Economics and Everyday Life - The Armchair Economist

I am an Economics majors student and I found some (like 7 out of 10 times) solutions/reasons given by the author pertaining to the problems unreasonable or rather absurd, let me start from the Environmentalist essay.
The author sounds too traditional, unlike an economist he writes, whatever his daughter learned in school he overturned it like the one regarding sharing transportation or recycling(R), of recycling(R) he gives some study (subsequently supports it too) that no. of trees fall if R is undertaken on a large scale but this reasoning does not withstand the reality as economists are there to "solve the problem and not run away from it", using up more resources is inefficient and this can stopped by simple measures, in INDIA the financial report has tied some % of state revenue share to the %of forests cover this is unrelated to recycling but this shows economists can tackle these problems easily and moreover recycling helps reduce CARBON EMISSIONS beneficial from social pt of view and also reduces energy consumption reqd to reach a specific target which makes sense from economics pt of view.
Now coming to the argument of TRANSFERRING THE HIGH POLLUTION INDUSTRIES to the THIRD WORLD though this is not his suggestion but implicitly he seems to be accepting it. What a preposterous point to support, does the author know that it is the so called third world only which supports the world economy growth and climatic disturbances in these nations can wreck havoc in world economy resulting into steep fall in efficiency worldwide and moreover this is not a LONG TERM solution which we economists vie for, long term solution should be to switch to alternatives starting with low proportion in the total mix and moving to high proportions.
Another assumption the author makes is we can never have a stable interest rate bcz everybody would seize the opportunity the moment it's born for this he contradicts himself and states "everybody" is similar and bid up the price of similar goods having similar tastes, the shortcoming in this argument is that there are always some ppl who are better off as compared to others and so one group's rise in dd is compensated by the other grp's fall.
Another such instance is his argument regarding Rich Poor gap which he discredits, in Fault Lines, Raghuram Rajan states that in 1975 90th percentile earned on avg about 3times more than the 10th percentile by 2005 they earned 5times more. I dont think anybody needs further explanation to acknowledge that there exists this glaring gap.
Some of the other absurd examples which author supports fanatically are 1 -more consumption is good even for DRUGS. 2 - Inflation is good, debtor benefits, here he doesnt talk about the creditor, 3- Crowding out argument
These are just a few of myriad examples which are unbecoming of an economist.

PS- Shun stubbornness, the mere first publication of this book in the early 1990's does not mean when reprinting you dont address the issues based on their relevance in today's time.

Three facts about economists teaching laypeople:

1: Economists love to be counter-intuitive.

2: Economists love to be controversial.

3: Economists love to go on about their personal opinions as though they were fact because, after the above two points, no one feels he or she can defend any contradicting opinion

This book suffers from the worst of these points. Yes, economics is sometimes quite the opposite of what one might think and is very often "politically inviable" because of its conclusions, but Mr. Landsburg goes far too much into the rhelm of "I'm the author, you have to do what I say." I, too, agree that, for example, enviromental policies are often extremely ineffecient. However, if these policies are important to others, if they bring happiness or, in other words, "utility" to a degree greater than the opportunity costs incured, that's their business. The book is scattered with his belittlement of the poor idiots who don't understand economics and if they did they would think like him.

This is the sort of reason why people don't like econmists. This is why people think we're heartless prigs. If the people through whom this book must have gone before it was published knew enough about economics to defend their positions instead of just accepting the author as their better, they would have perhaps reminded him to tone down some of his particulars that he forms into generalities.

To summize: Mr. Landsburg is an insufferable know-it-all, who does, in all fairness, know-it-some.

Landsburg does more to explain what economics is really all about then all the textbooks I've read put together. It should be mandatory reading for all highschool civics classes. Great illustrations of proper economic thought processes that will enlighten all readers of any age.

Landsburg's book is entertaining and often witty, and written in a conversational, easy-to-read style. The book is very good at presenting often unintuitive and novel (to the non-economist) ways of looking at things. This is an invaluable book for pointing out common fallacies in arguments about deficits, inflation, unemployment, and other major political issues. At the same time, however, I can't help but think that Landsburg occasional misses significant relevant issues, most glaringly in the final chapter on environmentalism. For example, Landsburg describes a case where Jack wants a woodland at the expense of Jill's parking space and vice versa, and argues that the desires are exactly symmetrical. While environmentalists claim that the wilderness should take precedence "because a decision to pave is 'irrevocable'", Landsburg says "a decision _not_ to pave is _equally_ irrevocable" because "Unless we pave today, my opportunity to park tomorrow is lost as irretrievably as tomorrow itself will be lost" (p. 224). While this is correct, this misses the environmentalist's point that it is much easier to convert woodland to parking lot than to do the reverse. The environmentalist fears taking actions that are irrevocable in the sense that they cannot be undone in the future. Landsburg's perspective throughout the book seems to me to ignore the possibility of actions taken which may have consequences which may adversely effect the very existence of mankind (or economic institutions).

Another example in the same chapter is when he suggests that the best way for environmentalists to support the existence of cattle is to eat beef: "If you want ranchers to keep a lot of cattle, you should eat a lot of beef" (p. 225). This presumes that environmentalists care about the number of cattle in existence, irrespective of their living conditions. Would Landsburg have told abolitionists during the Civil War to buy more cotton as a way of improving the plight of slaves?

Yet a third example in the same chapter is about preservation of the the store rain forest, because a new species of monkey was discovered there in October 1992. Landsburg writes that this gives him reason _not_ to preserve the rain forest, since he "lived a long time without knowing about this monkey and never missed it" (p. 226). Would he make the same argument if it was a tribe of people whose existence depended on the rain forest rather than a species of monkey? If not, then he's missing the point of those who argue that animals (or the environment) have inherent value. It is clear from his writing that he disagrees, yet his own position does assign inherent value to the interests of people and so is not neutral. He seems to admit at the end of this chapter--in the letter he wrote to his child's teacher--that his view on environmentalism amounts to a religious view that is not subject to discussion (just as he thinks environmentalism itself amounts to a religion being inappropriately taught to his child).

Despite my complaints, I found the book as a whole to be entertaining and informative, and would recommend it along with David Friedman's _Law's Order_ (I haven't read Friedman's _Hidden Order_) for insight into economic analysis of issues of the day.

The criticism of this book seems to be largely based on the feeling that rational economics leads to unsatisfactory political conclusions and even possibly that rational economics is itself a suspect theory.
My take is that this is a pretty fun read that illustrates some basic economic concepts via common examples. True, it is not comprehensive and the arguments presented are neither completely thorough or precise. But then again, that's not what I'm looking for from a book about economics with the word "armchair" in the title.
Anwyway, if rational economics isn't a good model, what is? Central planning? Keynesian economics? European socialism?
The criticism here is of a worldview, not this book. It should come as no surprise that to those whose political views tend to conflict with rational economics, this book is threatening and must indeed seem highly political. But imho, the political agenda is in the eye of the beholder. When you point a finger, there are 3 pointing back at you.
Quit picking a fight about epistemology with a country pastor.

Not a very good book. The author is overly opinionated and not very open to conflicting ideas. He also does not do a very good job in educating the reader on economic concepts he uses to support his views. Overall, I would say it's not worth the time or money.

This is the rare book that will have you thinking about it months after reading it. The author presents some of the most basic principles of economics in an accessible format. For anyone who missed out on taking econ in college, this book is a useful read.

However, a few things keep this book from getting 5 stars. The author's hyperbole often borders on distracting, and a few of his conclusions seem unsupported by the evidence presented. Also, the author did not always distinguish between his opinions and economic analysis. In a book like this, the line between theory and opinion should be clear.

If you liked Freakonomics and you are looking for more economic reading material then you will probably like this book.

For some reason the publisher wants me to pay MORE for the digital edition than the print, even though they've turned off features and I can't resell it or give it away.

I get it, Simon & Schuster/Free Press, you don't want me to buy a digital copy even though that's how I read now. Fine, I'll buy a used copy and you'll never see a profit from my sale in the first place. I just can't figure out, from an economics perspective, why you'd want that. *shrug*

The author of this book finds himself highly clever and amusing. I find him highly smug and pompous. His claim that increased deforestation is good for the tree population is a prime example of the twisted logic of an urban capitalist who simply cannot admit that his comfort comes at a high price. What a load of beans. Recycle at once!

Landsburg apparently sets out to explain real-world, everyday economics phenomena (the subititle is "Economics & Everyday Life" and the cover has every-day examples) but proceeds to merely use real-world, every-day examples to show that economics is inscrutable and political. He fails to actually reach any conclusions about most of the scenarios on the cover--or any others, for that matter--and continually concocts loaded scenarios that enable him to reach bizarre conclusions. The worst part about this technique is that it leaves the reader continually baffled--knowing that his conclusions are wrong but not sure why.
Landsburg is best when he is talking directly about economics and worst when he applies theories of economics to law, science, and the environment.
He concludes that air pollution is great because it makes a city so unlivable that poor people can afford it, ignoring the fact that real-world cities are always more expensive to live in than the (unpolluted) countryside and that cities--polluted or not--always contain lots of poor people and rich people.
Landsburg claims that we shouldn't elect the best candidate for senator because that person's productivity is better used in private industry. He fails to take his argument to its logical conclusion and have the country run by autistic children. Apparently, he can't see that the work of a senator also has value and can actually be more beneficial to the economy as a whole than the work of a private businessman.
He goes on to claim that the value of proving scientific theory with experimentation is mainly in giving credibility (and higher salary) to the scientist (it's actually in the economic value being right more often). He claims that there are "high-powered" research firms and "low-powered" research firms so that bad scientists can work at the "low-powered" ones and stay out of the way (high-powered firms are actually for theories with high profit potential, not high correctness potential). This shows that Landsburg thinks that science works like economics: theories don't have to be proven right before they are implemented.
Landsburg's hatred of environmentalism, which is a recurring theme (he ends the book with a letter attacking his daughter's kindergarten teacher), is especially peculiar. He seems unaware that the destruction of flora and fauna is a permanent loss of not just value but a resource to the planet and its people. He argues that the value that could be obtained by destroying it is also lost if it is never destroyed; this is true (it's the definition of "consumption") but there is a fundamental difference between a non-renewable rainforest and a renewable resource like wheat or cows. The rainforest can even provide us with value (exotic plants and animals, tourism, oxygen) without destroying it, making it a renewable resource. Perhaps Landsburg looks out on the Statue of Liberty and bemoans the waste of all that good scrap metal that could be had.
He casually observes that since he never heard of a certain species of monkey, it didn't have much value. Well, that monkey has never heard of Steven Landsburg, but I'm sure that Landsburg and his family would say that the world is still a better place with him than without him. But the monkey and I am not so sure.

1-star because after you are thoroughly pissed off by the difficult to read pomposity of this book, it finishes with a letter indirectly declaring himself indoctrinated to a "science" devoid of indoctrination, or so he has come to be disillusioned. I don't claim to be anything more than I am or have knowledge more than I have gained through my own life experiences, but as having completed at least my undergraduate degree in economics, I am at least qualified to say this author is a prick and you shouldn't give him your money. At least I did learn that recycling this book will lead to less publication and reproduction, if I can find a buyer.

For some reason the publisher wants me to pay MORE for the digital edition than the print, even though they've turned off features and I can't resell it or give it away.

I get it, Simon & Schuster/Free Press, you don't want me to buy a digital copy even though that's how I read now. Fine, I'll buy a used copy and you'll never see a profit from my sale in the first place. I just can't figure out, from an economics perspective, why you'd want that. *shrug*

The author of this book finds himself highly clever and amusing. I find him highly smug and pompous. His claim that increased deforestation is good for the tree population is a prime example of the twisted logic of an urban capitalist who simply cannot admit that his comfort comes at a high price. What a load of beans. Recycle at once!

Landsburg apparently sets out to explain real-world, everyday economics phenomena (the subititle is "Economics & Everyday Life" and the cover has every-day examples) but proceeds to merely use real-world, every-day examples to show that economics is inscrutable and political. He fails to actually reach any conclusions about most of the scenarios on the cover--or any others, for that matter--and continually concocts loaded scenarios that enable him to reach bizarre conclusions. The worst part about this technique is that it leaves the reader continually baffled--knowing that his conclusions are wrong but not sure why.
Landsburg is best when he is talking directly about economics and worst when he applies theories of economics to law, science, and the environment.
He concludes that air pollution is great because it makes a city so unlivable that poor people can afford it, ignoring the fact that real-world cities are always more expensive to live in than the (unpolluted) countryside and that cities--polluted or not--always contain lots of poor people and rich people.
Landsburg claims that we shouldn't elect the best candidate for senator because that person's productivity is better used in private industry. He fails to take his argument to its logical conclusion and have the country run by autistic children. Apparently, he can't see that the work of a senator also has value and can actually be more beneficial to the economy as a whole than the work of a private businessman.
He goes on to claim that the value of proving scientific theory with experimentation is mainly in giving credibility (and higher salary) to the scientist (it's actually in the economic value being right more often). He claims that there are "high-powered" research firms and "low-powered" research firms so that bad scientists can work at the "low-powered" ones and stay out of the way (high-powered firms are actually for theories with high profit potential, not high correctness potential). This shows that Landsburg thinks that science works like economics: theories don't have to be proven right before they are implemented.
Landsburg's hatred of environmentalism, which is a recurring theme (he ends the book with a letter attacking his daughter's kindergarten teacher), is especially peculiar. He seems unaware that the destruction of flora and fauna is a permanent loss of not just value but a resource to the planet and its people. He argues that the value that could be obtained by destroying it is also lost if it is never destroyed; this is true (it's the definition of "consumption") but there is a fundamental difference between a non-renewable rainforest and a renewable resource like wheat or cows. The rainforest can even provide us with value (exotic plants and animals, tourism, oxygen) without destroying it, making it a renewable resource. Perhaps Landsburg looks out on the Statue of Liberty and bemoans the waste of all that good scrap metal that could be had.
He casually observes that since he never heard of a certain species of monkey, it didn't have much value. Well, that monkey has never heard of Steven Landsburg, but I'm sure that Landsburg and his family would say that the world is still a better place with him than without him. But the monkey and I am not so sure.

1-star because after you are thoroughly pissed off by the difficult to read pomposity of this book, it finishes with a letter indirectly declaring himself indoctrinated to a "science" devoid of indoctrination, or so he has come to be disillusioned. I don't claim to be anything more than I am or have knowledge more than I have gained through my own life experiences, but as having completed at least my undergraduate degree in economics, I am at least qualified to say this author is a prick and you shouldn't give him your money. At least I did learn that recycling this book will lead to less publication and reproduction, if I can find a buyer.