[.ca] Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life (ISBN 0029177766)

Not a good introduction to economics:
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.

politicization is in the beholder's eye:
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.

Muddled and unconvincing, with some good concepts:
There were some good concepts here, but the stories meant to use the ideas all went astray. Each application of an economic principle to the story changed the result, and when he stopped with one conclusion, I always wondered why he didn't take it one more step and reach the opposite conclusion. It seems that any conclusion wanted can be reached. His arrogant commentary left me distrusting his chosen conclusion. Maybe economic theory isn't so useful after all. Much better was 'New Ideas from Dead Economists.'

Interesting thoughts; shame about the attitude:
This is the first book that has moved me sufficiently to write a review on Amazon. I found it an entertaining read, with some though-provoking ideas often wittily written up. It is such a shame, though (and I read a review here from someone else with similar views) that the text is threaded so liberally with the author's private conceits. What a very smug and self-satisfied man. Again agreeing with a previous review here, in the end the sheer arrogance becomes offensive and begins to overshadow the arguments being put forward. I'm glad I read the book. I'm also glad, however, that I shall likely never meet Steven E Landsburg.

Good but starting to sound a bit dated:
While the book has some interesting parables and anecdotes and is an engaging look at some problems from the "man is a rational agent" perspective, this mantra starts to get a bit tiring after a while (and is also starting to sound a bit dated with recent developments in the field). My main gripe however was the author's style. Arrogant and condescending, I found the book hard to get through at points - despite being interested in the content.