- ISBN13: 9781416532224
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
Economics is no longer the “dismal science” dreaded by college freshmen. In recent years, a band of economists has broken away from the charts and graphs of college textbooks, and begun to explain ordinary behavior in pl… More >>
More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
The first chapter (on why more sex is safer) was thought-provoking and the arguments were sound. But the second chapter, that claims it is beneficial to have babies, gave misleading and inaccurate information. Why do you think virtually all innovation is being done in countries with low birth rates? If we have fewer kids we can invest more in them and thus they can accomplish more. There are already way too many existing kids that are not reaching their potential. Millions do not even have basic nutrition, medical care, and primary schooling. Adding more people to such a world is just self-centered. Also, the idea that people live in crowded cities because they want to is ludicrous. I never heard anyone say “Gee, Tokyo sure is a better place to live now that it has 37 million people instead of only 20 million”. People live in cities because the jobs are there, and with fewer people the jobs will still be there.
Rating: 2 / 5
A very interesting book. Several different topics and a number of controversial views and theories using logic from the discipline of economics
Rating: 5 / 5
“More Sex is Safer Sex” is a collection of short essays by an economics professor at the University of Rochester. What they all have in common is a focus on externalities (impacts on others) involved in economic choices, making already complex decision-making even more so, and confusing operational (real) significance with statistical significance. In other words, “More Sex Is Safer Sex” is another form of academic hair-splitting that professors think is erudite, and many others (eg. Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Michael Moore, Harry Truman, Orville/William Wright, etc.) have proven they can do quite well without.
Want specifics? 1)How about Landsburg’s suggestion that FDA Commissioners be paid in pharmaceutical stock? How long do you think it would take before Thalidomide, Avandia, Vioxx, Crestor, and Celebrex-type tragedies became commonplace? And then there is the already major problem of new “me-too” drugs that offer little/nothing beyond existing drugs except for much higher prices. 2)Landsburg then goes on to misconstrue Bayes’ Theorem to mean that EVERYTHING IS relevant – actually, it simply provides a means to incorporate issues that ARE relevant. 3)Rewriting courtroom rules of evidence occupies much of Landsburg’s time – he would allow most everything, despite studies that show certain types of complex information are strongly overweighed in decision-making. 4)Landsburg likes Scrooge because he leaves more for everyone else. So, let’s all be self-sufficient and tight, and enjoy watching the economy and our standard of living collapse. 5)Finally, Landsburg reports that “37% of those polled would leave New York City if they could;” since they don’t “this proves that 37% lie to pollsters.” Well, maybe they just couldn’t leave New York!
There’s more, but what’s the point? My point is save your money – don’t buy the book, and more importantly, don’t send your children to the University of Rochester either!
Rating: 2 / 5
A long, long time in a far, far away galaxy John Stuart Mills’ parents sent the young boy to live and learn from the political philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, who fed the boy nothing but utilitarianism until at age twenty-one John Stuart Mills had a nervous breakdown. Reading “More Safe is Safer Sex” we need imagine that Steven Landsburg was born in the University of Chicago economics department, where he was nursed, parented, and fed by economic textbooks: there really is no other explanation on how he could have written “More Safe is Safer Sex,” which is economics on steroids.
Take for example the first chapter and title argument: “More Safe is Safer Sex.” Mr. Landsburg creates a thought experiment: shy and reserved Martin parties with co-worker Joan, and they’re about to go to bed but Martin is reluctant, and Joan ends up going home with promiscuous Maxwell, who gives her AIDS. Mr. Landsburg reasons that it’s Martin’s fault that Joan got AIDS, and then reasons that it really wasn’t Martin’s fault because there wasn’t enough of an economic incentive for him to have sex with Joan. So Mr. Landsburg’s solution: free condoms. Yes, the economic allure of free condoms is enough to transform the shyest geek into the most daring Casanova.
Mr. Landsburg is trying to make a “communal stream” argument, that if more clean individuals like Martin were willing to have sex then they would help purify the common stream against dirty individuals like Maxwell, and the spread of AIDS could be halted. The problem with economics is that it treats humans as a mathematical algorithm, and, as I said earlier, this book is economics on steroids. Mr. Landsburg, let me tell you right now that, if he is a flesh and blood male, Martin wants to get laid, and if Joan offers herself Martin would be more than happy to jump into bed with her. But if Joan offers herself to Martin why wouldn’t she offer herself to Maxwell? And then sleep with either of them as she likes? So instead of just Joan getting AIDS from Maxwell so would Martin. This is just simple human psychology (humans have personalities, and their personalities dictate their actions) combined with a little game theory (Joan having sex with Martin does not preclude her with having sex with Maxwell). Most people would call this conclusion “common sense.”
Alas, psychology, game theory, “common sense,” and just about everything else are what this book painfully lack, although University of Chicago economics majors would be happy to know that there’s plenty of classical cost-benefit economics.
Rating: 1 / 5
The author clearly prefers interesting or controversial theories over correct theories. He has no problem putting for wrong, or even occasionally inconsistent, proposals or arguments, as long as they’ll sell a book. He also seems to love taking every hypothesis to absurd conclusions, just to be controversial.
Rating: 2 / 5