Books»
A rough guide to life
JUL 30 -
The study of economics is complicated and associated with big numbers: math, money and the 6.3 billion people worldwide that use it nearly everyday. On the other hand, the study of Freakonomics is easy, fun and comprehensive. Both deliver the same results, nevertheless: a logical explanation to everyday problems in the everyday world. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner joined forces to create the massive bestseller Freakonomics, and due to popular demand, have come out with a second bestseller—SuperFreakonomics.
As an economist, Levitt with the help of journalist and Dubner took a less-scientific approach in rationalising human behaviour. The two men have taken a backdoor approach in understanding parenthood, global warming and even terrorists to provide reasonable, never-before heard solutions that may well save the world. As a result, the reader begins to question conventional wisdom in finding more comprehensive answers to age-old problems.
The first book dealt with interesting stories that have been researched for many years, like the Mafia and how it related to multi-chain restaurants and businesses. A lot of books by different authors have been published since then in response to Freakonomics, imitating the analysis and methods Levitt used in explaining logic behind life, but the most interesting idea presented in the sequel is the solution to global warming. A private think tank of scientists, engineers and millionaires came up with an idea of imitating a volcanic eruption by pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere with the help of giant hoses—sort of like sunglasses for the earth—and thus producing a cooling effect. Levitt and Dubner describe the idea as simple in comparison with other radical ideas out there such as cutting down CO2 emissions.
Frankly, there is nothing simple about it, as witnessed earlier this year from the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull. That eruption did not decrease temperatures in Europe; in fact, this summer temperatures peaked at record highs and not to mention the long term effects we have yet to discover. But the book does make a point to question everything.
Another idea Super-Freakonomics explains, for better or worse, is how terrorists can prevent from being caught; all it takes is simple insurance. But why would a man pay for life insurance if he was going to blow himself up? It may not be the smartest idea to write about, in case one of the radicals were to use their advice, but the reasoning is as sound as the other issues the authors raise.
In a way the sequel is also more compassionate; Levitt had lost his son in an accident that took the family by surprise. By going to group therapy sessions to meet other grieving parents, Levitt realised how many kids died by drowning in swimming pools. He points out that parents have an irrational fear of having a gun or a weapon at home and not allowing kids to visit other homes with guns, but they don’t think twice about allowing kids to play in their neighbour’s swimming pool when, in fact, deaths from drowning number much more than deaths by guns. This analysis was not done to scare kids away from swimming but merely to point out the irrationality when it comes to decision-making.
SuperFreakonomics was written not as a second book but as an extension to their previous one. One could be read without the other, although one shouldn’t because both are incredibly fascinating and easy reads, packed with noteworthy knowledge and trivial information that make for great small talk at dinners and among co-workers. The last chapter finishes on a topic that many love and find funny: Monkeys, by introducing money into their group hierarchy, allow prostitution to prevail—an extremely surprising and hilarious read. But it does raise the question: Does money corrupt animals as well? Perhaps it was a way for a book to end on a lighter note, without the seriousness of global warming, prostitution and terrorism, and maybe a way to end the Freakonomics business altogether with a laugh.
The first book was fast-paced and fresh, while the follow-up was stretched out and less controversial. Even though it is hard to call Freakonomics a science or define it in a dictionary as an alternative to economic theory, the notion will always be a big part of this century by making everyone think differently. Many economists and writers will follow in Levitt’s and Dubner’s footsteps, rationalising and taking apart conventional wisdom, perhaps even doing it better. But we should all know where and how it began.
Posted on: 2010-07-31 09:16
Headlines
Advertisements
