Rating: 
Summary: Delightfully thought-provoking but uneven
Review: "Why do rock concerts sell out in minutes -- couldn't the promoters raise the ticket prices?" "Why does movie popcorn cost so much?" "How much harm is caused by government debt?" "Why is it hard to measure inflation? Output? The rich/poor gap?"This book is a series of loosely organized essays about "how economists think." The target audience appears to be people like myself, who are interested in economics, but are not highly trained in the field. It's a good companion to "The Economics of Public Issues," which focuses on real-world illustrations of basic economic concepts. This book focuses on how to approach analyzing the real world for yourself. According to the Introduction, many of the essays have grown out of discussions Landsburg had with his regular lunch group ... and what lunches those must have been! Questions are raised, and explanations batted about and critiqued. Assuming that Landsburg is a typical economist, the book succeeds spectacularly in illustrating "how economists think." Many of the essays retain what must have been the original feel of the lunchtime debates (ideas are raised, then criticized, then rejected or refined) -- a form which sheds considerable light upon how economists approach problems. The essay about why economists are sometimes wrong is very enlightening. It describes why economists thought that unemployment and inflation were inversely related -- until government started acting on that assumption, which destroyed the relationship. While I'm not very good at macroeconomics, Landsburg's explanation of this is simple and persuasive, and creates more insights into how the study of economics works. As a series of essays, some are better than others. Landsburg slips easily between making arguments about issues to making assertions about issues. Since the target audience is amateurs like myself, it's a little hard for an untrained reader to critically evaluate the assertions, but (after much head-scratching) I think some of them are flawed. Landsburg clearly feels strongly about some topics, and it's possible that when he gets worked up about an issue he loses some of his open-mindedness. The essay on environmentalism beats up on environmentalist excess but provides little in the way of alternatives. (I worked for an environmental group at one point; Landsburg's critiques are largely accurate but veer off-topic and illuminate little.) He ridicules several prominent public figures (Felix Rohaytn, extensively, and several US presidential candidates from 1984-1992) for making statements reflecting economic illiteracy, but fails to address the issue: the public's economic illiteracy would instantly render unelectable a candidate who said the things Landsburg says. Still, distilling several years of what must have been stimulating lunchtime discussions into a book which can be read in a few hours is a valuable service. The reading is easy, the topics are accessible (for the most part), and the thinking is clear. Also, since these essays came from leisure time, they successfully communicate some of the joy of studying economic issues. The book feels like one long lunch with a great group. The more standoffish, angrier essays were concentrated near the end, so they feel like one guest had had one too many martinis and should go home rather than back to work. But they'd still be worth eating with again. (N.B. Landsburg has a monthly column for Slate, if you'd like to sample some of his writing or you liked this book and want more.)
Rating: 
Summary: One of my all-time favorites
Review: A delightfully though-provoking look at many everyday matters, seen through the eyes of an "economist." I parenthesize the word, since much of his analysis doesn't center around money per se. Rather, it's economics as the study of Man the decison-maker. He asks such simple questions as "Why are concert tickets usually underpriced?" (i.e., why is there greater demand than supply). And the wonderful part is, he's often unafraid to say, "Economics can't provide the answer." Likewise, he can find no reason why people tip anonymously in restaurants. One nice thing about most of the book is that it provides a libertarian analysis of the decision-making process, but doesn't openly advocate libertarian politics. The chapter on "Courship and Collusion" perfect sense of the mating game (in the macro sense). Starting with his observations, we can begin to understand the incredible social changes that have occured since contraception became widely available. But he refrains from passing judgement on whether this is good or bad. The chapter on environmentalism is interesting, and this is the one that earns him the scorn of the diehard leftists. His analysis of recycling being counterproductive is eye-opening, yet so simple and irrefutable in economic terms. To be sure, it's not to his credit that he includes a letter he wrote to his child's kindergarten teacher, and it's distracting when he slips into his personal concerns. And he lets stand the assumption that environmentalism as religion somehow reduces its value or validity, without delving much further into the issue. Still, the book is such a delightful read that I'll deduct one star from six, and still rate it with five.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining exposition of economics.
Review: A modern iteration of Bastiat's "Economic Sophisms". Should be required reading for politicians and reporters. Both groups are prone to believe the nonsense in the economic field.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining exposition of economics.
Review: A modern iteration of Bastiat's "Economic Sophisms". Should be required reading for politicians and reporters. Both groups are prone to believe the nonsense in the economic field.
Rating:
Summary: A fun, quick read
Review: A very fun, quick read. Slaughters many sacred cows, including the litany of ideas on the environment, deficits, illiteracy, unemployment, dollar-cost averaging, and the use of statistics. Many reviewers have criticized the last chapter of his book, which is about environmentalism. It is true to some extent that he is building straw men and tearing them down (though he does asknowledge he is referring to "naive environmentalism"). It is hard to disagree with his conclusion that much of environmentalism has little to do with science and more to do with religious ritualism.
Rating:
Summary: A fun, quick read
Review: A very fun, quick read. Slaughters many sacred cows, including the litany of ideas on the environment, deficits, illiteracy, unemployment, dollar-cost averaging, and the use of statistics. Many reviewers have criticized the last chapter of his book, which is about environmentalism. It is true to some extent that he is building straw men and tearing them down (though he does asknowledge he is referring to "naive environmentalism"). It is hard to disagree with his conclusion that much of environmentalism has little to do with science and more to do with religious ritualism.
Rating:
Summary: Bravo! Well worth your time.
Review: An eye opener for those of us in the majority who are too used to taking the six o'clock news diatribes for granted for factual veracity and valid assumptions. A lot of fun to read also.
Rating: 
Summary: a perspective-altering study demonstrating its own limits
Review: Enough has already been said about the perspective on economics that this book gives, and how it can give laypersons a good insight into the thought processes behind economic analysis. This review is in regards to the final chapter, an out-of-place editorial tirade entitled "Why I Am Not An Environmentalist: The Science of Economics Versus the Religion of Ecology." (This chapter can be taken as an editorial afterthought since, unlike the other twenty-three chapters, it lacks any listed academic sources in the appendix.) It's possible that this final chapter on the evils of environmentalism is a clever satire not unlike Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (that the author himself references in chapter 15). Or maybe he's merely speaking point blank about his own ideas. Regardless, whether Landsburg intends to or not, he writes the perfect final chapter to a survey of economics: he exhibits the limits of the applicability of economic theory. What he either demonstrates or merely fails to take into account is that some things have worth beyond their immediate market value. Forests and other natural resources have consequence outside their economically-quantifiable use for paper or recreation. What Landsburg shows is that economics, which explains behavior though simplified models, falls short at the point where it fails to take into account actions that alter the world that contains the model itself. The ease and comfort (and the world that it takes place in) that economists are attempting to maximize through consumption is put at risk by that consumption itself. Explain the point through models, put a market value on trees, put a market value on oxygen, and use natural resources for their greatest economic potential, but if the ecosystem breaks down, it doesn't matter what the interest rate or money supply is; life quality will be inextractably decreased for the model world as a whole. If you prefer cleaner air, maybe you can move to a higher priced neighborhood as Landsburg suggests, but unless you're moving to another planet, there won't be a piece of real estate that is unaffected from the effects of environmental degredation. The economic model presented in this chapter fails to take this result into account. But it's not likely that Landsburg's beliefs are a satire. The letter that he sends to his child's preschool against their recycling program only mirrors the fanaticism and righteousness that he rallies against when he uses the analogy of an academic curriculum that includes environmentalism being akin to forced religious conversion. One of the most telling points of Landsburg's ignorance on the subject is that he continually confuses 'ecology' (a true science, arguably stronger in its hard scientific analysis and ability to predict outcomes than the social science of economics) with 'environmentalism', a social movement. Perhaps Landsburg should best stick to popcorn and avoid showing his ignorance of biology.
Rating:
Summary: Economics the way it should have been taught to you
Review: Ever wondered whether mandatory seatbelts really save lives ? Why almost everything you buy is priced $X.99 (there's more than psychology to it) ? If the death penalty really has an effect on potential murderers ? Well, if that's the case, this wonderful book is for you. In The Armchair Economist, Mr Landsburg, a teacher at the University of Chicago, uses simple and fun examples to explain some of the most fundamental principles of economics. Read it and you'll understand why deficits may not be that bad after all and, a lot more important, why popcorn is so expensive at the movies
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, informal guide to Life, from a simple Econ. view
Review: Excellent and EASY TO READ book on life and what economics has to say about it. Only occasionally oversimplifies. Exposes many fallacies, and leaves most moral decisions up to the reader, using economics only to clarify the question, not preach. (Clearly a pro-capitalism slant, of course, also written for Americans, less 'of course' but a common flow of books...
| 
