Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life

Features

• Cover Type: Paperback with 251 pages
• Published by: Free Press March 1, 1995
• Written in: English
• ISBN 10 Number: 0029177766
• ISBN 13 Number: 978-0029177761
• Book Dimensions: 8 x 5.5 x 0.6 inches
• Weighs: 8.8 ounces

From Publishers Weekly
Landsburg demystifies the economics of everyday behavior in these diverting if not always persuasive essays. Why don't promoters of sell-out rock concerts raise the advance ticket price? Because, suggests the author, promoters want the good will of teenage audiences who will buy lots of rock paraphernalia. Why are executives' salaries so high? One reason, opines Landsburg, is that stockholders expect managers to take risks, and well-heeled executives are more likely to do so. Associate professor of economics at the University of Rochester in New York, Landsburg applies his counter-intuitive analyses, with mixed results, to everything from taxes, auctions, baseball and the high price of movie theater popcorn to government inefficiency, the death penalty, environmentalism (which he attacks as a dogmatic, coercive ideology) and NAFTA.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal
Landsburg (economics, Univ. of Rochester) demonstrates the economist's way of thinking about everyday occurrences. The result is a compilation of questions ranging from why popcorn costs so much at movie theaters and why rock concerts sell out to why laws against polygamy are detrimental to women. Many of the issues raised are controversial and even somewhat humorous, but they are clearly explained only from an economic perspective as opposed to other dynamics of human behavior. There are also clear explanations of the misconceptions about unemployment rates, measures of inflation, and interest rates. The book is not a textbook but shows how one economist solves puzzling questions that occur in daily living. Recommended for general collections.
- Jane M. Kathman, Coll. of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, Minn.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Reader Reviews
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.