Rating: 
Summary: A new way of thinking
Review: for the layman. This book presents an economic way of thinking to the public, sometimes taking a "shock therapy" approach, in which he seems to deliberately avoid the arguments for positions that would be most likely to convince people of his conclusions, primarily because conclusions are not so much what this book is about; it is about the arguments, which will be foreign to many people. While he is surely sometimes glib, don't assume that the reasoning is always invalid if you disagree with his conclusion; sometimes your conclusion is wrong, and if it is not you should gain something by making yourself determine why it is not. (E.g. while later in the book he drops this assumption, many of the first several chapters assume that all consumers are identical in their tastes. Figure out how dropping this assumption would change the results, and to what extent his conclusions are still valid.)Another illustration: in his last chapter he attacks environmentalism. There are environmental arguments against recycling, but he refuses to make them, in large part because they would confuse the real issue, which is his right to a preference set. It should be clear from his previous discussion that what he is objecting to is not the notion that pollution imposes a cost, nor that it is improper for people to want a clean earth; he is defending his right to a preference set, and not to have it itself dismissed out of hand. The glibness and sloppiness that cost him his star may well make the book more effective for what it was intended -- to introduce a way of thinking, and follow it to its sometimes unexpected conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: Who said economics were boring
Review: I found the book very entertaining as well as educational. I particularly enjoyed the authors disection of many day to day situations that apparently do not make sense. The author's columns in Slate are also enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Educative and inviting reading
Review: I found this book very well written and thought provoking. Importantly, it rekindled my interest in economics (I last studied economics at college in 1992) and made me realise that there is more to economics than just discussions and graphs about unemployment, deficits, inflation etc. The best achievement of this book is it gives you a peep at how an economist may think about any issue. You wouldn't regret buying this book, I can assure you. I would also recommend the author's "Price Theory and its Applications - 4 edn" published by South Western (part of Thomson Learning group). Very strongly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: So this is economics
Review: I have never taken a course in economics, and I recently decided that I should learn something about it. The Armchair Economist is the first (and so far only) economics book I have read. Overall, I am glad I started with this book. Professor Landsburg states that many lunch time conversations with fellow economists concern what they consider to be interesting puzzles in economics: Why does popcorn cost so much at a movie theater? Why do grocery stores print coupons rather than just lowering the price? What happens if the government forces a plant to stop polluting? This book discusses these and other topics in a way that is easy to follow, and depending on your sense of humor, quite funny. (Landsburg's humor is sort of sarcastic, which I appreciate.) Landsburg does not claim to solve this economics puzzles in a real world, that would be much too complicated. Instead, he shows the lay reader how economists attempt to simplify the problem to be able to extract some truth from the situation. For example, he analyzes the effect of factory pollution on land prices, leaving out all other factors (such as public health). I especially appreciated the last two essays, "The Iowa Car Crop" and "Why I am not an Environmentalist." Although I don't agree with many of Landsburg's conclusions, I am certainly glad that I started my economics studies with such an insightful, and interesting teacher.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Introduction to the Explanatory Power of Econ
Review: I love this book and use it to teach my undergraduate students in political economy. It shows how a few simple economic concepts can be used to explain more social behavior than any other social scientific perspective. I can't wait for Steven't new book! True to the heritage of Gary Becker, this book extends economic reasoning beyond the traditional substantive boundaries of economics. Check out related titles by Tomassi and Ierulli, THE NEW ECONOMICS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR, Rod Stark, THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY, and Anthony Gill, RENDERING UNTO CAESAR, all of which use this type of economic reasoning to explain supposedly "non-economic" behavior.
Rating:
Summary: Tour the mind of an economist
Review: If you're remotely interested in economics, you should read this book; it's a hoot. Not too many books on economics could be described as a "hoot." But Steven Landsburg, an economics professor at the University of Chicago when he wrote this book (now he's at the University of Rochester), has a delightfully sharp sense of humor and a gift for clear, logical exposition. He also doesn't in the least mind naming names when it comes to egregious economic fallacies and the people who commit them: he keeps a "Sound and Fury file" consisting of economic gaffes from the op-ed pages and he devotes a chapter to exposing the culprits. His theme is easily stated, and he states it on the first page: the substance of economic science is that people respond to incentives. "The rest," he writes in deliberate imitation of Rabbi Hillel, "is commentary." Landsburg fills the rest of the book with such commentary. His witty and occasionally sarcastic exposition deals neatly with such topics as why recycling paper doesn't really save trees; why certain statistics are not reliable measures of the "income gap" between rich and poor; why the GNP is not an especially accurate measure of national wealth; why unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing; why taxes _are_ a bad thing; why real economists don't care about what's "good for the economy" or endorse the pursuit of monetary profit apart from personal happiness; and lots of other points that will no doubt be profoundly irritating to people who just _know_ he _can't possibly_ be right. For example, Landsburg is delightfully allergic to the claims of the "environmental" movement and recognizes it quite clearly as a strongly moralistic religion. And contrary to the opinions of some not terribly careful readers, he does distinguish firmly between the actual harm caused by pollution and the psychic harm caused by (e.g.) the use of automobiles to people who object in principle to such technology. Interestingly, Landsburg recognizes a problem here for his own cost-benefit approach: if economic efficiency with regard to utilitarian/consequentialist goods and bads were really the whole story, he notes, he should care about _both_ the physical harm and the psychic harm, and yet he doesn't. Which leads neatly into the other notable feature of this volume: Landsburg is stunningly forthright about the nature -- and the limits -- of cost-benefit analysis. Unlike some economists who like to pretend such analysis is value-free and involves no commitment to any particular view of morality, Landsburg is clear that cost-benefit analysis is quite unambiguously committed to one particular moral outlook (which he characterizes and describes very neatly). And he is keenly aware of its limitations, though he is not at all confident about what should replace it. The problem, roughly, is this (the following characterization is mine, not his). As Landsburg notes several times, cost-benefit analysis does not regard "theft" as a cost, since it merely transfers existing stuff from one person to another; society is no worse off on net after the theft than before it. (Of course theft entails _further_ costs that _do_ leave society worse off, but that's not the point here.) Economics, as Landsburg describes it, looks only at _outcomes_ and not at how we got to them. And even at that, it looks only at one abstract feature of such outcomes, namely, how much "good" there is in the aggregate. And yet most of us would say that "society" _is_ somehow worse off after a theft -- that there is some sort of "moral cost" involved in the theft itself quite apart from its further consequences, and that it makes a difference whose "good" is rightfully achieved or acquired and whose is not. (Some of us might even say that there is something illegitimate in comparing the thief's gain to the victim's loss in the first place.) In ordinary moral discourse, it matters very much how we arrived at a given state of affairs. If so, then economic science has two choices (this is still my opinion, not his). (1) It can throw those "moral costs" into the mix and deal with "rights and wrongs" in the same way it deals with "goods and bads." In that case, the total "good" will take account of the number and quality of right acts vs. wrong acts. (2) It can ignore those "moral costs" and continue as before. In either case, economic science _as Landsburg presents it_ is simply insufficient as a guide to policy decisions. (Landsburg tends to acknowledge this, maintaining only that cost-benefit analysis is an important _part_ of whatever it is we need to make policy decisions.) And it is certainly not -- as Landsburg also recognizes in a wonderfully forthright chapter -- sufficient as a guide to personal conduct. So this volume gets five stars even though Landsburg doesn't have much to say about what should supplement cost-benefit analysis. It's a terrific introduction to economic thinking genreally, and it's also a clear and frank recognition of the limitations of such thinking at least as practiced by many mainstream economists.
Rating:
Summary: Tour the mind of an economist
Review: If you're remotely interested in economics, you should read this book; it's a hoot. Not too many books on economics could be described as a "hoot." But Steven Landsburg, an economics professor at the University of Chicago when he wrote this book (now he's at the University of Rochester), has a delightfully sharp sense of humor and a gift for clear, logical exposition. He also doesn't in the least mind naming names when it comes to egregious economic fallacies and the people who commit them: he keeps a "Sound and Fury file" consisting of economic gaffes from the op-ed pages and he devotes a chapter to exposing the culprits. His theme is easily stated, and he states it on the first page: the substance of economic science is that people respond to incentives. "The rest," he writes in deliberate imitation of Rabbi Hillel, "is commentary." Landsburg fills the rest of the book with such commentary. His witty and occasionally sarcastic exposition deals neatly with such topics as why recycling paper doesn't really save trees; why certain statistics are not reliable measures of the "income gap" between rich and poor; why the GNP is not an especially accurate measure of national wealth; why unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing; why taxes _are_ a bad thing; why real economists don't care about what's "good for the economy" or endorse the pursuit of monetary profit apart from personal happiness; and lots of other points that will no doubt be profoundly irritating to people who just _know_ he _can't possibly_ be right. For example, Landsburg is delightfully allergic to the claims of the "environmental" movement and recognizes it quite clearly as a strongly moralistic religion. And contrary to the opinions of some not terribly careful readers, he does distinguish firmly between the actual harm caused by pollution and the psychic harm caused by (e.g.) the use of automobiles to people who object in principle to such technology. Interestingly, Landsburg recognizes a problem here for his own cost-benefit approach: if economic efficiency with regard to utilitarian/consequentialist goods and bads were really the whole story, he notes, he should care about _both_ the physical harm and the psychic harm, and yet he doesn't. Which leads neatly into the other notable feature of this volume: Landsburg is stunningly forthright about the nature -- and the limits -- of cost-benefit analysis. Unlike some economists who like to pretend such analysis is value-free and involves no commitment to any particular view of morality, Landsburg is clear that cost-benefit analysis is quite unambiguously committed to one particular moral outlook (which he characterizes and describes very neatly). And he is keenly aware of its limitations, though he is not at all confident about what should replace it. The problem, roughly, is this (the following characterization is mine, not his). As Landsburg notes several times, cost-benefit analysis does not regard "theft" as a cost, since it merely transfers existing stuff from one person to another; society is no worse off on net after the theft than before it. (Of course theft entails _further_ costs that _do_ leave society worse off, but that's not the point here.) Economics, as Landsburg describes it, looks only at _outcomes_ and not at how we got to them. And even at that, it looks only at one abstract feature of such outcomes, namely, how much "good" there is in the aggregate. And yet most of us would say that "society" _is_ somehow worse off after a theft -- that there is some sort of "moral cost" involved in the theft itself quite apart from its further consequences, and that it makes a difference whose "good" is rightfully achieved or acquired and whose is not. (Some of us might even say that there is something illegitimate in comparing the thief's gain to the victim's loss in the first place.) In ordinary moral discourse, it matters very much how we arrived at a given state of affairs. If so, then economic science has two choices (this is still my opinion, not his). (1) It can throw those "moral costs" into the mix and deal with "rights and wrongs" in the same way it deals with "goods and bads." In that case, the total "good" will take account of the number and quality of right acts vs. wrong acts. (2) It can ignore those "moral costs" and continue as before. In either case, economic science _as Landsburg presents it_ is simply insufficient as a guide to policy decisions. (Landsburg tends to acknowledge this, maintaining only that cost-benefit analysis is an important _part_ of whatever it is we need to make policy decisions.) And it is certainly not -- as Landsburg also recognizes in a wonderfully forthright chapter -- sufficient as a guide to personal conduct. So this volume gets five stars even though Landsburg doesn't have much to say about what should supplement cost-benefit analysis. It's a terrific introduction to economic thinking genreally, and it's also a clear and frank recognition of the limitations of such thinking at least as practiced by many mainstream economists.
Rating: 
Summary: Not a good introduction to economics
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The Armchair Economist
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful, entertaining, and right on the money
Review: Landsburg hits the nail on the head with this book. I was looking for a short and to the point explanation of economics for the benefit of my 17 year old daughter when I picked up this book and found that and more. His premise is that "people respond to incentives and the rest is just commentary." Landsburg takes off from there and explains economic concepts with simple but apt examples and deflates quite a few myths in the process(using no formulas or complicated math in his presentation but including endnotes with references for readers inclined to look behind the words). College students would do well to read through this book before plunging into macro- or micro- economics because it puts the theory into perspective with real world examples and stories. Everyone else can benefit from having a better understanding of how our economy works. I highly recommend this book as informative, thoughtfully written, and thoroughly entertaining.
| 
