This is a fascinating book. The author asks and answers questions which are a different take on the problem to be researched. It is very readable but gives opportunity for intense discussions.

Very interesting concepts. It challenges some of the preconceived notions of economics. some of the highlights that I have from this book
- Correlation between low crime rate and legalized abortion
- Drug dealers on an average earning about $3 an hour
- Baby names and socio-economic impact.
It is a very well researched book.

In a nutshell, I liked this, it looked at many things that seem to cross the minds of normal and abnormal people. We can look at much in the world and wonder why, where, and what for. I certainly blows the doors off of several issues and ideas that many folks seemed to take for granted. I found this information and the conclusions drawn in this book very enlightening and useful. I can see now how and why some folks are destined to succeed, many more are going to fail without truly understanding that they could change just one thing about themselves, if not to merely wreck the conventional wisdom that seems to be prevalent everywhere today.

Freakonomics is a book jointly written by the "Rogue Economist [who] Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" (Steven Levitt) and New York Times writer Stephen Dubner. Dubner repeatedly reminds the reader about the brilliance of Levitt. Levitt does nothing to dissuade him.

It is a literary LoveFest.

In Freakonomics, Levitt discusses a variety of issues with real world examples: cheating, crime rates, abortion effects, sumo wrestling, the impacts of the name given to a child, and more. In most cases, he poo-poos conventional wisdom, and develops and defends alternative cause and effect scenarios. For example, a drop in the crime rate in America's cities in the last quarter of the 20th century was not due to more police, or more guns, or more education... it was due to more abortion. I did say this was intriguing, didn't I?

On the other hand, Levitt (or, I suspect, Dubner) made a number of overly broad and possibly misleading statements:

1, "There was only one problem [with theories about the failing crime rate]: they weren't true" (p.5). It is not appropriate to take broad statements and apply them to all cases. For example, there is a relationship between reducing sodium intake and heart attacks when measured on a national scale. However, this doesn't tell me how YOU will react to an increase or decrease in sodium consumption.

2. "So if sumo wrestlers, schoolteachers, and day-care parents all cheat, are we to assume that mankind is innately and universally corrupt? And, if so, how corrupt" (p. 45). Levitt did not say that all these folk cheat. Some of these folk cheat, just like professors. Dubner should have made it clear that he understood this distinction.

3. Of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan: "In the beginning, their activities were said to be harmless midnight pranks -- riding horses through the countryside while draped in white sheets and pillowcase hoods" (p. 55). Sounds like Halloween! They did move on to becoming a "...multi-state terrorist organization designed to frighten and kill emancipated slaves" (p. 55). However, a man named Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the Klan in the 1940s and exposed their secret passwords and organizational structure in radio broadcasts of the Adventures of Superman (p. 63). Kennedy, the authors argue, was responsible for gutting the Klan. Hmm. Somehow, it seems more complicated than this. Again, this is the irritating part of the book. How is it again that the kids of the Klan members were all listening to these radio broadcasts? Perhaps it was all because of Kennedy's "frown power" campaign... as if there weren't others also preaching against hatred, bigotry, and violence.

4. The abortion and crime rate study? This is an intriguing hypothesis worthy of additional look-see. But that is the punch line... it was a hypothesis based on observational data. What about the relationships between other forms of fertility control and crime (the expanding use of the Pill, the IUD, and, in the future, RU-486?. What about the influence of HIV-AIDS? Again, this discussion was irritating in its simplicity.

Here are Levitt's bottom lines:

A. "Incentives are the cornerstone of modern life." Perhaps the book needs a bit more discussion of what "incentives" are and are not.

B. "The conventional wisdom is often wrong." In this case, it seems that religion is ripe for a Levitt analysis here. For more, I recommend the book How We Know What Isn't So, by Thomas Gilovich.

C. "Dramatic effects often have distant, even subtle, causes." This seems similar to the "law of unintended consequences" proposed in 1936 by Robert Merton.

D. "'Experts' -- from criminologists to real-estate agents -- use their informational advantage to serve their own agenda." I think this is true of everyone. Doesn't a Roman Catholic priest

Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything: I consider this book "required reading" for all who're the financial "head-of-household". The hidden meaning behind commonly mis-understood financial concepts are defined through detailed mathematics in this book. I truly enjoyed this book and consider it a real "eye-opener". ~~>> B.A.Ritter, Dallas, TX.