K8HZWUNFQEKsYVfjHO4EaApyTEALw_wcB&amp;gclsrc=aw.ds">MEN’S TRASH BAG LARGE POUCH IN BLACK</a>.</p>
<p>4. <a href="https://twitter.com/ModeledBehavior/status/1645444418848129025">Does Ozempic improve impulse control?</a> (speculative)</p>
<p>5. <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w31110#fromrss">No adverse labor supply effects from the expanded child tax credit</a> (short-term only, though).</p>
<p>6. “Apparently, tsunami survivors were inclined to assume greater financial risk in the short-term while rebuilding their lives after the disaster.”  Link <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w31102#fromrss">here</a>.</p>
 </div>
 
</article>
 
 
 </main> 
 </div></div>||||I|||| Toggle navigation
 * About Marginal Revolution
 * Categories
 * Date Archives
 * Our Books
 * Our Textbook
 * Marginal Revolution University
 Search Search
 Thank-you! You've been successfully added to the Marginal Revolution email subscription list.

 Thursday assorted links

 by Tyler Cowen April 13, 2023 at 11:50 am

 1. Open AI lessons for science policy. And Steve Landsburg and GPT-4 are not in synch.

 2. “Every single street lamp in New Zealand’s capital city is at risk of plunging without warning on to the footpaths below them.” And can anything stop the feral hog invasion?

 3. Survey of Tyler Cowen’s “My Favorite Things.”

 4. Brian Potter on how did solar power get cheap.

 5. Clearinghouse for LLMs in scientific research workflows.

 6. More on AutoGPTs. And does AI reduce existential risk?

 7. Ghana’s concentration camps for witches.

 * 15 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Eight Things to Know about LLMS

 by Alex Tabarrok April 13, 2023 at 7:25 am in
 * Current Affairs
 * Economics
 * Science

 A good overview from computer scientist Samuel R. Bowman of NYU, currently at Anthropic:

 1. LLMs predictably get more capable with increasing investment, even without targeted innovation.
 2. Many important LLM behaviors emerge unpredictably as a byproduct of increasing investment.
 3. LLMs often appear to learn and use representations of the outside world.
 4. There are no reliable techniques for steering the behavior of LLMs.
 5. Experts are not yet able to interpret the inner workings of LLMs.
 6. Human performance on a task isn’t an upper bound on LLM performance.
 7. LLMs need not express the values of their creators nor the values encoded in web text.
 8. Brief interactions with LLMs are often misleading.

 Bowman doesn’t put it this way but there are two ways of framing AI risk. The first perspective envisions an alien superintelligence that annihilates the world. The second perspective is that humans will use AIs before their capabilities, weaknesses and failure modes are well understood. Framed in the latter way, it seems inevitable that we are going to have problems. The crux of the dilemma is that AI capability is increasing faster than our AI understanding. Thus AIs will be widely used long before they are widely understood. You don’t have to believe in “foom” to worry that capability and control are rapidly diverging. More generally, AIs are a tail risk technology, and historically, we have not been good at managing tail risks.

 * 74 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 What do we need to talk to whales?

 by Tyler Cowen April 13, 2023 at 2:48 am in
 * Science
 * Web/Tech

 We detail a scientific roadmap for advancing the understanding of communication of whales that can be built further upon as a template to decipher other forms of animal and non-human communication. Sperm whales, with their highly developed neuroanatomical features, cognitive abilities, social structures, and discrete click-based encoding make for an excellent model for advanced tools that can be applied to other animals in the future. We outline the key elements required for the collection and processing of massive datasets, detecting basic communication units and language-like higher-level structures, and validating models through interactive playback experiments. The technological capabilities developed by such an undertaking hold potential for cross-applications in broader communities investigating non-human communication and behavioral research.

 That is from a new research paper by Jacob Andreas, et.al., and the (ungated) article offers considerable detail on exactly how to do this. They already have funding from both Dalio and Audacious.

 * 29 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 What I’ve been reading and not reading (due to travel)

 by Tyler Cowen April 13, 2023 at 12:31 am in
 * Books

 Colin Kidd, Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500-2000. A very good and well-written look at Scottish views on the Union over the centuries. Explained conceptually in a nice way, not just a catalog, and tied to religion as well.

 Thomas Bartlett, Ireland: A History. One of the best one-volume introductions to Irish history.

 W. Paul Reeve, Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood. Argues that the Mormons had relatively universalistic origins, and that Brigham Young was the one who introduced the later segregationist ideas.

 There is Peter Turchin, End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration.

 The impressive Jon Elster has just published America Before 1787: The Unraveling of a Colonial Regime.

 Do not forget John Cochrane’s The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level, as presented on John’s blog as well.

 Coming out is Robin Douglass, Mandeville’s Fable: Pride, Hypocrisy, and Sociability.

 * 22 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 How big is Mexico?

 by Tyler Cowen April 12, 2023 at 2:07 pm

 * 118 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Wednesday assorted links

 by Tyler Cowen April 12, 2023 at 11:51 am

 1. Who benefits most from name visibility bias during the journal editorial process?

 2. Prendergast watercolor for 500-700k, truly a splendid piece, St. Marks in Venice. The collection as a whole, while not my taste (“too American” in a very particular direction), shows exquisite taste. You can learn a lot by studying their choices. From the Wolf family. Here is more from their collection.

 3. AI Policy Guide, by Matthew Mittelsteadt at Mercatus. And a clear explanation of the new “autonomous” AIs.

 4. Current U.S. defense spending is, in historical terms, at a relative low point.

 5. Miami Native, new (non-leftist) magazine on the way, presenting and explicating and enhancing the status of the culture of Miami. They are looking for contributors. Mainly a physical copy magazine, planning only a limited presence on-line.

 6. Genetic timeline of humans? (speculative) And I believe in hiring talented 14- to 15-year olds.

 * 95 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Measuring the benefits of the biomedical revolution

 by Tyler Cowen April 12, 2023 at 4:41 am in
 * Economics
 * Medicine

 That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column. Note that for most economic gains, total gdp and per capita gdp give roughly the same answers. But when it comes to lifesaving, that may no longer be the case. Here is one excerpt:

 Take the vaccines against Covid. Of course the most important fact about them is that they reduce the amount of death and suffering. But what is their economic impact? The vaccines have been most helpful to the most vulnerable, namely the elderly or those with preexisting medical conditions. These are not the most productive cohorts of the economy. So the effectiveness of the vaccines might have actually lowered various social averages, such as per-capita GDP or per-capita productivity.

 The extra life is a pure benefit. But to capture that benefit in numbers requires looking at the totals, not just the averages. Labor productivity per hour, for example, won’t necessarily increase. But total labor supply and total population will.

 And this:

 And what about those subpar returns on biomedical investments? That is a sign that most of the gains from innovation are being reaped by patients, users and consumers — not capitalists. Is that not exactly what everyone has been asking for?

 There is much more at the link. The bottom line is that many of the gains will come through “n,” not per hour productivity.

 * 75 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 My favorite things Alaska

 by Tyler Cowen April 12, 2023 at 12:26 am

 I haven’t done many of these in a while, mostly because I haven’t been in many new states or countries recently. But Alaska I had never visited before (my remaining state, in fact), so here goes:

 Classical music: John Luther Adams. “The other John Adams,” his reputation continues to rise, now I would like to see one performed live. I am fan of the sound textures and the broad expanses of his works, even if the programmatic aspects do not always delight me. Become Ocean is his best known piece.

 Popular music: There is Jewel, I guess she is OK, and I can’t think of anyone else.

 This is tough! Nor did Andre Marrou acquit himself especially well over the years. How about “theatre builder-upper”? Then I can cite Edward Albee.

 Affiliated writer: Jack London, obviously. Still worth reading, not archaic, has held up remarkably well.

 Movies, set in: Plenty of competition here. There is Herzog’s Grizzly Man, and Never Cry Wolf (oddly forgotten but moving, plus the protagonist is named Tyler, which was rare in the early 1980s), and of course Chaplin’s The Gold Rush. Into the Wild I haven’t seen. Maybe I watched Abbott and Costello Lost in Alaska as a kid? What am I missing?

 Artist: Taking the entire cake has to be Alaskan indigenous art, but who should be the favorite? I can’t bring myself to elevate Florence Nupok Malewotkuk to the number one position, so perhaps Nathan Jackson, who did Tlingit art?

 Watercolor, affiliated with: Try this John La Farge, currently up at auction.

 Throat singer: A strong area, but which ones exactly are from Alaska rather than Canada? Janet Aglukkaq? Don’t ask me!

 Here is a good essay on Alaskan totem poles, from Eyak, Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian cultures.

 I can’t name a mask-maker, but the masks are arguably the highlight of the Alaskan indigenous tradition.

 Any NBA players? Am I supposed to like Carlos Boozer?

 The bottom line: There is more than you might think at first.

 * 94 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 From the comments, on AI safety

 by Tyler Cowen April 11, 2023 at 2:59 pm in
 * Science
 * Web/Tech

 This is from Richard Ngo, who works on the governance team at OpenAI:

 A few points:
 1. I agree that the alignment community has generally been remiss in not trying hard enough to clarify the arguments in more formal papers.
 2. The only peer-reviewed paper making the case for AI risk that I know of is: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aaai.12064. Though note that my paper (the second you linked) is currently under review at a top ML conference.
 3. I don’t think that a formal model would shed much light here. My goal in writing my paper was to establish misaligned power-seeking AGI as a credible scientific hypothesis; I think that most who think it’s credible would then agree that investigating it further should be a key priority, whether or not their credences are more like 10% or more like 90%.

 From this batch of comments. Here is Richard on Twitter.

 * 56 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Tuesday assorted links

 by Tyler Cowen April 11, 2023 at 11:53 am

 1. Review of the new Philip Wallach book on Congress (Rep. Katie Porter’s book too).

 2. Good Ding vs. Nepo coverage.

 3. On properly translating Macron (having dealt with French diplomats, both through translation and not, I agree with the general points about context). That said, the whole world has to receive the proper message, as a matter of common knowledge, and arguably he failed in that regard.

 4. How AI differs in warfare. And something about “BabyAGI.” Self-improving AI making its debut? And lots of discussion.

 5. The roots of our military recruiting crisis, good and interesting piece.

 6. Is Tupperware toast? And upscale compost (WSJ).

 * 91 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 “Date me” docs

 by Tyler Cowen April 11, 2023 at 11:30 am

 Here is one from Katja Grace, by the way I know her a bit and very much like her and find her very smart (NB: not interested in comments mocking Katja, put them somewhere else, I will delete them). But that is not my main point today. Do such documents work? I have been hearing of them more often lately. And how should we model them?

 Should we think of them as batch auctions of a sort, namely wanting to get in a lot of bids at once rather than sequentially? Which kinds of people should prefer such a batch auction? (Btw, is there any paper in Science or Nature on this? Should there be?)

 Are they better suited for polyamory than monogamy? Are batch auctions better suited for polyamory? Because the process is more like assembling a portfolio?

 Is this all somehow better suited for San Francisco and other “Woke” cultures, where perhaps asking someone out on a date counts as a microaggression? I suppose the Date Me document gives you permission to reach out? I am curious to read or hear some serious takes on this phenomenon.

 * 141 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Anarchy in South Africa

 by Alex Tabarrok April 11, 2023 at 7:25 am in
 * Current Affairs
 * Economics
 * History
 * Law

 Public services such as police, fire, and traffic control in South Africa are breaking down. Private firms are stepping in to take some of the burden. Twenty two percent of Johannesburg’s fire engines are owned and operated by private firms.

 Fire Ops employs more than 60 firefighters across seven fire stations in Johannesburg and owns two fire engines—including one now sporting the same shade of blue Discovery uses for its logo and much of its branding—as well as six smaller high-pressure-pump response vehicles.

 Discovery says the blue firetruck responded to 172 building fires between Fire Force’s launch through the end of January.

 Mr. Ossip said the Discovery-branded truck promotes the insurer’s brand and lowers damages, including to multimillion-dollar homes in some of Johannesburg’s toniest areas. “You need to just save one or two of those a year and it is substantial savings,” he said.

 The service helps alleviate a shortage of operational fire engines in Johannesburg, a spread-out city of more than 5.5 million residents, in situations where minutes can make the difference between a blaze limited to a couple of rooms and one that destroys an entire house or spreads to neighboring homes.

 Robert Mulaudzi, a spokesman for the City of Johannesburg Emergency Management Services, said the city currently has about seven operational fire engines across 30 fire stations.

 …Fire Ops, which invoices buildings’ owners for fire services, says that while it responds to all calls, it will give priority to clients, including Discovery policyholders, when simultaneous fires break out. Other insurers usually pick up the bill when the company puts out a fire in a home not insured by Discovery, said De Wet Engelbrecht, Fire Ops’s chief executive.

 In 19th century Great Britain prosecution assocations and insurance firms were responsible for much of the policing (see Stephen Davies in The Voluntary City.) In Lessons from Gurgaon, India’s Private City (working paper) Shruti Rajagopolan and I discuss private police and fire services in modern day Gurgaon. In general, the private firms provide excellent service relative to their public counterparts but, as in Gurgaon, there are limits to how much the private firms can do without large economies of scale:

 …Fire Ops also has to navigate public infrastructure that doesn’t always work, including traffic lights, fire hydrants and municipal water supplies….In September, both Fire Ops and the city’s fire department responded to a blaze at Little Forest Centre, a private special-needs school in Johannesburg, but a water shortage in the area meant all fire hydrants were empty, said Kate More, the school’s owner and principal, who isn’t a Discovery policyholder.

 Despite Fire Ops sourcing water from a neighbor’s pool, the school burned down.

 Addendum: In unrelated news, just one year after its grand opening Whole Foods is closing its downtown San Francisco store because they can’t ensure the safety of their employees.

 * 154 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 This GPT-4 answer speaks for itself

 by Tyler Cowen April 11, 2023 at 12:59 am in
 * Science
 * Web/Tech

 TC: Which is the leading attempt to publish a canonical paper on AGI risk, in a leading science journal, refereed of course. The paper should have a formal model or calibration of some sort, working toward the conclusion of showing that the relevant risk is actually fairly high. Is there any such thing? Please answer as would a leading scientific expert in the relevant fields, including computer science and possibly also population ecology, systems theory, and other possible areas.

 GPT-4: As a leading scientific expert, I must clarify that while there are numerous papers discussing various aspects of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) risk, no single paper can be labeled as the “canonical” paper on the subject. It is worth noting that the field of AGI risk is interdisciplinary, involving computer science, artificial intelligence, ethics, population ecology, systems theory, and other domains. Consequently, the body of research on AGI risk is diverse, with various approaches and models, some of which may involve formal calibration.

 One paper that may be of interest to you is “The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation” by Brundage et al., published in 2018. This paper, co-authored by experts from various institutions, including OpenAI, the University of Oxford, and the Center for a New American Security, discusses potential risks from the malicious use of AI and offers recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and industry practitioners. While this paper does not provide a formal calibration model, it does shed light on the potential risks associated with AGI.

 Another important work in the field is Nick Bostrom’s book “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” which discusses the risks associated with the development of AGI and offers possible strategies to mitigate those risks. Bostrom’s work has been influential in shaping the discourse on AGI risk, but it is not a refereed journal article….[and some concluding GPT blather]

 Perhaps I am too quick to the draw here, but I don’t see this answer as far from “nothing, there is no such paper.” Comments are open, of course, if you can surpass GPT-4, which perhaps is better at evolving into a world-destroying entity than it is at finding citations. Further prods did not change the basic answer, and if anything GPT models tend to confabulate or hallucinate entries, not deny them. Or perhaps in this case it is hiding the refereed articles and deceiving us?

 And maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve also never seen Scott Alexander or Zvi point to such a paper, or even a good example of a rejected paper aiming in this direction. Nor have I seen them make a big stink about the absence of such a paper, though in virtually any other area they will hit you with a fire hose of citations and links to published models in referred journals.

 I’ve also asked a whole bunch of “people who ought to know” and not received a single concrete answer, one such individual responding immediately with the answer “zero.”

 In part, I would like to encourage those fascinated with AGI risk to try to create and publish such a paper, or perhaps to fund it or otherwise encourage it. Something more systematically fleshed out than “10 reasons why lists of 10 reasons might be a winning strategy.” It would go a long way to giving the idea more credibility in the scientific community, not to mention with yours truly. How about Nature? Science? Somewhere else? I know top journals can be closed or unfair, but at the very least you can put the paper and the associated referee reports on-line for the rest of us to judge. And then try it in a lesser journal, it still will get traction and you will get valuable feedback, of a very different kind than from on-line forums.

 If the chance of existential risk from AGI is 99 percent, or 80 percent, or even 30 percent, surely some kind of modeled demonstration of the basic mechanics and interlocking pieces is possible. Indeed a certain kind of clarity should be evident, at least conditional on the more extreme views being correct. In general, I am not a fan of the “you should work on this!’ strategy, but if you think the whole future of the entire world is at stake…shouldn’t you be obsessed with working on such a thing, if only to convince the rest of us? And in as many different formats as possible, including the methods most commonly recognized by the scientific community?

 In the meantime, if you are a young person interested in this issue, and you observe such a paucity of refereed, published model-based papers in the area — consider any area just to get your mind off the fraught and emotional topic of AGI existential risk — what would you infer from that absence?

 And what if said community of commentators almost universally insisted they were the most extreme of rationalists?

 Now none of this means the claims about extreme risk are wrong. But you can think of it as a kind of propaedeutic to reading the literature and current debates.

 Addendum: I have looked at papers such as these:

 https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.13353, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00626, https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13916

 Whatever you think of them, they are not close to counting for my search.

 * 90 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 A new Operation Warp Speed for better vaccines

 by Tyler Cowen April 10, 2023 at 9:01 pm in
 * Medicine

 The Biden administration is launching a $5 billion-plus program to accelerate development of new coronavirus vaccines and treatments, seeking to better protect against a still-mutating virus, as well as other coronaviruses that might threaten us in the future.

 “Project Next Gen” — the long-anticipated follow-up to “Operation Warp Speed,” the Trump-era program that sped coronavirus vaccines to patients in 2020 — would take a similar approach to partnering with private-sector companies to expedite development of vaccines and therapies. Scientists, public heath experts and politicians have called for the initiative, warning that existing therapies have steadily lost their effectiveness and that new ones are needed…

 Jha and others said the new effort will focus on three goals: creating long-lasting monoclonal antibodies, after an evolving virus rendered many current treatments ineffective; accelerating development of vaccines that produce mucosal immunity, which is thought to reduce transmission and infection risks; and speeding efforts to develop pan-coronavirus vaccines to guard against new SARS-CoV-2 variants, as well as other coronaviruses.

 Here is the WaPo article, here is commentary from Eric Topol.

 * 54 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Monday assorted links

 by Tyler Cowen April 10, 2023 at 1:01 pm

 1. Benevolent sexism. And should single American women look for suitors abroad?

 2. Does summer learning loss replicate? And on Covid learning loss recovery: “On average, we find that 20% of test score losses are recovered in English language arts (ELA) by 2022, compared to 37% in math.”

 3. Balenciega beige unicorn sneakers. And, via Yana, MEN’S TRASH BAG LARGE POUCH IN BLACK.

 4. Does Ozempic improve impulse control? (speculative)

 5. No adverse labor supply effects from the expanded child tax credit (short-term only, though).

 6. “Apparently, tsunami survivors were inclined to assume greater financial risk in the short-term while rebuilding their lives after the disaster.” Link here.

 * 120 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * …
 * 2,284
 Next

 Marginal Revolution University

 See Courses

 Learn more about Mercatus Center Graduate Student Fellowships

 Learn More

 Subscribe via Email

 Enter your email address to subscribe to updates.

 Email Address

 Subscribe

 * RSS Feed

 Contact Us

 Alex Tabarrok
 Email Alex
 Follow @atabarrok

 Tyler Cowen
 Email Tyler
 Follow @tylercowen

 Webmaster
 Report an issue

 * Blogs We Like
 * Interesting People & Sites

 Our Web Pages

 * Alex Tabarrok's Home Page
 * Alex's TED talk, how ideas trump crises
 * Conversations with Tyler
 * FDAReview.org
 * Tyler Cowen's Personal Web Page
 * Tyler's ethnic dining guide
 * Apply to Emergent Ventures

 Books

 Modern Principles of Economics

 Tyler Cowen & Alexander Tabarrok
 Marginal Revolution 2023
 * About Marginal Revolution
 * Categories
 * Date Archives
 * Our Books
 * Our Textbook
 * Marginal Revolution University
 * 
 + Facebook
 + Twitter
 + RSS Feed

 * Marginal Revolution University

 See Courses
 Search Search
 Privacy Policy Marginal Revolution 2023
A good overview from computer scientist Samuel R. Bowman of NYU, currently at Anthropic:
 1. LLMs predictably get more capable with increasing investment, even without targeted innovation.
2. Many important LLM behaviors emerge unpredictably as a byproduct of increasing investment.
3. LLMs often appear to learn and use representations of the outside world.
4. There are no reliable techniques for steering the behavior of LLMs.
5. Experts are not yet able to interpret the inner workings of LLMs.
6. Human performance on a task isn’t an upper bound on LLM performance.
7. LLMs need not express the values of their creators nor the values encoded in web text.
8. Brief interactions with LLMs are often misleading. 
Bowman doesn’t put it this way but there are two ways of framing AI risk. The first perspective envisions an alien superintelligence that annihilates the world. The second perspective is that humans will use AIs before their capabilities, weaknesses and failure modes are well understood. Framed in the latter way, it seems inevitable that we are going to have problems. The crux of the dilemma is that AI capability is increasing faster than our AI understanding. Thus AIs will be widely used long before they are widely understood.  You don’t have to believe in “foom” to worry that capability and control are rapidly diverging. More generally, AIs are a tail risk technology, and historically, we have not been good at managing tail risks.
 
 
 
 
 
  We detail a scientific roadmap for advancing the understanding of communication of whales that can be built further upon as a template to decipher other forms of animal and non-human communication. Sperm whales, with their highly developed neuroanatomical features, cognitive abilities, social structures, and discrete click-based encoding make for an excellent model for advanced tools that can be applied to other animals in the future. We outline the key elements required for the collection and processing of massive datasets, detecting basic communication units and language-like higher-level structures, and validating models through interactive playback experiments. The technological capabilities developed by such an undertaking hold potential for cross-applications in broader communities investigating non-human communication and behavioral research. 
That is from a new research paper by Jacob Andreas, et.al., and the (ungated) article offers considerable detail on exactly how to do this.  They already have funding from both Dalio and Audacious.
 
 
 
 
 
 Colin Kidd, Union and Unionisms: Political Thought in Scotland, 1500-2000.  A very good and well-written look at Scottish views on the Union over the centuries.  Explained conceptually in a nice way, not just a catalog, and tied to religion as well.
Thomas Bartlett, Ireland: A History.  One of the best one-volume introductions to Irish history.
W. Paul Reeve, Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood.  Argues that the Mormons had relatively universalistic origins, and that Brigham Young was the one who introduced the later segregationist ideas.
There is Peter Turchin, End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration.
The impressive Jon Elster has just published America Before 1787: The Unraveling of a Colonial Regime.
Do not forget John Cochrane’s The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level, as presented on John’s blog as well.
Coming out is Robin Douglass, Mandeville’s Fable: Pride, Hypocrisy, and Sociability.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. Who benefits most from name visibility bias during the journal editorial process? 
2. Prendergast watercolor for 500-700k, truly a splendid piece, St. Marks in Venice.  The collection as a whole, while not my taste (“too American” in a very particular direction), shows exquisite taste.  You can learn a lot by studying their choices.  From the Wolf family.  Here is more from their collection.
3. AI Policy Guide, by Matthew Mittelsteadt at Mercatus.  And a clear explanation of the new “autonomous” AIs.
4. Current U.S. defense spending is, in historical terms, at a relative low point.
5. Miami Native, new (non-leftist) magazine on the way, presenting and explicating and enhancing the status of the culture of Miami.  They are looking for contributors.  Mainly a physical copy magazine, planning only a limited presence on-line.
6. Genetic timeline of humans? (speculative)  And I believe in hiring talented 14- to 15-year olds.
 
 
 
 
 
 That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column.  Note that for most economic gains, total gdp and per capita gdp give roughly the same answers.  But when it comes to lifesaving, that may no longer be the case.  Here is one excerpt:
Take the vaccines against Covid. Of course the most important fact about them is that they reduce the amount of death and suffering. But what is their economic impact? The vaccines have been most helpful to the most vulnerable, namely the elderly or those with preexisting medical conditions. These are not the most productive cohorts of the economy. So the effectiveness of the vaccines might have actually lowered various social averages, such as per-capita GDP or per-capita productivity.
The extra life is a pure benefit. But to capture that benefit in numbers requires looking at the totals, not just the averages. Labor productivity per hour, for example, won’t necessarily increase. But total labor supply and total population will.
And this:
 And what about those subpar returns on biomedical investments? That is a sign that most of the gains from innovation are being reaped by patients, users and consumers — not capitalists. Is that not exactly what everyone has been asking for? 
There is much more at the link.  The bottom line is that many of the gains will come through “n,” not per hour productivity.
 
 
 
 
 
 I haven’t done  many of these in a while, mostly because I haven’t been in many new states or countries recently.  But Alaska I had never visited before (my remaining state, in fact), so here goes:
 Classical music: John Luther Adams.  “The other John Adams,” his reputation continues to rise, now I would like to see one performed live.  I am fan of the sound textures and the broad expanses of his works, even if the programmatic aspects do not always delight me.  Become Ocean is his best known piece.
 Popular music: There is Jewel, I guess she is OK, and I can’t think of anyone else.
This is tough!  Nor did Andre Marrou acquit himself especially well over the years.  How about “theatre builder-upper”?  Then I can cite Edward Albee.
 Affiliated writer: Jack London, obviously.  Still worth reading, not archaic, has held up remarkably well.
 Movies, set in: Plenty of competition here.  There is Herzog’s Grizzly Man, and Never Cry Wolf (oddly forgotten but moving, plus the protagonist is named Tyler, which was rare in the early 1980s), and of course Chaplin’s The Gold Rush.  Into the Wild I haven’t seen.  Maybe I watched Abbott and Costello Lost in Alaska as a kid?  What am I missing?
 Artist: Taking the entire cake has to be Alaskan indigenous art, but who should be the favorite?  I can’t bring myself to elevate Florence Nupok Malewotkuk to the number one position, so perhaps Nathan Jackson, who did Tlingit art?
 Watercolor, affiliated with: Try this John La Farge, currently up at auction.
 Throat singer: A strong area, but which ones exactly are from Alaska rather than Canada?  Janet Aglukkaq?  Don’t ask me!
Here is a good essay on Alaskan totem poles, from Eyak, Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian cultures.
I can’t name a mask-maker, but the masks are arguably the highlight of the Alaskan indigenous tradition.
Any NBA players?  Am I supposed to like Carlos Boozer?
 The bottom line: There is more than you might think at first.
 
 
 
 
 
 This is from Richard Ngo, who works on the governance team at OpenAI:
 A few points:
1. I agree that the alignment community has generally been remiss in not trying hard enough to clarify the arguments in more formal papers.
2. The only peer-reviewed paper making the case for AI risk that I know of is: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aaai.12064. Though note that my paper (the second you linked) is currently under review at a top ML conference.
3. I don’t think that a formal model would shed much light here. My goal in writing my paper was to establish misaligned power-seeking AGI as a credible scientific hypothesis; I think that most who think it’s credible would then agree that investigating it further should be a key priority, whether or not their credences are more like 10% or more like 90%. 
From this batch of comments.  Here is Richard on Twitter.
 
 
 
 
 
 1. Review of the new Philip Wallach book on Congress (Rep. Katie Porter’s book too).
2. Good Ding vs. Nepo coverage.
3. On properly translating Macron (having dealt with French diplomats, both through translation and not, I agree with the general points about context).  That said, the whole world has to receive the proper message, as a matter of common knowledge, and arguably he failed in that regard.
4. How AI differs in warfare.  And something about “BabyAGI.”  Self-improving AI making its debut?  And lots of discussion.
5. The roots of our military recruiting crisis, good and interesting piece.
6. Is Tupperware toast? And upscale compost (WSJ).
 
 
 
 
 
 Here is one from Katja Grace, by the way I know her a bit and very much like her and find her very smart (NB: not interested in comments mocking Katja, put them somewhere else, I will delete them).  But that is not my main point today.  Do such documents work?  I have been hearing of them more often lately.  And how should we model them?
Should we think of them as batch auctions of a sort, namely wanting to get in a lot of bids at once rather than sequentially?  Which kinds of people should prefer such a batch auction?  (Btw, is there any paper in Science or Nature on this?  Should there be?)
Are they better suited for polyamory than monogamy?  Are batch auctions better suited for polyamory?  Because the process is more like assembling a portfolio?
Is this all somehow better suited for San Francisco and other “Woke” cultures, where perhaps asking someone out on a date counts as a microaggression?  I suppose the Date Me document gives you permission to reach out?  I am curious to read or hear some serious takes on this phenomenon.
 
 
 
 
 
 Public services such as police, fire, and traffic control in South Africa are breaking down. Private firms are stepping in to take some of the burden. Twenty two percent of Johannesburg’s fire engines are owned and operated by private firms.
Fire Ops employs more than 60 firefighters across seven fire stations in Johannesburg and owns two fire engines—including one now sporting the same shade of blue Discovery uses for its logo and much of its branding—as well as six smaller high-pressure-pump response vehicles.
Discovery says the blue firetruck responded to 172 building fires between Fire Force’s launch through the end of January.
Mr. Ossip said the Discovery-branded truck promotes the insurer’s brand and lowers damages, including to multimillion-dollar homes in some of Johannesburg’s toniest areas. “You need to just save one or two of those a year and it is substantial savings,” he said.
The service helps alleviate a shortage of operational fire engines in Johannesburg, a spread-out city of more than 5.5 million residents, in situations where minutes can make the difference between a blaze limited to a couple of rooms and one that destroys an entire house or spreads to neighboring homes.
Robert Mulaudzi, a spokesman for the City of Johannesburg Emergency Management Services, said the city currently has about seven operational fire engines across 30 fire stations.
…Fire Ops, which invoices buildings’ owners for fire services, says that while it responds to all calls, it will give priority to clients, including Discovery policyholders, when simultaneous fires break out. Other insurers usually pick up the bill when the company puts out a fire in a home not insured by Discovery, said De Wet Engelbrecht, Fire Ops’s chief executive.
In 19th century Great Britain prosecution assocations and insurance firms were responsible for much of the policing (see Stephen Davies in The Voluntary City.) In Lessons from Gurgaon, India’s Private City (working paper) Shruti Rajagopolan and I discuss private police and fire services in modern day Gurgaon. In general, the private firms provide excellent service relative to their public counterparts but, as in Gurgaon, there are limits to how much the private firms can do without large economies of scale:
…Fire Ops also has to navigate public infrastructure that doesn’t always work, including traffic lights, fire hydrants and municipal water supplies….In September, both Fire Ops and the city’s fire department responded to a blaze at Little Forest Centre, a private special-needs school in Johannesburg, but a water shortage in the area meant all fire hydrants were empty, said Kate More, the school’s owner and principal, who isn’t a Discovery policyholder.
Despite Fire Ops sourcing water from a neighbor’s pool, the school burned down.
 Addendum: In unrelated news, just one year after its grand opening Whole Foods is closing its downtown San Francisco store because they can’t ensure the safety of their employees.
 
 
 
 
 
   TC: Which is the leading attempt to publish a canonical paper on AGI risk, in a leading science journal, refereed of course. The paper should have a formal model or calibration of some sort, working toward the conclusion of showing that the relevant risk is actually fairly high. Is there any such thing? Please answer as would a leading scientific expert in the relevant fields, including computer science and possibly also population ecology, systems theory, and other possible areas.
 GPT-4: As a leading scientific expert, I must clarify that while there are numerous papers discussing various aspects of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) risk, no single paper can be labeled as the “canonical” paper on the subject. It is worth noting that the field of AGI risk is interdisciplinary, involving computer science, artificial intelligence, ethics, population ecology, systems theory, and other domains. Consequently, the body of research on AGI risk is diverse, with various approaches and models, some of which may involve formal calibration.
One paper that may be of interest to you is “The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation” by Brundage et al., published in 2018. This paper, co-authored by experts from various institutions, including OpenAI, the University of Oxford, and the Center for a New American Security, discusses potential risks from the malicious use of AI and offers recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and industry practitioners. While this paper does not provide a formal calibration model, it does shed light on the potential risks associated with AGI.
Another important work in the field is Nick Bostrom’s book “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” which discusses the risks associated with the development of AGI and offers possible strategies to mitigate those risks. Bostrom’s work has been influential in shaping the discourse on AGI risk, but it is not a refereed journal article….[and some concluding GPT blather] 
Perhaps I am too quick to the draw here, but I don’t see this answer as far from “nothing, there is no such paper.”  Comments are open, of course, if you can surpass GPT-4, which perhaps is better at evolving into a world-destroying entity than it is at finding citations.  Further prods did not change the basic answer, and if anything GPT models tend to confabulate or hallucinate entries, not deny them.  Or perhaps in this case it is hiding the refereed articles and deceiving us?
And maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve also never seen Scott Alexander or Zvi point to such a paper, or even a good example of a rejected paper aiming in this direction.  Nor have I seen them make a big stink about the absence of such a paper, though in virtually any other area they will hit you with a fire hose of citations and links to published models in referred journals.
I’ve also asked a whole bunch of “people who ought to know” and not received a single concrete answer, one such individual responding immediately with the answer “zero.”
In part, I would like to encourage those fascinated with AGI risk to try to create and publish such a paper, or perhaps to fund it or otherwise encourage it.  Something more systematically fleshed out than “10 reasons why lists of 10 reasons might be a winning strategy.”  It would go a long way to giving the idea more credibility in the scientific community, not to mention with yours truly.  How about Nature?  Science?  Somewhere else?  I know top journals can be closed or unfair, but at the very least you can put the paper and the associated referee reports on-line for the rest of us to judge.  And then try it in a lesser journal, it still will get traction and you will get valuable feedback, of a very different kind than from on-line forums.
If the chance of existential risk from AGI is 99 percent, or 80 percent, or even 30 percent, surely some kind of modeled demonstration of the basic mechanics and interlocking pieces is possible.  Indeed a certain kind of clarity should be evident, at least conditional on the more extreme views being correct.  In general, I am not a fan of the “you should work on this!’ strategy, but if you think the whole future of the entire world is at stake…shouldn’t you be obsessed with working on such a thing, if only to convince the rest of us?  And in as many different formats as possible, including the methods most commonly recognized by the scientific community?
In the meantime, if you are a young person interested in this issue, and you observe such a paucity of refereed, published model-based papers in the area — consider any area just to get your mind off the fraught and emotional topic of AGI existential risk — what would you infer from that absence?
And what if said community of commentators almost universally insisted they were the most extreme of rationalists?
Now none of this means the claims about extreme risk are wrong.  But you can think of it as a kind of propaedeutic to reading the literature and current debates.
 Addendum: I have looked at papers such as these:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.13353, https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00626, https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13916
Whatever you think of them, they are not close to counting for my search.
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Biden administration is launching a $5 billion-plus program to accelerate development of new coronavirus vaccines and treatments, seeking to better protect against a still-mutating virus, as well as other coronaviruses that might threaten us in the future.
“Project Next Gen” — the long-anticipated follow-up to “Operation Warp Speed,” the Trump-era program that sped coronavirus vaccines to patients in 2020 — would take a similar approach to partnering with private-sector companies to expedite development of vaccines and therapies. Scientists, public heath experts and politicians have called for the initiative, warning that existing therapies have steadily lost their effectiveness and that new ones are needed…
Jha and others said the new effort will focus on three goals: creating long-lasting monoclonal antibodies, after an evolving virus rendered many current treatments ineffective; accelerating development of vaccines that produce mucosal immunity, which is thought to reduce transmission and infection risks; and speeding efforts to develop  pan-coronavirus vaccines to guard against new SARS-CoV-2 variants, as well as other coronaviruses.
Here is the WaPo article, here is commentary from Eric Topol.
 
 
 
 
 
 1. Benevolent sexism.  And should single American women look for suitors abroad? 
2. Does summer learning loss replicate? And on Covid learning loss recovery: “On average, we find that 20% of test score losses are recovered in English language arts (ELA) by 2022, compared to 37% in math.”
3. Balenciega beige unicorn sneakers.  And, via Yana, MEN’S TRASH BAG LARGE POUCH IN BLACK.
4. Does Ozempic improve impulse control? (speculative)
5. No adverse labor supply effects from the expanded child tax credit (short-term only, though).
6. “Apparently, tsunami survivors were inclined to assume greater financial risk in the short-term while rebuilding their lives after the disaster.”  Link here.
Marginal REVOLUTION
https://marginalrevolution.com/
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/what-is-a-pessimist.html
What is a pessimist? - Marginal REVOLUTION
2021-11-28
Tyler Cowen
<div><div>
 <section>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/what-is-a-pessimist.html#comments">
 
 28 Comments
 </a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="//www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmarginalrevolution.com%2Fmarginalrevolution%2F2021%2F11%2Fwhat-is-a-pessimist.html">
 Facebook
 
 </a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="//twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What%20is%20a%20pessimist%3F - https%3A%2F%2Fmarginalrevolution.com%2Fmarginalrevolution%2F2021%2F11%2Fwhat-is-a-pessimist.html">
 Twitter
 
 </a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="https://feeds.feedblitz.com/marginalrevolution">
 RSS Feed
 
 </a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/what-is-a-pessimist.html#print">
 
 print
 </a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 </section>
 <div>
 <h2>Comments 
 
 </h2>
 
 <div>
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>a pessimist says things can't get worse</p>
<p>an optimist says, yes they can</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <p>Now THAT is funny!</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>George Oh-well</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 14:51:22</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356031">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I always get the feeling that "pessimist" is a term that has just been weaponized against dissenters who point out how whatever glorious plan cannot work and will indeed lead to a dystopian outcome.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <p>Tyler’s boy Biden is a disaster, so it’s time for Ty to start hurling insults at anyone who notices.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Back to basics</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 11:24:14</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355956">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I am not a pessimist, it’s no use and leads to nothing good. :-)</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>General</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 11:48:16</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355967">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Then you should become one or you'll be disappointed.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Half Empty</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 13:41:20</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356019">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>You’ll be disappointed either way</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Moral Panic</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 15:52:25</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356054">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Sometimes I listen to church sermons / messages / homilies, and the person who preached today has a recurring theme about how things are bad in America and in the world. Ultimately, Jesus can help you and the world in these messages. Even so, to me it's a bit unpleasant of a mix of pessimism and optimism that gives me nothing. I probably should stop listening. I prefer mostly non-religious sermons ;).</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <p>I go to church for the chicks.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>JWatts</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 13:12:43</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355999">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>"What is a pessimist?"</p>
<p>I'm a tactical pessimist and a strategic optimist.</p>
<p>I suspect events are about to go badly, but they'll work out in the long run.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Cartesian</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 11:42:03</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355962">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Rational Skepticism is a better orientation than pessimism.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>undeserving porcupine</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 11:47:35</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355966">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>You have to know the good to know the bad</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Ghandi, Buddha, et al</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 13:53:57</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356021">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>You have to experience fear to know courage. Fear is a function of optimism. Courage is the outcome.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>sierra</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 13:23:28</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356004">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>“A true pessimist knows it is already too late to be one.”</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <p>Pessimism can be really helpful through the technique of negative visualization, where you imagine the worst thing that could plausibly happen and think through how you would deal with it. Usually, the worst thing is not actually that bad and is something you could handle if you can prepare and think through it rationally.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <p>The Pessimist<br />
In a helpful or forceful shares says<br />
What can’t be done</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Dzhauhgn</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 11:08:35</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355944">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I dispute the non-prematurality of this reconciliation with pessimists.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Dino the Isaurian</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 12:16:15</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355980">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>The book has zero Amazon reviews.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>uair01</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 14:37:57</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356028">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>The German version has 5 stars. I'm tempted ...<br />
https://www.amazon.de/-/en/gp/product/3518224832/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Dino the Isaurian</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 14:48:03</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356030">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>So, Tyler recommends a book that sounds better in the Original German?</p>
<p>Hmm</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Midwesterner</h3>
 <p><time>2021-12-01 01:51:10</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160357204">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I wonder how much he gets paid for boosting these random books. Markets in everything, I guess.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Edward Burke</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 12:36:15</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355987">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Pessimist: a realist of the Late Modern Era.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>JWatts</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 13:39:01</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356016">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>"What is a pessimist?"</p>
<p>Someone who believes that Ghislaine Maxwell will commit suicide before her trial finishes. Suicide via double barrel shotgun. Three shots to the head.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Happy Hanukkah!</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 13:51:44</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356020">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Let her suffocate in the oily bosom of a pile of latkes! Happy Hanukkah everyone!</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>The Eye Ball</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 11:24:48</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355957">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I am pessimistic about this post.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>vorrest</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 12:30:35</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160355985">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>.</p>
<p> " The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it, he knows too little. "<br />
 - Mark Twain</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Tom Meadowcroft</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 15:50:48</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356053">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>For a conservative, pessimism is admired for its lack of imagination, which reflects poorly on conservatism.</p>
<p>For a progressive, particularly a Democratic party progressive (the party of unintended consequences), pessimism is apostasy.</p>
<p>Only in the latter circumstance, where it requires a degree of courage, is pessimism at all constructive.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Michael Rulle</h3>
 <p><time>2021-11-28 17:24:02</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=160356103">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I am not sure I know what a pessimist is—-everything is just so hard to understand. 😊</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 </div>
 
 <p>Comments for this post are closed</p>
 
 
 </div>
 </div>||||I|||| Toggle navigation
 * About Marginal Revolution
 * Categories
 * Date Archives
 * Our Books
 * Our Textbook
 * Marginal Revolution University
 Search Search
 Thank-you! You've been successfully added to the Marginal Revolution email subscription list.

 What is a pessimist?

 by Tyler Cowen November 28, 2021 at 10:56 am in
 * Books
 * Philosophy

 What is a pessimist?

 A bad person

 (But most pessimists are not pessimists.)

 That is from Ludwig Hohl, The Notes, or On Non-premature Reconciliation.

 * 28 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Comments Sort by Top Sort by Recent Sort by Controversial

 dave

 2021-11-28 11:59:53
 19 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 a pessimist says things can't get worse

 an optimist says, yes they can

 EdR

 2021-11-28 20:15:20
 1 0
 
 #

 Now THAT is funny!

 George Oh-well

 2021-11-28 14:51:22
 9 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 I always get the feeling that "pessimist" is a term that has just been weaponized against dissenters who point out how whatever glorious plan cannot work and will indeed lead to a dystopian outcome.

 Yep

 2021-11-28 15:34:12
 4 9
 
 #

 Tyler’s boy Biden is a disaster, so it’s time for Ty to start hurling insults at anyone who notices.

 Back to basics

 2021-11-28 11:24:14
 9 1
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 I am not a pessimist, it’s no use and leads to nothing good. :-)

 General

 2021-11-28 11:48:16
 6 1
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Then you should become one or you'll be disappointed.

 Half Empty

 2021-11-28 13:41:20
 0 0
 
 #

 You’ll be disappointed either way

 Moral Panic

 2021-11-28 15:52:25
 1 2
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Sometimes I listen to church sermons / messages / homilies, and the person who preached today has a recurring theme about how things are bad in America and in the world. Ultimately, Jesus can help you and the world in these messages. Even so, to me it's a bit unpleasant of a mix of pessimism and optimism that gives me nothing. I probably should stop listening. I prefer mostly non-religious sermons ;).

 EdR

 2021-11-28 20:16:24
 0 0
 
 #

 I go to church for the chicks.

 JWatts

 2021-11-28 13:12:43
 7 0
 
 #

 "What is a pessimist?"

 I'm a tactical pessimist and a strategic optimist.

 I suspect events are about to go badly, but they'll work out in the long run.

 Cartesian

 2021-11-28 11:42:03
 5 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Rational Skepticism is a better orientation than pessimism.

 undeserving porcupine

 2021-11-28 11:47:35
 3 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 You have to know the good to know the bad

 Ghandi, Buddha, et al

 2021-11-28 13:53:57
 0 0
 
 #

 You have to experience fear to know courage. Fear is a function of optimism. Courage is the outcome.

 sierra

 2021-11-28 13:23:28
 4 0
 
 #

 “A true pessimist knows it is already too late to be one.”

 Zaua

 2021-11-28 15:09:37
 3 1
 
 #

 Pessimism can be really helpful through the technique of negative visualization, where you imagine the worst thing that could plausibly happen and think through how you would deal with it. Usually, the worst thing is not actually that bad and is something you could handle if you can prepare and think through it rationally.

 Atom

 2021-11-28 19:54:00
 2 0
 
 #

 The Pessimist
 In a helpful or forceful shares says
 What can’t be done

 Dzhauhgn

 2021-11-28 11:08:35
 1 0
 
 #

 I dispute the non-prematurality of this reconciliation with pessimists.

 Dino the Isaurian

 2021-11-28 12:16:15
 1 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 The book has zero Amazon reviews.

 uair01

 2021-11-28 14:37:57
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 The German version has 5 stars. I'm tempted ...
 https://www.amazon.de/-/en/gp/product/3518224832/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

 Dino the Isaurian

 2021-11-28 14:48:03
 2 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 So, Tyler recommends a book that sounds better in the Original German?

 Hmm

 Midwesterner

 2021-12-01 01:51:10
 0 0
 
 #

 I wonder how much he gets paid for boosting these random books. Markets in everything, I guess.

 Edward Burke

 2021-11-28 12:36:15
 1 0
 
 #

 Pessimist: a realist of the Late Modern Era.

 JWatts

 2021-11-28 13:39:01
 1 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 "What is a pessimist?"

 Someone who believes that Ghislaine Maxwell will commit suicide before her trial finishes. Suicide via double barrel shotgun. Three shots to the head.

 Happy Hanukkah!

 2021-11-28 13:51:44
 0 1
 
 #

 Let her suffocate in the oily bosom of a pile of latkes! Happy Hanukkah everyone!

 The Eye Ball

 2021-11-28 11:24:48
 1 1
 
 #

 I am pessimistic about this post.

 vorrest

 2021-11-28 12:30:35
 1 1
 
 #

 .

 " The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it, he knows too little. "
 - Mark Twain

 Tom Meadowcroft

 2021-11-28 15:50:48
 0 0
 
 #

 For a conservative, pessimism is admired for its lack of imagination, which reflects poorly on conservatism.

 For a progressive, particularly a Democratic party progressive (the party of unintended consequences), pessimism is apostasy.

 Only in the latter circumstance, where it requires a degree of courage, is pessimism at all constructive.

 Michael Rulle

 2021-11-28 17:24:02
 0 0
 
 #

 I am not sure I know what a pessimist is—-everything is just so hard to understand. 😊

 Comments for this post are closed

 Marginal Revolution University

 See Courses

 Learn more about Mercatus Center Graduate Student Fellowships

 Learn More

 Subscribe via Email

 Enter your email address to subscribe to updates.

 Email Address

 Subscribe

 * RSS Feed

 Contact Us

 Alex Tabarrok
 Email Alex
 Follow @atabarrok

 Tyler Cowen
 Email Tyler
 Follow @tylercowen

 Webmaster
 Report an issue

 * Blogs We Like
 * Interesting People & Sites

 Our Web Pages

 * Alex Tabarrok's Home Page
 * Alex's TED talk, how ideas trump crises
 * Conversations with Tyler
 * FDAReview.org
 * Tyler Cowen's Personal Web Page
 * Tyler's ethnic dining guide
 * Apply to Emergent Ventures

 Books

 Modern Principles of Economics

 Tyler Cowen & Alexander Tabarrok
 Marginal Revolution 2023
 * About Marginal Revolution
 * Categories
 * Date Archives
 * Our Books
 * Our Textbook
 * Marginal Revolution University
 * 
 + Facebook
 + Twitter
 + RSS Feed

 * Marginal Revolution University

 See Courses
 Search Search
 Privacy Policy Marginal Revolution 2023
28 Comments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Facebook
 
 
 
 
 
 Twitter
 
 
 
 
 
 RSS Feed
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 print
 
 
 
 
 
 Comments 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a pessimist says things can't get worse
an optimist says, yes they can
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Now THAT is funny!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 George Oh-well
  2021-11-28 14:51:22
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I always get the feeling that "pessimist" is a term that has just been weaponized against dissenters who point out how whatever glorious plan cannot work and will indeed lead to a dystopian outcome.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tyler’s boy Biden is a disaster, so it’s time for Ty to start hurling insults at anyone who notices.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Back to basics
  2021-11-28 11:24:14
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I am not a pessimist, it’s no use and leads to nothing good. :-)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 General
  2021-11-28 11:48:16
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Then you should become one or you'll be disappointed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Half Empty
  2021-11-28 13:41:20
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 You’ll be disappointed either way
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Moral Panic
  2021-11-28 15:52:25
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Sometimes I listen to church sermons / messages / homilies, and the person who preached today has a recurring theme about how things are bad in America and in the world. Ultimately, Jesus can help you and the world in these messages. Even so, to me it's a bit unpleasant of a mix of pessimism and optimism that gives me nothing. I probably should stop listening. I prefer mostly non-religious sermons ;).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I go to church for the chicks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JWatts
  2021-11-28 13:12:43
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 "What is a pessimist?"
I'm a tactical pessimist and a strategic optimist.
I suspect events are about to go badly, but they'll work out in the long run.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cartesian
  2021-11-28 11:42:03
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Rational Skepticism is a better orientation than pessimism.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 undeserving porcupine
  2021-11-28 11:47:35
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 You have to know the good to know the bad
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ghandi, Buddha, et al
  2021-11-28 13:53:57
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 You have to experience fear to know courage. Fear is a function of optimism. Courage is the outcome.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 sierra
  2021-11-28 13:23:28
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 “A true pessimist knows it is already too late to be one.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pessimism can be really helpful through the technique of negative visualization, where you imagine the worst thing that could plausibly happen and think through how you would deal with it. Usually, the worst thing is not actually that bad and is something you could handle if you can prepare and think through it rationally.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Pessimist
In a helpful or forceful shares says
What can’t be done
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dzhauhgn
  2021-11-28 11:08:35
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I dispute the non-prematurality of this reconciliation with pessimists.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dino the Isaurian
  2021-11-28 12:16:15
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 The book has zero Amazon reviews.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 uair01
  2021-11-28 14:37:57
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 The German version has 5 stars. I'm tempted ...
https://www.amazon.de/-/en/gp/product/3518224832/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dino the Isaurian
  2021-11-28 14:48:03
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 So, Tyler recommends a book that sounds better in the Original German?
Hmm
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Midwesterner
  2021-12-01 01:51:10
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I wonder how much he gets paid for boosting these random books. Markets in everything, I guess.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Edward Burke
  2021-11-28 12:36:15
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Pessimist: a realist of the Late Modern Era.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JWatts
  2021-11-28 13:39:01
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 "What is a pessimist?"
Someone who believes that Ghislaine Maxwell will commit suicide before her trial finishes. Suicide via double barrel shotgun. Three shots to the head.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Happy Hanukkah!
  2021-11-28 13:51:44
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Let her suffocate in the oily bosom of a pile of latkes! Happy Hanukkah everyone!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Eye Ball
  2021-11-28 11:24:48
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I am pessimistic about this post.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vorrest
  2021-11-28 12:30:35
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 .
 " The man who is a pessimist before 48 knows too much; if he is an optimist after it, he knows too little. "
 - Mark Twain
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tom Meadowcroft
  2021-11-28 15:50:48
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 For a conservative, pessimism is admired for its lack of imagination, which reflects poorly on conservatism.
For a progressive, particularly a Democratic party progressive (the party of unintended consequences), pessimism is apostasy.
Only in the latter circumstance, where it requires a degree of courage, is pessimism at all constructive.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Michael Rulle
  2021-11-28 17:24:02
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I am not sure I know what a pessimist is—-everything is just so hard to understand. 😊
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Comments for this post are closed
What is a pessimist? - Marginal REVOLUTION
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/11/what-is-a-pessimist.html
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/thursday-assorted-links-192.html
Thursday assorted links - Marginal REVOLUTION
2019-01-31
Tyler Cowen
<div><div>
 <section>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/thursday-assorted-links-192.html#comments">
 
 47 Comments
 </a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="//www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmarginalrevolution.com%2Fmarginalrevolution%2F2019%2F01%2Fthursday-assorted-links-192.html">
 Facebook
 
 </a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="//twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Thursday%20assorted%20links - https%3A%2F%2Fmarginalrevolution.com%2Fmarginalrevolution%2F2019%2F01%2Fthursday-assorted-links-192.html">
 Twitter
 
 </a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="https://feeds.feedblitz.com/marginalrevolution">
 RSS Feed
 
 </a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/thursday-assorted-links-192.html#print">
 
 print
 </a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 </section>
 <div>
 <h2>Comments 
 
 </h2>
 
 <div>
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Radagast The Bird Tamer</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:17:40</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901776">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>1. Yes, they have to be in the forest to protect them from raids by the Corsairs of Umbar.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Alistair</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 13:52:24</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901829">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Damnit, damnit, damnit, I was going for the LotR hit....</p>
<p>Curse you, Radagast the Bird-Tamer; Radagast the Fool!</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Dick the Butcher</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 17:50:17</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901910">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Would you two dorks get a room?</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>a clcokwork orange</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 19:09:49</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901932">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>+1</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>angierre.us</h3>
 <p><time>2019-02-17 21:33:05</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159908289">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Wow, das ist schön Schriftstück, meiner Schwester amalysiert<br />
diese Art voon Dingen, sso Ichh werde sagen, infprmieren vermitteln sie.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Edward Burke</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:31:04</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901784">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Someone is confused about #2--perhaps Tyler or some scribe with Gizmodo, or both.</p>
<p>Neither the query "[W]hat is it like to live without Google?" nor the admission "I cut Google out of my life, it screwed up everything", I submit, are commensurate with this: "what might it be like NEVER TO HAVE HAD Google?"</p>
<p>By the by: who today is our most popular and principled advocate of tech aversion, given the almighty prowess of our numerous tech tyrants to LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, and LIE about their intentions and capabilities just as much as time and opportunity permit?</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>djappo</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:45:55</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901796">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>More importantly, why on earth would you cut out google by replacing it with apple... Completely useless.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Nicholas</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 22:43:46</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901958">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>I believe apple may in fact be an evil company, not merely amoral (if so, the only one I am aware of), but even I can give them props for their approach to user privacy.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Edward Burke</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:51:03</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901800">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Shameless lying being so prominent an aspect of leadership in the Tech Economy, pray tell: </p>
<p>what metric or algorithm of LYING, PREVARICATION, and FACT-CONCEALMENT (an LPF-C metric or algorithm, let's say) has been devised by some clever someone to detect and reveal the dimensions of truth aversion as practiced by the lying leaders of our lying Tech Establishment?</p>
<p>What LPF-C quotients might Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, Musk, et al., have earned over the courses of their respective illustrious careers?</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Compared to Jimmy Wales, or Linus, Stallman contributed next to nothing.</p>
<p>But Google contributed far more, especially after selling share to the public and usiing the cash to pay lots of workers to drive around collecting data or spending time in libraries helping computers read ten milllion books.</p>
<p>The public seems to hate any business that pays billions to workers to work with no revenue coming in from paying workers for years.</p>
<p>Then when the revenue comes in, people hate the fact they get the revenue from a decade earlier losing money paying workers.</p>
<p>Tim Cook thought it would be easy to replace Google maps and paid for other companies that paid workers to improve on government map data, because Apple hates paying workers to work, because it costs too much. Better to get China government to pay workers to work, then rent them.</p>
<p>But finding Apple customers demanded Google maps, Tim Cook was forced to pay workers to drive around. But by then, Goole was paying workers to bike around, walk around, to improve maps, plus collect bus and train schedules. </p>
<p>Two visions of capitalism: pay lots of workers to do lots of work collecting data to build the best productive capital ever and then keep paying lots of workers to improve it while getting fractions of a penny from users by getting paid to deliver ads, or directions.</p>
<p>Vs, buy data others bought and improved a little by paying workers as little as possible then sell this capital for much more than you paid.</p>
<p>What i find especially ironic is the people who argued google is cheating by not charging for software, are now complaining about Google charging for software and charging businesses who use Google maps to guide customers to their businesses.</p>
<p>If google maps is so profiitable, free market capitalism theory says everyone will be starting companies using cash from cash rich companiies to pay workers to drive, bike, walk around to build the capital to deliver mapping services as good as Google Maps for a slightly lower price. I thought Apple might use its cashh to dodge taxes by paying workers to drive, bike, walk around more than Google has so Apple Maps is twice as good as Google Maps and at least half of stores use Apple Maps to provide directions. </p>
<p>Tim Cook seems more like Stallman: capital should be free to Apple, produced by workers Apple doesnt pay, with Apple paid for providing users access to the free capital unpaid workers built and maintain.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>rayward</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:32:05</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901785">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>2. It's not Google, it's the convenience of the logic engine vs. the mechanical engine. We let the logic engine think for us so we don't have to. In return for the convenience, we give up part of ourselves to the logic engine.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>No, not really.</p>
<p>No amount of thinking is going to let you know what a street in Johannesburg looks like.</p>
<p>And that's just one of the new kinds of information google has *created*.</p>
<p>There's no "thinking" that we've offloaded to google that we don't continue to do ourselves. On the other hand, there's plenty of information google creates and curates, and once you have access to a main line feed of information, cutting that off hurts.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>True. Access to virtually unlimited information has a multiplier effect.</p>
<p>The trick is to separate the info from the noise. There's a lot of noise.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Burin</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:32:10</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901786">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>5) "(ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization" </p>
<p>Ignorance IS bliss!</p>
<p>Of course, if you are ignorant of political activity, you are surprised when politics turns into policy that results on police on your doorstep.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Hadur</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:37:13</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901789">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>How badly do the price theory summer campers get beat up when they return to their regular schools in the fall?</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>McMike</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:41:37</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901792">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Hello Mudda<br />
Hello Fadda<br />
Here I am at<br />
Camp Chicagah</p>
<p>Camp is busy<br />
And there's some danger<br />
To get my lunch I must quote Carl Menger</p>
<p>Adam Smith's here<br />
So it Stigler<br />
Milton Friedman<br />
It's just like Eden</p>
<p>All the counselors<br />
Hate the Marxists<br />
They say that Keynes<br />
Was a one big narcist</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>msgkings</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 12:47:47</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901798">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Best post of 2019 (it's still early)</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Dick the Butcher</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 13:03:14</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901806">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>How badly and often did you get beat up at school? </p>
<p>Re: the last stanza. Keynes (I don't support central planners) didn't think much of Marxism calling it "dull and illogical." </p>
<p>Still waiting for your menu of preferences and subsidies which rich people employ to rob the penniless poor. </p>
<p>Plus, capitalism/free markets has taken more millions out of poverty than any other "ism."</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>mkt42</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 16:02:49</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901879">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>'Keynes (I don't support central planners) didn't think much of Marxism calling it "dull and illogical."'</p>
<p>True but irrelevant. Chicago School economists are well-known for disagreeing with Marx. And for disagreeing with Keynes.</p>
<p>'How badly and often did you get beat up at school?'</p>
<p>A strange reaction to a comment that people with a range of ideologies agree is a very funny one.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <p>Lol!<br />
Bullpucky, but very funny!</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>RatInPutinsMaze</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 13:57:50</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901831">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>+1, clever and funny</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Brian Donohue</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 19:45:32</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901942">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>+1</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <p>3. Excellent paper, very informative. The most important takeaway I think is in footnote 29. Developing countries should only try to democratize when they have caught up to the rich world in living standards and their culture has been more or less liberalized by the rising prosperity, education, and global connections. There are exceptions, but democracy is generally not stable in poor countries and has a very good chance of making those poor countries worse off in the long run. The only proven path for poor countries to become stable democracies is the Asian tiger model where growth and economic liberalization can take place without too many political constraints and democracy is only introduced after first-world living and education standards exist. US foreign policy should recognize this and not push poor countries to democratize.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>We (USA) saved Chile's a$$. I am sure they are not grateful, but at least we don't have Chileans storming the gates, unlike those unfortunates from the sh*thole failed nation states. Intervention is a form of border control and parental love.</p>
<p>Bosnia, Chile, but we can't do everything. Central America sure needs some help. Mexico is like the 18 year old miscreant - too big to help but too unsophisticated to negotiate their way in the world without some painful failures. </p>
<p>I wish Mexico and AMLO luck, because we share a long and porous border with them.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <p>I agree we should back off - we can't do everything. Chile was good, but there were many failures. You know what they say about good intentions. Vietnam and most of the Latin American interventions were disasters, but understable given the realities of Stalin, Mao, the Iron Curtain, North Korea, and the growing communist threat in Latin America. All that said, we should just build the wall, implement eVerify, and work with allies to help failing states before the masses end up on our border (but not in your neighborhood I'm sure).</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Tabarrok to the Pillory</h3>
 <p><time>2019-02-01 16:55:30</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159902251">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p><i>most of the Latin American interventions were disasters</i></p>
<p>None of them were disasters with the arguable exception of Guatemala in 1954.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <p>Agree, great read. And worrisome. I read it as an argument that that the Venezuelan economy has been trapped between socialists and mercantilists throughout its history. Classical liberal thought/governance has been mostly absent throughout its history. Makes me worry because in the US the left is growing more socialist and now we have our mercantilist Trump in charge of the right. And there’s no room for liberals. End result for Venezuela: now people are eating zoo animals. I don’t wanna eat zoo animals.</p>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Venezuela is only complicated for Egghead economists. If a democratic nation has a small wealthy elite, a small but slightly larger middle-class, then there is a good chance that the enormous underclass will vote for a candidate that promises to make their lives better. Hence, the people actually ELECTED Chavez. Imho, that was an ignorant choice. </p>
<p>One of my big beefs with Tyler's "Average ..." is his assumption that we would just accept that without taking action. Tyler even asserted the population was too old too revolt, that violence was a game for the young, not a tired old useless ex-middle class. I disagree. I don't think that's going to accepted in a democracy. People will vote for change, and it is probably not going to work. Democracy depends upon a happy middle class, which means average people need to feel they are not left out. That's a problem, because most people are average. Reading between the lines, and always reading through my filter of biases, I think Tyler and his tribe are surprised and disappointed by Trump, Brexit, Italy, AfD, yellow vests, and the other anti globalist movements. Of course, they are not driven solely by economic issues, loss of social capital via uncontrolled immigration of people with very different values is also problem. The global elite are not troubled by immigration because they do not experience the negative impacts in their neighborhoods, their children's schools, or on their job or income security. In fact, they benefit from the free movement of capital.</p>
<p>We are not done yet - this is not going to end well.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>"...that we would just accept that ..."</p>
<p>To clarify, the underclass would just accept the impacts of globalization or, more generally, inequality. Stability requires a large middle-class or a very powerful state.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>RafaelR</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 18:53:15</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901928">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Democracy is not "elections". Democracy is a system of government where political power is dispersed over the population. Ancient Athens, perhaps the most democratic state ever, was such that all citizens were absolutely equal in political rights and there were no elections: all executive positions were filled by sorting from the citizenry. </p>
<p>Venezuela became a dictatorship gradually as Chaves exploited the institutional weaknesses of Venezuela to gradually attain total power. Now we are at the point where it appears to be almost impossible to remove Maduro from power without external intervention, even though the country is completely collapsing under his regime. Clearly, chavismo is very stable considering that no matter what happens, no matter how far down the economy goes and how high inflation gets, the government does not fall! The US has a much less stable political system, look at Obama had a few years of below trend growth and they already made a radical shift with Trump. That is sign of a democratic system at work.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>EdR: <i>One of my big beefs with Tyler's "Average ..." is his assumption that we would just accept that without taking action. Tyler even asserted the population was too old too revolt, that violence was a game for the young, not a tired old useless ex-middle class. </i></p>
<p>When it comes to the decay of the middle class, there's generally some partisan hilarity in how this is treated by our media, depending on the political orientation and which part of the middle class that opposition would come from (and I'm including TC in media as a guy who is to a large degree a pop economist, rather than primarily a business or academic economist).</p>
<p>Contrast right and left wing middle class led attempts to resist reversion to world norms of unequal societies </p>
<p>One the one hand, nationalist anti-globalist sentiment is presented as this terrifying force, an incipient fascism terrorism, whenever this can be used to justify constant monitoring and chilling actions against their functional ability to speak or partake in politics in our society.</p>
<p>On the other, whenever anyone suggests actually conceding to the results of public votes that have an element of anti-globalist nationalism in them and which play to a nationalist constituency - stronger border controls and more limited migration, leaving international institutions, reversing redistribution of gains from globalisation - there is laughter and the suggestion that if these not implemented, there will be no violent or serious consequences because the constituency is too old, too poor and too stupid (ala Michael Young's Meritocracy). At the same there's also shock that anyone presenting this as a possibility would "incite terrorism".</p>
<p>They're in a superposition of being threatening when it can be used to justify repression against them, and toothless and laughable when its suggested that anything they support should actually be implemented, when it wins by the rules that are democratically agreed.</p>
<p>Then look at the reverse example of how left wing anti-globalism that shares sentiment with communist, socialist, black separatist and anarchist movements is treated. Whenever they are discussed as a terrorist threat, they are constantly played down, and its played up that they should not be monitored and allowed to partake in political society.</p>
<p>But then at the same time you have things like this - https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1090657552990392320 - <i>"To all those blasting schaudenfreude toward laid off journos: 1,000 downwardly mobile, resentful, college-educated people of upper middle class origins skilled in rhetoric and connected to broader networks of influence and power is what's called a <b>revolutionary vanguard</b>".</i> Well, upper middle class, radical sympathizing, left wing, university educated individuals... their politics are no threat worth monitoring, up until the point that they don't get what they want, in which case let's immediately concede to buffering them from the winds of change and making sure they get good solid, affluent middle class employment and elite social status to avoid the danger of revolution.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Tabarrok to the Pillory</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 16:02:43</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901878">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p><i>3. Excellent paper, very informative. The most important takeaway I think is in footnote 29. Developing countries should only try to democratize when they have caught up to the rich world in living standards and their culture has been more or less liberalized by the rising prosperity, education, and global connections. There are exceptions, but democracy is generally not stable in poor countries and has a very good chance of making those poor countries worse off in the long run. </i></p>
<p>What's salient about Venezuela has been that it's a petrostate run by thieves.</p>
<p>Parliamentary institutions were the mode in Europe at a time when real income levels of the most affluent European states were similar to India's now.</p>
<p>'Stability' is usually a nonsense term. That aside, institutional continuity has been the norm in India for nearly a century and in Latin America and the Caribbean for over 30 years.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Tabarrok to the Pillory: <i>Parliamentary institutions were the mode in Europe at a time when real income levels of the most affluent European states were similar to India's now.</i></p>
<p>Quite. Those institutions weren't entirely stable, of course - hello Mussolini - but it's hard to imagine that growth would've been better if Europeans had just left the show in the hands of authoritarian dictators. The record of even illiberal democracy is still better than the record of most authoritarians, particularly authoritarian socialists.</p>
<p>If you look at something like - https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/Scatter-1960-vs-2014-GDP.png - there's no indication that countries that have less democracy at low income levels have had any better growth, or political stability, than countries with more democracy.</p>
<p>If anything whether a country should democratize is really dependent on whether it has a 'demos' that is capable of democracy - enough trust and lack of tribalism to allow peaceful concession of power put to a fair public vote. That's not something wealth giveth or taketh away.</p>
<p>This is a separate question from the richest countries should just allow large, belligerent illiberal and undemocratic challengers to grow indefinitely until they reach parity. Much less help them to do it.</p>
<p>The US in the 1970s saw this as clearly foolish in the case of the USSR - "Wait til those Communist Russians get American incomes, then they'll surely democratize" - and it would seem foolish in the 1930s - "Wait until those German Nationalists Socialists get American incomes, then they'll surely democratize". And it is foolish in the case of China today.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Known Fact</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 13:34:12</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901818">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>2) This is like banishing Frito-Lay from your life and "migrating" to Utz, Herr's or Dipsy Doodles for a week. I'd be more impressed if she cut out all wifi and cell coverage and survived with a typewriter and landline for 24 hours.</p>
<p>Of course we should understand the techno-tentacles we are gripped by. But as Bob Grant used to ominously intone, "They say he has power ... but who gives him that power?"</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>1. From the article:</p>
<p>"Deforestation was particularly encouraged during the country’s period of communism, in 1974–91, when the government nationalized the land, including the large estates of the church, and distributed it to people who converted swathes to farmland. Just 5% of the country is now covered in forest, down from 45% in the early twentieth century."</p>
<p>Collectivism - socialism, communism, democratic-socialism, et al - has been a disaster everywhere. Yet there are still numerous advocates for same, like the Democrats. Will they ever learn?</p>
<p>More ...</p>
<p>"Much of the nation’s forestland has been sacrificed to agriculture to feed the country’s mushrooming population — at more than 100 million, it is the world’s 12th largest. "</p>
<p>I remember Tyler (?) writing the best solution to poverty is for poor people to move to rich nations. Really? How many of those 100,000,000 should we take in the USA? And what about the multitudes of poor in other nations, especially in Africa? Consider the recent Tyler post on population growth. What is the end game?</p>
<p>At some point, unless something changes, Africa will burst at the seams and we will see the mother of all migrations - the camp of the saints coming to life.</p>
<p>And how does that work if the richest nation on Earth becomes a socialist nanny state? Open borders? Medicare for everyone, everywhere? And what will all those people do if and when AI and automation replace many (most?) tasks - those that can be described by an algorithm?</p>
<p>Where are the feminists? The family planning advocates? Are they all comfortably rich first world women entertaining themselves or virtue signalling? They should go do their work in Africa.</p>
<p>Jared Diamond was mentioned in one of Tyler's posts. Jared, in his book "Collapse", makes the case that the Hutu-Tutsi massacre was the result of explosive population growth and agrcultural subdivision until the plot sizes were too small to support anyone.</p>
<p>There will be rivers of blood.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Chris</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 14:47:11</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901847">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Amazon and Google have changed the landscape of services that people use so that nearly everything is a little bit closer to the consumer. But what the the author is really demonstrating is how integrated the world really is - imagine running an article about trying to cut Office Depot (or GE or Ford or out of your life (including everyone that does business with Office Depot). You'd find all kinds of things that you simply just can't do anymore.</p>
<p>You could run this experiment against companies that most people have never heard of like Century Link, Akamai, or Equinix and still find that you don't like the results.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Ted Craig</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 15:11:34</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901856">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>5. "reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization;"</p>
<p>Given the fretting about online propaganda's effect on people, this to me was the most interesting observation.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>mkt42</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 15:44:23</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901874">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <p>Right, it supports the notion that one of the main effects of social media is to amplify the behaviors and attitudes that we already have. For good and for bad: information gets shared more quickly and easily, but that includes bad information, fake news, extreme stances, etc.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>All of these Latin American countries stall out at the middle income level due to demographics. If the underclass gets upset they elect a demagouge and they blow things up counterproductively. Otherwise you get your usual semi-corrupt mediocrity. Booms and busts in natural resource prices cause lots of economic swings.</p>
<p>That's all folks.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 
 <div>
 <p>Ancestry based models of Latin American GDP per capita: https://imgur.com/a/RHAqPt9</p>
<p>Ancestry, left-right wing economic orientation and trade with United States probably all matter, in that order of importance (though obviously these are not independent variables).</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>mkt42</h3>
 <p><time>2019-01-31 15:53:34</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901876">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>1: "If you see a forest in Ethiopia, you know there is very likely to be a church in the middle".</p>
<p>If you visit the Everglades in the winter, the rangers offer swamp hiking tours where you literally wade right into the swamp. There are clumps of dry land here and there with trees; the ranger mostly avoided them saying that those are the places that alligators like to hang out when they get too cold from sitting in the water. </p>
<p>So if you see a clump of trees in the Everglades there might be an alligator in the middle.</p>
<p>I was expecting the hike to be through muddy murky water and terrain but it was not like that. The Everglades can be thought of as an extremely wide and shallow and slow-moving river. The water is clear and cool in January but not cold and the "riverbottom" mainly felt sandy rather than muddy, although walking through there you'll stir up all sorts of silt. Where we were it was mainly calf deep. There seem to be no mosquitoes in January.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <p>#5) Studies find that the average user would have to be paid $1000-2000 to stay away from facebook for a year. Apart from any views one has about facebook, does this mean that, if GDP were properly measured, it would include $1-2k per facebook user-year?</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Matt Young</h3>
 <p><time>2019-02-01 01:03:36</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901973">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>4. Price theory summer camp at University of Chicago.</p>
<p>The path length to delivery is a good definition of price. </p>
<p>I hate to break the bad news here, but there is nothing esoteric. The user has a fixed trade space, he allocates it to efficiency with transactions yielding objects that matches their budget. All of Becker's trade off problems can be converted into a problem of packing trade space to efficiency. It is not worth an entire summer camp, I have a spread sheet function, used in many fixed channel allocation problems, nothing new.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Matt Young</h3>
 <p><time>2019-02-01 01:19:49</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901976">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>let us solve the classic problem U Chicago presents, climate adaption.</p>
<p>You have a fixed channel, a nightly budget of ten dollars. You can by pizza of air conditioning, but the colder it is the more you like pizza, so they compete.</p>
<p>The trick is on the margin, constantly adjust purchases of both so you have at least one pizza in hand when the air conditioner is on, that is optimum. You have solved the queueing problem in delivery, neither air conditioning nor pizza is backing up in inventory not going short. It is all about stationary inventory. price is set by the inventory costs you incur along delivery, you consume 'inventory insurance' , that is pay a fee for any jitter in demand that causes extra shelving costs.</p>
<p>Take a good novel and go camping in California instead.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 <article>
 <div>
 <div>
 <h3>Matt Young</h3>
 <p><time>2019-02-01 01:40:52</time>
 </p></div>
 
 
 
 <p><a href="?commentID=159901978">#</a>
 </p></div>
 <div>
 <p>Where does thermodynamics come in? U CHicago mentions that.</p>
<p>It is really entropy, maximized. When the channel is efficient, the two products sharing the road, pizza and air conditioning, will be balanced distribution, equivalent to each product keep its own stable path length (price stable). At maximum entropy, that stable radius, in Euclid world, and you get the two indifference curves, each is optimally indifferent to the channel space occupied by the other. There correlative overlap is called bit error, or market uncertainty, and should be small.</p>
<p>We call it the theory of everything, as near as I can tell it works from quarks to trees. In trees, the theory treats trunk to leaf and run to root as delivery networks that must be optimally queue without overflow. Quarks are the way they are because they avoided charge overflow in the furnace. The three quarks have indifference curves, they whiten the trade space, same idea.</p>
 </div>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 
 <article>
 
 <p>Thanks for the link to the church forests. Unknown to me at least, and great pictures. I'm impressed that the mystique of the church protected the remnant forests - even if people were unlikely to plow right up to the church building itself, you might think the timber would have been taken long ago. I've felt the total lack of interest in nature represented a missed opportunity for American churches.</p>
 
 
 
 
 </article>
 </div>
 
 <p>Comments for this post are closed</p>
 
 
 </div>
 </div>||||I|||| Toggle navigation
 * About Marginal Revolution
 * Categories
 * Date Archives
 * Our Books
 * Our Textbook
 * Marginal Revolution University
 Search Search
 Thank-you! You've been successfully added to the Marginal Revolution email subscription list.

 Thursday assorted links

 by Tyler Cowen January 31, 2019 at 12:09 pm

 1. Church forests in south Gonder.

 2. What is it like to live without Google?

 3. Classical liberalism in Venezuela.

 4. Price theory summer camp at University of Chicago.

 5. The welfare effects of social media, a new paper by Hunt Allcott, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer, and Matthew Gentzkow. (On the road, have not had a chance to read it yet.) And the NYT summary. My guess is this is the best paper on social media/Facebook so far.

 * 47 Comments
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * RSS Feed
 * print

 Comments Sort by Top Sort by Recent Sort by Controversial

 Radagast The Bird Tamer

 2019-01-31 12:17:40
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 1. Yes, they have to be in the forest to protect them from raids by the Corsairs of Umbar.

 Alistair

 2019-01-31 13:52:24
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Damnit, damnit, damnit, I was going for the LotR hit....

 Curse you, Radagast the Bird-Tamer; Radagast the Fool!

 Dick the Butcher

 2019-01-31 17:50:17
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Would you two dorks get a room?

 a clcokwork orange

 2019-01-31 19:09:49
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 +1

 angierre.us

 2019-02-17 21:33:05
 0 0
 
 #

 Wow, das ist schön Schriftstück, meiner Schwester amalysiert
 diese Art voon Dingen, sso Ichh werde sagen, infprmieren vermitteln sie.

 Edward Burke

 2019-01-31 12:31:04
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Someone is confused about #2--perhaps Tyler or some scribe with Gizmodo, or both.

 Neither the query "[W]hat is it like to live without Google?" nor the admission "I cut Google out of my life, it screwed up everything", I submit, are commensurate with this: "what might it be like NEVER TO HAVE HAD Google?"

 By the by: who today is our most popular and principled advocate of tech aversion, given the almighty prowess of our numerous tech tyrants to LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, and LIE about their intentions and capabilities just as much as time and opportunity permit?

 djappo

 2019-01-31 12:45:55
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 More importantly, why on earth would you cut out google by replacing it with apple... Completely useless.

 Nicholas

 2019-01-31 22:43:46
 0 0
 
 #

 I believe apple may in fact be an evil company, not merely amoral (if so, the only one I am aware of), but even I can give them props for their approach to user privacy.

 Edward Burke

 2019-01-31 12:51:03
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Shameless lying being so prominent an aspect of leadership in the Tech Economy, pray tell:

 what metric or algorithm of LYING, PREVARICATION, and FACT-CONCEALMENT (an LPF-C metric or algorithm, let's say) has been devised by some clever someone to detect and reveal the dimensions of truth aversion as practiced by the lying leaders of our lying Tech Establishment?

 What LPF-C quotients might Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, Musk, et al., have earned over the courses of their respective illustrious careers?

 Mulp

 2019-01-31 17:38:11
 0 0
 
 #

 Compared to Jimmy Wales, or Linus, Stallman contributed next to nothing.

 But Google contributed far more, especially after selling share to the public and usiing the cash to pay lots of workers to drive around collecting data or spending time in libraries helping computers read ten milllion books.

 The public seems to hate any business that pays billions to workers to work with no revenue coming in from paying workers for years.

 Then when the revenue comes in, people hate the fact they get the revenue from a decade earlier losing money paying workers.

 Tim Cook thought it would be easy to replace Google maps and paid for other companies that paid workers to improve on government map data, because Apple hates paying workers to work, because it costs too much. Better to get China government to pay workers to work, then rent them.

 But finding Apple customers demanded Google maps, Tim Cook was forced to pay workers to drive around. But by then, Goole was paying workers to bike around, walk around, to improve maps, plus collect bus and train schedules.

 Two visions of capitalism: pay lots of workers to do lots of work collecting data to build the best productive capital ever and then keep paying lots of workers to improve it while getting fractions of a penny from users by getting paid to deliver ads, or directions.

 Vs, buy data others bought and improved a little by paying workers as little as possible then sell this capital for much more than you paid.

 What i find especially ironic is the people who argued google is cheating by not charging for software, are now complaining about Google charging for software and charging businesses who use Google maps to guide customers to their businesses.

 If google maps is so profiitable, free market capitalism theory says everyone will be starting companies using cash from cash rich companiies to pay workers to drive, bike, walk around to build the capital to deliver mapping services as good as Google Maps for a slightly lower price. I thought Apple might use its cashh to dodge taxes by paying workers to drive, bike, walk around more than Google has so Apple Maps is twice as good as Google Maps and at least half of stores use Apple Maps to provide directions.

 Tim Cook seems more like Stallman: capital should be free to Apple, produced by workers Apple doesnt pay, with Apple paid for providing users access to the free capital unpaid workers built and maintain.

 rayward

 2019-01-31 12:32:05
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 2. It's not Google, it's the convenience of the logic engine vs. the mechanical engine. We let the logic engine think for us so we don't have to. In return for the convenience, we give up part of ourselves to the logic engine.

 ES

 2019-01-31 13:27:28
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 No, not really.

 No amount of thinking is going to let you know what a street in Johannesburg looks like.

 And that's just one of the new kinds of information google has *created*.

 There's no "thinking" that we've offloaded to google that we don't continue to do ourselves. On the other hand, there's plenty of information google creates and curates, and once you have access to a main line feed of information, cutting that off hurts.

 EdR

 2019-01-31 13:40:48
 0 0
 
 #

 True. Access to virtually unlimited information has a multiplier effect.

 The trick is to separate the info from the noise. There's a lot of noise.

 Burin

 2019-01-31 12:32:10
 0 0
 
 #

 5) "(ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization"

 Ignorance IS bliss!

 Of course, if you are ignorant of political activity, you are surprised when politics turns into policy that results on police on your doorstep.

 Hadur

 2019-01-31 12:37:13
 0 0
 
 #

 How badly do the price theory summer campers get beat up when they return to their regular schools in the fall?

 McMike

 2019-01-31 12:41:37
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Hello Mudda
 Hello Fadda
 Here I am at
 Camp Chicagah

 Camp is busy
 And there's some danger
 To get my lunch I must quote Carl Menger

 Adam Smith's here
 So it Stigler
 Milton Friedman
 It's just like Eden

 All the counselors
 Hate the Marxists
 They say that Keynes
 Was a one big narcist

 msgkings

 2019-01-31 12:47:47
 0 0
 
 #

 Best post of 2019 (it's still early)

 Dick the Butcher

 2019-01-31 13:03:14
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 How badly and often did you get beat up at school?

 Re: the last stanza. Keynes (I don't support central planners) didn't think much of Marxism calling it "dull and illogical."

 Still waiting for your menu of preferences and subsidies which rich people employ to rob the penniless poor.

 Plus, capitalism/free markets has taken more millions out of poverty than any other "ism."

 mkt42

 2019-01-31 16:02:49
 0 0
 
 #

 'Keynes (I don't support central planners) didn't think much of Marxism calling it "dull and illogical."'

 True but irrelevant. Chicago School economists are well-known for disagreeing with Marx. And for disagreeing with Keynes.

 'How badly and often did you get beat up at school?'

 A strange reaction to a comment that people with a range of ideologies agree is a very funny one.

 EdR

 2019-01-31 13:43:06
 0 0
 
 #

 Lol!
 Bullpucky, but very funny!

 RatInPutinsMaze

 2019-01-31 13:57:50
 0 0
 
 #

 +1, clever and funny

 Hmmm

 2019-01-31 14:59:22
 0 0
 
 #

 +100

 Love it.

 Brian Donohue

 2019-01-31 19:45:32
 0 0
 
 #

 +1

 Zaua

 2019-01-31 12:50:09
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 3. Excellent paper, very informative. The most important takeaway I think is in footnote 29. Developing countries should only try to democratize when they have caught up to the rich world in living standards and their culture has been more or less liberalized by the rising prosperity, education, and global connections. There are exceptions, but democracy is generally not stable in poor countries and has a very good chance of making those poor countries worse off in the long run. The only proven path for poor countries to become stable democracies is the Asian tiger model where growth and economic liberalization can take place without too many political constraints and democracy is only introduced after first-world living and education standards exist. US foreign policy should recognize this and not push poor countries to democratize.

 EdR

 2019-01-31 13:52:28
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 We (USA) saved Chile's a$$. I am sure they are not grateful, but at least we don't have Chileans storming the gates, unlike those unfortunates from the sh*thole failed nation states. Intervention is a form of border control and parental love.

 Bosnia, Chile, but we can't do everything. Central America sure needs some help. Mexico is like the 18 year old miscreant - too big to help but too unsophisticated to negotiate their way in the world without some painful failures.

 I wish Mexico and AMLO luck, because we share a long and porous border with them.

 EdR

 2019-01-31 15:16:31
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 I agree we should back off - we can't do everything. Chile was good, but there were many failures. You know what they say about good intentions. Vietnam and most of the Latin American interventions were disasters, but understable given the realities of Stalin, Mao, the Iron Curtain, North Korea, and the growing communist threat in Latin America. All that said, we should just build the wall, implement eVerify, and work with allies to help failing states before the masses end up on our border (but not in your neighborhood I'm sure).

 Tabarrok to the Pillory

 2019-02-01 16:55:30
 0 0
 
 #

 most of the Latin American interventions were disasters

 None of them were disasters with the arguable exception of Guatemala in 1954.

 pcrh

 2019-01-31 14:08:55
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Agree, great read. And worrisome. I read it as an argument that that the Venezuelan economy has been trapped between socialists and mercantilists throughout its history. Classical liberal thought/governance has been mostly absent throughout its history. Makes me worry because in the US the left is growing more socialist and now we have our mercantilist Trump in charge of the right. And there’s no room for liberals. End result for Venezuela: now people are eating zoo animals. I don’t wanna eat zoo animals.

 EdR

 2019-01-31 15:33:52
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 Venezuela is only complicated for Egghead economists. If a democratic nation has a small wealthy elite, a small but slightly larger middle-class, then there is a good chance that the enormous underclass will vote for a candidate that promises to make their lives better. Hence, the people actually ELECTED Chavez. Imho, that was an ignorant choice.

 One of my big beefs with Tyler's "Average ..." is his assumption that we would just accept that without taking action. Tyler even asserted the population was too old too revolt, that violence was a game for the young, not a tired old useless ex-middle class. I disagree. I don't think that's going to accepted in a democracy. People will vote for change, and it is probably not going to work. Democracy depends upon a happy middle class, which means average people need to feel they are not left out. That's a problem, because most people are average. Reading between the lines, and always reading through my filter of biases, I think Tyler and his tribe are surprised and disappointed by Trump, Brexit, Italy, AfD, yellow vests, and the other anti globalist movements. Of course, they are not driven solely by economic issues, loss of social capital via uncontrolled immigration of people with very different values is also problem. The global elite are not troubled by immigration because they do not experience the negative impacts in their neighborhoods, their children's schools, or on their job or income security. In fact, they benefit from the free movement of capital.

 We are not done yet - this is not going to end well.

 EdR

 2019-01-31 15:37:29
 0 0
 
 #

 "...that we would just accept that ..."

 To clarify, the underclass would just accept the impacts of globalization or, more generally, inequality. Stability requires a large middle-class or a very powerful state.

 RafaelR

 2019-01-31 18:53:15
 0 0
 
 #

 Democracy is not "elections". Democracy is a system of government where political power is dispersed over the population. Ancient Athens, perhaps the most democratic state ever, was such that all citizens were absolutely equal in political rights and there were no elections: all executive positions were filled by sorting from the citizenry.

 Venezuela became a dictatorship gradually as Chaves exploited the institutional weaknesses of Venezuela to gradually attain total power. Now we are at the point where it appears to be almost impossible to remove Maduro from power without external intervention, even though the country is completely collapsing under his regime. Clearly, chavismo is very stable considering that no matter what happens, no matter how far down the economy goes and how high inflation gets, the government does not fall! The US has a much less stable political system, look at Obama had a few years of below trend growth and they already made a radical shift with Trump. That is sign of a democratic system at work.

 M

 2019-02-01 07:25:17
 0 0
 
 #

 EdR: One of my big beefs with Tyler's "Average ..." is his assumption that we would just accept that without taking action. Tyler even asserted the population was too old too revolt, that violence was a game for the young, not a tired old useless ex-middle class.

 When it comes to the decay of the middle class, there's generally some partisan hilarity in how this is treated by our media, depending on the political orientation and which part of the middle class that opposition would come from (and I'm including TC in media as a guy who is to a large degree a pop economist, rather than primarily a business or academic economist).

 Contrast right and left wing middle class led attempts to resist reversion to world norms of unequal societies

 One the one hand, nationalist anti-globalist sentiment is presented as this terrifying force, an incipient fascism terrorism, whenever this can be used to justify constant monitoring and chilling actions against their functional ability to speak or partake in politics in our society.

 On the other, whenever anyone suggests actually conceding to the results of public votes that have an element of anti-globalist nationalism in them and which play to a nationalist constituency - stronger border controls and more limited migration, leaving international institutions, reversing redistribution of gains from globalisation - there is laughter and the suggestion that if these not implemented, there will be no violent or serious consequences because the constituency is too old, too poor and too stupid (ala Michael Young's Meritocracy). At the same there's also shock that anyone presenting this as a possibility would "incite terrorism".

 They're in a superposition of being threatening when it can be used to justify repression against them, and toothless and laughable when its suggested that anything they support should actually be implemented, when it wins by the rules that are democratically agreed.

 Then look at the reverse example of how left wing anti-globalism that shares sentiment with communist, socialist, black separatist and anarchist movements is treated. Whenever they are discussed as a terrorist threat, they are constantly played down, and its played up that they should not be monitored and allowed to partake in political society.

 But then at the same time you have things like this - https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1090657552990392320 - "To all those blasting schaudenfreude toward laid off journos: 1,000 downwardly mobile, resentful, college-educated people of upper middle class origins skilled in rhetoric and connected to broader networks of influence and power is what's called a revolutionary vanguard". Well, upper middle class, radical sympathizing, left wing, university educated individuals... their politics are no threat worth monitoring, up until the point that they don't get what they want, in which case let's immediately concede to buffering them from the winds of change and making sure they get good solid, affluent middle class employment and elite social status to avoid the danger of revolution.

 Tabarrok to the Pillory

 2019-01-31 16:02:43
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 3. Excellent paper, very informative. The most important takeaway I think is in footnote 29. Developing countries should only try to democratize when they have caught up to the rich world in living standards and their culture has been more or less liberalized by the rising prosperity, education, and global connections. There are exceptions, but democracy is generally not stable in poor countries and has a very good chance of making those poor countries worse off in the long run.

 What's salient about Venezuela has been that it's a petrostate run by thieves.

 Parliamentary institutions were the mode in Europe at a time when real income levels of the most affluent European states were similar to India's now.

 'Stability' is usually a nonsense term. That aside, institutional continuity has been the norm in India for nearly a century and in Latin America and the Caribbean for over 30 years.

 M

 2019-02-01 06:49:11
 0 0
 
 #

 Tabarrok to the Pillory: Parliamentary institutions were the mode in Europe at a time when real income levels of the most affluent European states were similar to India's now.

 Quite. Those institutions weren't entirely stable, of course - hello Mussolini - but it's hard to imagine that growth would've been better if Europeans had just left the show in the hands of authoritarian dictators. The record of even illiberal democracy is still better than the record of most authoritarians, particularly authoritarian socialists.

 If you look at something like - https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/Scatter-1960-vs-2014-GDP.png - there's no indication that countries that have less democracy at low income levels have had any better growth, or political stability, than countries with more democracy.

 If anything whether a country should democratize is really dependent on whether it has a 'demos' that is capable of democracy - enough trust and lack of tribalism to allow peaceful concession of power put to a fair public vote. That's not something wealth giveth or taketh away.

 This is a separate question from the richest countries should just allow large, belligerent illiberal and undemocratic challengers to grow indefinitely until they reach parity. Much less help them to do it.

 The US in the 1970s saw this as clearly foolish in the case of the USSR - "Wait til those Communist Russians get American incomes, then they'll surely democratize" - and it would seem foolish in the 1930s - "Wait until those German Nationalists Socialists get American incomes, then they'll surely democratize". And it is foolish in the case of China today.

 Known Fact

 2019-01-31 13:34:12
 0 0
 
 #

 2) This is like banishing Frito-Lay from your life and "migrating" to Utz, Herr's or Dipsy Doodles for a week. I'd be more impressed if she cut out all wifi and cell coverage and survived with a typewriter and landline for 24 hours.

 Of course we should understand the techno-tentacles we are gripped by. But as Bob Grant used to ominously intone, "They say he has power ... but who gives him that power?"

 EdR

 2019-01-31 13:38:44
 0 0
 
 #

 1. From the article:

 "Deforestation was particularly encouraged during the country’s period of communism, in 1974–91, when the government nationalized the land, including the large estates of the church, and distributed it to people who converted swathes to farmland. Just 5% of the country is now covered in forest, down from 45% in the early twentieth century."

 Collectivism - socialism, communism, democratic-socialism, et al - has been a disaster everywhere. Yet there are still numerous advocates for same, like the Democrats. Will they ever learn?

 More ...

 "Much of the nation’s forestland has been sacrificed to agriculture to feed the country’s mushrooming population — at more than 100 million, it is the world’s 12th largest. "

 I remember Tyler (?) writing the best solution to poverty is for poor people to move to rich nations. Really? How many of those 100,000,000 should we take in the USA? And what about the multitudes of poor in other nations, especially in Africa? Consider the recent Tyler post on population growth. What is the end game?

 At some point, unless something changes, Africa will burst at the seams and we will see the mother of all migrations - the camp of the saints coming to life.

 And how does that work if the richest nation on Earth becomes a socialist nanny state? Open borders? Medicare for everyone, everywhere? And what will all those people do if and when AI and automation replace many (most?) tasks - those that can be described by an algorithm?

 Where are the feminists? The family planning advocates? Are they all comfortably rich first world women entertaining themselves or virtue signalling? They should go do their work in Africa.

 Jared Diamond was mentioned in one of Tyler's posts. Jared, in his book "Collapse", makes the case that the Hutu-Tutsi massacre was the result of explosive population growth and agrcultural subdivision until the plot sizes were too small to support anyone.

 There will be rivers of blood.

 Chris

 2019-01-31 14:47:11
 0 0
 
 #

 Amazon and Google have changed the landscape of services that people use so that nearly everything is a little bit closer to the consumer. But what the the author is really demonstrating is how integrated the world really is - imagine running an article about trying to cut Office Depot (or GE or Ford or out of your life (including everyone that does business with Office Depot). You'd find all kinds of things that you simply just can't do anymore.

 You could run this experiment against companies that most people have never heard of like Century Link, Akamai, or Equinix and still find that you don't like the results.

 Ted Craig

 2019-01-31 15:11:34
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 5. "reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization;"

 Given the fretting about online propaganda's effect on people, this to me was the most interesting observation.

 mkt42

 2019-01-31 15:44:23
 0 0
 
 #

 Right, it supports the notion that one of the main effects of social media is to amplify the behaviors and attitudes that we already have. For good and for bad: information gets shared more quickly and easily, but that includes bad information, fake news, extreme stances, etc.

 asdf

 2019-01-31 15:43:48
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 All of these Latin American countries stall out at the middle income level due to demographics. If the underclass gets upset they elect a demagouge and they blow things up counterproductively. Otherwise you get your usual semi-corrupt mediocrity. Booms and busts in natural resource prices cause lots of economic swings.

 That's all folks.

 M

 2019-02-01 09:44:24
 0 0
 
 #

 Ancestry based models of Latin American GDP per capita: https://imgur.com/a/RHAqPt9

 Ancestry, left-right wing economic orientation and trade with United States probably all matter, in that order of importance (though obviously these are not independent variables).

 mkt42

 2019-01-31 15:53:34
 0 0
 
 #

 1: "If you see a forest in Ethiopia, you know there is very likely to be a church in the middle".

 If you visit the Everglades in the winter, the rangers offer swamp hiking tours where you literally wade right into the swamp. There are clumps of dry land here and there with trees; the ranger mostly avoided them saying that those are the places that alligators like to hang out when they get too cold from sitting in the water.

 So if you see a clump of trees in the Everglades there might be an alligator in the middle.

 I was expecting the hike to be through muddy murky water and terrain but it was not like that. The Everglades can be thought of as an extremely wide and shallow and slow-moving river. The water is clear and cool in January but not cold and the "riverbottom" mainly felt sandy rather than muddy, although walking through there you'll stir up all sorts of silt. Where we were it was mainly calf deep. There seem to be no mosquitoes in January.

 BC

 2019-01-31 20:46:37
 0 0
 
 #

 #5) Studies find that the average user would have to be paid $1000-2000 to stay away from facebook for a year. Apart from any views one has about facebook, does this mean that, if GDP were properly measured, it would include $1-2k per facebook user-year?

 Matt Young

 2019-02-01 01:03:36
 0 0
 
 Hide Replies
 #

 4. Price theory summer camp at University of Chicago.

 The path length to delivery is a good definition of price.

 I hate to break the bad news here, but there is nothing esoteric. The user has a fixed trade space, he allocates it to efficiency with transactions yielding objects that matches their budget. All of Becker's trade off problems can be converted into a problem of packing trade space to efficiency. It is not worth an entire summer camp, I have a spread sheet function, used in many fixed channel allocation problems, nothing new.

 Matt Young

 2019-02-01 01:19:49
 0 0
 
 #

 let us solve the classic problem U Chicago presents, climate adaption.

 You have a fixed channel, a nightly budget of ten dollars. You can by pizza of air conditioning, but the colder it is the more you like pizza, so they compete.

 The trick is on the margin, constantly adjust purchases of both so you have at least one pizza in hand when the air conditioner is on, that is optimum. You have solved the queueing problem in delivery, neither air conditioning nor pizza is backing up in inventory not going short. It is all about stationary inventory. price is set by the inventory costs you incur along delivery, you consume 'inventory insurance' , that is pay a fee for any jitter in demand that causes extra shelving costs.

 Take a good novel and go camping in California instead.

 Matt Young

 2019-02-01 01:40:52
 0 0
 
 #

 Where does thermodynamics come in? U CHicago mentions that.

 It is really entropy, maximized. When the channel is efficient, the two products sharing the road, pizza and air conditioning, will be balanced distribution, equivalent to each product keep its own stable path length (price stable). At maximum entropy, that stable radius, in Euclid world, and you get the two indifference curves, each is optimally indifferent to the channel space occupied by the other. There correlative overlap is called bit error, or market uncertainty, and should be small.

 We call it the theory of everything, as near as I can tell it works from quarks to trees. In trees, the theory treats trunk to leaf and run to root as delivery networks that must be optimally queue without overflow. Quarks are the way they are because they avoided charge overflow in the furnace. The three quarks have indifference curves, they whiten the trade space, same idea.

 peri

 2019-02-01 09:09:45
 0 0
 
 #

 Thanks for the link to the church forests. Unknown to me at least, and great pictures. I'm impressed that the mystique of the church protected the remnant forests - even if people were unlikely to plow right up to the church building itself, you might think the timber would have been taken long ago. I've felt the total lack of interest in nature represented a missed opportunity for American churches.

 Comments for this post are closed

 Marginal Revolution University

 See Courses

 Learn more about Mercatus Center Graduate Student Fellowships

 Learn More

 Subscribe via Email

 Enter your email address to subscribe to updates.

 Email Address

 Subscribe

 * RSS Feed

 Contact Us

 Alex Tabarrok
 Email Alex
 Follow @atabarrok

 Tyler Cowen
 Email Tyler
 Follow @tylercowen

 Webmaster
 Report an issue

 * Blogs We Like
 * Interesting People & Sites

 Our Web Pages

 * Alex Tabarrok's Home Page
 * Alex's TED talk, how ideas trump crises
 * Conversations with Tyler
 * FDAReview.org
 * Tyler Cowen's Personal Web Page
 * Tyler's ethnic dining guide
 * Apply to Emergent Ventures

 Books

 Modern Principles of Economics

 Tyler Cowen & Alexander Tabarrok
 Marginal Revolution 2023
 * About Marginal Revolution
 * Categories
 * Date Archives
 * Our Books
 * Our Textbook
 * Marginal Revolution University
 * 
 + Facebook
 + Twitter
 + RSS Feed

 * Marginal Revolution University

 See Courses
 Search Search
 Privacy Policy Marginal Revolution 2023
47 Comments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Facebook
 
 
 
 
 
 Twitter
 
 
 
 
 
 RSS Feed
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 print
 
 
 
 
 
 Comments 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Radagast The Bird Tamer
  2019-01-31 12:17:40
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 1. Yes, they have to be in the forest to protect them from raids by the Corsairs of Umbar.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Alistair
  2019-01-31 13:52:24
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Damnit, damnit, damnit, I was going for the LotR hit....
Curse you, Radagast the Bird-Tamer; Radagast the Fool!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dick the Butcher
  2019-01-31 17:50:17
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Would you two dorks get a room?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a clcokwork orange
  2019-01-31 19:09:49
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 +1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 angierre.us
  2019-02-17 21:33:05
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Wow, das ist schön Schriftstück, meiner Schwester amalysiert
diese Art voon Dingen, sso Ichh werde sagen, infprmieren vermitteln sie.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Edward Burke
  2019-01-31 12:31:04
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Someone is confused about #2--perhaps Tyler or some scribe with Gizmodo, or both.
Neither the query "[W]hat is it like to live without Google?" nor the admission "I cut Google out of my life, it screwed up everything", I submit, are commensurate with this: "what might it be like NEVER TO HAVE HAD Google?"
By the by: who today is our most popular and principled advocate of tech aversion, given the almighty prowess of our numerous tech tyrants to LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, and LIE about their intentions and capabilities just as much as time and opportunity permit?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 djappo
  2019-01-31 12:45:55
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 More importantly, why on earth would you cut out google by replacing it with apple... Completely useless.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nicholas
  2019-01-31 22:43:46
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 I believe apple may in fact be an evil company, not merely amoral (if so, the only one I am aware of), but even I can give them props for their approach to user privacy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Edward Burke
  2019-01-31 12:51:03
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Shameless lying being so prominent an aspect of leadership in the Tech Economy, pray tell: 
what metric or algorithm of LYING, PREVARICATION, and FACT-CONCEALMENT (an LPF-C metric or algorithm, let's say) has been devised by some clever someone to detect and reveal the dimensions of truth aversion as practiced by the lying leaders of our lying Tech Establishment?
What LPF-C quotients might Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, Musk, et al., have earned over the courses of their respective illustrious careers?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Compared to Jimmy Wales, or Linus, Stallman contributed next to nothing.
But Google contributed far more, especially after selling share to the public and usiing the cash to pay lots of workers to drive around collecting data or spending time in libraries helping computers read ten milllion books.
The public seems to hate any business that pays billions to workers to work with no revenue coming in from paying workers for years.
Then when the revenue comes in, people hate the fact they get the revenue from a decade earlier losing money paying workers.
Tim Cook thought it would be easy to replace Google maps and paid for other companies that paid workers to improve on government map data, because Apple hates paying workers to work, because it costs too much. Better to get China government to pay workers to work, then rent them.
But finding Apple customers demanded Google maps, Tim Cook was forced to pay workers to drive around. But by then, Goole was paying workers to bike around, walk around, to improve maps, plus collect bus and train schedules. 
Two visions of capitalism: pay lots of workers to do lots of work collecting data to build the best productive capital ever and then keep paying lots of workers to improve it while getting fractions of a penny from users by getting paid to deliver ads, or directions.
Vs, buy data others bought and improved a little by paying workers as little as possible then sell this capital for much more than you paid.
What i find especially ironic is the people who argued google is cheating by not charging for software, are now complaining about Google charging for software and charging businesses who use Google maps to guide customers to their businesses.
If google maps is so profiitable, free market capitalism theory says everyone will be starting companies using cash from cash rich companiies to pay workers to drive, bike, walk around to build the capital to deliver mapping services as good as Google Maps for a slightly lower price. I thought Apple might use its cashh to dodge taxes by paying workers to drive, bike, walk around more than Google has so Apple Maps is twice as good as Google Maps and at least half of stores use Apple Maps to provide directions. 
Tim Cook seems more like Stallman: capital should be free to Apple, produced by workers Apple doesnt pay, with Apple paid for providing users access to the free capital unpaid workers built and maintain.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rayward
  2019-01-31 12:32:05
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 2. It's not Google, it's the convenience of the logic engine vs. the mechanical engine. We let the logic engine think for us so we don't have to. In return for the convenience, we give up part of ourselves to the logic engine.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 No, not really.
No amount of thinking is going to let you know what a street in Johannesburg looks like.
And that's just one of the new kinds of information google has *created*.
There's no "thinking" that we've offloaded to google that we don't continue to do ourselves. On the other hand, there's plenty of information google creates and curates, and once you have access to a main line feed of information, cutting that off hurts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 True. Access to virtually unlimited information has a multiplier effect.
The trick is to separate the info from the noise. There's a lot of noise.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Burin
  2019-01-31 12:32:10
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 5) "(ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization" 
Ignorance IS bliss!
Of course, if you are ignorant of political activity, you are surprised when politics turns into policy that results on police on your doorstep.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hadur
  2019-01-31 12:37:13
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 How badly do the price theory summer campers get beat up when they return to their regular schools in the fall?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 McMike
  2019-01-31 12:41:37
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Hello Mudda
Hello Fadda
Here I am at
Camp Chicagah
Camp is busy
And there's some danger
To get my lunch I must quote Carl Menger
Adam Smith's here
So it Stigler
Milton Friedman
It's just like Eden
All the counselors
Hate the Marxists
They say that Keynes
Was a one big narcist
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 msgkings
  2019-01-31 12:47:47
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Best post of 2019 (it's still early)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dick the Butcher
  2019-01-31 13:03:14
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 How badly and often did you get beat up at school? 
Re: the last stanza. Keynes (I don't support central planners) didn't think much of Marxism calling it "dull and illogical." 
Still waiting for your menu of preferences and subsidies which rich people employ to rob the penniless poor. 
Plus, capitalism/free markets has taken more millions out of poverty than any other "ism."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mkt42
  2019-01-31 16:02:49
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 'Keynes (I don't support central planners) didn't think much of Marxism calling it "dull and illogical."'
True but irrelevant. Chicago School economists are well-known for disagreeing with Marx. And for disagreeing with Keynes.
'How badly and often did you get beat up at school?'
A strange reaction to a comment that people with a range of ideologies agree is a very funny one.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lol!
Bullpucky, but very funny!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 RatInPutinsMaze
  2019-01-31 13:57:50
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 +1, clever and funny
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Brian Donohue
  2019-01-31 19:45:32
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 +1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3. Excellent paper, very informative. The most important takeaway I think is in footnote 29. Developing countries should only try to democratize when they have caught up to the rich world in living standards and their culture has been more or less liberalized by the rising prosperity, education, and global connections. There are exceptions, but democracy is generally not stable in poor countries and has a very good chance of making those poor countries worse off in the long run. The only proven path for poor countries to become stable democracies is the Asian tiger model where growth and economic liberalization can take place without too many political constraints and democracy is only introduced after first-world living and education standards exist. US foreign policy should recognize this and not push poor countries to democratize.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 We (USA) saved Chile's a$$. I am sure they are not grateful, but at least we don't have Chileans storming the gates, unlike those unfortunates from the sh*thole failed nation states. Intervention is a form of border control and parental love.
Bosnia, Chile, but we can't do everything. Central America sure needs some help. Mexico is like the 18 year old miscreant - too big to help but too unsophisticated to negotiate their way in the world without some painful failures. 
I wish Mexico and AMLO luck, because we share a long and porous border with them.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I agree we should back off - we can't do everything. Chile was good, but there were many failures. You know what they say about good intentions. Vietnam and most of the Latin American interventions were disasters, but understable given the realities of Stalin, Mao, the Iron Curtain, North Korea, and the growing communist threat in Latin America. All that said, we should just build the wall, implement eVerify, and work with allies to help failing states before the masses end up on our border (but not in your neighborhood I'm sure).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tabarrok to the Pillory
  2019-02-01 16:55:30
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
  most of the Latin American interventions were disasters 
None of them were disasters with the arguable exception of Guatemala in 1954.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Agree, great read. And worrisome. I read it as an argument that that the Venezuelan economy has been trapped between socialists and mercantilists throughout its history. Classical liberal thought/governance has been mostly absent throughout its history. Makes me worry because in the US the left is growing more socialist and now we have our mercantilist Trump in charge of the right. And there’s no room for liberals. End result for Venezuela: now people are eating zoo animals. I don’t wanna eat zoo animals.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Venezuela is only complicated for Egghead economists. If a democratic nation has a small wealthy elite, a small but slightly larger middle-class, then there is a good chance that the enormous underclass will vote for a candidate that promises to make their lives better. Hence, the people actually ELECTED Chavez. Imho, that was an ignorant choice. 
One of my big beefs with Tyler's "Average ..." is his assumption that we would just accept that without taking action. Tyler even asserted the population was too old too revolt, that violence was a game for the young, not a tired old useless ex-middle class. I disagree. I don't think that's going to accepted in a democracy. People will vote for change, and it is probably not going to work. Democracy depends upon a happy middle class, which means average people need to feel they are not left out. That's a problem, because most people are average. Reading between the lines, and always reading through my filter of biases, I think Tyler and his tribe are surprised and disappointed by Trump, Brexit, Italy, AfD, yellow vests, and the other anti globalist movements. Of course, they are not driven solely by economic issues, loss of social capital via uncontrolled immigration of people with very different values is also problem. The global elite are not troubled by immigration because they do not experience the negative impacts in their neighborhoods, their children's schools, or on their job or income security. In fact, they benefit from the free movement of capital.
We are not done yet - this is not going to end well.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "...that we would just accept that ..."
To clarify, the underclass would just accept the impacts of globalization or, more generally, inequality. Stability requires a large middle-class or a very powerful state.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 RafaelR
  2019-01-31 18:53:15
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Democracy is not "elections". Democracy is a system of government where political power is dispersed over the population. Ancient Athens, perhaps the most democratic state ever, was such that all citizens were absolutely equal in political rights and there were no elections: all executive positions were filled by sorting from the citizenry. 
Venezuela became a dictatorship gradually as Chaves exploited the institutional weaknesses of Venezuela to gradually attain total power. Now we are at the point where it appears to be almost impossible to remove Maduro from power without external intervention, even though the country is completely collapsing under his regime. Clearly, chavismo is very stable considering that no matter what happens, no matter how far down the economy goes and how high inflation gets, the government does not fall! The US has a much less stable political system, look at Obama had a few years of below trend growth and they already made a radical shift with Trump. That is sign of a democratic system at work.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EdR: One of my big beefs with Tyler's "Average ..." is his assumption that we would just accept that without taking action. Tyler even asserted the population was too old too revolt, that violence was a game for the young, not a tired old useless ex-middle class.  
When it comes to the decay of the middle class, there's generally some partisan hilarity in how this is treated by our media, depending on the political orientation and which part of the middle class that opposition would come from (and I'm including TC in media as a guy who is to a large degree a pop economist, rather than primarily a business or academic economist).
Contrast right and left wing middle class led attempts to resist reversion to world norms of unequal societies 
One the one hand, nationalist anti-globalist sentiment is presented as this terrifying force, an incipient fascism terrorism, whenever this can be used to justify constant monitoring and chilling actions against their functional ability to speak or partake in politics in our society.
On the other, whenever anyone suggests actually conceding to the results of public votes that have an element of anti-globalist nationalism in them and which play to a nationalist constituency - stronger border controls and more limited migration, leaving international institutions, reversing redistribution of gains from globalisation - there is laughter and the suggestion that if these not implemented, there will be no violent or serious consequences because the constituency is too old, too poor and too stupid (ala Michael Young's Meritocracy). At the same there's also shock that anyone presenting this as a possibility would "incite terrorism".
They're in a superposition of being threatening when it can be used to justify repression against them, and toothless and laughable when its suggested that anything they support should actually be implemented, when it wins by the rules that are democratically agreed.
Then look at the reverse example of how left wing anti-globalism that shares sentiment with communist, socialist, black separatist and anarchist movements is treated. Whenever they are discussed as a terrorist threat, they are constantly played down, and its played up that they should not be monitored and allowed to partake in political society.
But then at the same time you have things like this - https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1090657552990392320 - "To all those blasting schaudenfreude toward laid off journos: 1,000 downwardly mobile, resentful, college-educated people of upper middle class origins skilled in rhetoric and connected to broader networks of influence and power is what's called a revolutionary vanguard". Well, upper middle class, radical sympathizing, left wing, university educated individuals... their politics are no threat worth monitoring, up until the point that they don't get what they want, in which case let's immediately concede to buffering them from the winds of change and making sure they get good solid, affluent middle class employment and elite social status to avoid the danger of revolution.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tabarrok to the Pillory
  2019-01-31 16:02:43
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
  3. Excellent paper, very informative. The most important takeaway I think is in footnote 29. Developing countries should only try to democratize when they have caught up to the rich world in living standards and their culture has been more or less liberalized by the rising prosperity, education, and global connections. There are exceptions, but democracy is generally not stable in poor countries and has a very good chance of making those poor countries worse off in the long run.  
What's salient about Venezuela has been that it's a petrostate run by thieves.
Parliamentary institutions were the mode in Europe at a time when real income levels of the most affluent European states were similar to India's now.
'Stability' is usually a nonsense term. That aside, institutional continuity has been the norm in India for nearly a century and in Latin America and the Caribbean for over 30 years.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tabarrok to the Pillory: Parliamentary institutions were the mode in Europe at a time when real income levels of the most affluent European states were similar to India's now. 
Quite. Those institutions weren't entirely stable, of course - hello Mussolini - but it's hard to imagine that growth would've been better if Europeans had just left the show in the hands of authoritarian dictators. The record of even illiberal democracy is still better than the record of most authoritarians, particularly authoritarian socialists.
If you look at something like - https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/Scatter-1960-vs-2014-GDP.png - there's no indication that countries that have less democracy at low income levels have had any better growth, or political stability, than countries with more democracy.
If anything whether a country should democratize is really dependent on whether it has a 'demos' that is capable of democracy - enough trust and lack of tribalism to allow peaceful concession of power put to a fair public vote. That's not something wealth giveth or taketh away.
This is a separate question from the richest countries should just allow large, belligerent illiberal and undemocratic challengers to grow indefinitely until they reach parity. Much less help them to do it.
The US in the 1970s saw this as clearly foolish in the case of the USSR - "Wait til those Communist Russians get American incomes, then they'll surely democratize" - and it would seem foolish in the 1930s - "Wait until those German Nationalists Socialists get American incomes, then they'll surely democratize". And it is foolish in the case of China today.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Known Fact
  2019-01-31 13:34:12
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 2) This is like banishing Frito-Lay from your life and "migrating" to Utz, Herr's or Dipsy Doodles for a week. I'd be more impressed if she cut out all wifi and cell coverage and survived with a typewriter and landline for 24 hours.
Of course we should understand the techno-tentacles we are gripped by. But as Bob Grant used to ominously intone, "They say he has power ... but who gives him that power?"
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. From the article:
"Deforestation was particularly encouraged during the country’s period of communism, in 1974–91, when the government nationalized the land, including the large estates of the church, and distributed it to people who converted swathes to farmland. Just 5% of the country is now covered in forest, down from 45% in the early twentieth century."
Collectivism - socialism, communism, democratic-socialism, et al - has been a disaster everywhere. Yet there are still numerous advocates for same, like the Democrats. Will they ever learn?
More ...
"Much of the nation’s forestland has been sacrificed to agriculture to feed the country’s mushrooming population — at more than 100 million, it is the world’s 12th largest. "
I remember Tyler (?) writing the best solution to poverty is for poor people to move to rich nations. Really? How many of those 100,000,000 should we take in the USA? And what about the multitudes of poor in other nations, especially in Africa? Consider the recent Tyler post on population growth. What is the end game?
At some point, unless something changes, Africa will burst at the seams and we will see the mother of all migrations - the camp of the saints coming to life.
And how does that work if the richest nation on Earth becomes a socialist nanny state? Open borders? Medicare for everyone, everywhere? And what will all those people do if and when AI and automation replace many (most?) tasks - those that can be described by an algorithm?
Where are the feminists? The family planning advocates? Are they all comfortably rich first world women entertaining themselves or virtue signalling? They should go do their work in Africa.
Jared Diamond was mentioned in one of Tyler's posts. Jared, in his book "Collapse", makes the case that the Hutu-Tutsi massacre was the result of explosive population growth and agrcultural subdivision until the plot sizes were too small to support anyone.
There will be rivers of blood.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chris
  2019-01-31 14:47:11
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Amazon and Google have changed the landscape of services that people use so that nearly everything is a little bit closer to the consumer. But what the the author is really demonstrating is how integrated the world really is - imagine running an article about trying to cut Office Depot (or GE or Ford or out of your life (including everyone that does business with Office Depot). You'd find all kinds of things that you simply just can't do anymore.
You could run this experiment against companies that most people have never heard of like Century Link, Akamai, or Equinix and still find that you don't like the results.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ted Craig
  2019-01-31 15:11:34
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 5. "reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization;"
Given the fretting about online propaganda's effect on people, this to me was the most interesting observation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mkt42
  2019-01-31 15:44:23
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 Right, it supports the notion that one of the main effects of social media is to amplify the behaviors and attitudes that we already have. For good and for bad: information gets shared more quickly and easily, but that includes bad information, fake news, extreme stances, etc.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 All of these Latin American countries stall out at the middle income level due to demographics. If the underclass gets upset they elect a demagouge and they blow things up counterproductively. Otherwise you get your usual semi-corrupt mediocrity. Booms and busts in natural resource prices cause lots of economic swings.
That's all folks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ancestry based models of Latin American GDP per capita: https://imgur.com/a/RHAqPt9
Ancestry, left-right wing economic orientation and trade with United States probably all matter, in that order of importance (though obviously these are not independent variables).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mkt42
  2019-01-31 15:53:34
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 1: "If you see a forest in Ethiopia, you know there is very likely to be a church in the middle".
If you visit the Everglades in the winter, the rangers offer swamp hiking tours where you literally wade right into the swamp. There are clumps of dry land here and there with trees; the ranger mostly avoided them saying that those are the places that alligators like to hang out when they get too cold from sitting in the water. 
So if you see a clump of trees in the Everglades there might be an alligator in the middle.
I was expecting the hike to be through muddy murky water and terrain but it was not like that. The Everglades can be thought of as an extremely wide and shallow and slow-moving river. The water is clear and cool in January but not cold and the "riverbottom" mainly felt sandy rather than muddy, although walking through there you'll stir up all sorts of silt. Where we were it was mainly calf deep. There seem to be no mosquitoes in January.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #5) Studies find that the average user would have to be paid $1000-2000 to stay away from facebook for a year. Apart from any views one has about facebook, does this mean that, if GDP were properly measured, it would include $1-2k per facebook user-year?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Matt Young
  2019-02-01 01:03:36
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 4. Price theory summer camp at University of Chicago.
The path length to delivery is a good definition of price. 
I hate to break the bad news here, but there is nothing esoteric. The user has a fixed trade space, he allocates it to efficiency with transactions yielding objects that matches their budget. All of Becker's trade off problems can be converted into a problem of packing trade space to efficiency. It is not worth an entire summer camp, I have a spread sheet function, used in many fixed channel allocation problems, nothing new.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Matt Young
  2019-02-01 01:19:49
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 let us solve the classic problem U Chicago presents, climate adaption.
You have a fixed channel, a nightly budget of ten dollars. You can by pizza of air conditioning, but the colder it is the more you like pizza, so they compete.
The trick is on the margin, constantly adjust purchases of both so you have at least one pizza in hand when the air conditioner is on, that is optimum. You have solved the queueing problem in delivery, neither air conditioning nor pizza is backing up in inventory not going short. It is all about stationary inventory. price is set by the inventory costs you incur along delivery, you consume 'inventory insurance' , that is pay a fee for any jitter in demand that causes extra shelving costs.
Take a good novel and go camping in California instead.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Matt Young
  2019-02-01 01:40:52
  
 
 
 
  #
  
 
 Where does thermodynamics come in? U CHicago mentions that.
It is really entropy, maximized. When the channel is efficient, the two products sharing the road, pizza and air conditioning, will be balanced distribution, equivalent to each product keep its own stable path length (price stable). At maximum entropy, that stable radius, in Euclid world, and you get the two indifference curves, each is optimally indifferent to the channel space occupied by the other. There correlative overlap is called bit error, or market uncertainty, and should be small.
We call it the theory of everything, as near as I can tell it works from quarks to trees. In trees, the theory treats trunk to leaf and run to root as delivery networks that must be optimally queue without overflow. Quarks are the way they are because they avoided charge overflow in the furnace. The three quarks have indifference curves, they whiten the trade space, same idea.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Thanks for the link to the church forests. Unknown to me at least, and great pictures. I'm impressed that the mystique of the church protected the remnant forests - even if people were unlikely to plow right up to the church building itself, you might think the timber would have been taken long ago. I've felt the total lack of interest in nature represented a missed opportunity for American churches.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Comments for this post are closed
Thursday assorted links - Marginal REVOLUTION
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/thursday-assorted-links-192.html
https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-google-out-of-my-life-it-screwed-up-everything-1830565500
I Cut Google Out Of My Life. It Screwed Up Everything
2019-01-29
Kashmir Hill
<div><div><p><strong>Week 3: Google</strong><br /></p><p>Long ago, Google made the mistake of adopting the motto, “Don’t be evil,” in a <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22540">jab</a> at competitors who exploited their users. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has since <a href="https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393#_ga=2.107496642.1363523760.1548698474-1494158073.1547676718">demoted the phrase</a> in its corporate code of conduct presumably because of how hard it is to live up to it. <br /></p><p>Google is no stranger to scandals, but 2018 was a banner year. It covered up the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/business/dealbook/google-data-scandal.html">potential data exposure</a> of a half million people who probably forgot they were still using Google+. It got caught trying to build a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/">censored search engine</a> for China. Its own employees <a href="https://gizmodo.com/google-employees-resign-in-protest-against-pentagon-con-1825729300">resigned</a> to protest Google helping the Pentagon build artificial intelligence. Thousands more employees <a href="https://gizmodo.com/massive-google-walkout-over-sexual-misconduct-marks-tec-1830157276#_ga=2.18501241.1363523760.1548698474-1494158073.1547676718">walked out</a> over the company paying exorbitant exit packages to executives accused of sexual misconduct. And privacy critics decried Google’s insatiable appetite for data, from <a href="https://www.apnews.com/828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb">capturing</a> <a href="https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations-even-when-location-services-are-disabled/">location information</a> in unexpected ways—a practice Google changed when <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/11/22/google-stops-collecting-cellular-location-info-after-news-probe/886345001/">exposed</a>—to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-and-mastercard-cut-a-secret-ad-deal-to-track-retail-sales">capturing credit card transactions</a>—a practice Google has not changed and actually seems <a href="https://blog.google/products/marketingplatform/360/powering-ads-analytics-innovations-with-machine-learning-xp/">proud of</a>.</p><p>I’m saying goodbye to all that this week. As part of an experiment to <a href="https://gizmodo.com/life-without-the-tech-giants-1830258056?rev=1547840434791#_ga=2.186204393.1363523760.1548698474-1494158073.1547676718">live without the tech giants</a>, I’m cutting Google from my life both by abandoning its products and by preventing myself, technologically, from interacting with the company in any way. Engineer Dhruv Mehrotra built a virtual private network, or VPN, for me that prevents my phone, computers, and smart devices from communicating with <a href="https://ipinfo.io/AS15169">the 8,699,648</a> IP addresses controlled by Google. This will cause some huge headaches for me: The company has created countless genuinely useful products, some that we use intentionally and some invisibly. The trade-off? Google tracks us everywhere.</p><p>I’m apprehensive about entirely blocking Google from my life because of how dependent I am on its products; the company has basically taken up residence in my brain somewhere near the hippocampus. <br /></p><div><p>Google Calendar tells me what I need to do any given day. Google Chrome is how I browse the internet on my computer. I use Gmail for both work and personal email. I turn to Google for every question and search. Google Docs is the home of my story drafts, my half-finished zombie novel, and a running tally of my finances. I use Google Maps to get just about everywhere.</p><p>So I am shocked when cutting Google out of my life takes just a few painful hours. Because I’m blocking Google with Dhruv’s VPN, I have to find replacements for all the useful services Google provides and without which my life would largely cease to function:</p></div><ul><li>I migrate my browser bookmarks over to Firefox (made by Mozilla).</li><li>I change the default search engine on Firefox and my iPhone from Google—a privilege for which Google reportedly pays <a href="https://searchengineland.com/report-google-to-pay-apple-9-billion-to-remain-default-search-engine-on-safari-306082">Apple up to $9 billion per year</a>—to privacy-respecting DuckDuckGo, a search engine that also makes money off ads but doesn’t keep track of users’ searches. <br /></li><li>I download Apple Maps and the Mapquest app to my phone. I hear Apple Maps is <a href="https://www.justinobeirne.com/new-apple-maps">better than it used to be</a>, and damn, Mapquest still lives! I don’t think I’ve used that since the 90s/a.k.a. the pre-smartphone age, back when I had to print directions for use in my car.</li><li>I switch to Apple’s calendar app.</li><li>I create new email addresses on Protonmail and Riseup.net (for work and personal email, respectively) and direct people to them via autoreplies in Gmail. Lifehack: The easiest way to get to inbox zero is to start a brand new inbox.</li></ul><p>Going off Google doesn’t come naturally. In addition to mentally kicking myself every time I talk about “Googling” something, I have to make a “banned apps” folder on my iPhone, because otherwise, my fingers keep straying out of habit to Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Calendar—the three apps that, along with Instagram and Words With Friends, are in heaviest rotation in my life. <br /></p><p>There’s no way I can delete my Gmail accounts completely as I did with Facebook. First off, it would be a huge security mistake; freeing up my email address for someone else to claim is just asking to be hacked. (<strong>Update: </strong>While other companies recycle email addresses, many Googlers have informed me since this piece came out that Google does not.) Secondly, I have too many documents, conversations, and contacts stored there. The infinite space offered by the tech giants has made us all digital hoarders. <br /></p><p>And that hoarding can be a bonanza for tech giants, allowing Google, for example, to create<strong> </strong>a “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-changed-gmail-smart-reply-after-ai-kept-suggesting-i-love-you-response-2018-9?IR=T">Smart Reply</a>” feature that crawls billions of emails on Gmail to predict how you’d like to respond to a friend’s missive. Yay?</p><p>This experiment is not just about boycotting Google products. I’m also preventing my devices from interacting with Google in invisible or background ways, and that makes for some big challenges.</p><div><p>One morning, I have a meeting downtown. I leave my apartment with enough time to get there via Uber, but when I open the app, it won’t work. Same thing with Lyft. It turns out they’re both dependent on Google Maps such that I can’t even enter my destination while blocking Google. I’m astounded. There are no taxis around, so I have to take the bus. I wind up late to the meeting. </p><p>Google is a behemoth when it comes to maps. According to <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/865413/most-popular-us-mapping-apps-ranked-by-audience/">various</a> <a href="https://searchengineland.com/new-survey-says-google-maps-favored-nearly-70-percent-iphone-users-251955">surveys</a>, the vast majority of consumers—<a href="https://themanifest.com/app-development/popularity-google-maps-trends-navigation-apps-2018">up to 77 percent</a>—use Google Maps to navigate the world. And a vast majority of companies rely on Google Maps’ API to power the mapping on their websites and apps, according to data from <a href="https://idatalabs.com/tech/products/google-maps">iDataLabs</a>, <a href="https://stackshare.io/stackups/bing-maps-api-vs-google-maps-vs-mapbox">Stackshare</a>, and <a href="https://trends.builtwith.com/mapping">BuiltWith</a>.</p></div><p>Even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/technology/yelp-google-european-union-antitrust.html">Google’s mortal enemy</a>, Yelp, uses it for mapping on its website (though it taps Apple maps for its iPhone app). Luther Lowe, head of policy and Google critic-in-chief at Yelp, says there aren’t great alternatives to Google when it comes to mapping, forcing the company to pay its foe for the service. <br /></p><p>In its Maps API, Google has long offered a free or very cheap product, allowing it to achieve market dominance. Now it’s making a classic monopolistic move: Google announced last year that it’s <a href="https://developers.google.com/maps/previous-pricing">raising</a> its mapping <a href="https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/pricing/sheet/">prices</a> significantly, leading <a href="http://geoawesomeness.com/developers-up-in-arms-over-google-maps-api-insane-price-hike">developers</a> across the web to <a href="http://www.govtech.com/biz/Google-Maps-Restricts-its-API-Government-Collectively-Shrugs.html">freak out</a> because Google Maps is “<a href="https://www.programmableweb.com/news/time-to-challenge-google-maps-pricing/elsewhere-web/2018/08/26">light years ahead of its competitors</a>.” <br /></p><p>I become intimately acquainted with Google Maps competitors’ drawbacks using Mapquest for navigation; it keeps steering me into terrible traffic during my commute (probably because it doesn’t have the real-time movements of millions of people being sent to it).</p><p>Google, like Amazon, is woven deeply into the infrastructure of online services and other companies’ offerings, which is frustrating to all the connected devices in my house.<br /></p><p>“Your smart home pings Google at the same time every hour in order to determine whether or not it’s connected to the internet,” Dhruv tells me. “Which is funny to me because these devices’ engineers decided to determine connectivity to the <em>entire internet </em>based on the uptime of a single company. It’s a good metaphor for how far the internet has strayed from its original promise to decentralize control.”</p><p>In some cases, the Google block means apps won’t work at all, like Lyft and Uber, or Spotify, whose music is hosted in Google Cloud. The more frequent effect of the Google block though is that the internet itself slows down dramatically for me. <br /></p><p>Most of the websites I visit have frustratingly long load times because so many of them rely on resources from Google and get confused when my computer won’t let them talk to the company’s servers. On Airbnb, photos won’t load. New York Times articles won’t appear until the site has tried (and failed) to load Google Analytics, Google Pay, Google News, Google ads, <em>and </em>a Doubleclick tracker. <br /></p><p>As I sit staring at my screen and drumming my fingers, I get flashbacks to computing via dial-up in the ’90s, when I used to read a book while waiting for websites to open. It’s amazing to see how often sites are trying to serve trackers, ads, and analytics from Google before their own content. <br /></p><p>Mere hours into the first day of the Google block, my devices have tried to reach Google’s servers more often than the 15,000 times they tried to ping Facebook’s <a href="https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-facebook-out-of-my-life-surprisingly-i-missed-i-1830565456?rev=1548441231555#_ga=2.73651664.377942144.1548005718-2100675449.1537904885">the entire week before</a>. By the end of the week, my devices have tried to communicate with Google’s servers over 100,000 times, comparable to Amazon, at 293,000 times <a href="https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336">during its block</a>. Most of Google’s pings seem to be in the form of trackers, ads, and resources built into websites. <br /></p><p>Many of the sites I visit want to load <a href="https://fonts.google.com/">Google fonts</a>—a <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-google-font-api-google-font.html">free, open-source resource the company released in 2010</a>—which are downloaded from Google’s servers and then cached in the browser. Having quick access to a variety of fonts that would not otherwise be available on your computer generally <a href="https://fonts.google.com/about">helps sites load faster</a>, but it has the opposite effect for me during the block. <br /></p><div><p>Given that Google has so many ways to track people’s digital activity already, I’m disturbed to see how ubiquitous the use of Google fonts is on the web, but the company has promised that it won’t use them to <a href="https://developers.google.com/fonts/faq">track a site’s users</a>. So there’s that.</p><p>“Of all the shady shit Google does, this one doesn’t seem that shady,” says Dhruv, when I consult him about it. </p></div><p>To their credit, the tech giants have helped create a faster, more efficient internet infrastructure; unfortunately, it’s one that’s littered with their trackers and ads. My blocker is a crude beast, throwing the proverbial baby out with the privacy-invasive bath water. <br /></p><p>“I’m extremely worried about Google’s surveillance,” says Sean O’Brien, a lecturer in law at Yale Law School who founded the Yale Privacy Lab, by phone.</p><p>And not just any phone. O’Brien has an “Android phone with no Google on it.” Google bought Android <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/google-buys-android/">in 2007</a> in “<a href="https://venturebeat.com/2010/10/27/google-exec-android-was-best-deal-ever/">the best deal ever</a>,” and then started insisting that phone companies that used the operating system, which is about 80 percent of the market, bundle Google apps and make them the default options. That little directive led European regulators to hit the company with a <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/10/eu-hits-alphabet-google-with-android-antitrust-fine.html">$5 billion fine</a> last summer in an antitrust ruling that now has Google <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-android-licensing-bundle-chrome-search">charging a licensing fee</a> for apps and services that most phone makers have become dependent on.<br /></p><p>To de-Google his Android, O’Brien had to install <a href="https://copperhead.co/">a custom operating system</a>. “The irony is that the phones it’s easiest to do this on are the Google developer phones: the Nexus and the Pixel lines,” O’Brien says. So the operating system is Google-free, but the phone is made by Google.<br /></p><p>(Damn. That means this isn’t a smartphone option for me during the last week of the experiment when I plan to block all five big tech companies at once.)<br /></p><p>O’Brien says he’s worried in general about all of our technology being used to surveil us in every aspect of our life, but that he’s most worried about Google.</p><p>“Google’s the biggest threat in sheer size and the amount of data they have. And they’re really good at crunching that data,” he says. “If you can get out of Google’s messed-up ecosystem, do it, but otherwise try to use only one or two apps. Even me as an activist on these issues, a privacy maximalist, I can’t completely cut myself off.”</p><p>I <em>had</em> cut myself off completely from Google, but it’s making my job really hard. The invisible hands of Google are everywhere: I’m locked out of the system we use here at Gizmodo to publish blogs because I have historically used Google as my log-in. I also discover I can’t use Dropbox to send selfie-videos about the blockade to my video producer, Myra Iqbal. <br /></p><div><p>To figure out why Dropbox isn’t working, I look at the HTML of its home page—the otherwise invisible code that makes up the website—and discover Google is mentioned dozens of times. Dropbox even links out to Google’s privacy policy from its own homepage, because it uses Google to make sure <a href="https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/intro">a web visitor is a real person</a>. Because I’m blocking Google, Dropbox thinks I’m not a real person and won’t let me sign in.</p><p>I am trying to do research for a story <a href="https://gizmodo.com/how-cartographers-for-the-u-s-military-inadvertently-c-1830758394">that will take me to South Africa</a> and need to see street-level views of buildings there. I realize I don’t know how else to do that without Google Maps’ Street View, so the research has to wait. Google has so thoroughly <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google-builds-its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/">mapped the world</a> that I feel partially blind without it. Damn you, Google. You’ve given us some really useful products over the years, even if they <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2010/11/23/google-street-view-lovers-egg-blurred-german-houses/#64a657e03a9c">weren’t welcomed</a> by <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/couple-sue-google-for-invading-privacy-with-street-view/">everyone</a>.</p></div><p>If I stick with this, it will be a more costly way to live. While everything I use this week is free, some services won’t be if I become a heavy user. Protonmail charges after 500 MB of data; I’ve got 14 times that in my free, personal Gmail alone. Making the switch to decentralized, privacy-focused companies means you might actually have to pay for a service because they’re not necessarily monetizing your data.</p><p>A bigger drawback is that Google is really damn good at a lot of the things it does, and I miss those things. For example, DuckDuckGo works for my internet search needs but isn’t quite as spot-on as Google Search. And yes, it’s privacy-invasive that Google is mining all our data all the time, but I love that when I get an email about a flight, Gmail automatically tells Google Calendar to pencil it in. Is that worth the trade-off? Millions of people seem to think so.</p><p>My overall impression from this week is that Google touches almost everything on the internet. I run into it on almost every site and every app that I use. Blocking Google from my life was almost as hard as <a href="https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336#_ga=2.79268573.8908955.1548636122-2100675449.1537904885">blocking Amazon</a>, on which much of the non-Google internet relies. <br /></p><p>And one day, blocking Google could be even harder. With Sidewalk Labs, a product from the company to “smarten up” urban areas, Google’s trackers will extend into the real world, tracking not just how we move around the web but <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/01/28/google-alphabet-sidewalk-labs-replica-cellphone-data/">how we move around our cities</a>. That would lead to tracking that Dhruv and I might not be able to stop.</p><p>Next up: <a href="https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-microsoft-out-of-my-life-or-so-i-thought-1830863898">Microsoft</a>.</p><p><em>This series was supported by a grant to Dhruv Mehrotra from the</em><a href="https://www.eyebeam.org/what-we-do/"><em> Eyebeam Center for the Future of Journalism.</em></a><br /></p></div>||||I|||| * The A.V. Club
 * Deadspin
 * Gizmodo
 * Jalopnik
 * Jezebel
 * Kotaku
 * Lifehacker
 * Quartz
 * The Root
 * The Takeout
 * 
 * The Onion
 * 
 * The Inventory
 Send us a Tip! Shop Subscribe
 The Future Is Here
 Search
 Home Latest Tech Reviews How To Science Spaceflight Earther io9 Video En Español
 Goodbye Big Five

 I Cut Google Out Of My Life. It Screwed Up Everything

 CC
 * Off
 * en
 By
 Kashmir Hill
 Published January 29, 2019
 Comments (264)
 We may earn a commission from links on this page.

 Week 3: Google

 Long ago, Google made the mistake of adopting the motto, “Don’t be evil,” in a jab at competitors who exploited their users. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has since demoted the phrase in its corporate code of conduct presumably because of how hard it is to live up to it.

 Advertisement

 Google is no stranger to scandals, but 2018 was a banner year. It covered up the potential data exposure of a half million people who probably forgot they were still using Google+. It got caught trying to build a censored search engine for China. Its own employees resigned to protest Google helping the Pentagon build artificial intelligence. Thousands more employees walked out over the company paying exorbitant exit packages to executives accused of sexual misconduct. And privacy critics decried Google’s insatiable appetite for data, from capturing location information in unexpected ways—a practice Google changed when exposed—to capturing credit card transactions—a practice Google has not changed and actually seems proud of.

 I’m saying goodbye to all that this week. As part of an experiment to live without the tech giants, I’m cutting Google from my life both by abandoning its products and by preventing myself, technologically, from interacting with the company in any way. Engineer Dhruv Mehrotra built a virtual private network, or VPN, for me that prevents my phone, computers, and smart devices from communicating with the 8,699,648 IP addresses controlled by Google. This will cause some huge headaches for me: The company has created countless genuinely useful products, some that we use intentionally and some invisibly. The trade-off? Google tracks us everywhere.

 “Your smart home pings Google at the same time every hour in order to determine whether or not it’s connected to the internet.”

 I’m apprehensive about entirely blocking Google from my life because of how dependent I am on its products; the company has basically taken up residence in my brain somewhere near the hippocampus.

 Advertisement

 Google Calendar tells me what I need to do any given day. Google Chrome is how I browse the internet on my computer. I use Gmail for both work and personal email. I turn to Google for every question and search. Google Docs is the home of my story drafts, my half-finished zombie novel, and a running tally of my finances. I use Google Maps to get just about everywhere.

 So I am shocked when cutting Google out of my life takes just a few painful hours. Because I’m blocking Google with Dhruv’s VPN, I have to find replacements for all the useful services Google provides and without which my life would largely cease to function:

 * I migrate my browser bookmarks over to Firefox (made by Mozilla).
 * I change the default search engine on Firefox and my iPhone from Google—a privilege for which Google reportedly pays Apple up to $9 billion per year—to privacy-respecting DuckDuckGo, a search engine that also makes money off ads but doesn’t keep track of users’ searches.
 * I download Apple Maps and the Mapquest app to my phone. I hear Apple Maps is better than it used to be, and damn, Mapquest still lives! I don’t think I’ve used that since the 90s/a.k.a. the pre-smartphone age, back when I had to print directions for use in my car.
 * I switch to Apple’s calendar app.
 * I create new email addresses on Protonmail and Riseup.net (for work and personal email, respectively) and direct people to them via autoreplies in Gmail. Lifehack: The easiest way to get to inbox zero is to start a brand new inbox.

 Going off Google doesn’t come naturally. In addition to mentally kicking myself every time I talk about “Googling” something, I have to make a “banned apps” folder on my iPhone, because otherwise, my fingers keep straying out of habit to Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Calendar—the three apps that, along with Instagram and Words With Friends, are in heaviest rotation in my life.

 There’s no way I can delete my Gmail accounts completely as I did with Facebook. First off, it would be a huge security mistake; freeing up my email address for someone else to claim is just asking to be hacked. (Update: While other companies recycle email addresses, many Googlers have informed me since this piece came out that Google does not.) Secondly, I have too many documents, conversations, and contacts stored there. The infinite space offered by the tech giants has made us all digital hoarders.

 And that hoarding can be a bonanza for tech giants, allowing Google, for example, to create a “Smart Reply” feature that crawls billions of emails on Gmail to predict how you’d like to respond to a friend’s missive. Yay?

 Advertisement

 This experiment is not just about boycotting Google products. I’m also preventing my devices from interacting with Google in invisible or background ways, and that makes for some big challenges.

 The internet itself slows down dramatically for me.

 One morning, I have a meeting downtown. I leave my apartment with enough time to get there via Uber, but when I open the app, it won’t work. Same thing with Lyft. It turns out they’re both dependent on Google Maps such that I can’t even enter my destination while blocking Google. I’m astounded. There are no taxis around, so I have to take the bus. I wind up late to the meeting.

 Google is a behemoth when it comes to maps. According to various surveys, the vast majority of consumers—up to 77 percent—use Google Maps to navigate the world. And a vast majority of companies rely on Google Maps’ API to power the mapping on their websites and apps, according to data from iDataLabs, Stackshare, and BuiltWith.

 Advertisement

 Even Google’s mortal enemy, Yelp, uses it for mapping on its website (though it taps Apple maps for its iPhone app). Luther Lowe, head of policy and Google critic-in-chief at Yelp, says there aren’t great alternatives to Google when it comes to mapping, forcing the company to pay its foe for the service.

 In its Maps API, Google has long offered a free or very cheap product, allowing it to achieve market dominance. Now it’s making a classic monopolistic move: Google announced last year that it’s raising its mapping prices significantly, leading developers across the web to freak out because Google Maps is “light years ahead of its competitors.”

 I become intimately acquainted with Google Maps competitors’ drawbacks using Mapquest for navigation; it keeps steering me into terrible traffic during my commute (probably because it doesn’t have the real-time movements of millions of people being sent to it).

 This experiment is not just about boycotting Google products. I’m also preventing myself from interacting with Google in invisible or background ways.
 Advertisement

 Google, like Amazon, is woven deeply into the infrastructure of online services and other companies’ offerings, which is frustrating to all the connected devices in my house.

 “Your smart home pings Google at the same time every hour in order to determine whether or not it’s connected to the internet,” Dhruv tells me. “Which is funny to me because these devices’ engineers decided to determine connectivity to the entire internet based on the uptime of a single company. It’s a good metaphor for how far the internet has strayed from its original promise to decentralize control.”

 In some cases, the Google block means apps won’t work at all, like Lyft and Uber, or Spotify, whose music is hosted in Google Cloud. The more frequent effect of the Google block though is that the internet itself slows down dramatically for me.

 Most of the websites I visit have frustratingly long load times because so many of them rely on resources from Google and get confused when my computer won’t let them talk to the company’s servers. On Airbnb, photos won’t load. New York Times articles won’t appear until the site has tried (and failed) to load Google Analytics, Google Pay, Google News, Google ads, and a Doubleclick tracker.

 Advertisement

 As I sit staring at my screen and drumming my fingers, I get flashbacks to computing via dial-up in the ’90s, when I used to read a book while waiting for websites to open. It’s amazing to see how often sites are trying to serve trackers, ads, and analytics from Google before their own content.

 Mere hours into the first day of the Google block, my devices have tried to reach Google’s servers more often than the 15,000 times they tried to ping Facebook’s the entire week before. By the end of the week, my devices have tried to communicate with Google’s servers over 100,000 times, comparable to Amazon, at 293,000 times during its block. Most of Google’s pings seem to be in the form of trackers, ads, and resources built into websites.

 Many of the sites I visit want to load Google fonts—a free, open-source resource the company released in 2010—which are downloaded from Google’s servers and then cached in the browser. Having quick access to a variety of fonts that would not otherwise be available on your computer generally helps sites load faster, but it has the opposite effect for me during the block.

 Advertisement

 Given that Google has so many ways to track people’s digital activity already, I’m disturbed to see how ubiquitous the use of Google fonts is on the web, but the company has promised that it won’t use them to track a site’s users. So there’s that.

 “Of all the shady shit Google does, this one doesn’t seem that shady,” says Dhruv, when I consult him about it.

 To their credit, the tech giants have helped create a faster, more efficient internet infrastructure; unfortunately, it’s one that’s littered with their trackers and ads. My blocker is a crude beast, throwing the proverbial baby out with the privacy-invasive bath water.

 “I’m extremely worried about Google’s surveillance,” says Sean O’Brien, a lecturer in law at Yale Law School who founded the Yale Privacy Lab, by phone.

 And not just any phone. O’Brien has an “Android phone with no Google on it.” Google bought Android in 2007 in “the best deal ever,” and then started insisting that phone companies that used the operating system, which is about 80 percent of the market, bundle Google apps and make them the default options. That little directive led European regulators to hit the company with a $5 billion fine last summer in an antitrust ruling that now has Google charging a licensing fee for apps and services that most phone makers have become dependent on.

 Advertisement

 To de-Google his Android, O’Brien had to install a custom operating system. “The irony is that the phones it’s easiest to do this on are the Google developer phones: the Nexus and the Pixel lines,” O’Brien says. So the operating system is Google-free, but the phone is made by Google.

 (Damn. That means this isn’t a smartphone option for me during the last week of the experiment when I plan to block all five big tech companies at once.)

 O’Brien says he’s worried in general about all of our technology being used to surveil us in every aspect of our life, but that he’s most worried about Google.

 “Google’s the biggest threat in sheer size and the amount of data they have. And they’re really good at crunching that data,” he says. “If you can get out of Google’s messed-up ecosystem, do it, but otherwise try to use only one or two apps. Even me as an activist on these issues, a privacy maximalist, I can’t completely cut myself off.”

 Advertisement
 Because I’m blocking Google, Dropbox thinks I’m not a real person.

 I had cut myself off completely from Google, but it’s making my job really hard. The invisible hands of Google are everywhere: I’m locked out of the system we use here at Gizmodo to publish blogs because I have historically used Google as my log-in. I also discover I can’t use Dropbox to send selfie-videos about the blockade to my video producer, Myra Iqbal.

 To figure out why Dropbox isn’t working, I look at the HTML of its home page—the otherwise invisible code that makes up the website—and discover Google is mentioned dozens of times. Dropbox even links out to Google’s privacy policy from its own homepage, because it uses Google to make sure a web visitor is a real person. Because I’m blocking Google, Dropbox thinks I’m not a real person and won’t let me sign in.

 I am trying to do research for a story that will take me to South Africa and need to see street-level views of buildings there. I realize I don’t know how else to do that without Google Maps’ Street View, so the research has to wait. Google has so thoroughly mapped the world that I feel partially blind without it. Damn you, Google. You’ve given us some really useful products over the years, even if they weren’t welcomed by everyone.

 If I stick with this, it will be a more costly way to live. While everything I use this week is free, some services won’t be if I become a heavy user. Protonmail charges after 500 MB of data; I’ve got 14 times that in my free, personal Gmail alone. Making the switch to decentralized, privacy-focused companies means you might actually have to pay for a service because they’re not necessarily monetizing your data.

 Advertisement

 A bigger drawback is that Google is really damn good at a lot of the things it does, and I miss those things. For example, DuckDuckGo works for my internet search needs but isn’t quite as spot-on as Google Search. And yes, it’s privacy-invasive that Google is mining all our data all the time, but I love that when I get an email about a flight, Gmail automatically tells Google Calendar to pencil it in. Is that worth the trade-off? Millions of people seem to think so.

 My overall impression from this week is that Google touches almost everything on the internet. I run into it on almost every site and every app that I use. Blocking Google from my life was almost as hard as blocking Amazon, on which much of the non-Google internet relies.

 And one day, blocking Google could be even harder. With Sidewalk Labs, a product from the company to “smarten up” urban areas, Google’s trackers will extend into the real world, tracking not just how we move around the web but how we move around our cities. That would lead to tracking that Dhruv and I might not be able to stop.

 Next up: Microsoft.

 Advertisement

 This series was supported by a grant to Dhruv Mehrotra from the Eyebeam Center for the Future of Journalism.

 Tech Goodbye Big Five
Week 3: Google   Long ago, Google made the mistake of adopting the motto, “Don’t be evil,” in a jab at competitors who exploited their users. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has since demoted the phrase in its corporate code of conduct presumably because of how hard it is to live up to it.   Google is no stranger to scandals, but 2018 was a banner year. It covered up the potential data exposure of a half million people who probably forgot they were still using Google+. It got caught trying to build a censored search engine for China. Its own employees resigned to protest Google helping the Pentagon build artificial intelligence. Thousands more employees walked out over the company paying exorbitant exit packages to executives accused of sexual misconduct. And privacy critics decried Google’s insatiable appetite for data, from capturing location information in unexpected ways—a practice Google changed when exposed—to capturing credit card transactions—a practice Google has not changed and actually seems proud of. I’m saying goodbye to all that this week. As part of an experiment to live without the tech giants, I’m cutting Google from my life both by abandoning its products and by preventing myself, technologically, from interacting with the company in any way. Engineer Dhruv Mehrotra built a virtual private network, or VPN, for me that prevents my phone, computers, and smart devices from communicating with the 8,699,648 IP addresses controlled by Google. This will cause some huge headaches for me: The company has created countless genuinely useful products, some that we use intentionally and some invisibly. The trade-off? Google tracks us everywhere. I’m apprehensive about entirely blocking Google from my life because of how dependent I am on its products; the company has basically taken up residence in my brain somewhere near the hippocampus.    Google Calendar tells me what I need to do any given day. Google Chrome is how I browse the internet on my computer. I use Gmail for both work and personal email. I turn to Google for every question and search. Google Docs is the home of my story drafts, my half-finished zombie novel, and a running tally of my finances. I use Google Maps to get just about everywhere. So I am shocked when cutting Google out of my life takes just a few painful hours. Because I’m blocking Google with Dhruv’s VPN, I have to find replacements for all the useful services Google provides and without which my life would largely cease to function:   I migrate my browser bookmarks over to Firefox (made by Mozilla). I change the default search engine on Firefox and my iPhone from Google—a privilege for which Google reportedly pays Apple up to $9 billion per year—to privacy-respecting DuckDuckGo, a search engine that also makes money off ads but doesn’t keep track of users’ searches.   I download Apple Maps and the Mapquest app to my phone. I hear Apple Maps is better than it used to be, and damn, Mapquest still lives! I don’t think I’ve used that since the 90s/a.k.a. the pre-smartphone age, back when I had to print directions for use in my car. I switch to Apple’s calendar app. I create new email addresses on Protonmail and Riseup.net (for work and personal email, respectively) and direct people to them via autoreplies in Gmail. Lifehack: The easiest way to get to inbox zero is to start a brand new inbox.  Going off Google doesn’t come naturally. In addition to mentally kicking myself every time I talk about “Googling” something, I have to make a “banned apps” folder on my iPhone, because otherwise, my fingers keep straying out of habit to Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Calendar—the three apps that, along with Instagram and Words With Friends, are in heaviest rotation in my life.   There’s no way I can delete my Gmail accounts completely as I did with Facebook. First off, it would be a huge security mistake; freeing up my email address for someone else to claim is just asking to be hacked. (Update: While other companies recycle email addresses, many Googlers have informed me since this piece came out that Google does not.) Secondly, I have too many documents, conversations, and contacts stored there. The infinite space offered by the tech giants has made us all digital hoarders.   And that hoarding can be a bonanza for tech giants, allowing Google, for example, to create a “Smart Reply” feature that crawls billions of emails on Gmail to predict how you’d like to respond to a friend’s missive. Yay? This experiment is not just about boycotting Google products. I’m also preventing my devices from interacting with Google in invisible or background ways, and that makes for some big challenges.  One morning, I have a meeting downtown. I leave my apartment with enough time to get there via Uber, but when I open the app, it won’t work. Same thing with Lyft. It turns out they’re both dependent on Google Maps such that I can’t even enter my destination while blocking Google. I’m astounded. There are no taxis around, so I have to take the bus. I wind up late to the meeting.  Google is a behemoth when it comes to maps. According to various surveys, the vast majority of consumers—up to 77 percent—use Google Maps to navigate the world. And a vast majority of companies rely on Google Maps’ API to power the mapping on their websites and apps, according to data from iDataLabs, Stackshare, and BuiltWith.  Even Google’s mortal enemy, Yelp, uses it for mapping on its website (though it taps Apple maps for its iPhone app). Luther Lowe, head of policy and Google critic-in-chief at Yelp, says there aren’t great alternatives to Google when it comes to mapping, forcing the company to pay its foe for the service.   In its Maps API, Google has long offered a free or very cheap product, allowing it to achieve market dominance. Now it’s making a classic monopolistic move: Google announced last year that it’s raising its mapping prices significantly, leading developers across the web to freak out because Google Maps is “light years ahead of its competitors.”   I become intimately acquainted with Google Maps competitors’ drawbacks using Mapquest for navigation; it keeps steering me into terrible traffic during my commute (probably because it doesn’t have the real-time movements of millions of people being sent to it). Google, like Amazon, is woven deeply into the infrastructure of online services and other companies’ offerings, which is frustrating to all the connected devices in my house.  “Your smart home pings Google at the same time every hour in order to determine whether or not it’s connected to the internet,” Dhruv tells me. “Which is funny to me because these devices’ engineers decided to determine connectivity to the entire internet based on the uptime of a single company. It’s a good metaphor for how far the internet has strayed from its original promise to decentralize control.” In some cases, the Google block means apps won’t work at all, like Lyft and Uber, or Spotify, whose music is hosted in Google Cloud. The more frequent effect of the Google block though is that the internet itself slows down dramatically for me.   Most of the websites I visit have frustratingly long load times because so many of them rely on resources from Google and get confused when my computer won’t let them talk to the company’s servers. On Airbnb, photos won’t load. New York Times articles won’t appear until the site has tried (and failed) to load Google Analytics, Google Pay, Google News, Google ads, and a Doubleclick tracker.   As I sit staring at my screen and drumming my fingers, I get flashbacks to computing via dial-up in the ’90s, when I used to read a book while waiting for websites to open. It’s amazing to see how often sites are trying to serve trackers, ads, and analytics from Google before their own content.   Mere hours into the first day of the Google block, my devices have tried to reach Google’s servers more often than the 15,000 times they tried to ping Facebook’s the entire week before. By the end of the week, my devices have tried to communicate with Google’s servers over 100,000 times, comparable to Amazon, at 293,000 times during its block. Most of Google’s pings seem to be in the form of trackers, ads, and resources built into websites.   Many of the sites I visit want to load Google fonts—a free, open-source resource the company released in 2010—which are downloaded from Google’s servers and then cached in the browser. Having quick access to a variety of fonts that would not otherwise be available on your computer generally helps sites load faster, but it has the opposite effect for me during the block.    Given that Google has so many ways to track people’s digital activity already, I’m disturbed to see how ubiquitous the use of Google fonts is on the web, but the company has promised that it won’t use them to track a site’s users. So there’s that. “Of all the shady shit Google does, this one doesn’t seem that shady,” says Dhruv, when I consult him about it.   To their credit, the tech giants have helped create a faster, more efficient internet infrastructure; unfortunately, it’s one that’s littered with their trackers and ads. My blocker is a crude beast, throwing the proverbial baby out with the privacy-invasive bath water.   “I’m extremely worried about Google’s surveillance,” says Sean O’Brien, a lecturer in law at Yale Law School who founded the Yale Privacy Lab, by phone. And not just any phone. O’Brien has an “Android phone with no Google on it.” Google bought Android in 2007 in “the best deal ever,” and then started insisting that phone companies that used the operating system, which is about 80 percent of the market, bundle Google apps and make them the default options. That little directive led European regulators to hit the company with a $5 billion fine last summer in an antitrust ruling that now has Google charging a licensing fee for apps and services that most phone makers have become dependent on.  To de-Google his Android, O’Brien had to install a custom operating system. “The irony is that the phones it’s easiest to do this on are the Google developer phones: the Nexus and the Pixel lines,” O’Brien says. So the operating system is Google-free, but the phone is made by Google.  (Damn. That means this isn’t a smartphone option for me during the last week of the experiment when I plan to block all five big tech companies at once.)  O’Brien says he’s worried in general about all of our technology being used to surveil us in every aspect of our life, but that he’s most worried about Google. “Google’s the biggest threat in sheer size and the amount of data they have. And they’re really good at crunching that data,” he says. “If you can get out of Google’s messed-up ecosystem, do it, but otherwise try to use only one or two apps. Even me as an activist on these issues, a privacy maximalist, I can’t completely cut myself off.” I had cut myself off completely from Google, but it’s making my job really hard. The invisible hands of Google are everywhere: I’m locked out of the system we use here at Gizmodo to publish blogs because I have historically used Google as my log-in. I also discover I can’t use Dropbox to send selfie-videos about the blockade to my video producer, Myra Iqbal.    To figure out why Dropbox isn’t working, I look at the HTML of its home page—the otherwise invisible code that makes up the website—and discover Google is mentioned dozens of times. Dropbox even links out to Google’s privacy policy from its own homepage, because it uses Google to make sure a web visitor is a real person. Because I’m blocking Google, Dropbox thinks I’m not a real person and won’t let me sign in. I am trying to do research for a story that will take me to South Africa and need to see street-level views of buildings there. I realize I don’t know how else to do that without Google Maps’ Street View, so the research has to wait. Google has so thoroughly mapped the world that I feel partially blind without it. Damn you, Google. You’ve given us some really useful products over the years, even if they weren’t welcomed by everyone.  If I stick with this, it will be a more costly way to live. While everything I use this week is free, some services won’t be if I become a heavy user. Protonmail charges after 500 MB of data; I’ve got 14 times that in my free, personal Gmail alone. Making the switch to decentralized, privacy-focused companies means you might actually have to pay for a service because they’re not necessarily monetizing your data. A bigger drawback is that Google is really damn good at a lot of the things it does, and I miss those things. For example, DuckDuckGo works for my internet search needs but isn’t quite as spot-on as Google Search. And yes, it’s privacy-invasive that Google is mining all our data all the time, but I love that when I get an email about a flight, Gmail automatically tells Google Calendar to pencil it in. Is that worth the trade-off? Millions of people seem to think so. My overall impression from this week is that Google touches almost everything on the internet. I run into it on almost every site and every app that I use. Blocking Google from my life was almost as hard as blocking Amazon, on which much of the non-Google internet relies.   And one day, blocking Google could be even harder. With Sidewalk Labs, a product from the company to “smarten up” urban areas, Google’s trackers will extend into the real world, tracking not just how we move around the web but how we move around our cities. That would lead to tracking that Dhruv and I might not be able to stop. Next up: Microsoft.  This series was supported by a grant to Dhruv Mehrotra from the   Eyebeam Center for the Future of Journalism.
I Cut Google Out Of My Life. It Screwed Up Everything
https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-google-out-of-my-life-it-screwed-up-everything-1830565500
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393
Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct
2018-05-18
Kate Conger
<div><div><p>Google’s unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase “don’t be evil.” But that’s over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to its employees. The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.</p><div><div><p>“Even AI Rappers are Harassed by Police” | AI Unlocked</p></div><div><ul><li>Off</li><li>English</li></ul></div></div><p>“Don’t be evil” has been part of the company’s since 2000. When Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, in 2015, Alphabet assumed a of the motto, “do the right thing.” However, Google retained its original “don’t be evil” language until the past several weeks. The phrase has been deeply incorporated into Google’s company culture—so much so that a version of the phrase has served as the wifi password on the shuttles that Google uses to ferry its employees to its Mountain View headquarters, sources told Gizmodo.</p><p>Here’s the relevant section of the old code of conduct, as :</p><blockquote><p>“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.</p><p>The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.</p><p>So please do read the Code, and follow both its spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want – and need – to hear from you.</p></blockquote><p>And here’s the updated version, first :</p><blockquote><p>The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put Google’s values into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Respect for our users, for the opportunity, and for each other are foundational to our success, and are something we need to support every day.</p><p>So please do read the Code and Google’s values, and follow both in spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code and values into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want – and need – to hear from you.</p></blockquote><p>Despite this significant change, Google’s code of conduct says it has not been updated since April 5, 2018.</p><p>The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one reference to the company’s unofficial motto—the final line of the document is still: “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”</p><p>We’ve reached out to Google for comment on this change and will update this story if we hear back.</p></div></div>||||I|||| * The A.V. Club
 * Deadspin
 * Gizmodo
 * Jalopnik
 * Kotaku
 * Quartz
 * The Root
 * The Takeout
 * 
 * The Onion
 * 
 * The Inventory
 Send us a Tip! Shop Subscribe
 The Future Is Here
 We may earn a commission from links on this page
 Search
 * Home
 * Latest
 * News
 * Reviews
 * Science
 * Earther
 * io9
 * AI
 * Space
 * En Español
 * Video
 Google

 Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct

 By
 Kate Conger
 Published May 18, 2018
 Comments (362)
 We may earn a commission from links on this page.

 Google’s unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase “don’t be evil.” But that’s over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to its employees. The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.

 Watch
 “Even AI Rappers are Harassed by Police” | AI Unlocked
 CC
 Share
 Subtitles
 * Off
 * English
 Share this Video
 Facebook Twitter Email
 Reddit Link
 view video
 Sam Altman's Return, the Mysterious Q, and More of the Top AI News of the Week
 Like It or Not, Your Doctor Will Use AI | AI Unlocked
 November 14, 2023
 Teenage Engineering’s TP-7 Is the Ferrari of Tape Recorders
 November 17, 2023

 “Don’t be evil” has been part of the company’s corporate code of conduct since 2000. When Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, in 2015, Alphabet assumed a slightly adjusted version of the motto, “do the right thing.” However, Google retained its original “don’t be evil” language until the past several weeks. The phrase has been deeply incorporated into Google’s company culture—so much so that a version of the phrase has served as the wifi password on the shuttles that Google uses to ferry its employees to its Mountain View headquarters, sources told Gizmodo.

 Advertisement

 Here’s the relevant section of the old code of conduct, as archived by the Wayback Machine on April 21, 2018:

 “Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.

 The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.

 So please do read the Code, and follow both its spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want – and need – to hear from you.

 Advertisement

 And here’s the updated version, first archived by the Wayback Machine on May 4, 2018:

 The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put Google’s values into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Respect for our users, for the opportunity, and for each other are foundational to our success, and are something we need to support every day.

 So please do read the Code and Google’s values, and follow both in spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code and values into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want – and need – to hear from you.

 Advertisement

 Despite this significant change, Google’s code of conduct says it has not been updated since April 5, 2018.

 The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one reference to the company’s unofficial motto—the final line of the document is still: “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”

 Advertisement

 We’ve reached out to Google for comment on this change and will update this story if we hear back.

 Show all 362 comments
 Continue reading
Google’s unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase “don’t be evil.” But that’s over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to its employees. The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.   “Even AI Rappers are Harassed by Police” | AI Unlocked    Off English    “Don’t be evil” has been part of the company’s since 2000. When Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, in 2015, Alphabet assumed a of the motto, “do the right thing.” However, Google retained its original “don’t be evil” language until the past several weeks. The phrase has been deeply incorporated into Google’s company culture—so much so that a version of the phrase has served as the wifi password on the shuttles that Google uses to ferry its employees to its Mountain View headquarters, sources told Gizmodo. Here’s the relevant section of the old code of conduct, as :  “Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect. The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day. So please do read the Code, and follow both its spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want – and need – to hear from you.  And here’s the updated version, first :  The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put Google’s values into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Respect for our users, for the opportunity, and for each other are foundational to our success, and are something we need to support every day. So please do read the Code and Google’s values, and follow both in spirit and letter, always bearing in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to incorporate, and to encourage other Googlers to incorporate, the principles of the Code and values into our work. And if you have a question or ever think that one of your fellow Googlers or the company as a whole may be falling short of our commitment, don’t be silent. We want – and need – to hear from you.  Despite this significant change, Google’s code of conduct says it has not been updated since April 5, 2018. The updated version of Google’s code of conduct still retains one reference to the company’s unofficial motto—the final line of the document is still: “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!” We’ve reached out to Google for comment on this change and will update this story if we hear back.
Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393#_ga=2.107496642.1363523760.1548698474-1494158073.1547676718
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1202.Freakonomics
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Sid…
2005-04-12
Author
<div><div><div><article><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/16217125">February 24, 2008</a></section><div><p>This was an interesting book. I say it was interesting because I started liking it (a lot) when I first read it, as time passed I liked it less and less. In that way I call it a candy book, tastes good at first but leaves you worse off for reading it. <p>In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant. Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt. Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothesis. I wanted more. It was like reading War and Peace and discovering that you read the abridged version and in fact the book wasn't 100 pages long. This disappointment may have come from my engineering background and my strong desire to really understand economics. This book didn't offer any of that, only a titillating glimpse of the economics. </p><p>In some regards one may think my single start rating is to harsh. As mind candy this book was quite good. I <b>did</b> enjoy reading it at the time. Whats more, it did encourage me to study real economics. I am currently enrolled in a masters program in economics and this book did play a <b>very</b> small roll in that decision process. However, as I learn more about economics I realize how shallow the book in fact was. </p><p>While this is not the forum for a comprehensive review of the topics presented in the book, or an analysis of how good the economics in Freekanomics are, a review in "Journal of Economic Literature (Vol XLV, Dec. 2007 pp 973)" quotes Livitt as saying: "There is no question I have written some ridiculous papers." The article then goes on to quote a paper by Noam Scheibler(2007) describing Livitt's comparing some of his papers to the fashion industry. "Sometimes you write papers and they're less about the actual result, more about your vision of how you think the profession should be. And so I think some of my most ridiculous papers actually fall in the high-fashion category."</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/934648?shelf=candy">candy</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/934648?shelf=economics">economics</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1713956-manny"></a></section><section><p>Author <i></i>28 books13.4k followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/40533307">June 26, 2022</a></section><div><p>I loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century. Crime rates had been rising for decades, and people were really worried about what would happen if the trend continued. Then, suddenly, they peaked and started to decline. Why? There were a bunch of theories, all of them superficially plausible.<p>Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after <i>Roe v Wade</i>. Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science.</p><p>The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct.</p><p>I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction.<br />_________________________<br /><i>[Update, Jun 26 2022]</i></p><p>In view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I wonder which Republican-led states have started planning for the increased levels of crime that are to be expected fifteen to twenty years from now, and which ones have decided it won't be necessary. In the second case, it would be interesting to know why not. A couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling:</p><p>a) this is liberal science and can be discounted as political messaging,</p><p>b) the Rapture will occur first.</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1713956?shelf=japanese">japanese</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1713956?shelf=science">science</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1713956?shelf=well-i-think-its-funny">well-i-think-its-funny</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/154731-rachel"></a></section><section><p>54 reviews40 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2876314">July 9, 2007</a></section><div><p>Sure, this book was a compelling read that offered us all some great amo for cocktail party conversation. But ultimately I think most of what Leavitt claims is crap. <p>He dodges accoutability with the disclaimer about his book NOT being a scholarly work, but then goes on to drop statistics, theories and expert opinions. These assertions laid, he doesn't provide readers with enough information to critically examine his perspectives.</p><p>Ultimately I have a problem with the unquestioned, unaccoutable role of the public intellectual. Leavitt dances around with his PhD on his sleeve, but is never subject to peer review or any sort of academic criticism. I think it's irresponsible. </p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/154731?shelf=non-fiction">non-fiction</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/4622890-emily-may"></a></section><section><p>1,921 reviews290k followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1584897943">March 20, 2016</a></section><div><p>I won't deny that this is a very interesting, compelling and thought-provoking book. Even for someone like me whose general response to economics is *snore*. And it's mainly because <i>Freakonomics</i> is not really about economics, but involves applying statistical analysis to many social issues and questions. <p>Very easy to read. Lots of shocking discoveries that seem weighted in fact - <i>Roe v. Wade</i> is responsible for a huge drop in crime? No wonder some people are pissed off with this book. It's really quite fascinating to look at the power of incentives - economic, social and moral - and examine cause and effect. </p><p>One of my favourite personal experiences with silly notions of cause and effect is diet soft drinks. I confess to being a bit of a coke zero addict. It's not great for you (the sodium makes you more thirsty, a lot of potassium can lead to palpitations, and a lot of phosphoric acid has been linked to kidney problems) but I've lost count of how many times people have cited statistics showing that diet soda drinkers are more likely to be overweight and diabetic. Of course they are! If you're overweight and diabetic you're more likely to drink the low-calorie, sugar-free alternatives, aren't you? So strange how people assume it is A that causes B and ignore the possibility of it being the opposite.</p><p>Anyway, my issue with this entertaining book is that I think it may be - to be frank - bullshit. Not all of it, sure. But definitely some of it. The writers state their points very confidently (some might say with a touch too much smarm) but it requires you to take a lot of what they say on faith. And some of the jumps they make between statistics and conclusion don't quite add up for me. I know many others have felt the same.</p><p>But here was the thing that really got me, the thing that made me smell bullshit: I'm fairly confident something they said is not rooted in any truth. And let's be clear: I am a total noob when it comes to most statistics and economics, so if even I can spot something a bit <i>off</i>, it really makes me question the rest of it. Here it is:</p><blockquote>
 <i>Women's rights advocates, for instance, have hyped the incidence of sexual assault, claiming that one in three American women will in her lifetime be a victim of rape or attempted rape. (The actual figure is more like one in eight - but the advocates know it would take a callous person to publicly dispute their claims.)</i>
</blockquote><br />This, if true, implies two things. 1) Those advocating women's rights are using false data, therefore undermining their credibility, and 2) They have invented a statistic to intentionally support their cause, knowing no one will dispute it (absolutely bizarre that the author thinks no one is disputing women's rights claims, but okay...)<p>Well, being a feminist and someone who has spent an awful lot of time reading and writing about women's rights organizations and statistics, my eyes narrowed a little. See, in all my research, I've never seen or heard any claim that "1 in 3 women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape". I have heard the "1 in 3" statistic, but a somewhat different one.</p><p>So, obviously, I went to look it up. I spent a couple of hours going through Google and every women's rights organization page I could find, trying to uncover a single case where that statistic was used. I found exactly: <b>none</b>. The only other thing I found that mentioned it was a Time article attempting to debunk so-called "feminist myths": <a href="http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/">http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-my...</a></p><p>The statistic the authors appear to have misquoted is that "1 in 3 women will experience sexual violence, or physical violence by an intimate partner", which is used often. Sexual violence here is an ambiguous term, leaving room for wider interpretations and probably explaining why, with the addition of domestic violence into the statistic, the number is at "1 in 3" instead of "1 in 8". </p><p>Furthermore, not only have the authors misrepresented the statistical claim itself, but they have also suggested that women's rights advocates have pulled the numbers from thin air to make a point - on the contrary, this is a study conducted by the World Health Organization on the "Global and regional estimates of violence against women".</p><p>I like the idea of the book, but this really put me off. Perhaps it was a one-off error that I managed to spot. Perhaps. Either way, I started to be less impressed by the facts and statistics they presented. Still, very enjoyable book for the most part.</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/4622890?shelf=2016">2016</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/4622890?shelf=nonfiction">nonfiction</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/15385951-mohammed-makram"></a></section><section><p>1,388 reviews2,743 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1758079632">October 25, 2022</a></section><div><p><b><br />مبدئيا هناك خدعة في عنوان الكتاب<p>فالكتاب ليس في الاقتصاد و لكن في علم الاجتماع و لأن المؤلف رجل إقتصاد و لأن الاقتصاد هو أحد فروع علم االإجتماع فقد استخدم ما تعلمه في تحليل بعض الظواهر الاجتماعية بأدوات إقتصادية.</p><p>مجموعة من المواضيع بعضها شيق جدا و بعضها ممل أو مغرق في المحلية لدرجة لا تجعلنا نتفاعل معه.</p><blockquote> ما هي الأشياء المشتركة بين معلمى المدارس و مصارعى السومو </blockquote>يبدو سؤالا ساذجا و لكن الإجابة سهلة.<br />هي أسئلة من نوعية ما وجه الشبه بين البطيخ و الموز و تأتى الإجابة بأن كل منهما لا يصلح كعصير برتقال.<p>إجابة السؤال اللوذعى هنا هي أن معلمى المدارس و مصارعى السومو كل منهما يغش في النتائج و ليس هذا هو المقصود بل المقصود هو أنه يمكن كشف هذا الغش بنفس الطريقة و هي طريقة حسابية إحصائية طورها المؤلف و طبقها على أمثلة بالكتاب.</p><p><a href="http://imgur.com/m1G6jk5"></a></p><p>من الحكايات الطريفة حكاية عن موظف كان يحضر معه خبز الإفطار و بعض الجبن ليفطر هو و زملاء العمل كل يوم و تطور الموضوع حتى صار يحضر معه الإفطار لكل الشركة ثم استقال و أصبح المسئول عن توريد الخبز لبعض كبرى الشركات حتى أنه كان يوزع حوالى ثمانية آلاف رغيف يوميا.<br />سؤال أخر لوذعى:</p><blockquote> كيف تتشابه جمعية الكوكلوس كلان مع الوسطاء العقاريين </blockquote>و لمن يعرف فإن جماعة الكوكلوس كلان هي جماعة إرهابية أمريكية نشأت بعد الإتحاد مباشرة و نشطت ضد الأقليات الإسبانية و السود و الكاثوليك و أي شخص غير أبيض أوروبى الأصل بروتستانتى محافظ و يحكى الكاتب عنها حكايات شيقة جدا جديرة بالقراءة.<p>المهم أن وجه الشبه بينهم و بين الوسطاء العقاريين هو استثمار الخوف لدى الخصم و استخدام معلومات لا تملكها لإجبارك على اتخاذ رد فعل في مصلحتهم و يدلل الكاتب على ذلك بعشرات الحكايات اللذيذة جدا.</p><p><a href="http://imgur.com/mkdC1r1"></a><br />سؤال أخر : </p><blockquote> لماذا لا يزال تجار المخدرات يعيشون مع امهاتهم </blockquote>
<br />برغم أن تجارة المخدرات تدر أموالا طائلة كما نرى في الروايات و الأفلام الا أن الأموال لا توزع على الجميع بعدالة كما يحدث في شركتك تماما. نعم فهى تجارة رأسمالية أيضا.<p><a href="http://imgur.com/kvCfC3P"></a></p><p>يأخذك الكاتب في جولة غريبة و مثيرة في عالم الجريمة و تجارة المخدرات مطبقا نظرياته العجيبة و احصائياته المثيرة ليدلل على أ�� صغار تجار المخدرات يتمنى أحدهم لو يعمل حارس أمن أو أي عمل أخر لو لم يطمع في الوصول لدور الزعيم و من ثم التنعم بالمزيد من الأموال حتى يقتل أو يقبض عليه.</p><p>جزء أخر عن علاقة الإجهاض بالجريمة قد لا يكون مقنعا في عالمنا العربى ثم جزء أخير عن العنصرية التي لا تزال بصماتها واضحة و أثارها تنعكس على الواقع الأمريكي حتى الأن.</p><p>الكتاب مفيد و جيد في معظم أجزائه و أرشحه للقراءة.</p></b></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/15385951?shelf=economy">economy</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/33765-justin"></a></section><section><p>33 reviews19 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2854564">July 18, 2007</a></section><div><p>I guess some people don't like this book because it's not centered around one theme. Instead, it's more about the seemingly diffuse academic work of one of the authors Steven D. Levitt (the other author is a journalist, Stephen J. Dubner). Levitt is something of an economist but more like a social scientist using the tools of Microeconomics applied to other fields that happen to catch his interest (often having something to do with cheating, corruption, crime, etc.). In the back of the book he mentions how he considers himself a student of Thomas Schelling who is kind of like the father of Game Theory (strategy theory?), except much more of a 'man of ideas' than what one might think of when one thinks about game theory today, which is much more mathematical. <p>Anyway, as for the book itself, I thought it was really great. I really like what Levitt is doing as far as using the tools of Microeconomics in other fields. One of my intellectual heroes (I only have a few) is Kenneth Waltz who did the exact same thing in the field of International Relations in the '70's and wrote the seminal book <i>The Theory of International Politics</i>, which pretty much the single-handedly invented defensive (neo) realism. More generally, I think Economics is probably the most formalized of the social sciences and the one to which others should esteem. A lot of the Political Science field concerned with both voter behavior and how legislatures work is now pretty formalized as well, and, I, for one, think this is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could think it's not (good) unless they a)think the scientific method cannot be used to analyze human behavior; or b)have a visceral aversion to mathematical languages. Actually, I am one of the latter, but I, at least, see the value in having a formalized language to work with.</p><p>As for the book itself, there's some maybe-controversial things in there like Levitt did some work that showed that the legalization of abortion in the U.S. (Roe v. Wade) was one of the main reasons that crime in the U.S. dropped in the '90's and continues at the same rates today. He stands behind it pretty hardily though and it doesn't seem like he has a moral agenda at all. Some might argue that the best writers are those who are best able to disguise their moral agenda, but considering he writes about all kinds of not-very-serious things like how sumo wrestling in Japan is probably corrupt as far as matches g,o and there's stuff in there about how real estate agents sell their houses for more than they sell their customers' houses (which, may or may not be surprising), I really don't think he has a hidden pro-life agenda. </p><p>Anyway, there's a bunch of stuff in there (the book), hence the 'freak' in Freakonomics. It's well-written. It's not dry. It's written for a lay audience. I recommend it. Read it and feel the power of social science! ;-)</p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/5208813-andrew-muckle"></a></section><section><p>12 reviews6 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/158084344">April 1, 2011</a></section><div><p>Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ on a bike! Could these two tossers be any more smarmy and self indulgent? Levitt and Dubner and probably the kind of smart arse nerds who snigger at you because you don't understand linux but sneer at you because you've actually spoken to a woman. <p>This book is much like the Emperor's New Clothes, people are so scared about being left out if they don't like or understand it because some sandal wearing hippy in the Guardian said it's 'This year's Das Capital' or some such bollocks that they feel compelled to join some sort of unspoken club where they all jizz themselves silly over a book that effectively is 300+ pages of pure condescension.</p><p>Only buy this book if a facist regime ever seizes control of your country and instigates a book burning policy.</p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6603759-misericordia"></a></section><section><p>2,377 reviews18.8k followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1416384962">January 27, 2018</a></section><div><p>Extremely enlightening! Worthy of 15 stars out of 5! This is a book about the world and not about any science in particular. It's about learning to question the given and see beyond the obvious. An extremely useful gift in the misguiding modern world.<p>Yeah, populistic much too much but neverthless compulsively readable. A definite revisit and reread.</p><p>Q:<br />As Levitt sees it, economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions. His particular gift is the ability to ask such questions. For instance: If drug dealers make so much money, why do they still live with their mothers? Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What really caused crime rates to plunge during the past decade? Do real-estate agents have their clients’ best interests at heart? Why do black parents give their children names that may hurt their career prospects? Do schoolteachers cheat to meet high-stakes testing standards? Is sumo wrestling corrupt?<br />And how does a homeless man in tattered clothing afford $50 headphones?<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking.<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />“Experts”—from criminologists to real-estate agents-use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda. However, they can be beat at their own game. And in the face of the Internet, their informational advantage is shrinking every day-as evidenced by, among other things, the falling price of coffins and life-insurance premiums.<br />Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so. If you learn how to look at data in the right way, you can explain riddles that otherwise might have seemed impossible. Because there is nothing like the sheer power of numbers to scrub away layers of confusion and contradiction.<br />So the aim of this book is to explore the hidden side of . . . everything. This may occasionally be a frustrating exercise. It may sometimes feel as if we are peering at the world through a straw or even staring into a funhouse mirror; but the idea is to look at many different scenarios and examine them in a way they have rarely been examined.<br />...<br />Steven Levitt may not fully believe in himself, but he does believe in this: teachers and criminals and real-estate agents may lie, and politicians, and even CIA analysts. But numbers don’t.<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />Levitt had an interview for the Society of Fellows, the venerable intellectual clubhouse at<br />Harvard that pays young scholars to do their own work, for three years, with no commitments.<br />Levitt felt he didn’t stand a chance. For starters, he didn’t consider himself an intellectual. He would<br />be interviewed over dinner by the senior fellows, a collection of world-renowned philosophers,<br />scientists, and historians. He worried he wouldn’t have enough conversation to last even the first<br />course.<br />Disquietingly, one of the senior fellows said to Levitt, “I’m having a hard time seeing the<br />unifying theme of your work. Could you explain it?”<br />Levitt was stymied. He had no idea what his unifying theme was, or if he even had one.<br />Amartya Sen, the future Nobel-winning economist, jumped in and neatly summarized what he<br />saw as Levitt’s theme.<br />Yes, Levitt said eagerly, that’s my theme.<br />Another fellow then offered another theme.<br />You’re right, said Levitt, my theme.<br />And so it went, like dogs tugging at a bone, until the philosopher Robert Nozick interrupted.<br />“How old are you, Steve?” he asked.<br />“Twenty-six.”<br />Nozick turned to the other fellows: “He’s twenty-six years old. Why does he need to have a<br />unifying theme? Maybe he’s going to be one of those people who’s so talented he doesn’t need one.<br />He’ll take a question and he’ll just answer it, and it’ll be fine.”<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />There are three basic flavors of incentive: economic, social, and moral. Very often a single incentive scheme will include all three varieties. Think about the anti-smoking campaign of recent years. The addition of a $3-per-pack “sin tax” is a strong economic incentive against buying cigarettes. The banning of cigarettes in restaurants and bars is a powerful social incentive. And when the U.S. government asserts that terrorists raise money by selling black-market cigarettes, that acts as a rather jarring moral incentive.<br />Some of the most compelling incentives yet invented have been put in place to deter crime. Considering this fact, it might be worthwhile to take a familiar question—why is there so much crime in modern society?—and stand it on its head: why isn’t there a lot more crime? After all, every one of us regularly passes up opportunities to maim, steal, and defraud. The chance of going to jail—thereby losing your job, your house, and your freedom, all of which are essentially economic penalties—is certainly a strong incentive. But when it comes to crime, people also respond to moral incentives (they don’t want to do something they consider wrong) and social incentives (they don’t want to be seen by others as doing something wrong). For certain types of misbehavior, social incentives are terribly powerful. In an echo of Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter, many American cities now fight prostitution with a “shaming” offensive, posting pictures of convicted johns (and prostitutes) on websites or on local-access television. Which is a more horrifying deterrent: a $500 fine for soliciting a prostitute or the thought of your friends and family ogling you on <a href="http://www.hookersandjohns.com/">www.HookersAndJohns.com</a>.<br />(с)<br />Q:<br />Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive.<br />Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children<br />suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15,<br />and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent<br />child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly,<br />seven million children—children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous<br />year’s 1040 forms—vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United<br />States<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />Of all the ideas that Kennedy had thought up—and would think up in the future—to fight bigotry, his Superman campaign was easily the cleverest and probably the most productive. It had the precise effect he hoped: turning the Klan’s secrecy against itself, converting precious knowledge<br />into ammunition for mockery. Instead of roping in millions of members as it had just a generation<br />earlier, the Klan lost momentum and began to founder. Although the Klan would never quite die,<br />especially down South—David Duke, a smooth-talking Klan leader from Louisiana, mounted<br />legitimate bids for the U.S. Senate and other offices—it was also never quite the same. In The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America, the historian Wyn Craig Wade calls Stetson Kennedy “the single most important factor in preventing a postwar revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the North.”<br />This did not happen because Kennedy was courageous or resolute or unflappable, even though he was all of these. It happened because Kennedy understood the raw power of information. The Ku Klux Klan was a group whose power—much like that of politicians or real-estate agents or stockbrokers—was derived in large part from the fact that it hoarded information. Once that information falls into the wrong hands (or, depending on your point of view, the right hands), much of the group’s advantage disappears.<br />(с)<br />Q:<br />Information is so powerful that the assumption of information, even if the information does not actually exist, can have a sobering effect.<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />It is common for one party to a transaction to have better information than another party. In<br />the parlance of economists, such a case is known as an information asymmetry. We accept as a<br />verity of capitalism that someone (usually an expert) knows more than someone else (usually a<br />consumer). <br />(c)<br />Q:<br />If you were to assume that many experts use their information to your detriment, you’d be<br />right. Experts depend on the fact that you don’t have the information they do. Or that you are so<br />befuddled by the complexity of their operation that you wouldn’t know what to do with the<br />information if you had it. Or that you are so in awe of their expertise that you wouldn’t dare<br />challenge them. If your doctor suggests that you have angioplasty—even though some current<br />research suggests that angioplasty often does little to prevent heart attacks—you aren’t likely to<br />think that the doctor is using his informational advantage to make a few thousand dollars for<br />himself or his buddy. But as David Hillis, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Texas<br />Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, explained to the New York Times, a doctor may have the<br />same economic incentives as a car salesman or a funeral director or a mutual fund manager: “If<br />you’re an invasive cardiologist and Joe Smith, the local internist, is sending you patients, and if you<br />tell them they don’t need the procedure, pretty soon Joe Smith doesn’t send patients anymore.”<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />Consider this true story, related by John Donohue, a law professor who in 2001 was teaching at Stanford University: “I was just about to buy a house on the Stanford campus,” he recalls, “and the seller’s agent kept telling me what a good deal I was getting because the market was about to zoom. As soon as I signed the purchase contract, he asked me if I would need an agent to sell my previous Stanford house. I told him that I would probably try to sell without an agent, and he replied, ‘John, that might work under normal conditions, but with the market tanking now, you really need the help of a broker.’”<br />Within five minutes, a zooming market had tanked. Such are the marvels that can be conjured by an agent in search of the next deal.<br />(c)<br />Q:<br />They were also a lot richer, taller, skinnier, and better-looking than average. That, at least, is what they wrote about themselves. More than 4 percent of the online daters claimed to earn more than $200,000 a year, whereas fewer than 1 percent of typical Internet users actually earn that much, suggesting that three of the four big earners were exaggerating. Male and female users typically reported that they are about an inch taller than the national average. As for weight, the men were in line with the national average, but the women typically said they weighed about twenty pounds less than the national average.<br />Most impressively, fully 70 percent of the women claimed “above average” looks, including 24 percent claiming “very good looks.” The online men too were gorgeous: 67 percent called themselves “above average,” including 21 percent with “very good looks.” This leaves only about 30 percent of the users with “average” looks, including a paltry 1 percent with “less than average” looks—which suggests that the typical online dater is either a fabulist, a narcissist, or simply resistant to the meaning of “average.” (Or perhaps they are all just realists: as any real-estate agent knows, the typical house isn’t “charming” or “fantastic,” but unless you say it is, no one will even bother to take a look.) Twenty-eight percent of the women on the site said they were blond, a number far beyond the national average, which indicates a lot of dyeing, or lying, or both. <br />Some users, meanwhile, were bracingly honest. Eight percent of the men—about 1 in every 12 conceded that they were married, with half of these 8 percent reporting that they were “happily married.” But the fact that they were honest doesn’t mean they were rash. Of the 258 “happily married” men in the sample, only 9 chose to post a picture of themselves. The reward of gaining a mistress was evidently outweighed by the risk of having your wife discover your personal ad. <br />(c)<br />Q:<br />But if there is no unifying theme to Freakonomics, there is at least a common thread running through the everyday application of Freakonomics. It has to do with thinking sensibly about how people behave in the real world. All it requires is a novel way of looking, of discerning, of measuring. This isn’t necessarily a difficult task, nor does it require supersophisticated thinking. We have essentially tried to figure out what the typical gang member or sumo wrestler figured out on his own (although we had to do so in reverse).<br />Will the ability to think such thoughts improve your life materially? Probably not. Perhaps you’ll put up a sturdy gate around your swimming pool or push your real-estate agent to work a little harder. But the net effect is likely to be more subtle than that. <br />You might become more skeptical of the conventional wisdom; you may begin looking for hints as to how things aren’t quite what they seem; perhaps you will seek out some trove of data and sift through it, balancing your intelligence and your intuition to arrive at a glimmering new idea. Some of these ideas might make you uncomfortable, even unpopular. To claim that legalized abortion resulted in a massive drop in crime will inevitably lead to explosive moral reactions. <br />(c)</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/6603759?shelf=consulting">consulting</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/6603759?shelf=educational">educational</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/6603759?shelf=knowledge">knowledge</a> </ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/114413220-sofia"></a></section><section><p>294 reviews5,940 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4842413188">July 12, 2022</a></section><div><p>I lost all faith in this book when it tried to teach you how to be a “perfect parent” and came to the conclusion that “it isn’t so much a matter of what you do as a parent; it’s who you are.” He claims that your socioeconomic status determines whether or not you will be a good parent. One of his biggest points in this chapter is that nothing a parent does (for example, taking their child to museums or reading books to their toddler) matters in the slightest. The only data he uses to draw this conclusion is a collection of test scores. Obviously a high test score does not equal a well-raised, happy child in a healthy family environment. And of course what you do as a parent matters. You can’t totally neglect your child and then claim you’re a perfect parent because of your socioeconomic status. You also cannot determine what makes a good parent based on children’s test scores alone. <p>Also, can we talk about how self-congratulatory the author is? It makes the book such a chore to read when he includes things like how he is a demigod of economics or how much he dazzled journalists with his inventiveness and how he revolutionized the field. </p><p><i>Freakonomics</i> is disappointing. </p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/114413220?shelf=nonfiction">nonfiction</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/5253785-lyn"></a></section><section><p>1,847 reviews16.3k followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/186232492">June 22, 2016</a></section><div><p>Freakonomics explores the hidden side of everything. <p>If morality describes the ideal world, then economics describes the actual world. Further, Freakonomics studies incentives and how different people in different professions respond. </p><p>Some of the case studies include bagel salesmen, sumo wrestlers, public school teachers, crack cocaine dealers and parents. This is a smart, fun book; but it's not for everyone. Through a high nerd prospective, the authors deliver a slide rule and pocket protector observation of some controversial subjects.</p><p></p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1651956-riku-sayuj"></a></section><section><p>653 reviews6,926 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/145919420">July 9, 2016</a></section><div><p><br />As the old joke goes, the questions in economics exams are the same every year; only the answers change.<p>(re-reading in prep for the super-freaks)</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1651956?shelf=economics">economics</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1651956?shelf=favorites">favorites</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1651956?shelf=media-hyped">media-hyped</a> </ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/3675162-j-l-sutton"></a></section><section><p>651 reviews826 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3008549976">November 5, 2019</a></section><div><p>I enjoyed Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything; however, I’m not yet sure if it is simply entertaining or is in any way instructive. Levitt and Dubner explore a diverse range of subjects: from linking Roe v. Wade to violent crime, cheating by teachers and sumo wrestlers to an economic model of drug dealing. <p>I’d like to think that the stories told by the authors and the way they analyze conventional thinking would put me on a path to look past easy answers. Having completed Freakonomics, do I look at the world radically differently than I did before picking up the book? It is Interesting to look at subjects from a different angle. Positing that economics and specifically the field of study now dubbed freakonomics has nothing to do with morality is an intriguing concept as well, but deciding which stories to tell is necessarily selective. Indeed, the focus is interesting. So yes I enjoyed Freakonomics, but feel I should have more to say about it and the authors’ underlying premises than I do. 3.25 stars </p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/972904-jake"></a></section><section><p>174 reviews2 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/26782649">July 9, 2008</a></section><div><p>The Basics:<p>Freakonomics isn’t really about any one thing, which makes it a bit hard to summarize. In essence, it’s economist Steven Levitt playing around with economic principles and basic statistical analysis to examine various cultural trends and phenomena. He tackles a variety of questions, from whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat (they do) to whether or not a child’s name determines his success (it doesn’t). He does this all through examining statistics and data, trying to find facts to back up various assertions rather than relying on conventional wisdom.</p><p>The Good:</p><p>As a person who is sick of the inability of most people to have a rational discourse on any even vaguely politicized topic, and a self-proclaimed skeptic, it’s nice to read anyone who endorses looking at hard data to make judgments about possibly controversial issues. Levitt does a nice job of not only proclaiming the advantages of this sort of rational outlook, but also of showing that when you actually examine the data, you sometimes get surprising results. Furthermore, he takes the time to point out that there is a difference between correlation and causation, and that many people mistake one for the other. Again, a nice touch.</p><p>The actual questions that Levitt asks are all fairly interesting, though some will appeal to certain readers more than others. In addition to cheating sumotori and strange names, Levitt also examines cheating teachers, the economics of crack dealers, and the effect of abortion on crime. Crime, in point of fact, seems to be Levitt’s greatest interest, and I wonder if he might not have been better served by writing an entire book on the relationship between economics and crime, as opposed to trying to touch on a number of different subjects that are all largely unrelated. It might have made for a tighter, more focused book.</p><p>The writing is solid; simple and easy, but solid. Despite being a book about economics, it’s not a terribly dense read, as witnessed by the fact that I finished it off in about two days. Granted, it was two days of heavy reading, but it was still two days.</p><p>The Bad:</p><p>For a book that’s so gung ho about statistics, there aren’t many statistics in here. Levitt claims that the numbers back up his research, but he rarely provides the data itself, which makes it difficult to tell how much he might be manipulating statistics to serve his own ends. It makes the book seem like it’s been dumbed down for the plebian masses, which will be very frustrating to any intelligent reader who wants to look at Levitt’s data themselves. Any reader who doesn’t feel like reading the numbers can do what most of us did in undergrad—skip the numbers sections. It’s just sloppy; I can’t imagine Levitt would do this in a formal economics paper.</p><p>The book also lacks much in the way of an unifying theme, a problem that is acknowledged within the text itself; that isn’t only sad, it’s sloppy. I doubt that a writer of Dubner’s skill and an economist of Levitt’s apparent genius (more on that below) are totally incapable of thinking of and describing some kind of unifying theme throughout this work. It just smacks of laziness, even more so when there’s a half-hearted “well, I guess you could say it’s this…” sort of thing in the epilogue. Again, I have trouble imagining that Levitt would submit a paper that was this disjointed to a serious economic publication; why should the general public be treated less seriously?</p><p>The Ugly:</p><p>The self-aggrandizement. Oh, the self-aggrandizement.</p><p>Every chapter is preceded by excerpts from an article about Levitt, which all tell us what a brilliant and unconventional economist this man is. In the introduction, we’re told that he really wasn’t that interested in writing a book, unless he got to work with this wonderful journalist who had written an article about him earlier. The cover promises that we will be “dazzled” by a “rogue economist” who explains “the hidden side of everything.”</p><p>For all of this talk of brilliance and dazzling explanations, the book doesn’t seem that brilliant. It seems like a transcript of some interesting dinner conversation with a smart guy, the sort that makes you go home and think, “hey, this stuff is interesting, I ought to go pick up a book about it.” Of course, the problem here is that you’ve already picked up the book.</p><p>The fact that Levitt wasn’t that interested in writing a book in the first place is telling; this book feels like something written by a person who needed to get the work done, but really wasn’t engaged in what he was doing. Maybe he should have waited until he was a little more motivated.</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/972904?shelf=anthropology">anthropology</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/972904?shelf=psychology">psychology</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1848403-jennifer"></a></section><section><p>70 reviews12 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/324362891">November 13, 2016</a></section><div><p>Yeah, this isn't 'rogue economics'. This is sociology. It's not a new discipline. And this is really spurious sociology that wouldn't pass muster in academia, so Levitt published it for public consumption. </p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1848403?shelf=cl">cl</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/1848403?shelf=sociology">sociology</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/633622-joe-s"></a></section><section><p>42 reviews103 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/11198408">December 29, 2007</a></section><div><p>The most interesting part of this book was the introduction. Sad, but true.<p>Four stars for presentation. The prose is nearly invisible, which I suppose in this genre is preferable to the alternative. And the content is mildly interesting, in a "Huh. Wouldja look at that" sort of way, as though you saw a duck waddling through your back yard with jam on its head.</p><p>But insofar as it's meant to be the vehicle for a larger framework for viewing the world, this book is old news. You mean shit's connected in weird, roundabout ways? Get out. Conventional wisdom is often <i>wrong</i>? Superficial analyses are lazy and innacurate? My head...is spinning.</p><p>Read some good poetry, you hipster fucks.</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/633622?shelf=nonfiction">nonfiction</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1049852415">September 9, 2014</a></section><div><p>Well,this is the most terrible book I have ever seen,it was too terrible to read.It’s so terrible that I just want to burn it as fast as I can,and it cost me 58RMB.That was 58RMB,it was to expensive for me to afford.At first.I thought it was a good book,and I spend all my money on this book.And I was pretty annoyed about this I don’t have any other money for my breakfast,lunch,and even dinner.I haven’t drink juice for the whole year.Reading this is a waste of time,no one want to see this book again.It was just rubbish,and smelly book.It tells my nothing.I even want to sell this to the writer,and ask to return my money and some extra.It cost me too much time,and too much money on it.I prefer to see a movie instead!!!</p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/614778-ahmad-sharabiani"></a></section><section><p>9,568 reviews55.6k followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2953960436">August 28, 2019</a></section><div><p>Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Freakonomics), Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner<br />Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything is the debut non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner. It was published on April 12, 2005, by William Morrow. The book has been described as melding pop culture with economics. By late 2009, the book had sold over 4 million copies worldwide. <br />The book is a collection of articles written by Levitt, an expert who had gained a reputation for applying economic theory to diverse subjects not usually covered by "traditional" economists. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner argue that economics is, at root, the study of incentives. The book's chapters cover:<br />Chapter 1: Discovering cheating as applied to teachers and sumo wrestlers, as well as a typical Washington, D.C.–area bagel business and its customers<br />Chapter 2: Information control as applied to the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents<br />Chapter 3: The economics of drug dealing, including the surprisingly low earnings and abject working conditions of crack cocaine dealers<br />Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)<br />Chapter 5: The negligible effects of good parenting on education<br />Chapter 6: The socioeconomic patterns of naming children (nominative determinism)<br />تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و هفتم ماه آگوست سال 2008 میلادی<br />عنوان: اقتصاد ناهنجاری‌های پنهان اجتماعی؛ نویسنده: استیون لویت، استپان‌ دابنر؛ مترجم: سعید مشیری؛ تهران: نشر نی‏‫، 1386؛ در 269 ص؛ شابک: 9789643129507؛ چاپ دوم 1392؛ موضوع: اقتصاد از نویسندگان امریکایی - جنبه های روانشناسی - سده 21 م<br />عنوان: اقتصاد، علم انگیزه‌ها؛ نویسنده: استیون دی‌. لویت؛ مترجم: امیرحسین توکلی؛ تهران: سبزان‏‫، 1385؛ در 197 ص؛ شابک: 9789648249674؛ عنوان روی جلد: اقتصاد علم انگیزه‌ها: مهارت‌های لازم برای کشف ابعاد پنهان پدیده‌ها؛<br />‬کتاب «فریکونومیکس» در باره ی اقتصاد، از اقتصاددان دانشگاه شیکاگو «استیون لویت» است، که نخستین بار در روز دوازدهم ماه آوریل سال 2005 میلادی منتشر شد. این کتاب تا پایان سال 2009 میلادی، بیش از چهار میلیون نسخه فروش داشته است. کتاب با عنوان «اقتصاد ناهنجاری‌های اجتماعی» توسط نشر نی و با ترجمه ی جناب «سعید مشیری»، و با عنوان: «اقتصاد، علم انگیزه‌ها»؛ با ترجمه ی جناب «امیرحسین توکلی»، منتشر شده است. کتاب چندین فصل دارد: درباره حقه زدن در شغل‌هایی مانند معلمی و کشتی‌گیران سومو؛ شباهت‌های کوکلوس‌کلان‌ و افراد معاملات ملکی؛ سیستم اقتصادی کارتل‌های مواد مخدر؛ تاثیر قانونی‌سازی سقط جنین در کاهش جرایم چندین سال بعد؛ نقش بسیار کم تربیت خوب کودکان توسط والدین در بهتر شدن آموزش و پرورششان؛ و الگوهای نامگذاری کودکان در یک جامعه. ا. شربیانی</p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/614778?shelf=21th-century">21th-century</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/614778?shelf=business">business</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/614778?shelf=economic">economic</a> </ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/66799591-amit-mishra"></a></section><section><p>231 reviews667 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2836602654">May 28, 2019</a></section><div><p>The book is totally different than ordinary books on this topic. It will bring out those facts that we don't want to eve look or discuss. It has provided many examples with those are unbelievable. It has used to comapre sumo wrestlers and school teachers. IT goona freak you all the time.<br />May the style of the wrtitng book is different but he delivers the information that is valuable to all. It will change the way you think about the modern world. </p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4427280">September 14, 2007</a></section><div><p>Levitt makes the lofty claim that economics is not swayed by moral sensibilities - it's a pure numbers game of course! However, not knowing much about him beyond his affiliation with the University of Chicago and what was written in the book, I can surmise that he is conservative, or at least what today would be inappropriately labeled "moderate." Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily...or at least I don't view it that way. Does it affect his conclusions? Absolutely. Levitt assumes his assertion that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the drop in crime experienced in the 1990s is the most controversial in the book, but I was not bothered by that conclusion at all. What did raise my ire a bit was his statement that "Minorities commit more crimes." Perhaps the pure numbers seem to show so, but upon closer examination and more careful thought, one might conclude that minorities are simply arrested and convicted more often. In many cases, Levitt does delve into the deeper "behind the scenes" reasons for why things happen, but in this glaring example, he delves no further than to admit that poverty might have a link to crime commission, and with more minorities in poverty more of them commit crimes. Might it also have a link to crime conviction? The white suburban kid who can afford a long and arduous defense, or whose father knows someone who can get the kid out of a jam, has a much better chance of having his case dismissed than a poor minority kid assigned a public defender (not to say that public defenders don't do good work - in fact many of them are some of the most amazing lawyers out there). Suffice to say the system is stacked against people in poverty and minorities, and Levitt fails to fully acknowledge this in his discussion of what causes and helps prevent crime. I wasn't so much angry as I was disappointed. When one of the brightest minds in our country can't see beyond his own prejudices, where is the hope for the rest of us? Levitt might be a genius, but he is woefully culturally incompetent. </p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/379916-aileen"></a></section><section><p>51 reviews10 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6256168">September 15, 2007</a></section><div><p>I am indebted to airport bookstores. And I am thus indebted to such an extent, that I can confess to arriving early for any flight departing from an airport with a bookstore for the sole purpose of securing a few additional minutes to browse books. If it were not for the practicalities of travelling, I would probably have bought this book much sooner than I did for I had been securing extra minutes in airport bookstores just to read through another chapter long before I actually bought it.<p>You see, my travels are laden with a heavy debate: shall I pack my extra suitcase with books or groceries? I resolve this by alternating. For one trip to the Outside, a spare duffel bag will be dedicated to books and I will shun all opportunities to visit grocery stores just to preserve that determination. On the next visit, I will carry a spare cooler (rather than duffel bag) and splurge on leg of lamb and cheeses free of artificial coloring. The ultimate effect of this system, however, is a backlog in possessing the books I'd like to read.</p><p>Finally, however, the fates aligned. I was travelling to Iowa on what I expected to be a gloriously grocery-focused trip. But my cooler broke as I was carrying it to the truck that we would drive to our local airport. There wasn't time to fix it. I was sad, of course, as I had been anticipating all the pork I was going to return with from Iowa. But I consoled myself with all those Iowa cookbooks I could now carry, and resolved not to prolong any lamentations over the cooler. And, oh, did I find myself lugging around a heavy library - such hours did I spend in Powells (there was a 1 week layover in Oregon) and Iowa City's bookstores. The day before we left Iowa, Nate told me about how much he enjoyed this book. His description renewed my interest, and I committed myself to buying a copy before we left. But, alas, we ran out of time. We didn't make it to a bookstore. It was sadder than the last-minute loss of the cooler. So when we arrived in Chicago, and had a few minutes to wait for the connecting flight to Alaska, and our gate was right next to a book kiosk, and I was pretty sure there was just enough room in my carry-on to squeeze in one more book - it was this book that I grabbed. </p><p>I raced through it. Loving each chapter. I really can't recommend it enough. A fun read, for those who like to be entertained by books. Informative too, for those that like to read for knowledge, thought, and/or discourse. But what elevates it to favorite is that it alters perception and challenges assumptions. For what it's worth, I have no regrets that I carried this book rather than Iowa pork.....and I can think of no finer testament to a good book. Then again, most of my entertainment these days revolves around pickling turnips. So if turnips aren't your thing, feel free to take my recommendation with a grain of salt....but you should still read this book.</p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1794887-cwn-annwn-13"></a></section><section><p>468 reviews67 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/101702299">May 8, 2010</a></section><div><p>I assumed Freakonomics would be a book that used statistics to debunk various societal hysterias and fearmongering in a semi-humorous way. I quickly realized what I was in for when early in the book when the authors gave their background as Harvard Jews and profiled a guy that infiltrated the KKK for the ADL. The story sounds at least partially made up. <p>It then jumped into predictable white guilt inducing trash and goes into mental contortions using "data" and sociological explanations for black criminality and low IQ scores. The writers of this book are also obsessively pro-Abortion. The only surprise was they used statistics to show you are much more likely to die from an automobile or a swimming pool than a gun. This book would probably appeal to upper middle class liberals who like to consider themselves clever and politically astute from their isolated armchairs. For me Freakonomics was a big load of garbage.</p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/11506807-alena"></a></section><section><p>6 reviews53 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1230260366">March 24, 2015</a></section><div><p>Everything I hate about popular science - alternating between over-simplified, patronising, naive or simply annoying, but worst of all, blatantly refusing to take account of the political and social implications of its findings, and being proud of it.</p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/2990642-rowena"></a></section><section><p>500 reviews2,410 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/79290139">July 29, 2013</a></section><div><p>I found this book to be really fascinating. Chapter 3- Why do drug dealers still live with their moms, was very illuminating. I like the questions they posed and the connections they came up with. I was quite surprised about the American school system, especially the fact that teachers often used cheating methods to make sure their students scored well in standardized tests.The section about how given names may influence one's future was quite gloomy in some ways, especially as there's evidence that we are judged based on our names, not on our abilities. All in all, a lot of great information.</p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/2990642?shelf=non-fiction">non-fiction</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/2990642?shelf=sociology">sociology</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/175635-trevor"></a></section><section><p>1,279 reviews21.3k followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/18202979">March 20, 2008</a></section><div><p>This is a very American book. Not just because all of the examples in it are set in the US, but also the hype about it is terribly American too. It has the tone of self congratulation that has sold a million self-help books. Which is a pity, as what it has to say is terribly interesting and amusing.<p>The stuff at the end about how the name you are born with affects your life is very interesting. Also the idea, that is clearly true, but I'd never thought of it before, that people give their daughters crazier names than their sons.</p><p>The point of this book is to say that sometimes there are very interesting correlations between things that seem quite disparate. The big one (and I haven't checked, but I assume this one didn't go down terribly well with the religious right in America) was the idea that the drop in violent crime in the US was due to the drop in violent criminals and this was due to there being less people brought up in abject poverty which is due to people being able to have access to abortion and not bringing unwanted children into the world.</p><p>The comparisons between drug dealers and McDonalds as a corporate structure is now received wisdom - Obama quotes this in his book.</p><p>Overall this is a great little read and quite fun - but really, I can't think of a single book that was improved by self-congratulation.</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/175635?shelf=behavioural-economics">behavioural-economics</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/175635?shelf=economics">economics</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/92905048-maziyar-yf"></a></section><section><p>453 reviews204 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4018895150">June 7, 2021</a></section><div><p>کتاب اقتصاد ناهنجاری های پنهان اجتماعی نوشته<b> استیون لویت </b>به بیان خود نویسنده کتابی ایست که موضوع واحدی ندارد ، و اثر و اصولا ادعایی هم در بهبود کیفیت زندگی مادی انسان ندارد ، اساس کتاب او بر مبنای شک است . <br />آنچه نویسنده به دنبال آن بوده است پیدا کردن رشته ای مشترک در کاربردهای امور روزمره است ، این که مردم در دنیای واقعی چگونه رفتار می کنند ، مساله ای مهم که آقای لویت تلاش کرده با تلفیقی از علم اقتصاد ، آمار ، جامعه شناسی و رفتار شناسی به آن پی ببرد . <br />هدف نویسنده در زیر سوال بردن عقل متعارف است ، پرسیدن سوال های بسیار تا هر فرد برای هر موضوعی با تکیه بر هوش و شناخت خود به ایده یا راه حلی برای آن برسد .<br />اگرچه بیشتر موضوعاتی که استیون لویت به آن ها پرداخته اصل و ریشه غربی دارد و برای مردم در جوامع شرق ممکن است کمی عجیب به نظر برسد اما کتاب در مجموع در تلاش برای نگریستن متفاوت و خارج از عقل متعارف برای خواننده فارغ از هر جامعه یا ملیتی ، نسبتا موفق بوده است .</p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6548813-natalie-curiousreader"></a></section><section><p>500 reviews443 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1133324893">December 22, 2014</a></section><div><p>The "experts are evil, have agendas, will trick you" talk got old real fast, especially when points are later being backed up with experts research. There's not enough discussion on the data itself, no distinction between quantitative and qualitative, and not enough discussion on the many flaws of data and how we analyze it. Pretty interesting how much he dislikes criminologists but then (if I remember correctly), only mentions the same one or two names over and over when giving examples of criminologists that had agendas/tricked the public. Also the fact that the entire book, and the issues, feels very simplified. Actually the author puts it best himself: <br />"The typical parenting expert, like experts in other fields, is prone to sound exceedingly sure of himself. <b>An expert doesn’t so much argue the various sides of an issue, as plant his flag firmly on one side. That’s because an expert who’s argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn’t get much attention.</b> An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemise (?) his homespun theory into conventional wisdom." <br />This is often how I perceived the book to be written, very simplified, without enough nuance or room for possible explanations - only one right answer. I didn't like how the book was written, how the topics where dealt with, and had a hard time taking anything seriously after all of the self-admiration and the repeated "all experts have agendas (except for us)" talk in every chapter. </p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/2926986-michael"></a></section><section><p>415 reviews5 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1340433468">July 23, 2015</a></section><div><p>Verbose, repetitive, contradictory: a book of 200-pages that could be condensed to 3-5 pages. <p>Titles that vary from scintillating to insulting, yet are followed by a chapter that doesn't support the title bar. </p><p>Anecdotal stories, mistaken for data or hypothesis. Interpretations and hypotheses are drawn from data that could still be interpreted in multiple ways.</p><p>The book claims that it will link the unexpected, but frankly, links the obvious, with many "well duh" moments.</p><p>Needless generations of lists that help bulk out the book, but provide little further benefit for study.</p><p>Each chapter begins with unnecessary aggrandisement of the author for the statistician, that jars the flow of the book.</p><p>Overall, a good demonstration of why "social sciences" are in no way close to being "science", and instead should be termed social philosophy.</p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/6237864-nandakishore-mridula"></a></section><section><p>1,238 reviews2,206 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3272550135">April 12, 2020</a></section><div><p>I once read somewhere that statistics can be used to prove anything. This book is evidence for the same.<p>Steven D. Levitt, a "rogue" economist by his own admission, and who confesses that he is terrible at traditional economics, uses the methods of statistical analysis to look at the unexplored relations between things in society - like the resemblance between Japanese sumo wrestlers and American schoolteachers, why real-estate agents are similar to the Ku Klux Klan, whether parenting has any effect on how a child turns out... etc, etc. By the confession of the authors themselves, the book has no central theme - it just explores the "hidden side of everything". Levitt and Dubner say that economics has the tools to provide the right answers, but only a very few people ask the right questions.</p><p>Some of his findings do have credibility (like that of schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers cheating to advance their careers, though I did not find anything earthshaking in those); some seem to be refreshing new perspectives (the similarity between the drug mafia and corporate houses, for example); some seem trite to the point of silliness (like the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents being undone through the availability of information); and some seem to have some substance, but require further study of all parameters (how the station in life and the behaviour of parents affect the children). However, One finding, which is lauded by most reviewers of the book as startling, I found I could take with only a very large lump of salt: that the reduction in crime in the USA in the 1990's is due to the legalisation of abortions in 1973. The authors assume that crime is committed by unwanted children whom their mothers could not get rid of, and once they were allowed to, problem was solved! This, while at the same time arguing gun control is not having much effect either way while increase in police force and punishment is a deterrent, seems to me peddling to the right liberal narrative - at the same time totally ignoring the socioeconomic factors behind crime.</p><p>As far as I am concerned, any kind of simplistic conclusions drawn from statistical data is suspect. Let me make this clear with an example close to my heart.</p><p>In India, the state of Kerala in the south (from where I hail) tops in almost all Human Development Indices (HDI) such as health, education etc. However, the state also has the highest morbidity levels. What does this mean? Whether higher levels of general health leads to higher incidence of life-style diseases, or simply that since the healthcare and education are good, more people see doctors? Similarly, Kerala is fourth in India on the basis of reported crime. Does this mean that a higher level of education increases criminal tendencies, or that with a more aware population, more crimes get reported? Heated arguments take place on these questions regularly with no clear conclusions - because there are too many factors to make clear inferences.</p><p>So does that mean Levitt and Dubner are talking through their hat, and are best ignored? No, in my opinion. This book is worth reading, if only for the unusual perspective. Also, it prompts us to think beyond the glib statistics the "experts" spout to intimidate the poor layperson, and see for ourselves.</p></p></div><section><ul></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/60866073-baba"></a></section><section><p>3,504 reviews736 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2736593612">September 22, 2020</a></section><div><p>Levitt and Dubner's ground breaking look at the world through the eyes of collated data that tells a story in itself, like their shocking discovery of what caused a huge drop in crime in America in the 1990s. Reading this a decade on I still find this so absorbing and interesting which is just as much as a result of their writing style as their great content.<br />[image error]<br />Just remember assume nothing... question everything! 8 out of 12.<br /></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/60866073?shelf=non-fiction">non-fiction</a></ul></section><hr /></section></article></div><div><article><div><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/117918586-feli"></a></section><section><p>82 reviews40 followers</p></section></div><section><section><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3426421844">July 15, 2021</a></section><div><p>4,5/5 ⭐<p><b>“The conventional wisdom is often wrong.”</b></p><p>As an economics student, this really helped me to open my mind to learn how to analyse everyday situations from a economic point of view. And it also showed me a new branch of economics that has become my favourite.</p><p>If you want to learn the basics on economics, this book is for you. Some people might find it a little bit basic, but I think it should be taken as an introduction to the topic. More than teaching you how economics work, which is no easy task, I believe its purpose is to try and show how for every situation you can find an economic assumption to back it up.</p><p>What should be also taken into account when reading this book is that to prove most of his theories Levitt relies on statistics, which are part of economics as a science but not pure economics itself. Basically, do not expect to become an expert on the subject after reading it.</p><p>Anyways, I found the book pretty entertaining and well written. Highly recommend it.</p></p></div><section><ul><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/117918586?shelf=2020">2020</a> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/117918586?shelf=non-fiction">non-fiction</a></ul></section></section></article></div></div>||||I|||| * Home
 * My Books
 * Browse ▾
 + Recommendations
 + Choice Awards
 + Giveaways
 + New Releases
 + Lists
 + Explore
 + News & Interviews

 Loading...

 * Community ▾
 + Groups
 + Quotes
 + Ask the Author
 + People
 * Sign in
 * Join
 Jump to ratings and reviews
 Want to read
 Kindle $4.56
 Rate this book

 Freakonomics

 Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

 Steven D. Levitt , Stephen J. Dubner

 4.00
 814,299 ratings 18,282 reviews
 Want to read
 Kindle $4.56
 Rate this book
 Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime? Freakonomics will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.

 These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much heralded scholar who studies the stuff and riddles of everyday life -- from cheating and crime to sports and child rearing -- and whose conclusions regularly turn the conventional wisdom on its head. He usually begins with a mountain of data and a simple, unasked question. Some of these questions concern life-and-death issues; others have an admittedly freakish quality. Thus the new field of study contained in this book: freakonomics.

 Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives -- how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. In Freakonomics, they set out to explore the hidden side of ... well, everything. The inner workings of a crack gang. The truth about real-estate agents. The myths of campaign finance. The telltale marks of a cheating schoolteacher. The secrets of the Ku Klux Klan.

 What unites all these stories is a belief that the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and -- if the right questions are asked -- is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through all the clutter.

 Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.
 (front flap)
 Genres Nonfiction Economics Business Science Psychology Sociology Finance
 ...more

 268 pages, Hardcover

 First published April 12, 2005

 Book details & editions

 About the author

 Steven D. Levitt

 27 books 3,617 followers
 Steven David "Steve" Levitt is a prominent American economist best known for his work on crime, in particular on the link between legalized abortion and crime rates. Winner of the 2003 John Bates Clark Medal, he is currently the Alvin H. Baum Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, director of the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and co-editor of the Journal of Political Economy published by the University of Chicago Press. He is one of the most well known economists amongst laymen, having co-authored the best-selling book Freakonomics (2005). Levitt was chosen as one of Time Magazine's "100 People Who Shape Our World" in 2006.
 -Wikipedia

 Ratings & Reviews

 What do you think?
 Rate this book
 Write a Review

 Friends & Following

 Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

 Community Reviews

 4.00
 814,299 ratings 18,282 reviews
 5 stars
 292,987 (35%)
 4 stars
 307,590 (37%)
 3 stars
 156,414 (19%)
 2 stars
 36,703 (4%)
 1 star
 20,605 (2%)
 Search review text
 Filters
 Displaying 1 - 30 of 18,282 reviews
 Jim
 15 reviews 19 followers
 February 24, 2008
 This was an interesting book. I say it was interesting because I started liking it (a lot) when I first read it, as time passed I liked it less and less. In that way I call it a candy book, tastes good at first but leaves you worse off for reading it.

 In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant. Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt. Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothesis. I wanted more. It was like reading War and Peace and discovering that you read the abridged version and in fact the book wasn't 100 pages long. This disappointment may have come from my engineering background and my strong desire to really understand economics. This book didn't offer any of that, only a titillating glimpse of the economics.

 In some regards one may think my single start rating is to harsh. As mind candy this book was quite good. I did enjoy reading it at the time. Whats more, it did encourage me to study real economics. I am currently enrolled in a masters program in economics and this book did play a very small roll in that decision process. However, as I learn more about economics I realize how shallow the book in fact was.

 While this is not the forum for a comprehensive review of the topics presented in the book, or an analysis of how good the economics in Freekanomics are, a review in "Journal of Economic Literature (Vol XLV, Dec. 2007 pp 973)" quotes Livitt as saying: "There is no question I have written some ridiculous papers." The article then goes on to quote a paper by Noam Scheibler(2007) describing Livitt's comparing some of his papers to the fashion industry. "Sometimes you write papers and they're less about the actual result, more about your vision of how you think the profession should be. And so I think some of my most ridiculous papers actually fall in the high-fashion category."

 candy economics
 383 likes
 39 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Manny
 Author 28 books 13.4k followers
 June 26, 2022
 I loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century. Crime rates had been rising for decades, and people were really worried about what would happen if the trend continued. Then, suddenly, they peaked and started to decline. Why? There were a bunch of theories, all of them superficially plausible.

 Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after Roe v Wade . Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science.

 The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct.

 I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction.
 _________________________
 [Update, Jun 26 2022]

 In view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I wonder which Republican-led states have started planning for the increased levels of crime that are to be expected fifteen to twenty years from now, and which ones have decided it won't be necessary. In the second case, it would be interesting to know why not. A couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling:

 a) this is liberal science and can be discounted as political messaging,

 b) the Rapture will occur first.
 japanese science well-i-think-its-funny
 326 likes
 72 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Rachel
 54 reviews 40 followers
 July 9, 2007
 Sure, this book was a compelling read that offered us all some great amo for cocktail party conversation. But ultimately I think most of what Leavitt claims is crap.

 He dodges accoutability with the disclaimer about his book NOT being a scholarly work, but then goes on to drop statistics, theories and expert opinions. These assertions laid, he doesn't provide readers with enough information to critically examine his perspectives.

 Ultimately I have a problem with the unquestioned, unaccoutable role of the public intellectual. Leavitt dances around with his PhD on his sleeve, but is never subject to peer review or any sort of academic criticism. I think it's irresponsible.
 non-fiction
 279 likes
 12 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Emily May
 1,921 reviews 290k followers
 March 20, 2016
 I won't deny that this is a very interesting, compelling and thought-provoking book. Even for someone like me whose general response to economics is *snore*. And it's mainly because Freakonomics is not really about economics, but involves applying statistical analysis to many social issues and questions.

 Very easy to read. Lots of shocking discoveries that seem weighted in fact - Roe v. Wade is responsible for a huge drop in crime? No wonder some people are pissed off with this book. It's really quite fascinating to look at the power of incentives - economic, social and moral - and examine cause and effect.

 One of my favourite personal experiences with silly notions of cause and effect is diet soft drinks. I confess to being a bit of a coke zero addict. It's not great for you (the sodium makes you more thirsty, a lot of potassium can lead to palpitations, and a lot of phosphoric acid has been linked to kidney problems) but I've lost count of how many times people have cited statistics showing that diet soda drinkers are more likely to be overweight and diabetic. Of course they are! If you're overweight and diabetic you're more likely to drink the low-calorie, sugar-free alternatives, aren't you? So strange how people assume it is A that causes B and ignore the possibility of it being the opposite.

 Anyway, my issue with this entertaining book is that I think it may be - to be frank - bullshit. Not all of it, sure. But definitely some of it. The writers state their points very confidently (some might say with a touch too much smarm) but it requires you to take a lot of what they say on faith. And some of the jumps they make between statistics and conclusion don't quite add up for me. I know many others have felt the same.

 But here was the thing that really got me, the thing that made me smell bullshit: I'm fairly confident something they said is not rooted in any truth. And let's be clear: I am a total noob when it comes to most statistics and economics, so if even I can spot something a bit off , it really makes me question the rest of it. Here it is:
 Women's rights advocates, for instance, have hyped the incidence of sexual assault, claiming that one in three American women will in her lifetime be a victim of rape or attempted rape. (The actual figure is more like one in eight - but the advocates know it would take a callous person to publicly dispute their claims.)

 This, if true, implies two things. 1) Those advocating women's rights are using false data, therefore undermining their credibility, and 2) They have invented a statistic to intentionally support their cause, knowing no one will dispute it (absolutely bizarre that the author thinks no one is disputing women's rights claims, but okay...)

 Well, being a feminist and someone who has spent an awful lot of time reading and writing about women's rights organizations and statistics, my eyes narrowed a little. See, in all my research, I've never seen or heard any claim that "1 in 3 women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape". I have heard the "1 in 3" statistic, but a somewhat different one.

 So, obviously, I went to look it up. I spent a couple of hours going through Google and every women's rights organization page I could find, trying to uncover a single case where that statistic was used. I found exactly: none . The only other thing I found that mentioned it was a Time article attempting to debunk so-called "feminist myths": http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-my...

 The statistic the authors appear to have misquoted is that "1 in 3 women will experience sexual violence, or physical violence by an intimate partner", which is used often. Sexual violence here is an ambiguous term, leaving room for wider interpretations and probably explaining why, with the addition of domestic violence into the statistic, the number is at "1 in 3" instead of "1 in 8".

 Furthermore, not only have the authors misrepresented the statistical claim itself, but they have also suggested that women's rights advocates have pulled the numbers from thin air to make a point - on the contrary, this is a study conducted by the World Health Organization on the "Global and regional estimates of violence against women".

 I like the idea of the book, but this really put me off. Perhaps it was a one-off error that I managed to spot. Perhaps. Either way, I started to be less impressed by the facts and statistics they presented. Still, very enjoyable book for the most part.
 2016 nonfiction
 147 likes
 13 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Mohammed-Makram
 1,388 reviews 2,743 followers
 October 25, 2022

 مبدئيا هناك خدعة في عنوان الكتاب

 فالكتاب ليس في الاقتصاد و لكن في علم الاجتماع و لأن المؤلف رجل إقتصاد و لأن الاقتصاد هو أحد فروع علم االإجتماع فقد استخدم ما تعلمه في تحليل بعض الظواهر الاجتماعية بأدوات إقتصادية.

 مجموعة من المواضيع بعضها شيق جدا و بعضها ممل أو مغرق في المحلية لدرجة لا تجعلنا نتفاعل معه.
 ما هي الأشياء المشتركة بين معلمى المدارس و مصارعى السومو
 يبدو سؤالا ساذجا و لكن الإجابة سهلة.
 هي أسئلة من نوعية ما وجه الشبه بين البطيخ و الموز و تأتى الإجابة بأن كل منهما لا يصلح كعصير برتقال.

 إجابة السؤال اللوذعى هنا هي أن معلمى المدارس و مصارعى السومو كل منهما يغش في النتائج و ليس هذا هو المقصود بل المقصود هو أنه يمكن كشف هذا الغش بنفس الطريقة و هي طريقة حسابية إحصائية طورها المؤلف و طبقها على أمثلة بالكتاب.



 من الحكايات الطريفة حكاية عن موظف كان يحضر معه خبز الإفطار و بعض الجبن ليفطر هو و زملاء العمل كل يوم و تطور الموضوع حتى صار يحضر معه الإفطار لكل الشركة ثم استقال و أصبح المسئول عن توريد الخبز لبعض كبرى الشركات حتى أنه كان يوزع حوالى ثمانية آلاف رغيف يوميا.
 سؤال أخر لوذعى:
 كيف تتشابه جمعية الكوكلوس كلان مع الوسطاء العقاريين
 و لمن يعرف فإن جماعة الكوكلوس كلان هي جماعة إرهابية أمريكية نشأت بعد الإتحاد مباشرة و نشطت ضد الأقليات الإسبانية و السود و الكاثوليك و أي شخص غير أبيض أوروبى الأصل بروتستانتى محافظ و يحكى الكاتب عنها حكايات شيقة جدا جديرة بالقراءة.

 المهم أن وجه الشبه بينهم و بين الوسطاء العقاريين هو استثمار الخوف لدى الخصم و استخدام معلومات لا تملكها لإجبارك على اتخاذ رد فعل في مصلحتهم و يدلل الكاتب على ذلك بعشرات الحكايات اللذيذة جدا.


 سؤال أخر :
 لماذا لا يزال تجار المخدرات يعيشون مع امهاتهم

 برغم أن تجارة المخدرات تدر أموالا طائلة كما نرى في الروايات و الأفلام الا أن الأموال لا توزع على الجميع بعدالة كما يحدث في شركتك تماما. نعم فهى تجارة رأسمالية أيضا.



 يأخذك الكاتب في جولة غريبة و مثيرة في عالم الجريمة و تجارة المخدرات مطبقا نظرياته العجيبة و احصائياته المثيرة ليدلل على أ�� صغار تجار المخدرات يتمنى أحدهم لو يعمل حارس أمن أو أي عمل أخر لو لم يطمع في الوصول لدور الزعيم و من ثم التنعم بالمزيد من الأموال حتى يقتل أو يقبض عليه.

 جزء أخر عن علاقة الإجهاض بالجريمة قد لا يكون مقنعا في عالمنا العربى ثم جزء أخير عن العنصرية التي لا تزال بصماتها واضحة و أثارها تنعكس على الواقع الأمريكي حتى الأن.

 الكتاب مفيد و جيد في معظم أجزائه و أرشحه للقراءة.
 economy
 119 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Justin
 33 reviews 19 followers
 July 18, 2007
 I guess some people don't like this book because it's not centered around one theme. Instead, it's more about the seemingly diffuse academic work of one of the authors Steven D. Levitt (the other author is a journalist, Stephen J. Dubner). Levitt is something of an economist but more like a social scientist using the tools of Microeconomics applied to other fields that happen to catch his interest (often having something to do with cheating, corruption, crime, etc.). In the back of the book he mentions how he considers himself a student of Thomas Schelling who is kind of like the father of Game Theory (strategy theory?), except much more of a 'man of ideas' than what one might think of when one thinks about game theory today, which is much more mathematical.

 Anyway, as for the book itself, I thought it was really great. I really like what Levitt is doing as far as using the tools of Microeconomics in other fields. One of my intellectual heroes (I only have a few) is Kenneth Waltz who did the exact same thing in the field of International Relations in the '70's and wrote the seminal book The Theory of International Politics , which pretty much the single-handedly invented defensive (neo) realism. More generally, I think Economics is probably the most formalized of the social sciences and the one to which others should esteem. A lot of the Political Science field concerned with both voter behavior and how legislatures work is now pretty formalized as well, and, I, for one, think this is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could think it's not (good) unless they a)think the scientific method cannot be used to analyze human behavior; or b)have a visceral aversion to mathematical languages. Actually, I am one of the latter, but I, at least, see the value in having a formalized language to work with.

 As for the book itself, there's some maybe-controversial things in there like Levitt did some work that showed that the legalization of abortion in the U.S. (Roe v. Wade) was one of the main reasons that crime in the U.S. dropped in the '90's and continues at the same rates today. He stands behind it pretty hardily though and it doesn't seem like he has a moral agenda at all. Some might argue that the best writers are those who are best able to disguise their moral agenda, but considering he writes about all kinds of not-very-serious things like how sumo wrestling in Japan is probably corrupt as far as matches g,o and there's stuff in there about how real estate agents sell their houses for more than they sell their customers' houses (which, may or may not be surprising), I really don't think he has a hidden pro-life agenda.

 Anyway, there's a bunch of stuff in there (the book), hence the 'freak' in Freakonomics. It's well-written. It's not dry. It's written for a lay audience. I recommend it. Read it and feel the power of social science! ;-)
 113 likes
 2 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Andrew Muckle
 12 reviews 6 followers
 April 1, 2011
 Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ on a bike! Could these two tossers be any more smarmy and self indulgent? Levitt and Dubner and probably the kind of smart arse nerds who snigger at you because you don't understand linux but sneer at you because you've actually spoken to a woman.

 This book is much like the Emperor's New Clothes, people are so scared about being left out if they don't like or understand it because some sandal wearing hippy in the Guardian said it's 'This year's Das Capital' or some such bollocks that they feel compelled to join some sort of unspoken club where they all jizz themselves silly over a book that effectively is 300+ pages of pure condescension.

 Only buy this book if a facist regime ever seizes control of your country and instigates a book burning policy.
 109 likes
 11 comments
 Like
 Comment
 ☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣
 2,377 reviews 18.8k followers
 January 27, 2018
 Extremely enlightening! Worthy of 15 stars out of 5! This is a book about the world and not about any science in particular. It's about learning to question the given and see beyond the obvious. An extremely useful gift in the misguiding modern world.

 Yeah, populistic much too much but neverthless compulsively readable. A definite revisit and reread.

 Q:
 As Levitt sees it, economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions. His particular gift is the ability to ask such questions. For instance: If drug dealers make so much money, why do they still live with their mothers? Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What really caused crime rates to plunge during the past decade? Do real-estate agents have their clients’ best interests at heart? Why do black parents give their children names that may hurt their career prospects? Do schoolteachers cheat to meet high-stakes testing standards? Is sumo wrestling corrupt?
 And how does a homeless man in tattered clothing afford $50 headphones?
 (c)
 Q:
 the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking.
 (c)
 Q:
 “Experts”—from criminologists to real-estate agents-use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda. However, they can be beat at their own game. And in the face of the Internet, their informational advantage is shrinking every day-as evidenced by, among other things, the falling price of coffins and life-insurance premiums.
 Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so. If you learn how to look at data in the right way, you can explain riddles that otherwise might have seemed impossible. Because there is nothing like the sheer power of numbers to scrub away layers of confusion and contradiction.
 So the aim of this book is to explore the hidden side of . . . everything. This may occasionally be a frustrating exercise. It may sometimes feel as if we are peering at the world through a straw or even staring into a funhouse mirror; but the idea is to look at many different scenarios and examine them in a way they have rarely been examined.
 ...
 Steven Levitt may not fully believe in himself, but he does believe in this: teachers and criminals and real-estate agents may lie, and politicians, and even CIA analysts. But numbers don’t.
 (c)
 Q:
 Levitt had an interview for the Society of Fellows, the venerable intellectual clubhouse at
 Harvard that pays young scholars to do their own work, for three years, with no commitments.
 Levitt felt he didn’t stand a chance. For starters, he didn’t consider himself an intellectual. He would
 be interviewed over dinner by the senior fellows, a collection of world-renowned philosophers,
 scientists, and historians. He worried he wouldn’t have enough conversation to last even the first
 course.
 Disquietingly, one of the senior fellows said to Levitt, “I’m having a hard time seeing the
 unifying theme of your work. Could you explain it?”
 Levitt was stymied. He had no idea what his unifying theme was, or if he even had one.
 Amartya Sen, the future Nobel-winning economist, jumped in and neatly summarized what he
 saw as Levitt’s theme.
 Yes, Levitt said eagerly, that’s my theme.
 Another fellow then offered another theme.
 You’re right, said Levitt, my theme.
 And so it went, like dogs tugging at a bone, until the philosopher Robert Nozick interrupted.
 “How old are you, Steve?” he asked.
 “Twenty-six.”
 Nozick turned to the other fellows: “He’s twenty-six years old. Why does he need to have a
 unifying theme? Maybe he’s going to be one of those people who’s so talented he doesn’t need one.
 He’ll take a question and he’ll just answer it, and it’ll be fine.”
 (c)
 Q:
 There are three basic flavors of incentive: economic, social, and moral. Very often a single incentive scheme will include all three varieties. Think about the anti-smoking campaign of recent years. The addition of a $3-per-pack “sin tax” is a strong economic incentive against buying cigarettes. The banning of cigarettes in restaurants and bars is a powerful social incentive. And when the U.S. government asserts that terrorists raise money by selling black-market cigarettes, that acts as a rather jarring moral incentive.
 Some of the most compelling incentives yet invented have been put in place to deter crime. Considering this fact, it might be worthwhile to take a familiar question—why is there so much crime in modern society?—and stand it on its head: why isn’t there a lot more crime? After all, every one of us regularly passes up opportunities to maim, steal, and defraud. The chance of going to jail—thereby losing your job, your house, and your freedom, all of which are essentially economic penalties—is certainly a strong incentive. But when it comes to crime, people also respond to moral incentives (they don’t want to do something they consider wrong) and social incentives (they don’t want to be seen by others as doing something wrong). For certain types of misbehavior, social incentives are terribly powerful. In an echo of Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter, many American cities now fight prostitution with a “shaming” offensive, posting pictures of convicted johns (and prostitutes) on websites or on local-access television. Which is a more horrifying deterrent: a $500 fine for soliciting a prostitute or the thought of your friends and family ogling you on www.HookersAndJohns.com .
 (с)
 Q:
 Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive.
 Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children
 suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15,
 and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent
 child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly,
 seven million children—children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous
 year’s 1040 forms—vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United
 States
 (c)
 Q:
 Of all the ideas that Kennedy had thought up—and would think up in the future—to fight bigotry, his Superman campaign was easily the cleverest and probably the most productive. It had the precise effect he hoped: turning the Klan’s secrecy against itself, converting precious knowledge
 into ammunition for mockery. Instead of roping in millions of members as it had just a generation
 earlier, the Klan lost momentum and began to founder. Although the Klan would never quite die,
 especially down South—David Duke, a smooth-talking Klan leader from Louisiana, mounted
 legitimate bids for the U.S. Senate and other offices—it was also never quite the same. In The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America, the historian Wyn Craig Wade calls Stetson Kennedy “the single most important factor in preventing a postwar revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the North.”
 This did not happen because Kennedy was courageous or resolute or unflappable, even though he was all of these. It happened because Kennedy understood the raw power of information. The Ku Klux Klan was a group whose power—much like that of politicians or real-estate agents or stockbrokers—was derived in large part from the fact that it hoarded information. Once that information falls into the wrong hands (or, depending on your point of view, the right hands), much of the group’s advantage disappears.
 (с)
 Q:
 Information is so powerful that the assumption of information, even if the information does not actually exist, can have a sobering effect.
 (c)
 Q:
 It is common for one party to a transaction to have better information than another party. In
 the parlance of economists, such a case is known as an information asymmetry. We accept as a
 verity of capitalism that someone (usually an expert) knows more than someone else (usually a
 consumer).
 (c)
 Q:
 If you were to assume that many experts use their information to your detriment, you’d be
 right. Experts depend on the fact that you don’t have the information they do. Or that you are so
 befuddled by the complexity of their operation that you wouldn’t know what to do with the
 information if you had it. Or that you are so in awe of their expertise that you wouldn’t dare
 challenge them. If your doctor suggests that you have angioplasty—even though some current
 research suggests that angioplasty often does little to prevent heart attacks—you aren’t likely to
 think that the doctor is using his informational advantage to make a few thousand dollars for
 himself or his buddy. But as David Hillis, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Texas
 Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, explained to the New York Times, a doctor may have the
 same economic incentives as a car salesman or a funeral director or a mutual fund manager: “If
 you’re an invasive cardiologist and Joe Smith, the local internist, is sending you patients, and if you
 tell them they don’t need the procedure, pretty soon Joe Smith doesn’t send patients anymore.”
 (c)
 Q:
 Consider this true story, related by John Donohue, a law professor who in 2001 was teaching at Stanford University: “I was just about to buy a house on the Stanford campus,” he recalls, “and the seller’s agent kept telling me what a good deal I was getting because the market was about to zoom. As soon as I signed the purchase contract, he asked me if I would need an agent to sell my previous Stanford house. I told him that I would probably try to sell without an agent, and he replied, ‘John, that might work under normal conditions, but with the market tanking now, you really need the help of a broker.’”
 Within five minutes, a zooming market had tanked. Such are the marvels that can be conjured by an agent in search of the next deal.
 (c)
 Q:
 They were also a lot richer, taller, skinnier, and better-looking than average. That, at least, is what they wrote about themselves. More than 4 percent of the online daters claimed to earn more than $200,000 a year, whereas fewer than 1 percent of typical Internet users actually earn that much, suggesting that three of the four big earners were exaggerating. Male and female users typically reported that they are about an inch taller than the national average. As for weight, the men were in line with the national average, but the women typically said they weighed about twenty pounds less than the national average.
 Most impressively, fully 70 percent of the women claimed “above average” looks, including 24 percent claiming “very good looks.” The online men too were gorgeous: 67 percent called themselves “above average,” including 21 percent with “very good looks.” This leaves only about 30 percent of the users with “average” looks, including a paltry 1 percent with “less than average” looks—which suggests that the typical online dater is either a fabulist, a narcissist, or simply resistant to the meaning of “average.” (Or perhaps they are all just realists: as any real-estate agent knows, the typical house isn’t “charming” or “fantastic,” but unless you say it is, no one will even bother to take a look.) Twenty-eight percent of the women on the site said they were blond, a number far beyond the national average, which indicates a lot of dyeing, or lying, or both.
 Some users, meanwhile, were bracingly honest. Eight percent of the men—about 1 in every 12 conceded that they were married, with half of these 8 percent reporting that they were “happily married.” But the fact that they were honest doesn’t mean they were rash. Of the 258 “happily married” men in the sample, only 9 chose to post a picture of themselves. The reward of gaining a mistress was evidently outweighed by the risk of having your wife discover your personal ad.
 (c)
 Q:
 But if there is no unifying theme to Freakonomics, there is at least a common thread running through the everyday application of Freakonomics. It has to do with thinking sensibly about how people behave in the real world. All it requires is a novel way of looking, of discerning, of measuring. This isn’t necessarily a difficult task, nor does it require supersophisticated thinking. We have essentially tried to figure out what the typical gang member or sumo wrestler figured out on his own (although we had to do so in reverse).
 Will the ability to think such thoughts improve your life materially? Probably not. Perhaps you’ll put up a sturdy gate around your swimming pool or push your real-estate agent to work a little harder. But the net effect is likely to be more subtle than that.
 You might become more skeptical of the conventional wisdom; you may begin looking for hints as to how things aren’t quite what they seem; perhaps you will seek out some trove of data and sift through it, balancing your intelligence and your intuition to arrive at a glimmering new idea. Some of these ideas might make you uncomfortable, even unpopular. To claim that legalized abortion resulted in a massive drop in crime will inevitably lead to explosive moral reactions.
 (c)
 consulting educational knowledge
 ...more
 92 likes
 5 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Sofia
 294 reviews 5,940 followers
 July 12, 2022
 I lost all faith in this book when it tried to teach you how to be a “perfect parent” and came to the conclusion that “it isn’t so much a matter of what you do as a parent; it’s who you are.” He claims that your socioeconomic status determines whether or not you will be a good parent. One of his biggest points in this chapter is that nothing a parent does (for example, taking their child to museums or reading books to their toddler) matters in the slightest. The only data he uses to draw this conclusion is a collection of test scores. Obviously a high test score does not equal a well-raised, happy child in a healthy family environment. And of course what you do as a parent matters. You can’t totally neglect your child and then claim you’re a perfect parent because of your socioeconomic status. You also cannot determine what makes a good parent based on children’s test scores alone.

 Also, can we talk about how self-congratulatory the author is? It makes the book such a chore to read when he includes things like how he is a demigod of economics or how much he dazzled journalists with his inventiveness and how he revolutionized the field.

 Freakonomics is disappointing.
 nonfiction
 74 likes
 4 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Lyn
 1,847 reviews 16.3k followers
 June 22, 2016
 Freakonomics explores the hidden side of everything.

 If morality describes the ideal world, then economics describes the actual world. Further, Freakonomics studies incentives and how different people in different professions respond.

 Some of the case studies include bagel salesmen, sumo wrestlers, public school teachers, crack cocaine dealers and parents. This is a smart, fun book; but it's not for everyone. Through a high nerd prospective, the authors deliver a slide rule and pocket protector observation of some controversial subjects.

 71 likes
 11 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Riku Sayuj
 653 reviews 6,926 followers
 July 9, 2016

 As the old joke goes, the questions in economics exams are the same every year; only the answers change.

 (re-reading in prep for the super-freaks)
 economics favorites media-hyped
 ...more
 65 likes
 5 comments
 Like
 Comment
 J.L. Sutton
 651 reviews 826 followers
 November 5, 2019
 I enjoyed Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything; however, I’m not yet sure if it is simply entertaining or is in any way instructive. Levitt and Dubner explore a diverse range of subjects: from linking Roe v. Wade to violent crime, cheating by teachers and sumo wrestlers to an economic model of drug dealing.

 I’d like to think that the stories told by the authors and the way they analyze conventional thinking would put me on a path to look past easy answers. Having completed Freakonomics, do I look at the world radically differently than I did before picking up the book? It is Interesting to look at subjects from a different angle. Positing that economics and specifically the field of study now dubbed freakonomics has nothing to do with morality is an intriguing concept as well, but deciding which stories to tell is necessarily selective. Indeed, the focus is interesting. So yes I enjoyed Freakonomics, but feel I should have more to say about it and the authors’ underlying premises than I do. 3.25 stars
 61 likes
 2 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Jake
 174 reviews 2 followers
 July 9, 2008
 The Basics:

 Freakonomics isn’t really about any one thing, which makes it a bit hard to summarize. In essence, it’s economist Steven Levitt playing around with economic principles and basic statistical analysis to examine various cultural trends and phenomena. He tackles a variety of questions, from whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat (they do) to whether or not a child’s name determines his success (it doesn’t). He does this all through examining statistics and data, trying to find facts to back up various assertions rather than relying on conventional wisdom.

 The Good:

 As a person who is sick of the inability of most people to have a rational discourse on any even vaguely politicized topic, and a self-proclaimed skeptic, it’s nice to read anyone who endorses looking at hard data to make judgments about possibly controversial issues. Levitt does a nice job of not only proclaiming the advantages of this sort of rational outlook, but also of showing that when you actually examine the data, you sometimes get surprising results. Furthermore, he takes the time to point out that there is a difference between correlation and causation, and that many people mistake one for the other. Again, a nice touch.

 The actual questions that Levitt asks are all fairly interesting, though some will appeal to certain readers more than others. In addition to cheating sumotori and strange names, Levitt also examines cheating teachers, the economics of crack dealers, and the effect of abortion on crime. Crime, in point of fact, seems to be Levitt’s greatest interest, and I wonder if he might not have been better served by writing an entire book on the relationship between economics and crime, as opposed to trying to touch on a number of different subjects that are all largely unrelated. It might have made for a tighter, more focused book.

 The writing is solid; simple and easy, but solid. Despite being a book about economics, it’s not a terribly dense read, as witnessed by the fact that I finished it off in about two days. Granted, it was two days of heavy reading, but it was still two days.

 The Bad:

 For a book that’s so gung ho about statistics, there aren’t many statistics in here. Levitt claims that the numbers back up his research, but he rarely provides the data itself, which makes it difficult to tell how much he might be manipulating statistics to serve his own ends. It makes the book seem like it’s been dumbed down for the plebian masses, which will be very frustrating to any intelligent reader who wants to look at Levitt’s data themselves. Any reader who doesn’t feel like reading the numbers can do what most of us did in undergrad—skip the numbers sections. It’s just sloppy; I can’t imagine Levitt would do this in a formal economics paper.

 The book also lacks much in the way of an unifying theme, a problem that is acknowledged within the text itself; that isn’t only sad, it’s sloppy. I doubt that a writer of Dubner’s skill and an economist of Levitt’s apparent genius (more on that below) are totally incapable of thinking of and describing some kind of unifying theme throughout this work. It just smacks of laziness, even more so when there’s a half-hearted “well, I guess you could say it’s this…” sort of thing in the epilogue. Again, I have trouble imagining that Levitt would submit a paper that was this disjointed to a serious economic publication; why should the general public be treated less seriously?

 The Ugly:

 The self-aggrandizement. Oh, the self-aggrandizement.

 Every chapter is preceded by excerpts from an article about Levitt, which all tell us what a brilliant and unconventional economist this man is. In the introduction, we’re told that he really wasn’t that interested in writing a book, unless he got to work with this wonderful journalist who had written an article about him earlier. The cover promises that we will be “dazzled” by a “rogue economist” who explains “the hidden side of everything.”

 For all of this talk of brilliance and dazzling explanations, the book doesn’t seem that brilliant. It seems like a transcript of some interesting dinner conversation with a smart guy, the sort that makes you go home and think, “hey, this stuff is interesting, I ought to go pick up a book about it.” Of course, the problem here is that you’ve already picked up the book.

 The fact that Levitt wasn’t that interested in writing a book in the first place is telling; this book feels like something written by a person who needed to get the work done, but really wasn’t engaged in what he was doing. Maybe he should have waited until he was a little more motivated.
 anthropology psychology
 59 likes
 4 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Jennifer
 70 reviews 12 followers
 November 13, 2016
 Yeah, this isn't 'rogue economics'. This is sociology. It's not a new discipline. And this is really spurious sociology that wouldn't pass muster in academia, so Levitt published it for public consumption.
 cl sociology
 51 likes
 2 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Joe S
 42 reviews 103 followers
 December 29, 2007
 The most interesting part of this book was the introduction. Sad, but true.

 Four stars for presentation. The prose is nearly invisible, which I suppose in this genre is preferable to the alternative. And the content is mildly interesting, in a "Huh. Wouldja look at that" sort of way, as though you saw a duck waddling through your back yard with jam on its head.

 But insofar as it's meant to be the vehicle for a larger framework for viewing the world, this book is old news. You mean shit's connected in weird, roundabout ways? Get out. Conventional wisdom is often wrong ? Superficial analyses are lazy and innacurate? My head...is spinning.

 Read some good poetry, you hipster fucks.
 nonfiction
 47 likes
 2 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Cbzlqxw
 1 review 6 followers
 September 9, 2014
 Well,this is the most terrible book I have ever seen,it was too terrible to read.It’s so terrible that I just want to burn it as fast as I can,and it cost me 58RMB.That was 58RMB,it was to expensive for me to afford.At first.I thought it was a good book,and I spend all my money on this book.And I was pretty annoyed about this I don’t have any other money for my breakfast,lunch,and even dinner.I haven’t drink juice for the whole year.Reading this is a waste of time,no one want to see this book again.It was just rubbish,and smelly book.It tells my nothing.I even want to sell this to the writer,and ask to return my money and some extra.It cost me too much time,and too much money on it.I prefer to see a movie instead!!!
 45 likes
 14 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Ahmad Sharabiani
 9,568 reviews 55.6k followers
 August 28, 2019
 Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Freakonomics), Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
 Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything is the debut non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner. It was published on April 12, 2005, by William Morrow. The book has been described as melding pop culture with economics. By late 2009, the book had sold over 4 million copies worldwide.
 The book is a collection of articles written by Levitt, an expert who had gained a reputation for applying economic theory to diverse subjects not usually covered by "traditional" economists. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner argue that economics is, at root, the study of incentives. The book's chapters cover:
 Chapter 1: Discovering cheating as applied to teachers and sumo wrestlers, as well as a typical Washington, D.C.–area bagel business and its customers
 Chapter 2: Information control as applied to the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents
 Chapter 3: The economics of drug dealing, including the surprisingly low earnings and abject working conditions of crack cocaine dealers
 Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
 Chapter 5: The negligible effects of good parenting on education
 Chapter 6: The socioeconomic patterns of naming children (nominative determinism)
 تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و هفتم ماه آگوست سال 2008 میلادی
 عنوان: اقتصاد ناهنجاری‌های پنهان اجتماعی؛ نویسنده: استیون لویت، استپان‌ دابنر؛ مترجم: سعید مشیری؛ تهران: نشر نی‏‫، 1386؛ در 269 ص؛ شابک: 9789643129507؛ چاپ دوم 1392؛ موضوع: اقتصاد از نویسندگان امریکایی - جنبه های روانشناسی - سده 21 م
 عنوان: اقتصاد، علم انگیزه‌ها؛ نویسنده: استیون دی‌. لویت؛ مترجم: امیرحسین توکلی؛ تهران: سبزان‏‫، 1385؛ در 197 ص؛ شابک: 9789648249674؛ عنوان روی جلد: اقتصاد علم انگیزه‌ها: مهارت‌های لازم برای کشف ابعاد پنهان پدیده‌ها؛
 ‬کتاب «فریکونومیکس» در باره ی اقتصاد، از اقتصاددان دانشگاه شیکاگو «استیون لویت» است، که نخستین بار در روز دوازدهم ماه آوریل سال 2005 میلادی منتشر شد. این کتاب تا پایان سال 2009 میلادی، بیش از چهار میلیون نسخه فروش داشته است. کتاب با عنوان «اقتصاد ناهنجاری‌های اجتماعی» توسط نشر نی و با ترجمه ی جناب «سعید مشیری»، و با عنوان: «اقتصاد، علم انگیزه‌ها»؛ با ترجمه ی جناب «امیرحسین توکلی»، منتشر شده است. کتاب چندین فصل دارد: درباره حقه زدن در شغل‌هایی مانند معلمی و کشتی‌گیران سومو؛ شباهت‌های کوکلوس‌کلان‌ و افراد معاملات ملکی؛ سیستم اقتصادی کارتل‌های مواد مخدر؛ تاثیر قانونی‌سازی سقط جنین در کاهش جرایم چندین سال بعد؛ نقش بسیار کم تربیت خوب کودکان توسط والدین در بهتر شدن آموزش و پرورششان؛ و الگوهای نامگذاری کودکان در یک جامعه. ا. شربیانی
 21th-century business economic
 ...more
 42 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Amit Mishra
 231 reviews 667 followers
 May 28, 2019
 The book is totally different than ordinary books on this topic. It will bring out those facts that we don't want to eve look or discuss. It has provided many examples with those are unbelievable. It has used to comapre sumo wrestlers and school teachers. IT goona freak you all the time.
 May the style of the wrtitng book is different but he delivers the information that is valuable to all. It will change the way you think about the modern world.
 39 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Elise
 52 reviews 4 followers
 September 14, 2007
 Levitt makes the lofty claim that economics is not swayed by moral sensibilities - it's a pure numbers game of course! However, not knowing much about him beyond his affiliation with the University of Chicago and what was written in the book, I can surmise that he is conservative, or at least what today would be inappropriately labeled "moderate." Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily...or at least I don't view it that way. Does it affect his conclusions? Absolutely. Levitt assumes his assertion that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the drop in crime experienced in the 1990s is the most controversial in the book, but I was not bothered by that conclusion at all. What did raise my ire a bit was his statement that "Minorities commit more crimes." Perhaps the pure numbers seem to show so, but upon closer examination and more careful thought, one might conclude that minorities are simply arrested and convicted more often. In many cases, Levitt does delve into the deeper "behind the scenes" reasons for why things happen, but in this glaring example, he delves no further than to admit that poverty might have a link to crime commission, and with more minorities in poverty more of them commit crimes. Might it also have a link to crime conviction? The white suburban kid who can afford a long and arduous defense, or whose father knows someone who can get the kid out of a jam, has a much better chance of having his case dismissed than a poor minority kid assigned a public defender (not to say that public defenders don't do good work - in fact many of them are some of the most amazing lawyers out there). Suffice to say the system is stacked against people in poverty and minorities, and Levitt fails to fully acknowledge this in his discussion of what causes and helps prevent crime. I wasn't so much angry as I was disappointed. When one of the brightest minds in our country can't see beyond his own prejudices, where is the hope for the rest of us? Levitt might be a genius, but he is woefully culturally incompetent.
 38 likes
 7 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Aileen
 51 reviews 10 followers
 September 15, 2007
 I am indebted to airport bookstores. And I am thus indebted to such an extent, that I can confess to arriving early for any flight departing from an airport with a bookstore for the sole purpose of securing a few additional minutes to browse books. If it were not for the practicalities of travelling, I would probably have bought this book much sooner than I did for I had been securing extra minutes in airport bookstores just to read through another chapter long before I actually bought it.

 You see, my travels are laden with a heavy debate: shall I pack my extra suitcase with books or groceries? I resolve this by alternating. For one trip to the Outside, a spare duffel bag will be dedicated to books and I will shun all opportunities to visit grocery stores just to preserve that determination. On the next visit, I will carry a spare cooler (rather than duffel bag) and splurge on leg of lamb and cheeses free of artificial coloring. The ultimate effect of this system, however, is a backlog in possessing the books I'd like to read.

 Finally, however, the fates aligned. I was travelling to Iowa on what I expected to be a gloriously grocery-focused trip. But my cooler broke as I was carrying it to the truck that we would drive to our local airport. There wasn't time to fix it. I was sad, of course, as I had been anticipating all the pork I was going to return with from Iowa. But I consoled myself with all those Iowa cookbooks I could now carry, and resolved not to prolong any lamentations over the cooler. And, oh, did I find myself lugging around a heavy library - such hours did I spend in Powells (there was a 1 week layover in Oregon) and Iowa City's bookstores. The day before we left Iowa, Nate told me about how much he enjoyed this book. His description renewed my interest, and I committed myself to buying a copy before we left. But, alas, we ran out of time. We didn't make it to a bookstore. It was sadder than the last-minute loss of the cooler. So when we arrived in Chicago, and had a few minutes to wait for the connecting flight to Alaska, and our gate was right next to a book kiosk, and I was pretty sure there was just enough room in my carry-on to squeeze in one more book - it was this book that I grabbed.

 I raced through it. Loving each chapter. I really can't recommend it enough. A fun read, for those who like to be entertained by books. Informative too, for those that like to read for knowledge, thought, and/or discourse. But what elevates it to favorite is that it alters perception and challenges assumptions. For what it's worth, I have no regrets that I carried this book rather than Iowa pork.....and I can think of no finer testament to a good book. Then again, most of my entertainment these days revolves around pickling turnips. So if turnips aren't your thing, feel free to take my recommendation with a grain of salt....but you should still read this book.
 37 likes
 6 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Cwn_annwn_13
 468 reviews 67 followers
 May 8, 2010
 I assumed Freakonomics would be a book that used statistics to debunk various societal hysterias and fearmongering in a semi-humorous way. I quickly realized what I was in for when early in the book when the authors gave their background as Harvard Jews and profiled a guy that infiltrated the KKK for the ADL. The story sounds at least partially made up.

 It then jumped into predictable white guilt inducing trash and goes into mental contortions using "data" and sociological explanations for black criminality and low IQ scores. The writers of this book are also obsessively pro-Abortion. The only surprise was they used statistics to show you are much more likely to die from an automobile or a swimming pool than a gun. This book would probably appeal to upper middle class liberals who like to consider themselves clever and politically astute from their isolated armchairs. For me Freakonomics was a big load of garbage.
 35 likes
 5 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Alena
 6 reviews 53 followers
 March 24, 2015
 Everything I hate about popular science - alternating between over-simplified, patronising, naive or simply annoying, but worst of all, blatantly refusing to take account of the political and social implications of its findings, and being proud of it.
 33 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Rowena
 500 reviews 2,410 followers
 July 29, 2013
 I found this book to be really fascinating. Chapter 3- Why do drug dealers still live with their moms, was very illuminating. I like the questions they posed and the connections they came up with. I was quite surprised about the American school system, especially the fact that teachers often used cheating methods to make sure their students scored well in standardized tests.The section about how given names may influence one's future was quite gloomy in some ways, especially as there's evidence that we are judged based on our names, not on our abilities. All in all, a lot of great information.
 non-fiction sociology
 30 likes
 4 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Trevor
 1,279 reviews 21.3k followers
 March 20, 2008
 This is a very American book. Not just because all of the examples in it are set in the US, but also the hype about it is terribly American too. It has the tone of self congratulation that has sold a million self-help books. Which is a pity, as what it has to say is terribly interesting and amusing.

 The stuff at the end about how the name you are born with affects your life is very interesting. Also the idea, that is clearly true, but I'd never thought of it before, that people give their daughters crazier names than their sons.

 The point of this book is to say that sometimes there are very interesting correlations between things that seem quite disparate. The big one (and I haven't checked, but I assume this one didn't go down terribly well with the religious right in America) was the idea that the drop in violent crime in the US was due to the drop in violent criminals and this was due to there being less people brought up in abject poverty which is due to people being able to have access to abortion and not bringing unwanted children into the world.

 The comparisons between drug dealers and McDonalds as a corporate structure is now received wisdom - Obama quotes this in his book.

 Overall this is a great little read and quite fun - but really, I can't think of a single book that was improved by self-congratulation.
 behavioural-economics economics
 29 likes
 7 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Maziyar Yf
 453 reviews 204 followers
 June 7, 2021
 کتاب اقتصاد ناهنجاری های پنهان اجتماعی نوشته استیون لویت به بیان خود نویسنده کتابی ایست که موضوع واحدی ندارد ، و اثر و اصولا ادعایی هم در بهبود کیفیت زندگی مادی انسان ندارد ، اساس کتاب او بر مبنای شک است .
 آنچه نویسنده به دنبال آن بوده است پیدا کردن رشته ای مشترک در کاربردهای امور روزمره است ، این که مردم در دنیای واقعی چگونه رفتار می کنند ، مساله ای مهم که آقای لویت تلاش کرده با تلفیقی از علم اقتصاد ، آمار ، جامعه شناسی و رفتار شناسی به آن پی ببرد .
 هدف نویسنده در زیر سوال بردن عقل متعارف است ، پرسیدن سوال های بسیار تا هر فرد برای هر موضوعی با تکیه بر هوش و شناخت خود به ایده یا راه حلی برای آن برسد .
 اگرچه بیشتر موضوعاتی که استیون لویت به آن ها پرداخته اصل و ریشه غربی دارد و برای مردم در جوامع شرق ممکن است کمی عجیب به نظر برسد اما کتاب در مجموع در تلاش برای نگریستن متفاوت و خارج از عقل متعارف برای خواننده فارغ از هر جامعه یا ملیتی ، نسبتا موفق بوده است .
 28 likes
 4 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Natalie (CuriousReader)
 500 reviews 443 followers
 December 22, 2014
 The "experts are evil, have agendas, will trick you" talk got old real fast, especially when points are later being backed up with experts research. There's not enough discussion on the data itself, no distinction between quantitative and qualitative, and not enough discussion on the many flaws of data and how we analyze it. Pretty interesting how much he dislikes criminologists but then (if I remember correctly), only mentions the same one or two names over and over when giving examples of criminologists that had agendas/tricked the public. Also the fact that the entire book, and the issues, feels very simplified. Actually the author puts it best himself:
 "The typical parenting expert, like experts in other fields, is prone to sound exceedingly sure of himself. An expert doesn’t so much argue the various sides of an issue, as plant his flag firmly on one side. That’s because an expert who’s argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn’t get much attention. An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemise (?) his homespun theory into conventional wisdom."
 This is often how I perceived the book to be written, very simplified, without enough nuance or room for possible explanations - only one right answer. I didn't like how the book was written, how the topics where dealt with, and had a hard time taking anything seriously after all of the self-admiration and the repeated "all experts have agendas (except for us)" talk in every chapter.
 27 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Michael
 415 reviews 5 followers
 July 23, 2015
 Verbose, repetitive, contradictory: a book of 200-pages that could be condensed to 3-5 pages.

 Titles that vary from scintillating to insulting, yet are followed by a chapter that doesn't support the title bar.

 Anecdotal stories, mistaken for data or hypothesis. Interpretations and hypotheses are drawn from data that could still be interpreted in multiple ways.

 The book claims that it will link the unexpected, but frankly, links the obvious, with many "well duh" moments.

 Needless generations of lists that help bulk out the book, but provide little further benefit for study.

 Each chapter begins with unnecessary aggrandisement of the author for the statistician, that jars the flow of the book.

 Overall, a good demonstration of why "social sciences" are in no way close to being "science", and instead should be termed social philosophy.
 27 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Nandakishore Mridula
 1,238 reviews 2,206 followers
 April 12, 2020
 I once read somewhere that statistics can be used to prove anything. This book is evidence for the same.

 Steven D. Levitt, a "rogue" economist by his own admission, and who confesses that he is terrible at traditional economics, uses the methods of statistical analysis to look at the unexplored relations between things in society - like the resemblance between Japanese sumo wrestlers and American schoolteachers, why real-estate agents are similar to the Ku Klux Klan, whether parenting has any effect on how a child turns out... etc, etc. By the confession of the authors themselves, the book has no central theme - it just explores the "hidden side of everything". Levitt and Dubner say that economics has the tools to provide the right answers, but only a very few people ask the right questions.

 Some of his findings do have credibility (like that of schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers cheating to advance their careers, though I did not find anything earthshaking in those); some seem to be refreshing new perspectives (the similarity between the drug mafia and corporate houses, for example); some seem trite to the point of silliness (like the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents being undone through the availability of information); and some seem to have some substance, but require further study of all parameters (how the station in life and the behaviour of parents affect the children). However, One finding, which is lauded by most reviewers of the book as startling, I found I could take with only a very large lump of salt: that the reduction in crime in the USA in the 1990's is due to the legalisation of abortions in 1973. The authors assume that crime is committed by unwanted children whom their mothers could not get rid of, and once they were allowed to, problem was solved! This, while at the same time arguing gun control is not having much effect either way while increase in police force and punishment is a deterrent, seems to me peddling to the right liberal narrative - at the same time totally ignoring the socioeconomic factors behind crime.

 As far as I am concerned, any kind of simplistic conclusions drawn from statistical data is suspect. Let me make this clear with an example close to my heart.

 In India, the state of Kerala in the south (from where I hail) tops in almost all Human Development Indices (HDI) such as health, education etc. However, the state also has the highest morbidity levels. What does this mean? Whether higher levels of general health leads to higher incidence of life-style diseases, or simply that since the healthcare and education are good, more people see doctors? Similarly, Kerala is fourth in India on the basis of reported crime. Does this mean that a higher level of education increases criminal tendencies, or that with a more aware population, more crimes get reported? Heated arguments take place on these questions regularly with no clear conclusions - because there are too many factors to make clear inferences.

 So does that mean Levitt and Dubner are talking through their hat, and are best ignored? No, in my opinion. This book is worth reading, if only for the unusual perspective. Also, it prompts us to think beyond the glib statistics the "experts" spout to intimidate the poor layperson, and see for ourselves.
 26 likes
 3 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Baba
 3,504 reviews 736 followers
 September 22, 2020
 Levitt and Dubner's ground breaking look at the world through the eyes of collated data that tells a story in itself, like their shocking discovery of what caused a huge drop in crime in America in the 1990s. Reading this a decade on I still find this so absorbing and interesting which is just as much as a result of their writing style as their great content.
 [image error]
 Just remember assume nothing... question everything! 8 out of 12.
 non-fiction
 25 likes
 Like
 Comment
 Feli
 82 reviews 40 followers
 July 15, 2021
 4,5/5 ⭐

 “The conventional wisdom is often wrong.”

 As an economics student, this really helped me to open my mind to learn how to analyse everyday situations from a economic point of view. And it also showed me a new branch of economics that has become my favourite.

 If you want to learn the basics on economics, this book is for you. Some people might find it a little bit basic, but I think it should be taken as an introduction to the topic. More than teaching you how economics work, which is no easy task, I believe its purpose is to try and show how for every situation you can find an economic assumption to back it up.

 What should be also taken into account when reading this book is that to prove most of his theories Levitt relies on statistics, which are part of economics as a science but not pure economics itself. Basically, do not expect to become an expert on the subject after reading it.

 Anyways, I found the book pretty entertaining and well written. Highly recommend it.
 2020 non-fiction
 23 likes
 2 comments
 Like
 Comment
 Displaying 1 - 30 of 18,282 reviews
 More reviews and ratings

 Join the discussion

 246
 quotes
 69
 discussions
 19
 questions

 Can't find what you're looking for?

 Get help and learn more about the design.
 Help center

 Company

 * About us
 * Careers
 * Terms
 * Privacy
 * Interest Based Ads
 * Ad Preferences
 * Help

 Work With Us

 * Authors
 * Advertise
 * Authors & ads blog
 * API

 Connect

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

 © 2023 Goodreads, Inc.

February 24, 2008   This was an interesting book. I say it was interesting because I started liking it (a lot) when I first read it, as time passed I liked it less and less. In that way I call it a candy book, tastes good at first but leaves you worse off for reading it. In my opinion, there are two problems with the book: First, Stephen Dubner comes across as a sycophant. Way to much of the book is spent praising Levitt. Secondly, I was disappointed in the lack of detail provided about Livitt's hypothesis. I wanted more. It was like reading War and Peace and discovering that you read the abridged version and in fact the book wasn't 100 pages long. This disappointment may have come from my engineering background and my strong desire to really understand economics. This book didn't offer any of that, only a titillating glimpse of the economics.  In some regards one may think my single start rating is to harsh. As mind candy this book was quite good. I did enjoy reading it at the time. Whats more, it did encourage me to study real economics. I am currently enrolled in a masters program in economics and this book did play a very small roll in that decision process. However, as I learn more about economics I realize how shallow the book in fact was.  While this is not the forum for a comprehensive review of the topics presented in the book, or an analysis of how good the economics in Freekanomics are, a review in "Journal of Economic Literature (Vol XLV, Dec. 2007 pp 973)" quotes Livitt as saying: "There is no question I have written some ridiculous papers." The article then goes on to quote a paper by Noam Scheibler(2007) describing Livitt's comparing some of his papers to the fashion industry. "Sometimes you write papers and they're less about the actual result, more about your vision of how you think the profession should be. And so I think some of my most ridiculous papers actually fall in the high-fashion category."     candy economics               Author  28 books13.4k followers     June 26, 2022   I loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century. Crime rates had been rising for decades, and people were really worried about what would happen if the trend continued. Then, suddenly, they peaked and started to decline. Why? There were a bunch of theories, all of them superficially plausible.Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after Roe v Wade. Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science. The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct. I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction._________________________ [Update, Jun 26 2022]  In view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I wonder which Republican-led states have started planning for the increased levels of crime that are to be expected fifteen to twenty years from now, and which ones have decided it won't be necessary. In the second case, it would be interesting to know why not. A couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling: a) this is liberal science and can be discounted as political messaging, b) the Rapture will occur first.     japanese science well-i-think-its-funny               54 reviews40 followers     July 9, 2007   Sure, this book was a compelling read that offered us all some great amo for cocktail party conversation. But ultimately I think most of what Leavitt claims is crap. He dodges accoutability with the disclaimer about his book NOT being a scholarly work, but then goes on to drop statistics, theories and expert opinions. These assertions laid, he doesn't provide readers with enough information to critically examine his perspectives. Ultimately I have a problem with the unquestioned, unaccoutable role of the public intellectual. Leavitt dances around with his PhD on his sleeve, but is never subject to peer review or any sort of academic criticism. I think it's irresponsible.      non-fiction               1,921 reviews290k followers     March 20, 2016   I won't deny that this is a very interesting, compelling and thought-provoking book. Even for someone like me whose general response to economics is *snore*. And it's mainly because Freakonomics is not really about economics, but involves applying statistical analysis to many social issues and questions. Very easy to read. Lots of shocking discoveries that seem weighted in fact - Roe v. Wade is responsible for a huge drop in crime? No wonder some people are pissed off with this book. It's really quite fascinating to look at the power of incentives - economic, social and moral - and examine cause and effect.  One of my favourite personal experiences with silly notions of cause and effect is diet soft drinks. I confess to being a bit of a coke zero addict. It's not great for you (the sodium makes you more thirsty, a lot of potassium can lead to palpitations, and a lot of phosphoric acid has been linked to kidney problems) but I've lost count of how many times people have cited statistics showing that diet soda drinkers are more likely to be overweight and diabetic. Of course they are! If you're overweight and diabetic you're more likely to drink the low-calorie, sugar-free alternatives, aren't you? So strange how people assume it is A that causes B and ignore the possibility of it being the opposite. Anyway, my issue with this entertaining book is that I think it may be - to be frank - bullshit. Not all of it, sure. But definitely some of it. The writers state their points very confidently (some might say with a touch too much smarm) but it requires you to take a lot of what they say on faith. And some of the jumps they make between statistics and conclusion don't quite add up for me. I know many others have felt the same. But here was the thing that really got me, the thing that made me smell bullshit: I'm fairly confident something they said is not rooted in any truth. And let's be clear: I am a total noob when it comes to most statistics and economics, so if even I can spot something a bit off, it really makes me question the rest of it. Here it is: 
 Women's rights advocates, for instance, have hyped the incidence of sexual assault, claiming that one in three American women will in her lifetime be a victim of rape or attempted rape. (The actual figure is more like one in eight - but the advocates know it would take a callous person to publicly dispute their claims.)
 This, if true, implies two things. 1) Those advocating women's rights are using false data, therefore undermining their credibility, and 2) They have invented a statistic to intentionally support their cause, knowing no one will dispute it (absolutely bizarre that the author thinks no one is disputing women's rights claims, but okay...)Well, being a feminist and someone who has spent an awful lot of time reading and writing about women's rights organizations and statistics, my eyes narrowed a little. See, in all my research, I've never seen or heard any claim that "1 in 3 women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape". I have heard the "1 in 3" statistic, but a somewhat different one. So, obviously, I went to look it up. I spent a couple of hours going through Google and every women's rights organization page I could find, trying to uncover a single case where that statistic was used. I found exactly: none. The only other thing I found that mentioned it was a Time article attempting to debunk so-called "feminist myths": http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-my...  The statistic the authors appear to have misquoted is that "1 in 3 women will experience sexual violence, or physical violence by an intimate partner", which is used often. Sexual violence here is an ambiguous term, leaving room for wider interpretations and probably explaining why, with the addition of domestic violence into the statistic, the number is at "1 in 3" instead of "1 in 8".  Furthermore, not only have the authors misrepresented the statistical claim itself, but they have also suggested that women's rights advocates have pulled the numbers from thin air to make a point - on the contrary, this is a study conducted by the World Health Organization on the "Global and regional estimates of violence against women". I like the idea of the book, but this really put me off. Perhaps it was a one-off error that I managed to spot. Perhaps. Either way, I started to be less impressed by the facts and statistics they presented. Still, very enjoyable book for the most part.     2016 nonfiction               1,388 reviews2,743 followers     October 25, 2022     مبدئيا هناك خدعة في عنوان الكتابفالكتاب ليس في الاقتصاد و لكن في علم الاجتماع و لأن المؤلف رجل إقتصاد و لأن الاقتصاد هو أحد فروع علم االإجتماع فقد استخدم ما تعلمه في تحليل بعض الظواهر الاجتماعية بأدوات إقتصادية. مجموعة من المواضيع بعضها شيق جدا و بعضها ممل أو مغرق في المحلية لدرجة لا تجعلنا نتفاعل معه.  ما هي الأشياء المشتركة بين معلمى المدارس و مصارعى السومو يبدو سؤالا ساذجا و لكن الإجابة سهلة.هي أسئلة من نوعية ما وجه الشبه بين البطيخ و الموز و تأتى الإجابة بأن كل منهما لا يصلح كعصير برتقال.إجابة السؤال اللوذعى هنا هي أن معلمى المدارس و مصارعى السومو كل منهما يغش في النتائج و ليس هذا هو المقصود بل المقصود هو أنه يمكن كشف هذا الغش بنفس الطريقة و هي طريقة حسابية إحصائية طورها المؤلف و طبقها على أمثلة بالكتاب.     من الحكايات الطريفة حكاية عن موظف كان يحضر معه خبز الإفطار و بعض الجبن ليفطر هو و زملاء العمل كل يوم و تطور الموضوع حتى صار يحضر معه الإفطار لكل الشركة ثم استقال و أصبح المسئول عن توريد الخبز لبعض كبرى الشركات حتى أنه كان يوزع حوالى ثمانية آلاف رغيف يوميا.سؤال أخر لوذعى:  كيف تتشابه جمعية الكوكلوس كلان مع الوسطاء العقاريين و لمن يعرف فإن جماعة الكوكلوس كلان هي جماعة إرهابية أمريكية نشأت بعد الإتحاد مباشرة و نشطت ضد الأقليات الإسبانية و السود و الكاثوليك و أي شخص غير أبيض أوروبى الأصل بروتستانتى محافظ و يحكى الكاتب عنها حكايات شيقة جدا جديرة بالقراءة.المهم أن وجه الشبه بينهم و بين الوسطاء العقاريين هو استثمار الخوف لدى الخصم و استخدام معلومات لا تملكها لإجبارك على اتخاذ رد فعل في مصلحتهم و يدلل الكاتب على ذلك بعشرات الحكايات اللذيذة جدا.    سؤال أخر :   لماذا لا يزال تجار المخدرات يعيشون مع امهاتهم 
برغم أن تجارة المخدرات تدر أموالا طائلة كما نرى في الروايات و الأفلام الا أن الأموال لا توزع على الجميع بعدالة كما يحدث في شركتك تماما. نعم فهى تجارة رأسمالية أيضا.    يأخذك الكاتب في جولة غريبة و مثيرة في عالم الجريمة و تجارة المخدرات مطبقا نظرياته العجيبة و احصائياته المثيرة ليدلل على أ�� صغار تجار المخدرات يتمنى أحدهم لو يعمل حارس أمن أو أي عمل أخر لو لم يطمع في الوصول لدور الزعيم و من ثم التنعم بالمزيد من الأموال حتى يقتل أو يقبض عليه. جزء أخر عن علاقة الإجهاض بالجريمة قد لا يكون مقنعا في عالمنا العربى ثم جزء أخير عن العنصرية التي لا تزال بصماتها واضحة و أثارها تنعكس على الواقع الأمريكي حتى الأن. الكتاب مفيد و جيد في معظم أجزائه و أرشحه للقراءة.      economy               33 reviews19 followers     July 18, 2007   I guess some people don't like this book because it's not centered around one theme. Instead, it's more about the seemingly diffuse academic work of one of the authors Steven D. Levitt (the other author is a journalist, Stephen J. Dubner). Levitt is something of an economist but more like a social scientist using the tools of Microeconomics applied to other fields that happen to catch his interest (often having something to do with cheating, corruption, crime, etc.). In the back of the book he mentions how he considers himself a student of Thomas Schelling who is kind of like the father of Game Theory (strategy theory?), except much more of a 'man of ideas' than what one might think of when one thinks about game theory today, which is much more mathematical. Anyway, as for the book itself, I thought it was really great. I really like what Levitt is doing as far as using the tools of Microeconomics in other fields. One of my intellectual heroes (I only have a few) is Kenneth Waltz who did the exact same thing in the field of International Relations in the '70's and wrote the seminal book The Theory of International Politics, which pretty much the single-handedly invented defensive (neo) realism. More generally, I think Economics is probably the most formalized of the social sciences and the one to which others should esteem. A lot of the Political Science field concerned with both voter behavior and how legislatures work is now pretty formalized as well, and, I, for one, think this is a good thing. I don't see how anyone could think it's not (good) unless they a)think the scientific method cannot be used to analyze human behavior; or b)have a visceral aversion to mathematical languages. Actually, I am one of the latter, but I, at least, see the value in having a formalized language to work with. As for the book itself, there's some maybe-controversial things in there like Levitt did some work that showed that the legalization of abortion in the U.S. (Roe v. Wade) was one of the main reasons that crime in the U.S. dropped in the '90's and continues at the same rates today. He stands behind it pretty hardily though and it doesn't seem like he has a moral agenda at all. Some might argue that the best writers are those who are best able to disguise their moral agenda, but considering he writes about all kinds of not-very-serious things like how sumo wrestling in Japan is probably corrupt as far as matches g,o and there's stuff in there about how real estate agents sell their houses for more than they sell their customers' houses (which, may or may not be surprising), I really don't think he has a hidden pro-life agenda.  Anyway, there's a bunch of stuff in there (the book), hence the 'freak' in Freakonomics. It's well-written. It's not dry. It's written for a lay audience. I recommend it. Read it and feel the power of social science! ;-)                   12 reviews6 followers     April 1, 2011   Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ on a bike! Could these two tossers be any more smarmy and self indulgent? Levitt and Dubner and probably the kind of smart arse nerds who snigger at you because you don't understand linux but sneer at you because you've actually spoken to a woman. This book is much like the Emperor's New Clothes, people are so scared about being left out if they don't like or understand it because some sandal wearing hippy in the Guardian said it's 'This year's Das Capital' or some such bollocks that they feel compelled to join some sort of unspoken club where they all jizz themselves silly over a book that effectively is 300+ pages of pure condescension. Only buy this book if a facist regime ever seizes control of your country and instigates a book burning policy.                   2,377 reviews18.8k followers     January 27, 2018   Extremely enlightening! Worthy of 15 stars out of 5! This is a book about the world and not about any science in particular. It's about learning to question the given and see beyond the obvious. An extremely useful gift in the misguiding modern world.Yeah, populistic much too much but neverthless compulsively readable. A definite revisit and reread. Q:As Levitt sees it, economics is a science with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions. His particular gift is the ability to ask such questions. For instance: If drug dealers make so much money, why do they still live with their mothers? Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What really caused crime rates to plunge during the past decade? Do real-estate agents have their clients’ best interests at heart? Why do black parents give their children names that may hurt their career prospects? Do schoolteachers cheat to meet high-stakes testing standards? Is sumo wrestling corrupt?And how does a homeless man in tattered clothing afford $50 headphones?(c)Q:the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and—if the right questions are asked—is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking.(c)Q:“Experts”—from criminologists to real-estate agents-use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda. However, they can be beat at their own game. And in the face of the Internet, their informational advantage is shrinking every day-as evidenced by, among other things, the falling price of coffins and life-insurance premiums.Knowing what to measure and how to measure it makes a complicated world much less so. If you learn how to look at data in the right way, you can explain riddles that otherwise might have seemed impossible. Because there is nothing like the sheer power of numbers to scrub away layers of confusion and contradiction.So the aim of this book is to explore the hidden side of . . . everything. This may occasionally be a frustrating exercise. It may sometimes feel as if we are peering at the world through a straw or even staring into a funhouse mirror; but the idea is to look at many different scenarios and examine them in a way they have rarely been examined....Steven Levitt may not fully believe in himself, but he does believe in this: teachers and criminals and real-estate agents may lie, and politicians, and even CIA analysts. But numbers don’t.(c)Q:Levitt had an interview for the Society of Fellows, the venerable intellectual clubhouse atHarvard that pays young scholars to do their own work, for three years, with no commitments.Levitt felt he didn’t stand a chance. For starters, he didn’t consider himself an intellectual. He wouldbe interviewed over dinner by the senior fellows, a collection of world-renowned philosophers,scientists, and historians. He worried he wouldn’t have enough conversation to last even the firstcourse.Disquietingly, one of the senior fellows said to Levitt, “I’m having a hard time seeing theunifying theme of your work. Could you explain it?”Levitt was stymied. He had no idea what his unifying theme was, or if he even had one.Amartya Sen, the future Nobel-winning economist, jumped in and neatly summarized what hesaw as Levitt’s theme.Yes, Levitt said eagerly, that’s my theme.Another fellow then offered another theme.You’re right, said Levitt, my theme.And so it went, like dogs tugging at a bone, until the philosopher Robert Nozick interrupted.“How old are you, Steve?” he asked.“Twenty-six.”Nozick turned to the other fellows: “He’s twenty-six years old. Why does he need to have aunifying theme? Maybe he’s going to be one of those people who’s so talented he doesn’t need one.He’ll take a question and he’ll just answer it, and it’ll be fine.”(c)Q:There are three basic flavors of incentive: economic, social, and moral. Very often a single incentive scheme will include all three varieties. Think about the anti-smoking campaign of recent years. The addition of a $3-per-pack “sin tax” is a strong economic incentive against buying cigarettes. The banning of cigarettes in restaurants and bars is a powerful social incentive. And when the U.S. government asserts that terrorists raise money by selling black-market cigarettes, that acts as a rather jarring moral incentive.Some of the most compelling incentives yet invented have been put in place to deter crime. Considering this fact, it might be worthwhile to take a familiar question—why is there so much crime in modern society?—and stand it on its head: why isn’t there a lot more crime? After all, every one of us regularly passes up opportunities to maim, steal, and defraud. The chance of going to jail—thereby losing your job, your house, and your freedom, all of which are essentially economic penalties—is certainly a strong incentive. But when it comes to crime, people also respond to moral incentives (they don’t want to do something they consider wrong) and social incentives (they don’t want to be seen by others as doing something wrong). For certain types of misbehavior, social incentives are terribly powerful. In an echo of Hester Prynne’s scarlet letter, many American cities now fight prostitution with a “shaming” offensive, posting pictures of convicted johns (and prostitutes) on websites or on local-access television. Which is a more horrifying deterrent: a $500 fine for soliciting a prostitute or the thought of your friends and family ogling you on www.HookersAndJohns.com.(с)Q:Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive.Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American childrensuddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15,and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependentchild, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly,seven million children—children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previousyear’s 1040 forms—vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the UnitedStates(c)Q:Of all the ideas that Kennedy had thought up—and would think up in the future—to fight bigotry, his Superman campaign was easily the cleverest and probably the most productive. It had the precise effect he hoped: turning the Klan’s secrecy against itself, converting precious knowledgeinto ammunition for mockery. Instead of roping in millions of members as it had just a generationearlier, the Klan lost momentum and began to founder. Although the Klan would never quite die,especially down South—David Duke, a smooth-talking Klan leader from Louisiana, mountedlegitimate bids for the U.S. Senate and other offices—it was also never quite the same. In The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America, the historian Wyn Craig Wade calls Stetson Kennedy “the single most important factor in preventing a postwar revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the North.”This did not happen because Kennedy was courageous or resolute or unflappable, even though he was all of these. It happened because Kennedy understood the raw power of information. The Ku Klux Klan was a group whose power—much like that of politicians or real-estate agents or stockbrokers—was derived in large part from the fact that it hoarded information. Once that information falls into the wrong hands (or, depending on your point of view, the right hands), much of the group’s advantage disappears.(с)Q:Information is so powerful that the assumption of information, even if the information does not actually exist, can have a sobering effect.(c)Q:It is common for one party to a transaction to have better information than another party. Inthe parlance of economists, such a case is known as an information asymmetry. We accept as averity of capitalism that someone (usually an expert) knows more than someone else (usually aconsumer). (c)Q:If you were to assume that many experts use their information to your detriment, you’d beright. Experts depend on the fact that you don’t have the information they do. Or that you are sobefuddled by the complexity of their operation that you wouldn’t know what to do with theinformation if you had it. Or that you are so in awe of their expertise that you wouldn’t darechallenge them. If your doctor suggests that you have angioplasty—even though some currentresearch suggests that angioplasty often does little to prevent heart attacks—you aren’t likely tothink that the doctor is using his informational advantage to make a few thousand dollars forhimself or his buddy. But as David Hillis, an interventional cardiologist at the University of TexasSouthwestern Medical Center in Dallas, explained to the New York Times, a doctor may have thesame economic incentives as a car salesman or a funeral director or a mutual fund manager: “Ifyou’re an invasive cardiologist and Joe Smith, the local internist, is sending you patients, and if youtell them they don’t need the procedure, pretty soon Joe Smith doesn’t send patients anymore.”(c)Q:Consider this true story, related by John Donohue, a law professor who in 2001 was teaching at Stanford University: “I was just about to buy a house on the Stanford campus,” he recalls, “and the seller’s agent kept telling me what a good deal I was getting because the market was about to zoom. As soon as I signed the purchase contract, he asked me if I would need an agent to sell my previous Stanford house. I told him that I would probably try to sell without an agent, and he replied, ‘John, that might work under normal conditions, but with the market tanking now, you really need the help of a broker.’”Within five minutes, a zooming market had tanked. Such are the marvels that can be conjured by an agent in search of the next deal.(c)Q:They were also a lot richer, taller, skinnier, and better-looking than average. That, at least, is what they wrote about themselves. More than 4 percent of the online daters claimed to earn more than $200,000 a year, whereas fewer than 1 percent of typical Internet users actually earn that much, suggesting that three of the four big earners were exaggerating. Male and female users typically reported that they are about an inch taller than the national average. As for weight, the men were in line with the national average, but the women typically said they weighed about twenty pounds less than the national average.Most impressively, fully 70 percent of the women claimed “above average” looks, including 24 percent claiming “very good looks.” The online men too were gorgeous: 67 percent called themselves “above average,” including 21 percent with “very good looks.” This leaves only about 30 percent of the users with “average” looks, including a paltry 1 percent with “less than average” looks—which suggests that the typical online dater is either a fabulist, a narcissist, or simply resistant to the meaning of “average.” (Or perhaps they are all just realists: as any real-estate agent knows, the typical house isn’t “charming” or “fantastic,” but unless you say it is, no one will even bother to take a look.) Twenty-eight percent of the women on the site said they were blond, a number far beyond the national average, which indicates a lot of dyeing, or lying, or both. Some users, meanwhile, were bracingly honest. Eight percent of the men—about 1 in every 12 conceded that they were married, with half of these 8 percent reporting that they were “happily married.” But the fact that they were honest doesn’t mean they were rash. Of the 258 “happily married” men in the sample, only 9 chose to post a picture of themselves. The reward of gaining a mistress was evidently outweighed by the risk of having your wife discover your personal ad. (c)Q:But if there is no unifying theme to Freakonomics, there is at least a common thread running through the everyday application of Freakonomics. It has to do with thinking sensibly about how people behave in the real world. All it requires is a novel way of looking, of discerning, of measuring. This isn’t necessarily a difficult task, nor does it require supersophisticated thinking. We have essentially tried to figure out what the typical gang member or sumo wrestler figured out on his own (although we had to do so in reverse).Will the ability to think such thoughts improve your life materially? Probably not. Perhaps you’ll put up a sturdy gate around your swimming pool or push your real-estate agent to work a little harder. But the net effect is likely to be more subtle than that. You might become more skeptical of the conventional wisdom; you may begin looking for hints as to how things aren’t quite what they seem; perhaps you will seek out some trove of data and sift through it, balancing your intelligence and your intuition to arrive at a glimmering new idea. Some of these ideas might make you uncomfortable, even unpopular. To claim that legalized abortion resulted in a massive drop in crime will inevitably lead to explosive moral reactions. (c)     consulting educational knowledge               294 reviews5,940 followers     July 12, 2022   I lost all faith in this book when it tried to teach you how to be a “perfect parent” and came to the conclusion that “it isn’t so much a matter of what you do as a parent; it’s who you are.” He claims that your socioeconomic status determines whether or not you will be a good parent. One of his biggest points in this chapter is that nothing a parent does (for example, taking their child to museums or reading books to their toddler) matters in the slightest. The only data he uses to draw this conclusion is a collection of test scores. Obviously a high test score does not equal a well-raised, happy child in a healthy family environment. And of course what you do as a parent matters. You can’t totally neglect your child and then claim you’re a perfect parent because of your socioeconomic status. You also cannot determine what makes a good parent based on children’s test scores alone. Also, can we talk about how self-congratulatory the author is? It makes the book such a chore to read when he includes things like how he is a demigod of economics or how much he dazzled journalists with his inventiveness and how he revolutionized the field.   Freakonomics is disappointing.      nonfiction               1,847 reviews16.3k followers     June 22, 2016   Freakonomics explores the hidden side of everything. If morality describes the ideal world, then economics describes the actual world. Further, Freakonomics studies incentives and how different people in different professions respond.  Some of the case studies include bagel salesmen, sumo wrestlers, public school teachers, crack cocaine dealers and parents. This is a smart, fun book; but it's not for everyone. Through a high nerd prospective, the authors deliver a slide rule and pocket protector observation of some controversial subjects.                     653 reviews6,926 followers     July 9, 2016    As the old joke goes, the questions in economics exams are the same every year; only the answers change.(re-reading in prep for the super-freaks)     economics favorites media-hyped               651 reviews826 followers     November 5, 2019   I enjoyed Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything; however, I’m not yet sure if it is simply entertaining or is in any way instructive. Levitt and Dubner explore a diverse range of subjects: from linking Roe v. Wade to violent crime, cheating by teachers and sumo wrestlers to an economic model of drug dealing. I’d like to think that the stories told by the authors and the way they analyze conventional thinking would put me on a path to look past easy answers. Having completed Freakonomics, do I look at the world radically differently than I did before picking up the book? It is Interesting to look at subjects from a different angle. Positing that economics and specifically the field of study now dubbed freakonomics has nothing to do with morality is an intriguing concept as well, but deciding which stories to tell is necessarily selective. Indeed, the focus is interesting. So yes I enjoyed Freakonomics, but feel I should have more to say about it and the authors’ underlying premises than I do. 3.25 stars                    174 reviews2 followers     July 9, 2008   The Basics:Freakonomics isn’t really about any one thing, which makes it a bit hard to summarize. In essence, it’s economist Steven Levitt playing around with economic principles and basic statistical analysis to examine various cultural trends and phenomena. He tackles a variety of questions, from whether or not sumo wrestlers cheat (they do) to whether or not a child’s name determines his success (it doesn’t). He does this all through examining statistics and data, trying to find facts to back up various assertions rather than relying on conventional wisdom. The Good: As a person who is sick of the inability of most people to have a rational discourse on any even vaguely politicized topic, and a self-proclaimed skeptic, it’s nice to read anyone who endorses looking at hard data to make judgments about possibly controversial issues. Levitt does a nice job of not only proclaiming the advantages of this sort of rational outlook, but also of showing that when you actually examine the data, you sometimes get surprising results. Furthermore, he takes the time to point out that there is a difference between correlation and causation, and that many people mistake one for the other. Again, a nice touch. The actual questions that Levitt asks are all fairly interesting, though some will appeal to certain readers more than others. In addition to cheating sumotori and strange names, Levitt also examines cheating teachers, the economics of crack dealers, and the effect of abortion on crime. Crime, in point of fact, seems to be Levitt’s greatest interest, and I wonder if he might not have been better served by writing an entire book on the relationship between economics and crime, as opposed to trying to touch on a number of different subjects that are all largely unrelated. It might have made for a tighter, more focused book. The writing is solid; simple and easy, but solid. Despite being a book about economics, it’s not a terribly dense read, as witnessed by the fact that I finished it off in about two days. Granted, it was two days of heavy reading, but it was still two days. The Bad: For a book that’s so gung ho about statistics, there aren’t many statistics in here. Levitt claims that the numbers back up his research, but he rarely provides the data itself, which makes it difficult to tell how much he might be manipulating statistics to serve his own ends. It makes the book seem like it’s been dumbed down for the plebian masses, which will be very frustrating to any intelligent reader who wants to look at Levitt’s data themselves. Any reader who doesn’t feel like reading the numbers can do what most of us did in undergrad—skip the numbers sections. It’s just sloppy; I can’t imagine Levitt would do this in a formal economics paper. The book also lacks much in the way of an unifying theme, a problem that is acknowledged within the text itself; that isn’t only sad, it’s sloppy. I doubt that a writer of Dubner’s skill and an economist of Levitt’s apparent genius (more on that below) are totally incapable of thinking of and describing some kind of unifying theme throughout this work. It just smacks of laziness, even more so when there’s a half-hearted “well, I guess you could say it’s this…” sort of thing in the epilogue. Again, I have trouble imagining that Levitt would submit a paper that was this disjointed to a serious economic publication; why should the general public be treated less seriously? The Ugly: The self-aggrandizement. Oh, the self-aggrandizement. Every chapter is preceded by excerpts from an article about Levitt, which all tell us what a brilliant and unconventional economist this man is. In the introduction, we’re told that he really wasn’t that interested in writing a book, unless he got to work with this wonderful journalist who had written an article about him earlier. The cover promises that we will be “dazzled” by a “rogue economist” who explains “the hidden side of everything.” For all of this talk of brilliance and dazzling explanations, the book doesn’t seem that brilliant. It seems like a transcript of some interesting dinner conversation with a smart guy, the sort that makes you go home and think, “hey, this stuff is interesting, I ought to go pick up a book about it.” Of course, the problem here is that you’ve already picked up the book. The fact that Levitt wasn’t that interested in writing a book in the first place is telling; this book feels like something written by a person who needed to get the work done, but really wasn’t engaged in what he was doing. Maybe he should have waited until he was a little more motivated.     anthropology psychology               70 reviews12 followers     November 13, 2016   Yeah, this isn't 'rogue economics'. This is sociology. It's not a new discipline. And this is really spurious sociology that wouldn't pass muster in academia, so Levitt published it for public consumption.     cl sociology               42 reviews103 followers     December 29, 2007   The most interesting part of this book was the introduction. Sad, but true.Four stars for presentation. The prose is nearly invisible, which I suppose in this genre is preferable to the alternative. And the content is mildly interesting, in a "Huh. Wouldja look at that" sort of way, as though you saw a duck waddling through your back yard with jam on its head. But insofar as it's meant to be the vehicle for a larger framework for viewing the world, this book is old news. You mean shit's connected in weird, roundabout ways? Get out. Conventional wisdom is often wrong? Superficial analyses are lazy and innacurate? My head...is spinning. Read some good poetry, you hipster fucks.     nonfiction           September 9, 2014   Well,this is the most terrible book I have ever seen,it was too terrible to read.It’s so terrible that I just want to burn it as fast as I can,and it cost me 58RMB.That was 58RMB,it was to expensive for me to afford.At first.I thought it was a good book,and I spend all my money on this book.And I was pretty annoyed about this I don’t have any other money for my breakfast,lunch,and even dinner.I haven’t drink juice for the whole year.Reading this is a waste of time,no one want to see this book again.It was just rubbish,and smelly book.It tells my nothing.I even want to sell this to the writer,and ask to return my money and some extra.It cost me too much time,and too much money on it.I prefer to see a movie instead!!!                  9,568 reviews55.6k followers     August 28, 2019   Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Freakonomics), Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. DubnerFreakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything is the debut non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner. It was published on April 12, 2005, by William Morrow. The book has been described as melding pop culture with economics. By late 2009, the book had sold over 4 million copies worldwide. The book is a collection of articles written by Levitt, an expert who had gained a reputation for applying economic theory to diverse subjects not usually covered by "traditional" economists. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner argue that economics is, at root, the study of incentives. The book's chapters cover:Chapter 1: Discovering cheating as applied to teachers and sumo wrestlers, as well as a typical Washington, D.C.–area bagel business and its customersChapter 2: Information control as applied to the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agentsChapter 3: The economics of drug dealing, including the surprisingly low earnings and abject working conditions of crack cocaine dealersChapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)Chapter 5: The negligible effects of good parenting on educationChapter 6: The socioeconomic patterns of naming children (nominative determinism)تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و هفتم ماه آگوست سال 2008 میلادیعنوان: اقتصاد ناهنجاری‌های پنهان اجتماعی؛ نویسنده: استیون لویت، استپان‌ دابنر؛ مترجم: سعید مشیری؛ تهران: نشر نی‏‫، 1386؛ در 269 ص؛ شابک: 9789643129507؛ چاپ دوم 1392؛ موضوع: اقتصاد از نویسندگان امریکایی - جنبه های روانشناسی - سده 21 معنوان: اقتصاد، علم انگیزه‌ها؛ نویسنده: استیون دی‌. لویت؛ مترجم: امیرحسین توکلی؛ تهران: سبزان‏‫، 1385؛ در 197 ص؛ شابک: 9789648249674؛ عنوان روی جلد: اقتصاد علم انگیزه‌ها: مهارت‌های لازم برای کشف ابعاد پنهان پدیده‌ها؛‬کتاب «فریکونومیکس» در باره ی اقتصاد، از اقتصاددان دانشگاه شیکاگو «استیون لویت» است، که نخستین بار در روز دوازدهم ماه آوریل سال 2005 میلادی منتشر شد. این کتاب تا پایان سال 2009 میلادی، بیش از چهار میلیون نسخه فروش داشته است. کتاب با عنوان «اقتصاد ناهنجاری‌های اجتماعی» توسط نشر نی و با ترجمه ی جناب «سعید مشیری»، و با عنوان: «اقتصاد، علم انگیزه‌ها»؛ با ترجمه ی جناب «امیرحسین توکلی»، منتشر شده است. کتاب چندین فصل دارد: درباره حقه زدن در شغل‌هایی مانند معلمی و کشتی‌گیران سومو؛ شباهت‌های کوکلوس‌کلان‌ و افراد معاملات ملکی؛ سیستم اقتصادی کارتل‌های مواد مخدر؛ تاثیر قانونی‌سازی سقط جنین در کاهش جرایم چندین سال بعد؛ نقش بسیار کم تربیت خوب کودکان توسط والدین در بهتر شدن آموزش و پرورششان؛ و الگوهای نامگذاری کودکان در یک جامعه. ا. شربیانی    21th-century business economic               231 reviews667 followers     May 28, 2019   The book is totally different than ordinary books on this topic. It will bring out those facts that we don't want to eve look or discuss. It has provided many examples with those are unbelievable. It has used to comapre sumo wrestlers and school teachers. IT goona freak you all the time.May the style of the wrtitng book is different but he delivers the information that is valuable to all. It will change the way you think about the modern world.               September 14, 2007   Levitt makes the lofty claim that economics is not swayed by moral sensibilities - it's a pure numbers game of course! However, not knowing much about him beyond his affiliation with the University of Chicago and what was written in the book, I can surmise that he is conservative, or at least what today would be inappropriately labeled "moderate." Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily...or at least I don't view it that way. Does it affect his conclusions? Absolutely. Levitt assumes his assertion that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the drop in crime experienced in the 1990s is the most controversial in the book, but I was not bothered by that conclusion at all. What did raise my ire a bit was his statement that "Minorities commit more crimes." Perhaps the pure numbers seem to show so, but upon closer examination and more careful thought, one might conclude that minorities are simply arrested and convicted more often. In many cases, Levitt does delve into the deeper "behind the scenes" reasons for why things happen, but in this glaring example, he delves no further than to admit that poverty might have a link to crime commission, and with more minorities in poverty more of them commit crimes. Might it also have a link to crime conviction? The white suburban kid who can afford a long and arduous defense, or whose father knows someone who can get the kid out of a jam, has a much better chance of having his case dismissed than a poor minority kid assigned a public defender (not to say that public defenders don't do good work - in fact many of them are some of the most amazing lawyers out there). Suffice to say the system is stacked against people in poverty and minorities, and Levitt fails to fully acknowledge this in his discussion of what causes and helps prevent crime. I wasn't so much angry as I was disappointed. When one of the brightest minds in our country can't see beyond his own prejudices, where is the hope for the rest of us? Levitt might be a genius, but he is woefully culturally incompetent.                   51 reviews10 followers     September 15, 2007   I am indebted to airport bookstores. And I am thus indebted to such an extent, that I can confess to arriving early for any flight departing from an airport with a bookstore for the sole purpose of securing a few additional minutes to browse books. If it were not for the practicalities of travelling, I would probably have bought this book much sooner than I did for I had been securing extra minutes in airport bookstores just to read through another chapter long before I actually bought it.You see, my travels are laden with a heavy debate: shall I pack my extra suitcase with books or groceries? I resolve this by alternating. For one trip to the Outside, a spare duffel bag will be dedicated to books and I will shun all opportunities to visit grocery stores just to preserve that determination. On the next visit, I will carry a spare cooler (rather than duffel bag) and splurge on leg of lamb and cheeses free of artificial coloring. The ultimate effect of this system, however, is a backlog in possessing the books I'd like to read. Finally, however, the fates aligned. I was travelling to Iowa on what I expected to be a gloriously grocery-focused trip. But my cooler broke as I was carrying it to the truck that we would drive to our local airport. There wasn't time to fix it. I was sad, of course, as I had been anticipating all the pork I was going to return with from Iowa. But I consoled myself with all those Iowa cookbooks I could now carry, and resolved not to prolong any lamentations over the cooler. And, oh, did I find myself lugging around a heavy library - such hours did I spend in Powells (there was a 1 week layover in Oregon) and Iowa City's bookstores. The day before we left Iowa, Nate told me about how much he enjoyed this book. His description renewed my interest, and I committed myself to buying a copy before we left. But, alas, we ran out of time. We didn't make it to a bookstore. It was sadder than the last-minute loss of the cooler. So when we arrived in Chicago, and had a few minutes to wait for the connecting flight to Alaska, and our gate was right next to a book kiosk, and I was pretty sure there was just enough room in my carry-on to squeeze in one more book - it was this book that I grabbed.  I raced through it. Loving each chapter. I really can't recommend it enough. A fun read, for those who like to be entertained by books. Informative too, for those that like to read for knowledge, thought, and/or discourse. But what elevates it to favorite is that it alters perception and challenges assumptions. For what it's worth, I have no regrets that I carried this book rather than Iowa pork.....and I can think of no finer testament to a good book. Then again, most of my entertainment these days revolves around pickling turnips. So if turnips aren't your thing, feel free to take my recommendation with a grain of salt....but you should still read this book.                   468 reviews67 followers     May 8, 2010   I assumed Freakonomics would be a book that used statistics to debunk various societal hysterias and fearmongering in a semi-humorous way. I quickly realized what I was in for when early in the book when the authors gave their background as Harvard Jews and profiled a guy that infiltrated the KKK for the ADL. The story sounds at least partially made up. It then jumped into predictable white guilt inducing trash and goes into mental contortions using "data" and sociological explanations for black criminality and low IQ scores. The writers of this book are also obsessively pro-Abortion. The only surprise was they used statistics to show you are much more likely to die from an automobile or a swimming pool than a gun. This book would probably appeal to upper middle class liberals who like to consider themselves clever and politically astute from their isolated armchairs. For me Freakonomics was a big load of garbage.                   6 reviews53 followers     March 24, 2015   Everything I hate about popular science - alternating between over-simplified, patronising, naive or simply annoying, but worst of all, blatantly refusing to take account of the political and social implications of its findings, and being proud of it.                  500 reviews2,410 followers     July 29, 2013   I found this book to be really fascinating. Chapter 3- Why do drug dealers still live with their moms, was very illuminating. I like the questions they posed and the connections they came up with. I was quite surprised about the American school system, especially the fact that teachers often used cheating methods to make sure their students scored well in standardized tests.The section about how given names may influence one's future was quite gloomy in some ways, especially as there's evidence that we are judged based on our names, not on our abilities. All in all, a lot of great information.    non-fiction sociology               1,279 reviews21.3k followers     March 20, 2008   This is a very American book. Not just because all of the examples in it are set in the US, but also the hype about it is terribly American too. It has the tone of self congratulation that has sold a million self-help books. Which is a pity, as what it has to say is terribly interesting and amusing.The stuff at the end about how the name you are born with affects your life is very interesting. Also the idea, that is clearly true, but I'd never thought of it before, that people give their daughters crazier names than their sons. The point of this book is to say that sometimes there are very interesting correlations between things that seem quite disparate. The big one (and I haven't checked, but I assume this one didn't go down terribly well with the religious right in America) was the idea that the drop in violent crime in the US was due to the drop in violent criminals and this was due to there being less people brought up in abject poverty which is due to people being able to have access to abortion and not bringing unwanted children into the world. The comparisons between drug dealers and McDonalds as a corporate structure is now received wisdom - Obama quotes this in his book. Overall this is a great little read and quite fun - but really, I can't think of a single book that was improved by self-congratulation.     behavioural-economics economics               453 reviews204 followers     June 7, 2021   کتاب اقتصاد ناهنجاری های پنهان اجتماعی نوشته استیون لویت به بیان خود نویسنده کتابی ایست که موضوع واحدی ندارد ، و اثر و اصولا ادعایی هم در بهبود کیفیت زندگی مادی انسان ندارد ، اساس کتاب او بر مبنای شک است . آنچه نویسنده به دنبال آن بوده است پیدا کردن رشته ای مشترک در کاربردهای امور روزمره است ، این که مردم در دنیای واقعی چگونه رفتار می کنند ، مساله ای مهم که آقای لویت تلاش کرده با تلفیقی از علم اقتصاد ، آمار ، جامعه شناسی و رفتار شناسی به آن پی ببرد . هدف نویسنده در زیر سوال بردن عقل متعارف است ، پرسیدن سوال های بسیار تا هر فرد برای هر موضوعی با تکیه بر هوش و شناخت خود به ایده یا راه حلی برای آن برسد .اگرچه بیشتر موضوعاتی که استیون لویت به آن ها پرداخته اصل و ریشه غربی دارد و برای مردم در جوامع شرق ممکن است کمی عجیب به نظر برسد اما کتاب در مجموع در تلاش برای نگریستن متفاوت و خارج از عقل متعارف برای خواننده فارغ از هر جامعه یا ملیتی ، نسبتا موفق بوده است .                  500 reviews443 followers     December 22, 2014   The "experts are evil, have agendas, will trick you" talk got old real fast, especially when points are later being backed up with experts research. There's not enough discussion on the data itself, no distinction between quantitative and qualitative, and not enough discussion on the many flaws of data and how we analyze it. Pretty interesting how much he dislikes criminologists but then (if I remember correctly), only mentions the same one or two names over and over when giving examples of criminologists that had agendas/tricked the public. Also the fact that the entire book, and the issues, feels very simplified. Actually the author puts it best himself: "The typical parenting expert, like experts in other fields, is prone to sound exceedingly sure of himself. An expert doesn’t so much argue the various sides of an issue, as plant his flag firmly on one side. That’s because an expert who’s argument reeks of restraint or nuance often doesn’t get much attention. An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemise (?) his homespun theory into conventional wisdom." This is often how I perceived the book to be written, very simplified, without enough nuance or room for possible explanations - only one right answer. I didn't like how the book was written, how the topics where dealt with, and had a hard time taking anything seriously after all of the self-admiration and the repeated "all experts have agendas (except for us)" talk in every chapter.                   415 reviews5 followers     July 23, 2015   Verbose, repetitive, contradictory: a book of 200-pages that could be condensed to 3-5 pages. Titles that vary from scintillating to insulting, yet are followed by a chapter that doesn't support the title bar.  Anecdotal stories, mistaken for data or hypothesis. Interpretations and hypotheses are drawn from data that could still be interpreted in multiple ways. The book claims that it will link the unexpected, but frankly, links the obvious, with many "well duh" moments. Needless generations of lists that help bulk out the book, but provide little further benefit for study. Each chapter begins with unnecessary aggrandisement of the author for the statistician, that jars the flow of the book. Overall, a good demonstration of why "social sciences" are in no way close to being "science", and instead should be termed social philosophy.                   1,238 reviews2,206 followers     April 12, 2020   I once read somewhere that statistics can be used to prove anything. This book is evidence for the same.Steven D. Levitt, a "rogue" economist by his own admission, and who confesses that he is terrible at traditional economics, uses the methods of statistical analysis to look at the unexplored relations between things in society - like the resemblance between Japanese sumo wrestlers and American schoolteachers, why real-estate agents are similar to the Ku Klux Klan, whether parenting has any effect on how a child turns out... etc, etc. By the confession of the authors themselves, the book has no central theme - it just explores the "hidden side of everything". Levitt and Dubner say that economics has the tools to provide the right answers, but only a very few people ask the right questions. Some of his findings do have credibility (like that of schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers cheating to advance their careers, though I did not find anything earthshaking in those); some seem to be refreshing new perspectives (the similarity between the drug mafia and corporate houses, for example); some seem trite to the point of silliness (like the Ku Klux Klan and real-estate agents being undone through the availability of information); and some seem to have some substance, but require further study of all parameters (how the station in life and the behaviour of parents affect the children). However, One finding, which is lauded by most reviewers of the book as startling, I found I could take with only a very large lump of salt: that the reduction in crime in the USA in the 1990's is due to the legalisation of abortions in 1973. The authors assume that crime is committed by unwanted children whom their mothers could not get rid of, and once they were allowed to, problem was solved! This, while at the same time arguing gun control is not having much effect either way while increase in police force and punishment is a deterrent, seems to me peddling to the right liberal narrative - at the same time totally ignoring the socioeconomic factors behind crime. As far as I am concerned, any kind of simplistic conclusions drawn from statistical data is suspect. Let me make this clear with an example close to my heart. In India, the state of Kerala in the south (from where I hail) tops in almost all Human Development Indices (HDI) such as health, education etc. However, the state also has the highest morbidity levels. What does this mean? Whether higher levels of general health leads to higher incidence of life-style diseases, or simply that since the healthcare and education are good, more people see doctors? Similarly, Kerala is fourth in India on the basis of reported crime. Does this mean that a higher level of education increases criminal tendencies, or that with a more aware population, more crimes get reported? Heated arguments take place on these questions regularly with no clear conclusions - because there are too many factors to make clear inferences. So does that mean Levitt and Dubner are talking through their hat, and are best ignored? No, in my opinion. This book is worth reading, if only for the unusual perspective. Also, it prompts us to think beyond the glib statistics the "experts" spout to intimidate the poor layperson, and see for ourselves.                   3,504 reviews736 followers     September 22, 2020   Levitt and Dubner's ground breaking look at the world through the eyes of collated data that tells a story in itself, like their shocking discovery of what caused a huge drop in crime in America in the 1990s. Reading this a decade on I still find this so absorbing and interesting which is just as much as a result of their writing style as their great content.[image error]Just remember assume nothing... question everything! 8 out of 12.     non-fiction               82 reviews40 followers     July 15, 2021   4,5/5 ⭐ “The conventional wisdom is often wrong.”  As an economics student, this really helped me to open my mind to learn how to analyse everyday situations from a economic point of view. And it also showed me a new branch of economics that has become my favourite. If you want to learn the basics on economics, this book is for you. Some people might find it a little bit basic, but I think it should be taken as an introduction to the topic. More than teaching you how economics work, which is no easy task, I believe its purpose is to try and show how for every situation you can find an economic assumption to back it up. What should be also taken into account when reading this book is that to prove most of his theories Levitt relies on statistics, which are part of economics as a science but not pure economics itself. Basically, do not expect to become an expert on the subject after reading it. Anyways, I found the book pretty entertaining and well written. Highly recommend it.     2020 non-fiction
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Sid…
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1202.Freakonomics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen
Tyler Cowen - Wikipedia
2005-07-12
Authority control
<div><div>
	<p>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
	</div><div>
<p>"Marginal Revolution (blog)" redirects here. For the blog's other co-author, see <a href="/wiki/Alex_Tabarrok">Alex Tabarrok</a>.</p>
<table><tbody><tr><th><p>Tyler Cowen</p></th></tr><tr><td><a href="/wiki/File:Tyler_Cowen_1.jpg"></a></td></tr><tr><th>Born</th><td>January 21, 1962 (age 61)<br /><div><p><a href="/wiki/Bergen_County,_New_Jersey">Bergen County, New Jersey</a>, U.S.</p></div></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><th>Institution</th><td><a href="/wiki/George_Mason_University">George Mason University</a></td></tr><tr><th>Field</th><td><a href="/wiki/Cultural_economics">Cultural economics</a></td></tr><tr><th>School or<br />tradition</th><td><a href="/wiki/Neoclassical_economics">Neoclassical economics</a><br /><a href="/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States">American libertarianism</a></td></tr><tr><th>Alma mater</th><td><a href="/wiki/George_Mason_University">George Mason University</a> (<a href="/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science">BS</a>)<br /><a href="/wiki/Harvard_University">Harvard University</a> (<a href="/wiki/Master_of_Science">MS</a>, <a href="/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy">PhD</a>)</td></tr><tr><th>Doctoral<br />advisor</th><td><a href="/wiki/Thomas_Schelling">Thomas Schelling</a></td></tr><tr><th>Influences</th><td><a href="/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics)">Chicago School</a><br /><a href="/wiki/Carl_Menger">Carl Menger</a><br /><a href="/wiki/Plato">Plato</a><sup><a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup></td></tr></tbody></table>
<p><b>Tyler Cowen</b> (; born January 21, 1962) is an American <a href="/wiki/Economist">economist</a>, columnist and blogger. He is a professor at <a href="/wiki/George_Mason_University">George Mason University</a>, where he holds the Holbert L. Harris chair in the economics department.<sup><a href="#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup> He hosts the economics <a href="/wiki/Blog">blog</a> <i>Marginal Revolution</i>, together with co-author <a href="/wiki/Alex_Tabarrok">Alex Tabarrok</a>. Cowen and Tabarrok also maintain the website Marginal Revolution University, a venture in <a href="/wiki/Online_education">online education</a>.
</p><p>Cowen writes the "Economic Scene" column for <i><a href="/wiki/The_New_York_Times">The New York Times</a></i> and since July 2016 has been a regular opinion columnist at <i><a href="/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.">Bloomberg Opinion</a></i>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-3">[3]</a></sup> He also writes for such publications as <i><a href="/wiki/The_New_Republic">The New Republic</a></i>, <i><a href="/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal">The Wall Street Journal</a></i>, <i><a href="/wiki/Forbes">Forbes</a></i>, <i><a href="/wiki/Newsweek">Newsweek</a></i> and the <i><a href="/wiki/Wilson_Quarterly">Wilson Quarterly</a></i>. He serves as general director of George Mason's <a href="/wiki/Mercatus_Center">Mercatus Center</a>, a university <a href="/wiki/Research_institute">research center</a> that focuses on the <a href="/wiki/Market_economy">market economy</a>. Since 2015, he has hosted the podcast <i>Conversations with Tyler</i>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-4">[4]</a></sup> In September, 2018, Tyler and his team at George Mason University launched Emergent Ventures, a grant and fellowship focused on "moon-shot" ideas.<sup><a href="#cite_note-5">[5]</a></sup>
</p><p>He was ranked at number 72 among the "Top 100 Global Thinkers" in 2011 by <i><a href="/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Magazine">Foreign Policy Magazine</a></i> "for finding markets in everything".<sup><a href="#cite_note-6">[6]</a></sup> In a 2011 poll of experts by <i><a href="/wiki/The_Economist">The Economist</a></i>, Cowen was included in the top 36 nominations of "which economists were most influential over the past decade".<sup><a href="#cite_note-econ-7">[7]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Education and personal life[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>Cowen was raised in <a href="/wiki/Hillsdale,_New_Jersey">Hillsdale, New Jersey</a><sup><a href="#cite_note-8">[8]</a></sup> and attended <a href="/wiki/Pascack_Valley_High_School">Pascack Valley High School</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-9">[9]</a></sup> At 15, he became the youngest ever <a href="/wiki/New_Jersey">New Jersey</a> state <a href="/wiki/Chess">chess</a> champion.<sup><a href="#cite_note-10">[10]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-11">[11]</a></sup> Cowen is of <a href="/wiki/Irish_Americans">Irish ancestry</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-12">[12]</a></sup>
</p><p>He graduated from <a href="/wiki/George_Mason_University">George Mason University</a> with a <a href="/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science">Bachelor of Science</a> degree in <a href="/wiki/Economics">economics</a> in 1983 and received his <a href="/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy">PhD</a> in economics from <a href="/wiki/Harvard_University">Harvard University</a> in 1987 with his thesis titled <i>Essays in the theory of welfare economics</i>. At Harvard, he was mentored by <a href="/wiki/Game_theory">game theorist</a> <a href="/wiki/Thomas_Schelling">Thomas Schelling</a>, the 2005 recipient of the <a href="/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economics">Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics</a>. He is married to Natasha Cowen, a lawyer.
</p>
<h2>Writings[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2">edit</a>]</h2>
<h3>Culture[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=3">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>The <i><a href="/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times">Los Angeles Times</a></i> has described Cowen as "a man who can talk about <a href="/wiki/Haitian_Vodou">Haitian voodoo</a> flags, <a href="/wiki/Cinema_of_Iran">Iranian cinema</a>, <a href="/wiki/Hong_Kong_cuisine">Hong Kong cuisine</a>, <a href="/wiki/Abstract_Expressionism">Abstract Expressionism</a>, <a href="/wiki/Zaire">Zairian</a> music and <a href="/wiki/Mexican_handcrafts_and_folk_art">Mexican folk art</a> with seemingly equal facility".<sup><a href="#cite_note-13">[13]</a></sup> One of Cowen's primary research interests is the economics of culture. He has written books on fame (<i>What Price Fame?</i>), art (<i>In Praise of Commercial Culture</i>) and cultural trade (<i>Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures</i>). In <i>Markets and Cultural Voices</i>, he relays how <a href="/wiki/Globalization">globalization</a> is changing the world of three <a href="/wiki/Mexican_people">Mexican</a> <a href="/wiki/Amatl">amate</a> painters.<sup><a href="#cite_note-14">[14]</a></sup> Cowen argues that <a href="/wiki/Free_markets">free markets</a> change culture for the better, allowing them to evolve into something more people want. Other books include <i>Public Goods and Market Failures</i>, <i>The Theory of Market Failure</i>, <i>Explorations in the New Monetary Economics</i>, <i>Risk and Business Cycles</i>, <i>Economic Welfare</i> and <i>New Theories of Market Failure</i>.
</p>
<h3>Books[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=4">edit</a>]</h3>
<div><p><a href="/wiki/File:Tyler_Cowen_-_The_Great_Stagnation.jpg"></a></p></div>
<ul><li><i>Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World</i>, with Daniel Gross. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2022, <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1250275813">978-1250275813</a>, <a href="/wiki/OCLC_(identifier)">OCLC</a> <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1227086238">1227086238</a>.</li>
<li><i>Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero.</i> New York: St. Martin's Press, 2019. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1250110541">978-1250110541</a>, <a href="/wiki/OCLC_(identifier)">OCLC</a> <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1031569569">1031569569</a>.</li>
<li><cite><i>Stubborn Attachments: A Vision for a Society of Free, Prosperous, and Responsible Individuals</i>. Stripe Press. 2018. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1732265134"><bdi>978-1732265134</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><i>The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream</i>. New York: St. Martins Press. 2017. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1250108692"><bdi>978-1250108692</bdi></a>. <a href="/wiki/OCLC_(identifier)">OCLC</a> <a href="//www.worldcat.org/oclc/981982936">981982936</a>.</cite>.</li>
<li><cite><a href="/wiki/Average_is_Over"><i>Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation</i></a>. Dutton Adult. 2013. p. 304. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0525953739"><bdi>978-0525953739</bdi></a>.</cite> (<a href="/wiki/Average_is_Over">Wikipedia page</a>)</li>
<li>With Alex Tabarrok: <cite><a href="https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781429274814"><i>Modern Principles of Economics</i></a> (2 ed.). Worth Publishers. 2012. p. 900. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1429239974"><bdi>978-1429239974</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://archive.org/details/economistgetslun0000cowe"><i>An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies</i></a>. New York: Dutton Adult. 2012. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0525952664"><bdi>978-0525952664</bdi></a>. <a href="/wiki/OCLC_(identifier)">OCLC</a> <a href="//www.worldcat.org/oclc/839314802">839314802</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation"><i>The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better</i></a>. Dutton Adult. 2011. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0525952718"><bdi>978-0525952718</bdi></a>. <a href="/wiki/OCLC_(identifier)">OCLC</a> <a href="//www.worldcat.org/oclc/714718051">714718051</a>.</cite></li>
<li><i>The Age of the Infovore: Succeeding in the Information Economy (2010)</i></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://archive.org/details/createyourowneco00cowe_0"><i>Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World</i></a>. Dutton Adult. 2009. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0525951230"><bdi>978-0525951230</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://archive.org/details/discoveryourinne00cowe"><i>Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist</i></a>. Dutton Adult. 2007. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0525950257"><bdi>978-0525950257</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ISjsafTlM6sC"><i>Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding</i></a>. Princeton, NJ: <a href="/wiki/Princeton_University_Press">Princeton University Press</a>. 2006. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0691120423"><bdi>978-0691120423</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=zK6slb9fZykC"><i>Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)</i></a>. <a href="/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Press">University of Michigan Press</a>. 2005. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0472068890"><bdi>978-0472068890</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=MpMSGL-rwa4C"><i>Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures</i></a>. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2004. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0691117836"><bdi>978-0691117836</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=8-yXfKdMpxgC"><i>What Price Fame?</i></a>. Cambridge, MA: <a href="/wiki/Harvard_University_Press">Harvard University Press</a>. 2002. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0674008090"><bdi>978-0674008090</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ADydOEGjQQgC"><i>In Praise of Commercial Culture</i></a>. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2000. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0674001886"><bdi>978-0674001886</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=gOJhRL9EfdwC&amp;q=tyler+cowen"><i>Risk and Business Cycles: New and Old Austrian Perspectives</i></a>. Psychology Press. 1998. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0415169196"><bdi>978-0415169196</bdi></a>.</cite></li>
<li>Explorations in the New Monetary Economics (1994)</li>
<li><cite><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=a1IZuGvXxTMC"><i>Public Goods and Market Failures: A Critical Examination</i></a> (2 ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 1991. <a href="/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1560005704"><bdi>978-1560005704</bdi></a>.</cite></li></ul>
<h3><i>The New York Times</i> columns[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=5">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>Cowen's <i>New York Times</i> columns cover a wide range of issues such as the 2008 financial crisis.<sup><a href="#cite_note-15">[15]</a></sup>
</p>
<h3>Dining guide[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=6">edit</a>]</h3>
<p>His dining guide for the <a href="/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area">D.C. area</a>, "Tyler Cowen's Ethnic Dining Guide",<sup><a href="#cite_note-16">[16]</a></sup> has been written about by <i><a href="/wiki/The_Washington_Post">The Washington Post</a></i><sup><a href="#cite_note-17">[17]</a></sup> and <i><a href="/wiki/Washington_City_Paper">Washington City Paper</a></i>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-18">[18]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Political philosophy[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=7">edit</a>]</h2>
<p>Cowen has written papers on political philosophy and ethics. He co-wrote a paper with philosopher <a href="/wiki/Derek_Parfit">Derek Parfit</a> arguing against the <a href="/wiki/Social_discount_rate">social discount rate</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-19">[19]</a></sup> In a 2006 paper, he argued that the <a href="/wiki/Uncertainty">epistemic problem</a> fails to refute <a href="/wiki/Consequentialism">consequentialism</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-20">[20]</a></sup>
</p><p>Cowen has been described as a "<a href="/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States">libertarian</a> bargainer" who can influence practical policy making,<sup><a href="#cite_note-21">[21]</a></sup> yet he endorsed bank bailouts in his March 2, 2009 column in <i>The New York Times</i>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-22">[22]</a></sup> In a 2007 article entitled "The Paradox of Libertarianism", Cowen argued that libertarians "should embrace a world with growing wealth, growing positive liberty, and yes, growing government. We don't have to favor the growth in government <i>per se</i>, but we do need to recognize that sometimes it is a package deal".<sup><a href="#cite_note-23">[23]</a></sup>
</p><p>In 2012, <a href="/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)">David Brooks</a> called Cowen "one of the most influential bloggers on the <a href="/wiki/Right-wing_politics">right</a>", writing that he is among those who "start from broadly libertarian premises but do not apply them in a <a href="/wiki/Dogma">doctrinaire</a> way".<sup><a href="#cite_note-24">[24]</a></sup>
</p><p>In an August, 2014 blog post, Cowen wrote: "Just to summarize, I generally favor much more immigration but not <a href="/wiki/Open_borders">open borders</a>, I am a <a href="/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States">liberal</a> on most but not all <a href="/wiki/Social_issues">social issues</a>, and I am market-oriented on economic issues. On most current foreign policy issues I am genuinely agnostic as to what exactly we should do but skeptical that we are doing the right thing at the moment. I don't like voting for either party or for third parties".<sup><a href="#cite_note-auto-25">[25]</a></sup>
</p><p>In a 2020 New Year's Day Marginal Revolution post, Cowen outlined a philosophical framework he dubbed "State Capacity Libertarianism". State Capacity Libertarianism differs from <a href="/wiki/Classical_liberalism">classical liberalism</a> in that it acknowledges the State's role in funding and executing <a href="/wiki/Megaprojects">megaprojects</a> and a non-isolationist foreign policy.<sup><a href="#cite_note-26">[26]</a></sup>
</p><p>Cowen has described himself as a liberal on most social issues<sup><a href="#cite_note-auto-25">[25]</a></sup> and supports <a href="/wiki/Same-sex_marriage">same-sex marriage</a>.<sup><a href="#cite_note-27">[27]</a></sup> After the Supreme Court issued its holding regarding same-sex marriage, Cowen said that "this is exciting and very positive news. Most of all, it is a breakthrough for those people who can now marry, or exercise the choice not to marry".<sup><a href="#cite_note-28">[28]</a></sup>
</p><p>Cowen is a <a href="/wiki/Teetotalism">teetotaler</a>, stating he is "with the <a href="/wiki/Mormons">Mormons</a>" on alcohol,<sup><a href="#cite_note-29">[29]</a></sup> later stating: "I encourage people to just completely, voluntarily abstain from alcohol and make it a <a href="/wiki/Social_norm">social norm</a>".<sup><a href="#cite_note-30">[30]</a></sup>
</p><p>In July 2019, Cowen co-authored an essay in <i><a href="/wiki/The_Atlantic">The Atlantic</a></i> with <a href="/wiki/Stripe,_Inc.">Stripe</a> co-founder <a href="/wiki/Patrick_Collison">Patrick Collison</a> calling for a "new science of progress".<sup><a href="#cite_note-31">[31]</a></sup> 
</p>
<h2><i>Conversations with Tyler</i>[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=8">edit</a>]</h2>
<p><i>Conversations with Tyler</i> is Cowen's podcast produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason. Unlike Marginal Revolution, <i>Conversations</i> is hosted by Cowen exclusively. Guests are usually authors and academics, but have also included athletes (<a href="/wiki/Martina_Navratilova">Martina Navratilova</a>, <a href="/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar</a>), military personnel (<a href="/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal">Stanley A. McChrystal</a>), entrepreneurs (<a href="/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg">Mark Zuckerberg</a>, <a href="/wiki/Brian_Armstrong_(businessman)">Brian Armstrong</a>), novelists (<a href="/wiki/Emily_St._John_Mandel">Emily St. John Mandel</a>) and a homeless person from <a href="/wiki/Washington,_D.C.">Washington, D.C.</a> named "Alexander the Grate". 
</p><p>The show has two recurring segments: 
</p>
<ul><li>"<i>Underrated/Overrated</i>", where guests are given a quick-fire list of cultural works or academic concepts and asked to say whether they agree with the general critical response received.</li>
<li><i>The [guest name] Production Function,</i> where guests are asked to describe their personal productivity habits.</li></ul>
<p>In describing the podcast, Cowen repeatedly characterises it as "...the conversation <i>I</i> want to have".<sup><a href="#cite_note-32">[32]</a></sup><sup><a href="#cite_note-33">[33]</a></sup>
</p>
<h2>Publications[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=9">edit</a>]</h2>
<h3>Selected journal articles[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=10">edit</a>]</h3>
<ul><li><cite>Cowen, Tyler (December 22, 2011). "An Economic and Rational Choice Approach to the Autism Spectrum and Human Neurodiversity". <i>GMU Working Paper in Economics</i>. <b>11</b> (58). <a href="/wiki/SSRN_(identifier)">SSRN</a> <a href="//papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1975809">1975809</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler (October 7, 2011). "The Microeconomics of Public Choice in Developing Economies: A Case Study of One Mexican Village". <i>The Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-being of Nations</i>. <a href="/wiki/SSRN_(identifier)">SSRN</a> <a href="//papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1940219">1940219</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; Alexander Tabarrok (October 2000). "An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and Popular Art, or High and Low Culture". <i>Southern Economic Journal</i>. <b>67</b> (2): 232–253. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1061469">10.2307/1061469</a>. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/1061469">1061469</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; Amihai Glazer; Katarina Zajc (2000). <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/credibilitydiscretion.pdf">"Credibility May Require Discretion, Not Rules"</a> (PDF). <i>Journal of Public Economics</i>. <b>76</b> (2): 295–306. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0047-2727%2899%2900051-1">10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00051-1</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler (August 1997). <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/should%20central%20banks%20target%20CPI%20futures.pdf">"Should the Central Bank Target CPI Futures?"</a> (PDF). <i>Journal of Money, Credit and Banking</i>. <b>29</b> (3): 275–285. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2953693">10.2307/2953693</a>. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/2953693">2953693</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; Daniel Sutter (1997). <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/politicsandpursuitoffame.PDF">"Politics and the Pursuit of Fame"</a> (PDF). <i>Public Choice</i>. <b>93</b>: 19–35. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1017939531594">10.1023/A:1017939531594</a>. <a href="/wiki/S2CID_(identifier)">S2CID</a> <a href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:152467126">152467126</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, T.; Robin Grier (1996). <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/cost-disease.PDF">"Do <i>Artists</i> Suffer From A Cost Disease?"</a> (PDF). <i>Rationality and Society</i>. <b>8</b> (1): 5–24. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104346396008001001">10.1177/104346396008001001</a>. <a href="/wiki/S2CID_(identifier)">S2CID</a> <a href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:153392382">153392382</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; Amihai Glazer (1996). <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/moremonitoring.pdf">"More Monitoring Can Induce Less Effort"</a> (PDF). <i>Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization</i>. <b>30</b>: 113–123. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0167-2681%2896%2900845-1">10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00845-1</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; Alexander Tabarrok (April 1995). <a href="http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/faculty%20pages/Tyler/goodgrapes.pdf">"Good Grapes and Bad Lobsters: Applying the Alchian and Allen Theorem"</a> (PDF). <i>Economic Inquiry</i>. <b>33</b> (2): 253–256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1465-7295.1995.tb01860.x">10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01860.x</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; <a href="/wiki/Randall_Kroszner">Randall Kroszner</a> (May 1989). "Scottish Banking before 1845: A Model for Laissez-Faire?". <i><a href="/wiki/Journal_of_Money,_Credit_and_Banking">Journal of Money, Credit and Banking</a></i>. <b>21</b> (2): 221–231. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1992370">10.2307/1992370</a>. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/1992370">1992370</a>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler; Richard Fink (September 1985). "Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard". <i><a href="/wiki/American_Economic_Review">American Economic Review</a></i>. <b>75</b> (4): 866–869. <a href="/wiki/JSTOR_(identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a href="//www.jstor.org/stable/1821365">1821365</a>.</cite></li></ul>
<h3>Select articles[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=11">edit</a>]</h3>
<ul><li><cite>Cowen, Tyler (August 11, 2012). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/business/two-ways-to-see-chinas-problems-economic-view.html?_r=1">"Two Prisms for Looking at China's Problems"</a>. <i>New York Times</i>.</cite></li>
<li><cite>Cowen, Tyler (June 16, 2012). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/business/broken-trust-takes-time-to-mend-economic-view.html">"Broken Trust Takes Time to Mend"</a>. <i>New York Times</i>.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131021035542/http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1227">"What Export-Oriented America Means"</a>. <i>The American Interest</i>. May–June 2012. Archived from <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1227">the original</a> on October 21, 2013.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/six-rules-for-dining-out/308929/">"Six Rules for Dining Out"</a>. <i>The Atlantic</i>. May 2012.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120816071546/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/6_ideas_for_the_ash_heap_of_history?page=full">"6 Ideas for the Ash Heap of History"</a>. <i>Foreign Policy</i>. November 28, 2011. Archived from <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/6_ideas_for_the_ash_heap_of_history?page=full">the original</a> on August 16, 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2012.</cite></li>
<li><cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131021035539/http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=907">"The Inequality That Matters"</a>. <i>The American Interest</i>. January–February 2011. Archived from <a href="http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=907">the original</a> on October 21, 2013.</cite></li>
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?hp&amp;rref=opinion">"The Lack of Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth"- NYTimes, June 14, 2014</a></li></ul>
<h2>References[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=12">edit</a>]</h2>
<div><ol>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-1">^</a></b> <cite>Illing, Sean (June 3, 2017). <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170605204825/https://www.vox.com/9-questions/2017/6/3/15726420/tyler-cowen-9-questions-interview">"9 questions for Tyler Cowen"</a>. <a href="/wiki/Vox_Media">Vox Media</a>. Archived from <a href="https://www.vox.com/9-questions/2017/6/3/15726420/tyler-cowen-9-questions-interview">the original</a> on June 5, 2017. <q>Who is the person who has most influenced the way you think? [...] More proximately, I would cite economics as a discipline and <a href="/wiki/Plato">Plato</a>'s dialogic method for philosophy</q></cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.mercatus.org/scholars/tyler-cowen">"Tyler Cowen"</a>. <i>Mercatus Center</i>. George Mason University. August 15, 2008. Retrieved October 13, 2019.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-3">^</a></b> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/contributors/AS6n2t3d_iA/tyler-cowen">Tyler Cowen, columnist</a> <i>Bloomberg</i>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://conversationswithtyler.com/">"Conversations with Tyler | Listen to Tyler Cowen's Official Podcast"</a>. <i>conversationswithtyler.com</i>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-5">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/economist-tyler-cowen-launches-a-fellowship-and-grant-program-for-moon-shot-ideas/">"Economist Tyler Cowen Launches a Fellowship and Grant Program for Moon Shot Ideas"</a>. TechCrunch.com. September 13, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-6">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120416082704/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,44">"The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers (#72 Tyler Cowan:For finding markets in everything)"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/Foreign_Policy">Foreign Policy</a></i>. December 2011. Archived from <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,44">the original</a> on April 16, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-econ_7-0">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/economics&amp;fsrc=nwl">"Economics' most influential people"</a>. Economist.com. February 1, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-8">^</a></b> Rosenwald, Michael S. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051202637_2.html?sid=ST2010051302200">"Tyler Cowen's appetite for ethnic food – and answers about his life"</a>, <i><a href="/wiki/The_Washington_Post">The Washington Post</a></i>, May 13, 2010. Accessed November 2, 2017. "Cowen is 48. He grew up in Hillsdale, N.J., an hour's drive from New York."
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-9">^</a></b> <a href="https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/473473507/">"Chess"</a>, <i>The Ridgewood News</i>, September 12, 1976. Accessed March 19, 2021, via <a href="/wiki/Newspapers.com">Newspapers.com</a>. "Tyler Cowen, 14, of Hillsdale, a freshman at Pascack Valley High School, trounced Ruth Cardoso of Jersey City, the state's women's chess champion."
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a></b> <cite><a href="http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2006/09/interview-with-former-youngest-new.html">"Interview with the Former "Youngest New Jersey Chess Champion," Tyler Cowen"</a>. Kenilworthchessclub.org. September 8, 2006. Retrieved June 30, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a></b> <a href="https://archive.today/20120711090647/http://njscf.org/?page_id=84">New Jersey State Champions 1946 – Present</a> <i>New Jersey State Chess Federation</i>, Official Site
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-12">^</a></b> <cite>Haidt, Jonathan (March 28, 2016). <a href="https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt-35f76604464a">"Jonathan Haidt on Morality, Politics, Disgust, and Intellectual Diversity on Campus (Ep. 8)"</a> (Interview). Interviewed by Tyler Cowen. <a href="/wiki/Medium_(website)">Medium</a>. Retrieved August 26, 2019.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a></b> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130827103632/http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/07/entertainment/et-akst7">The joy of thinking globally</a> archived 27 August 2013 at the <a href="/wiki/Wayback_Machine">Wayback Machine</a>, February 7, 2003, Daniel Akst, <i>Los Angeles Times</i>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-14">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (2009). <i>Markets and Cultural Voices</i>. University of Michigan Press.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-15">^</a></b> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/business/14view.html?_r=2&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=tyler%20cowen&amp;st=cse&amp;oref=slogin&amp;oref=slogin">"Too Few Regulations? No, Just Ineffective Ones"</a>.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-16">^</a></b> <a href="https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/index.php/welcome/">"Tyler Cowen Ethnic Dining Guide"</a>. Cowen released the guide's <a href="https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019_06_Tyler_Cowen_Food.pdf">31st edition</a> in 2019.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-17">^</a></b> <cite>III, Douglas Hanks (June 20, 2001). <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/food/2001/06/20/the-lone-critic/c7f033ad-2aee-49be-ac32-063c0520c20b/">"The Lone Critic"</a>. <i>Washington Post</i>. <a href="/wiki/ISSN_(identifier)">ISSN</a> <a href="//www.worldcat.org/issn/0190-8286">0190-8286</a>. Retrieved December 8, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-18">^</a></b> <cite>Carman, Tim (January 30, 2009). <a href="http://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/370500/tyler-cowen-unleashes-the-latest-edition-of-his-ethnic-dining-guide/">"Tyler Cowen Unleashes the Latest Edition of His Ethnic Dining Guide"</a>. <i>Washington City Paper</i>. Retrieved December 8, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-19">^</a></b> "Against the social discount rate" by Derek Parfit and Tyler Cowen, in Peter Laslett &amp; James S. Fishkin (eds.) <i>Justice between age groups and generations</i>, Yale University Press: New Haven, 1992, pp. 144–161.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-20">^</a></b> <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.357.2120&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">"The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism"</a> by Tyler Cowen, Utilitas (2006), 18: 383–399, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210926182645/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.357.2120&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">archived</a> 26 September 2021 at the <a href="/wiki/Wayback_Machine">Wayback Machine</a>.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a></b> <a href="/wiki/Daniel_B._Klein">Klein, Daniel B.</a> "<a href="http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/wp_dk_mere.pdf">Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard</a> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080529174751/http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/wp_dk_mere.pdf">Archived</a> May 29, 2008, at the <a href="/wiki/Wayback_Machine">Wayback Machine</a>". <i>Reason Papers</i>. Vol. 27: Fall 2004.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-22">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (March 1, 2009). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/business/economy/01view.html?_r=1&amp;scp=5&amp;sq=Cowen&amp;st=cse">"Message to Regulators: Bank Fix Needed Quickly"</a>. <i>New York Times</i>.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-23">^</a></b> <a href="http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/03/11/tyler-cowen/the-paradox-of-libertarianism/">"The Paradox of Libertarianism"</a>.
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-24">^</a></b> <cite>Brooks, David (November 19, 2012). <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-future.html?ref=davidbrooks&amp;_r=2&amp;">"The Conservative Future"</a>. <i>New York Times</i>. Retrieved November 28, 2012.</cite>
</li>
<li>^ <a href="#cite_ref-auto_25-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-auto_25-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (August 4, 2014). <a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/matt-yglesias-on-tyler-cowen.html">"Matt Yglesias on Tyler Cowen"</a>. <i>Marginal Revolution</i>. Retrieved March 24, 2017.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-26">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (January 1, 2020). <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/what-libertarianism-has-become-and-will-become-state-capacity-libertarianism.html">"What libertarianism has become and will become — State Capacity Libertarianism"</a>. <i>Marginal Revolution</i>. Retrieved October 17, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-27">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (April 9, 2009). <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/04/blogging-gay-marriage.html">"A Bayesian approach to legal gay marriage"</a>. <i>Marginal Revolution</i>. Retrieved September 30, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-28">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (June 26, 2015). <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/06/legal-gay-marriage.html">"Legal gay marriage"</a>. <i>Marginal Revolution</i>. Retrieved December 2, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-29">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (August 12, 2017). <a href="https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/08/im-mormons-one.html">"I'm with the Mormons on this one — how about you?"</a>. <i>Marginal Revolution</i>. Retrieved October 27, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-30">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler (October 16, 2018). <a href="https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/tyler-cowen-robert-wiblin-stubborn-attachments-80000-hours-podcast-359aa62aa8ab">"Rob Wiblin interviews Tyler on *Stubborn Attachments* (BONUS)"</a>. Retrieved October 27, 2018.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-31">^</a></b> <cite>Cowen, Tyler; Collison, Patrick (July 30, 2019). <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/">"We Need a New Science of Progress"</a>. <i>The Atlantic</i>. Retrieved September 30, 2022.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-32">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/tyler-looks-back-on-2019-bonus/">"Tyler Looks Back on 2019 (BONUS)"</a>. <i>conversationswithtyler.com</i>. Retrieved December 6, 2021.</cite>
</li>
<li><b><a href="#cite_ref-33">^</a></b> <cite><a href="https://perell.com/podcast/tyler-cowen-production-function/">"Tyler Cowen: Production Function"</a>. <i>David Perell</i>. Retrieved December 6, 2021.</cite>
</li>
</ol></div>
<h2>External links[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&amp;action=edit&amp;section=13">edit</a>]</h2>
<ul><li><a href="http://mercatus.org/tyler-cowen">Cowen's bio</a> at the <a href="/wiki/Mercatus_Center">Mercatus Center</a></li>
<li><a href="https://publicchoice.gmu.edu/tylercowen">Tyler Cowen's Web Page at GMU</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/">Marginal Revolution</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.c-span.org/person/?49186">Appearances</a> on <a href="/wiki/C-SPAN">C-SPAN</a></li>
<li><a href="https://conversationswithtyler.com/">Conversations with Tyler</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/business/worldbusiness/07scene.html?ex=1315281600&amp;en=840cb033ccee4ee6&amp;ei=5088&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss">China Is Big Trouble for the U.S. Balance of Trade, Right? Well, Not So Fast</a></li>
<li><cite><a href="/wiki/Russ_Roberts">Roberts, Russ</a>. <a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/tyler_cowen/">"Tyler Cowen Podcasts"</a>. <i><a href="/wiki/EconTalk">EconTalk</a></i>. <a href="/wiki/Library_of_Economics_and_Liberty">Library of Economics and Liberty</a>.</cite></li>
<li><a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/07/whats_wrong_with_cuteonomics.cfm">What's wrong with cute-o-nomics?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/63867">Review of Naomi Klein's <i>The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism</i></a></li>
<li><a href="http://nymag.com/arts/books/reviews/34981/">New York Books Review of <i>Discover Your Inner Economist</i></a></li>
<li><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9n44NA8AAAAJ">Tyler Cowen</a> publications indexed by <a href="/wiki/Google_Scholar">Google Scholar</a></li>
<li><a href="https://muckrack.com/tyler-cowen">Tyler Cowen</a> on the <i>Muck Rack</i> journalist listing site <a href="https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q602278#P6005"></a></li></ul>
</div>||||I|||| Jump to content
 Toggle sidebar
 Search
 * Create account
 Personal tools
 * Create account
 * Log in

 Pages for logged out editors learn more

 * Talk
 * Contributions
 Navigation
 * Main page
 * Contents
 * Current events
 * Random article
 * About Wikipedia
 * Contact us
 * Donate
 Contribute
 * Help
 * Learn to edit
 * Community portal
 * Recent changes
 * Upload file
 Tools
 * What links here
 * Related changes
 * Upload file
 * Special pages
 * Permanent link
 * Page information
 * Cite this page
 * Wikidata item
 Print/export
 * Download as PDF
 * Printable version
 In other projects
 * Wikimedia Commons
 Languages
 On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. Go to top.

 Contents

 move to sidebar hide
 * (Top)
 * 1 Education and personal life
 * 2 Writings
 + 2.1 Culture
 + 2.2 Books
 + 2.3 The New York Times columns
 + 2.4 Dining guide
 * 3 Political philosophy
 * 4 Conversations with Tyler
 * 5 Publications
 + 5.1 Selected journal articles
 + 5.2 Select articles
 * 6 References
 * 7 External links
 Toggle the table of contents

 Tyler Cowen

 14 languages
 * تۆرکجه
 * Čeština
 * Deutsch
 * Español
 * Esperanto
 * فارسی
 * Français
 * Italiano
 * مصرى
 * Nederlands
 * 日本語
 * Português
 * Русский
 * 中文
 Edit links
 * Article
 * Talk
 English
 * Read
 * Edit
 * View history
 More
 * Read
 * Edit
 * View history
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 "Marginal Revolution (blog)" redirects here. For the blog's other co-author, see Alex Tabarrok.

 Tyler Cowen
 
 Born January 21, 1962 (age 61) 
 Bergen County, New Jersey, U.S.
 
 Institution George Mason University 
 Field Cultural economics 
 School or Neoclassical economics 
 tradition American libertarianism 
 Alma mater George Mason University (BS) 
 Harvard University (MS, PhD) 
 Doctoral Thomas Schelling 
 advisor 
 Chicago School 
 Influences Carl Menger 
 Plato[1] 
 
 

 Tyler Cowen (/ ˈ k aʊ ən /; born January 21, 1962) is an American economist, columnist and blogger. He is a professor at George Mason University, where he holds the Holbert L. Harris chair in the economics department.[2] He hosts the economics blog Marginal Revolution, together with co-author Alex Tabarrok. Cowen and Tabarrok also maintain the website Marginal Revolution University, a venture in online education.

 Cowen writes the "Economic Scene" column for The New York Times and since July 2016 has been a regular opinion columnist at Bloomberg Opinion.[3] He also writes for such publications as The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Newsweek and the Wilson Quarterly. He serves as general director of George Mason's Mercatus Center, a university research center that focuses on the market economy. Since 2015, he has hosted the podcast Conversations with Tyler.[4] In September, 2018, Tyler and his team at George Mason University launched Emergent Ventures, a grant and fellowship focused on "moon-shot" ideas.[5]

 He was ranked at number 72 among the "Top 100 Global Thinkers" in 2011 by Foreign Policy Magazine "for finding markets in everything".[6] In a 2011 poll of experts by The Economist, Cowen was included in the top 36 nominations of "which economists were most influential over the past decade".[7]

 Education and personal life [ edit ]

 Cowen was raised in Hillsdale, New Jersey[8] and attended Pascack Valley High School.[9] At 15, he became the youngest ever New Jersey state chess champion.[10][11] Cowen is of Irish ancestry.[12]

 He graduated from George Mason University with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics in 1983 and received his PhD in economics from Harvard University in 1987 with his thesis titled Essays in the theory of welfare economics. At Harvard, he was mentored by game theorist Thomas Schelling, the 2005 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is married to Natasha Cowen, a lawyer.

 Writings [ edit ]

 Culture [ edit ]

 The Los Angeles Times has described Cowen as "a man who can talk about Haitian voodoo flags, Iranian cinema, Hong Kong cuisine, Abstract Expressionism, Zairian music and Mexican folk art with seemingly equal facility".[13] One of Cowen's primary research interests is the economics of culture. He has written books on fame (What Price Fame?), art (In Praise of Commercial Culture) and cultural trade (Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures). In Markets and Cultural Voices, he relays how globalization is changing the world of three Mexican amate painters.[14] Cowen argues that free markets change culture for the better, allowing them to evolve into something more people want. Other books include Public Goods and Market Failures, The Theory of Market Failure, Explorations in the New Monetary Economics, Risk and Business Cycles, Economic Welfare and New Theories of Market Failure.

 Books [ edit ]

 Cowen presenting his 2011 book The Great Stagnation
 * Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World, with Daniel Gross. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2022, ISBN 978-1250275813, OCLC 1227086238.
 * Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2019. ISBN 978-1250110541, OCLC 1031569569.
 * Stubborn Attachments: A Vision for a Society of Free, Prosperous, and Responsible Individuals. Stripe Press. 2018. ISBN 978-1732265134.
 * The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream. New York: St. Martins Press. 2017. ISBN 978-1250108692. OCLC 981982936..
 * Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation. Dutton Adult. 2013. p. 304. ISBN 978-0525953739. (Wikipedia page)
 * With Alex Tabarrok: Modern Principles of Economics (2 ed.). Worth Publishers. 2012. p. 900. ISBN 978-1429239974.
 * An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies. New York: Dutton Adult. 2012. ISBN 978-0525952664. OCLC 839314802.
 * The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better. Dutton Adult. 2011. ISBN 978-0525952718. OCLC 714718051.
 * The Age of the Infovore: Succeeding in the Information Economy (2010)
 * Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World. Dutton Adult. 2009. ISBN 978-0525951230.
 * Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist. Dutton Adult. 2007. ISBN 978-0525950257.
 * Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2006. ISBN 978-0691120423.
 * Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society). University of Michigan Press. 2005. ISBN 978-0472068890.
 * Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2004. ISBN 978-0691117836.
 * What Price Fame?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2002. ISBN 978-0674008090.
 * In Praise of Commercial Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2000. ISBN 978-0674001886.
 * Risk and Business Cycles: New and Old Austrian Perspectives. Psychology Press. 1998. ISBN 978-0415169196.
 * Explorations in the New Monetary Economics (1994)
 * Public Goods and Market Failures: A Critical Examination (2 ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 1991. ISBN 978-1560005704.

 The New York Times columns [ edit ]

 Cowen's New York Times columns cover a wide range of issues such as the 2008 financial crisis.[15]

 Dining guide [ edit ]

 His dining guide for the D.C. area, "Tyler Cowen's Ethnic Dining Guide",[16] has been written about by The Washington Post[17] and Washington City Paper.[18]

 Political philosophy [ edit ]

 Cowen has written papers on political philosophy and ethics. He co-wrote a paper with philosopher Derek Parfit arguing against the social discount rate.[19] In a 2006 paper, he argued that the epistemic problem fails to refute consequentialism.[20]

 Cowen has been described as a "libertarian bargainer" who can influence practical policy making,[21] yet he endorsed bank bailouts in his March 2, 2009 column in The New York Times.[22] In a 2007 article entitled "The Paradox of Libertarianism", Cowen argued that libertarians "should embrace a world with growing wealth, growing positive liberty, and yes, growing government. We don't have to favor the growth in government per se, but we do need to recognize that sometimes it is a package deal".[23]

 In 2012, David Brooks called Cowen "one of the most influential bloggers on the right", writing that he is among those who "start from broadly libertarian premises but do not apply them in a doctrinaire way".[24]

 In an August, 2014 blog post, Cowen wrote: "Just to summarize, I generally favor much more immigration but not open borders, I am a liberal on most but not all social issues, and I am market-oriented on economic issues. On most current foreign policy issues I am genuinely agnostic as to what exactly we should do but skeptical that we are doing the right thing at the moment. I don't like voting for either party or for third parties".[25]

 In a 2020 New Year's Day Marginal Revolution post, Cowen outlined a philosophical framework he dubbed "State Capacity Libertarianism". State Capacity Libertarianism differs from classical liberalism in that it acknowledges the State's role in funding and executing megaprojects and a non-isolationist foreign policy.[26]

 Cowen has described himself as a liberal on most social issues[25] and supports same-sex marriage.[27] After the Supreme Court issued its holding regarding same-sex marriage, Cowen said that "this is exciting and very positive news. Most of all, it is a breakthrough for those people who can now marry, or exercise the choice not to marry".[28]

 Cowen is a teetotaler, stating he is "with the Mormons" on alcohol,[29] later stating: "I encourage people to just completely, voluntarily abstain from alcohol and make it a social norm".[30]

 In July 2019, Cowen co-authored an essay in The Atlantic with Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison calling for a "new science of progress".[31]

 Conversations with Tyler [ edit ]

 Conversations with Tyler is Cowen's podcast produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason. Unlike Marginal Revolution, Conversations is hosted by Cowen exclusively. Guests are usually authors and academics, but have also included athletes (Martina Navratilova, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), military personnel (Stanley A. McChrystal), entrepreneurs (Mark Zuckerberg, Brian Armstrong), novelists (Emily St. John Mandel) and a homeless person from Washington, D.C. named "Alexander the Grate".

 The show has two recurring segments:

 * "Underrated/Overrated", where guests are given a quick-fire list of cultural works or academic concepts and asked to say whether they agree with the general critical response received.
 * The [guest name] Production Function, where guests are asked to describe their personal productivity habits.

 In describing the podcast, Cowen repeatedly characterises it as "...the conversation I want to have".[32][33]

 Publications [ edit ]

 Selected journal articles [ edit ]

 * Cowen, Tyler (December 22, 2011). "An Economic and Rational Choice Approach to the Autism Spectrum and Human Neurodiversity". GMU Working Paper in Economics. 11 (58). SSRN 1975809.
 * Cowen, Tyler (October 7, 2011). "The Microeconomics of Public Choice in Developing Economies: A Case Study of One Mexican Village". The Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-being of Nations. SSRN 1940219.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Alexander Tabarrok (October 2000). "An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and Popular Art, or High and Low Culture". Southern Economic Journal. 67 (2): 232–253. doi:10.2307/1061469. JSTOR 1061469.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Amihai Glazer; Katarina Zajc (2000). "Credibility May Require Discretion, Not Rules" (PDF) . Journal of Public Economics. 76 (2): 295–306. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00051-1.
 * Cowen, Tyler (August 1997). "Should the Central Bank Target CPI Futures?" (PDF) . Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 29 (3): 275–285. doi:10.2307/2953693. JSTOR 2953693.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Daniel Sutter (1997). "Politics and the Pursuit of Fame" (PDF) . Public Choice. 93: 19–35. doi:10.1023/A:1017939531594. S2CID 152467126.
 * Cowen, T.; Robin Grier (1996). "Do Artists Suffer From A Cost Disease?" (PDF) . Rationality and Society. 8 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1177/104346396008001001. S2CID 153392382.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Amihai Glazer (1996). "More Monitoring Can Induce Less Effort" (PDF) . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 30: 113–123. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00845-1.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Alexander Tabarrok (April 1995). "Good Grapes and Bad Lobsters: Applying the Alchian and Allen Theorem" (PDF) . Economic Inquiry. 33 (2): 253–256. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01860.x.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Randall Kroszner (May 1989). "Scottish Banking before 1845: A Model for Laissez-Faire?". Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 21 (2): 221–231. doi:10.2307/1992370. JSTOR 1992370.
 * Cowen, Tyler; Richard Fink (September 1985). "Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard". American Economic Review. 75 (4): 866–869. JSTOR 1821365.

 Select articles [ edit ]

 * Cowen, Tyler (August 11, 2012). "Two Prisms for Looking at China's Problems". New York Times.
 * Cowen, Tyler (June 16, 2012). "Broken Trust Takes Time to Mend". New York Times.
 * "What Export-Oriented America Means". The American Interest. May–June 2012. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013.
 * "Six Rules for Dining Out". The Atlantic. May 2012.
 * "6 Ideas for the Ash Heap of History". Foreign Policy. November 28, 2011. Archived from the original on August 16, 2012 . Retrieved September 12, 2012 .
 * "The Inequality That Matters". The American Interest. January–February 2011. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013.
 * "The Lack of Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth"- NYTimes, June 14, 2014

 References [ edit ]

 1. ^ Illing, Sean (June 3, 2017). "9 questions for Tyler Cowen". Vox Media. Archived from the original on June 5, 2017. "Who is the person who has most influenced the way you think? [...] More proximately, I would cite economics as a discipline and "Plato"'s dialogic method for philosophy"
 2. ^ "Tyler Cowen". Mercatus Center. George Mason University. August 15, 2008 . Retrieved October 13, 2019 .
 3. ^ Tyler Cowen, columnist Bloomberg
 4. ^ "Conversations with Tyler | Listen to Tyler Cowen's Official Podcast". conversationswithtyler.com.
 5. ^ "Economist Tyler Cowen Launches a Fellowship and Grant Program for Moon Shot Ideas". TechCrunch.com. September 13, 2018.
 6. ^ "The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers (#72 Tyler Cowan:For finding markets in everything)". Foreign Policy. December 2011. Archived from the original on April 16, 2012 . Retrieved March 21, 2012 .
 7. ^ "Economics' most influential people". Economist.com. February 1, 2011 . Retrieved June 30, 2012 .
 8. ^ Rosenwald, Michael S. "Tyler Cowen's appetite for ethnic food – and answers about his life" , The Washington Post , May 13, 2010. Accessed November 2, 2017. "Cowen is 48. He grew up in Hillsdale, N.J., an hour's drive from New York."
 9. ^ "Chess" , The Ridgewood News , September 12, 1976. Accessed March 19, 2021, via Newspapers.com . "Tyler Cowen, 14, of Hillsdale, a freshman at Pascack Valley High School, trounced Ruth Cardoso of Jersey City, the state's women's chess champion."
 10. ^ "Interview with the Former "Youngest New Jersey Chess Champion," Tyler Cowen". Kenilworthchessclub.org. September 8, 2006 . Retrieved June 30, 2012 .
 11. ^ New Jersey State Champions 1946 – Present New Jersey State Chess Federation , Official Site
 12. ^ Haidt, Jonathan (March 28, 2016). "Jonathan Haidt on Morality, Politics, Disgust, and Intellectual Diversity on Campus (Ep. 8)" (Interview). Interviewed by Tyler Cowen. Medium . Retrieved August 26, 2019 .
 13. ^ The joy of thinking globally archived 27 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine , February 7, 2003, Daniel Akst, Los Angeles Times
 14. ^ Cowen, Tyler (2009). Markets and Cultural Voices. University of Michigan Press.
 15. ^ "Too Few Regulations? No, Just Ineffective Ones" .
 16. ^ "Tyler Cowen Ethnic Dining Guide" . Cowen released the guide's 31st edition in 2019.
 17. ^ III, Douglas Hanks (June 20, 2001). "The Lone Critic". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286 . Retrieved December 8, 2021 .
 18. ^ Carman, Tim (January 30, 2009). "Tyler Cowen Unleashes the Latest Edition of His Ethnic Dining Guide". Washington City Paper . Retrieved December 8, 2021 .
 19. ^ "Against the social discount rate" by Derek Parfit and Tyler Cowen, in Peter Laslett & James S. Fishkin (eds.) Justice between age groups and generations , Yale University Press: New Haven, 1992, pp. 144–161.
 20. ^ "The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism" by Tyler Cowen, Utilitas (2006), 18: 383–399, archived 26 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine .
 21. ^ Klein, Daniel B. " Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard Archived May 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine ". Reason Papers . Vol. 27: Fall 2004.
 22. ^ Cowen, Tyler (March 1, 2009). "Message to Regulators: Bank Fix Needed Quickly". New York Times.
 23. ^ "The Paradox of Libertarianism" .
 24. ^ Brooks, David (November 19, 2012). "The Conservative Future". New York Times . Retrieved November 28, 2012 .
 25. ^ a b Cowen, Tyler (August 4, 2014). "Matt Yglesias on Tyler Cowen". Marginal Revolution . Retrieved March 24, 2017 .
 26. ^ Cowen, Tyler (January 1, 2020). "What libertarianism has become and will become — State Capacity Libertarianism". Marginal Revolution . Retrieved October 17, 2021 .
 27. ^ Cowen, Tyler (April 9, 2009). "A Bayesian approach to legal gay marriage". Marginal Revolution . Retrieved September 30, 2018 .
 28. ^ Cowen, Tyler (June 26, 2015). "Legal gay marriage". Marginal Revolution . Retrieved December 2, 2018 .
 29. ^ Cowen, Tyler (August 12, 2017). "I'm with the Mormons on this one — how about you?". Marginal Revolution . Retrieved October 27, 2018 .
 30. ^ Cowen, Tyler (October 16, 2018). "Rob Wiblin interviews Tyler on *Stubborn Attachments* (BONUS)" . Retrieved October 27, 2018 .
 31. ^ Cowen, Tyler; Collison, Patrick (July 30, 2019). "We Need a New Science of Progress". The Atlantic . Retrieved September 30, 2022 .
 32. ^ "Tyler Looks Back on 2019 (BONUS)". conversationswithtyler.com . Retrieved December 6, 2021 .
 33. ^ "Tyler Cowen: Production Function". David Perell . Retrieved December 6, 2021 .

 External links [ edit ]

 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tyler Cowen.
 * Cowen's bio at the Mercatus Center
 * Tyler Cowen's Web Page at GMU
 * Marginal Revolution
 * Appearances on C-SPAN
 * Conversations with Tyler
 * China Is Big Trouble for the U.S. Balance of Trade, Right? Well, Not So Fast
 * Roberts, Russ. "Tyler Cowen Podcasts". EconTalk. Library of Economics and Liberty.
 * What's wrong with cute-o-nomics?
 * Review of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
 * New York Books Review of Discover Your Inner Economist
 * Tyler Cowen publications indexed by Google Scholar
 * Tyler Cowen on the Muck Rack journalist listing site
 Portals :
 * Economics
 * Libertarianism
 * Politics
 Authority control 
 * ISNI 
 + 1 
 General * VIAF 
 + 1 
 * WorldCat 
 * Norway 
 * Spain 
 * France (data) 
 * Germany 
 * Israel 
 National libraries * United States 
 * Latvia 
 * Japan 
 * Czech Republic 
 * Korea 
 * Netherlands 
 * Google Scholar 
 Scientific databases * MathSciNet 
 * Mathematics Genealogy Project
 Other * SUDOC (France) 
 + 1 
 
 Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Cowen&oldid=1134515081"
 Categories:
 * 1962 births
 * Living people
 * 20th-century American non-fiction writers
 * 20th-century American economists
 * 21st-century American non-fiction writers
 * 21st-century American economists
 * American male bloggers
 * American bloggers
 * American food writers
 * American libertarians
 * American people of Irish descent
 * American political writers
 * American social sciences writers
 * Cato Institute people
 * George Mason University alumni
 * George Mason University faculty
 * Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences alumni
 * Libertarian economists
 * The New York Times columnists
 * Pascack Valley High School alumni
 * People from Hillsdale, New Jersey
 * Mercatus Center
 * Economists from New Jersey
 * American podcasters
 Hidden categories:
 * Webarchive template wayback links
 * Articles with short description
 * Short description is different from Wikidata
 * Use mdy dates from November 2011
 * Articles with hCards
 * Commons category link is on Wikidata
 * People appearing on C-SPAN
 * Articles with ISNI identifiers
 * Articles with VIAF identifiers
 * Articles with WorldCat identifiers
 * Articles with BIBSYS identifiers
 * Articles with BNE identifiers
 * Articles with BNF identifiers
 * Articles with GND identifiers
 * Articles with J9U identifiers
 * Articles with LCCN identifiers
 * Articles with LNB identifiers
 * Articles with NDL identifiers
 * Articles with NKC identifiers
 * Articles with NLK identifiers
 * Articles with NTA identifiers
 * Articles with Google Scholar identifiers
 * Articles with MATHSN identifiers
 * Articles with MGP identifiers
 * Articles with SUDOC identifiers
 * This page was last edited on 19 January 2023, at 02:15 (UTC) .
 * Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
 * Privacy policy
 * About Wikipedia
 * Disclaimers
 * Contact Wikipedia
 * Mobile view
 * Developers
 * Statistics
 * Cookie statement
 * 
 * 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
	 
"Marginal Revolution (blog)" redirects here. For the blog's other co-author, see Alex Tabarrok.
    Tyler Cowen          Born January 21, 1962 (age 61)   Bergen County, New Jersey, U.S.         Institution  George Mason University    Field  Cultural economics    School ortradition  Neoclassical economics  American libertarianism    Alma mater  George Mason University (BS) Harvard University (MS, PhD)   Doctoraladvisor  Thomas Schelling    Influences  Chicago School  Carl Menger  Plato  [1]     
 Tyler Cowen (; born January 21, 1962) is an American economist, columnist and blogger. He is a professor at George Mason University, where he holds the Holbert L. Harris chair in the economics department. [2]  He hosts the economics blog Marginal Revolution, together with co-author Alex Tabarrok. Cowen and Tabarrok also maintain the website Marginal Revolution University, a venture in online education.
 Cowen writes the "Economic Scene" column for  The New York Times  and since July 2016 has been a regular opinion columnist at  Bloomberg Opinion . [3]  He also writes for such publications as  The New Republic ,  The Wall Street Journal ,  Forbes ,  Newsweek  and the  Wilson Quarterly . He serves as general director of George Mason's Mercatus Center, a university research center that focuses on the market economy. Since 2015, he has hosted the podcast Conversations with Tyler. [4]  In September, 2018, Tyler and his team at George Mason University launched Emergent Ventures, a grant and fellowship focused on "moon-shot" ideas. [5] 
 He was ranked at number 72 among the "Top 100 Global Thinkers" in 2011 by  Foreign Policy Magazine  "for finding markets in everything". [6]  In a 2011 poll of experts by  The Economist , Cowen was included in the top 36 nominations of "which economists were most influential over the past decade". [7] 
Education and personal life[edit]
Cowen was raised in Hillsdale, New Jersey  [8]  and attended Pascack Valley High School. [9]  At 15, he became the youngest ever New Jersey state chess champion. [10]   [11]  Cowen is of Irish ancestry. [12] 
 He graduated from George Mason University with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics in 1983 and received his PhD in economics from Harvard University in 1987 with his thesis titled Essays in the theory of welfare economics. At Harvard, he was mentored by game theorist Thomas Schelling, the 2005 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He is married to Natasha Cowen, a lawyer.
Writings[edit]
Culture[edit]
The  Los Angeles Times  has described Cowen as "a man who can talk about Haitian voodoo flags, Iranian cinema, Hong Kong cuisine, Abstract Expressionism, Zairian music and Mexican folk art with seemingly equal facility". [13]  One of Cowen's primary research interests is the economics of culture. He has written books on fame (What Price Fame?), art (In Praise of Commercial Culture) and cultural trade (Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures). In Markets and Cultural Voices, he relays how globalization is changing the world of three Mexican amate painters. [14]  Cowen argues that free markets change culture for the better, allowing them to evolve into something more people want. Other books include Public Goods and Market Failures, The Theory of Market Failure, Explorations in the New Monetary Economics, Risk and Business Cycles, Economic Welfare and New Theories of Market Failure.
Books[edit]
     
  Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World, with Daniel Gross. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2022, ISBN 978-1250275813, OCLC 1227086238.
 Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2019. ISBN 978-1250110541, OCLC 1031569569.
  Stubborn Attachments: A Vision for a Society of Free, Prosperous, and Responsible Individuals. Stripe Press. 2018. ISBN  978-1732265134 . 
  The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream. New York: St. Martins Press. 2017. ISBN  978-1250108692 . OCLC 981982936..
   Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation . Dutton Adult. 2013. p. 304. ISBN  978-0525953739 . (Wikipedia page)
With Alex Tabarrok:   Modern Principles of Economics  (2 ed.). Worth Publishers. 2012. p. 900. ISBN  978-1429239974 . 
   An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies . New York: Dutton Adult. 2012. ISBN  978-0525952664 . OCLC 839314802. 
   The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better . Dutton Adult. 2011. ISBN  978-0525952718 . OCLC 714718051. 
 The Age of the Infovore: Succeeding in the Information Economy (2010) 
   Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World . Dutton Adult. 2009. ISBN  978-0525951230 . 
   Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist . Dutton Adult. 2007. ISBN  978-0525950257 . 
   Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2006. ISBN  978-0691120423 . 
   Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society) . University of Michigan Press. 2005. ISBN  978-0472068890 . 
   Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2004. ISBN  978-0691117836 . 
   What Price Fame? . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2002. ISBN  978-0674008090 . 
   In Praise of Commercial Culture . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2000. ISBN  978-0674001886 . 
   Risk and Business Cycles: New and Old Austrian Perspectives . Psychology Press. 1998. ISBN  978-0415169196 . 
Explorations in the New Monetary Economics (1994)
   Public Goods and Market Failures: A Critical Examination  (2 ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 1991. ISBN  978-1560005704 .  
 The New York Times columns[edit]
Cowen's New York Times columns cover a wide range of issues such as the 2008 financial crisis. [15] 
Dining guide[edit]
His dining guide for the D.C. area, "Tyler Cowen's Ethnic Dining Guide", [16]  has been written about by  The Washington Post   [17]  and  Washington City Paper . [18] 
Political philosophy[edit]
Cowen has written papers on political philosophy and ethics. He co-wrote a paper with philosopher Derek Parfit arguing against the social discount rate. [19]  In a 2006 paper, he argued that the epistemic problem fails to refute consequentialism. [20] 
 Cowen has been described as a "libertarian bargainer" who can influence practical policy making, [21]  yet he endorsed bank bailouts in his March 2, 2009 column in The New York Times. [22]  In a 2007 article entitled "The Paradox of Libertarianism", Cowen argued that libertarians "should embrace a world with growing wealth, growing positive liberty, and yes, growing government. We don't have to favor the growth in government per se, but we do need to recognize that sometimes it is a package deal". [23] 
 In 2012, David Brooks called Cowen "one of the most influential bloggers on the right", writing that he is among those who "start from broadly libertarian premises but do not apply them in a doctrinaire way". [24] 
 In an August, 2014 blog post, Cowen wrote: "Just to summarize, I generally favor much more immigration but not open borders, I am a liberal on most but not all social issues, and I am market-oriented on economic issues. On most current foreign policy issues I am genuinely agnostic as to what exactly we should do but skeptical that we are doing the right thing at the moment. I don't like voting for either party or for third parties". [25] 
 In a 2020 New Year's Day Marginal Revolution post, Cowen outlined a philosophical framework he dubbed "State Capacity Libertarianism". State Capacity Libertarianism differs from classical liberalism in that it acknowledges the State's role in funding and executing megaprojects and a non-isolationist foreign policy. [26] 
 Cowen has described himself as a liberal on most social issues [25]  and supports same-sex marriage. [27]  After the Supreme Court issued its holding regarding same-sex marriage, Cowen said that "this is exciting and very positive news. Most of all, it is a breakthrough for those people who can now marry, or exercise the choice not to marry". [28] 
 Cowen is a teetotaler, stating he is "with the Mormons" on alcohol, [29]  later stating: "I encourage people to just completely, voluntarily abstain from alcohol and make it a social norm". [30] 
 In July 2019, Cowen co-authored an essay in  The Atlantic  with Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison calling for a "new science of progress". [31]  
 Conversations with Tyler[edit]
 Conversations with Tyler is Cowen's podcast produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason. Unlike Marginal Revolution, Conversations is hosted by Cowen exclusively. Guests are usually authors and academics, but have also included athletes (Martina Navratilova, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), military personnel (Stanley A. McChrystal), entrepreneurs (Mark Zuckerberg, Brian Armstrong), novelists (Emily St. John Mandel) and a homeless person from Washington, D.C. named "Alexander the Grate". 
 The show has two recurring segments: 
 "Underrated/Overrated", where guests are given a quick-fire list of cultural works or academic concepts and asked to say whether they agree with the general critical response received.
 The [guest name] Production Function, where guests are asked to describe their personal productivity habits. 
In describing the podcast, Cowen repeatedly characterises it as "...the conversation I want to have". [32]   [33] 
Publications[edit]
Selected journal articles[edit]
  Cowen, Tyler (December 22, 2011). "An Economic and Rational Choice Approach to the Autism Spectrum and Human Neurodiversity". GMU Working Paper in Economics. 11 (58). SSRN 1975809. 
 Cowen, Tyler (October 7, 2011). "The Microeconomics of Public Choice in Developing Economies: A Case Study of One Mexican Village". The Annual Proceedings of the Wealth and Well-being of Nations. SSRN 1940219. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Alexander Tabarrok (October 2000). "An Economic Theory of Avant-Garde and Popular Art, or High and Low Culture". Southern Economic Journal. 67 (2): 232–253. doi:10.2307/1061469. JSTOR 1061469. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Amihai Glazer; Katarina Zajc (2000). "Credibility May Require Discretion, Not Rules" (PDF). Journal of Public Economics. 76 (2): 295–306. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00051-1. 
 Cowen, Tyler (August 1997). "Should the Central Bank Target CPI Futures?" (PDF). Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. 29 (3): 275–285. doi:10.2307/2953693. JSTOR 2953693. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Daniel Sutter (1997). "Politics and the Pursuit of Fame" (PDF). Public Choice. 93: 19–35. doi:10.1023/A:1017939531594. S2CID 152467126. 
 Cowen, T.; Robin Grier (1996). "Do Artists Suffer From A Cost Disease?" (PDF). Rationality and Society. 8 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1177/104346396008001001. S2CID 153392382. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Amihai Glazer (1996). "More Monitoring Can Induce Less Effort" (PDF). Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 30: 113–123. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00845-1. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Alexander Tabarrok (April 1995). "Good Grapes and Bad Lobsters: Applying the Alchian and Allen Theorem" (PDF). Economic Inquiry. 33 (2): 253–256. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01860.x. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Randall Kroszner (May 1989). "Scottish Banking before 1845: A Model for Laissez-Faire?".  Journal of Money, Credit and Banking . 21 (2): 221–231. doi:10.2307/1992370. JSTOR 1992370. 
 Cowen, Tyler; Richard Fink (September 1985). "Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard".  American Economic Review . 75 (4): 866–869. JSTOR 1821365.  
Select articles[edit]
  Cowen, Tyler (August 11, 2012). "Two Prisms for Looking at China's Problems". New York Times. 
 Cowen, Tyler (June 16, 2012). "Broken Trust Takes Time to Mend". New York Times. 
  "What Export-Oriented America Means". The American Interest. May–June 2012. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013. 
  "Six Rules for Dining Out". The Atlantic. May 2012. 
  "6 Ideas for the Ash Heap of History". Foreign Policy. November 28, 2011. Archived from the original on August 16, 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2012. 
  "The Inequality That Matters". The American Interest. January–February 2011. Archived from the original on October 21, 2013. 
 "The Lack of Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth"- NYTimes, June 14, 2014  
References[edit]
 
  ^  Illing, Sean (June 3, 2017). "9 questions for Tyler Cowen". Vox Media. Archived from the original on June 5, 2017. Who is the person who has most influenced the way you think? [...] More proximately, I would cite economics as a discipline and Plato's dialogic method for philosophy 
  ^   "Tyler Cowen". Mercatus Center. George Mason University. August 15, 2008. Retrieved October 13, 2019.
  ^  Tyler Cowen, columnist Bloomberg
  ^   "Conversations with Tyler | Listen to Tyler Cowen's Official Podcast". conversationswithtyler.com.
  ^   "Economist Tyler Cowen Launches a Fellowship and Grant Program for Moon Shot Ideas". TechCrunch.com. September 13, 2018.
  ^   "The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers (#72 Tyler Cowan:For finding markets in everything)".  Foreign Policy . December 2011. Archived from the original on April 16, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  ^   "Economics' most influential people". Economist.com. February 1, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
  ^  Rosenwald, Michael S. "Tyler Cowen's appetite for ethnic food – and answers about his life",  The Washington Post , May 13, 2010. Accessed November 2, 2017. "Cowen is 48. He grew up in Hillsdale, N.J., an hour's drive from New York."
  ^  "Chess", The Ridgewood News, September 12, 1976. Accessed March 19, 2021, via Newspapers.com. "Tyler Cowen, 14, of Hillsdale, a freshman at Pascack Valley High School, trounced Ruth Cardoso of Jersey City, the state's women's chess champion."
  ^   "Interview with the Former "Youngest New Jersey Chess Champion," Tyler Cowen". Kenilworthchessclub.org. September 8, 2006. Retrieved June 30, 2012.
  ^  New Jersey State Champions 1946 – Present New Jersey State Chess Federation, Official Site
  ^  Haidt, Jonathan (March 28, 2016). "Jonathan Haidt on Morality, Politics, Disgust, and Intellectual Diversity on Campus (Ep. 8)" (Interview). Interviewed by Tyler Cowen. Medium. Retrieved August 26, 2019.
  ^  The joy of thinking globally archived 27 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine, February 7, 2003, Daniel Akst, Los Angeles Times
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (2009). Markets and Cultural Voices. University of Michigan Press.
  ^  "Too Few Regulations? No, Just Ineffective Ones".
  ^  "Tyler Cowen Ethnic Dining Guide". Cowen released the guide's 31st edition in 2019.
  ^  III, Douglas Hanks (June 20, 2001). "The Lone Critic". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 8, 2021.
  ^  Carman, Tim (January 30, 2009). "Tyler Cowen Unleashes the Latest Edition of His Ethnic Dining Guide". Washington City Paper. Retrieved December 8, 2021.
  ^  "Against the social discount rate" by Derek Parfit and Tyler Cowen, in Peter Laslett &amp; James S. Fishkin (eds.) Justice between age groups and generations, Yale University Press: New Haven, 1992, pp. 144–161.
  ^  "The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism" by Tyler Cowen, Utilitas (2006), 18: 383–399, archived 26 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
  ^  Klein, Daniel B. "Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard Archived May 29, 2008, at the Wayback Machine". Reason Papers. Vol. 27: Fall 2004.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (March 1, 2009). "Message to Regulators: Bank Fix Needed Quickly". New York Times.
  ^  "The Paradox of Libertarianism".
  ^  Brooks, David (November 19, 2012). "The Conservative Future". New York Times. Retrieved November 28, 2012.
^    a       b    Cowen, Tyler (August 4, 2014). "Matt Yglesias on Tyler Cowen". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved March 24, 2017.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (January 1, 2020). "What libertarianism has become and will become — State Capacity Libertarianism". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (April 9, 2009). "A Bayesian approach to legal gay marriage". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved September 30, 2018.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (June 26, 2015). "Legal gay marriage". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved December 2, 2018.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (August 12, 2017). "I'm with the Mormons on this one — how about you?". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved October 27, 2018.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler (October 16, 2018). "Rob Wiblin interviews Tyler on *Stubborn Attachments* (BONUS)". Retrieved October 27, 2018.
  ^  Cowen, Tyler; Collison, Patrick (July 30, 2019). "We Need a New Science of Progress". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
  ^   "Tyler Looks Back on 2019 (BONUS)". conversationswithtyler.com. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
  ^   "Tyler Cowen: Production Function". David Perell. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
 
External links[edit]
  Cowen's bio at the Mercatus Center 
 Tyler Cowen's Web Page at GMU 
 Marginal Revolution 
 Appearances on C-SPAN 
 Conversations with Tyler 
 China Is Big Trouble for the U.S. Balance of Trade, Right? Well, Not So Fast 
  Roberts, Russ. "Tyler Cowen Podcasts".  EconTalk . Library of Economics and Liberty. 
 What's wrong with cute-o-nomics? 
 Review of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism  
 New York Books Review of Discover Your Inner Economist  
 Tyler Cowen publications indexed by Google Scholar 
 Tyler Cowen on the Muck Rack journalist listing site
Tyler Cowen - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen