A number one bestseller many say is grasping in amazement: Freakonomics is said to unravel the untold stories of life. Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner break common misconceptions of economics by revealing its true science. Freakonomics shatters the view of economics being an arid study of finance and markets. They pull in information to make inferences on past occurrences subtly influence on the present. Freakonomics packs punches with its countless number of tables and figures, serving as concrete data to make their assumptions. Levitt & Dubner in the beginning identify the fundamental Latin phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc in the sentence, “…just because two things are correlated does not mean that one causes the other”, due to their entire novel being based on correlation. Freakonomics’ explicit exploration of the hidden side of everything captivate economist with unmentioned inferences backed up with reasoned correlation, linking compelling topics to shatter misconceptions about controversial stories, ending with a brief consensus of economic pattern limitations.
The world is an increasingly tricky, sticky place. Mysteries present themselves every day; and in every way, people are puzzled and intrigued and on the hunt for answers. Steven D. Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics with Stephen J. Dubner, is one such person. Devoting his professional life to cracking the mysteries of seemingly mundane, and sometimes trivial, economic in daily life, Levitt jumps from assumption to decision, connecting dots in sometimes genius, sometimes haphazard, ways, and forming conclusions that occasionally defy conventional thought. Freakanomics gifts readers with several ideas to chew on and challenges deeply rooted thoughts.
The solution to serious problems can be extremely simple. In SuperFreakonomics, the authors, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, present the idea that while simple fixes can solve complicated problems, they can also lead to some unintended consequences. Although analyzing all aspects of a problem before coming up with a solution is the preferred method, there are some exceptions where simple fixes are more effective because of time management.
Freakonomics A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
Because of budget constraints, the study only used one beat to collect data on the effects of increasing police patrol. Even though money was an issue, the experiment could have yielded better data by repeating the experiment multiple times to see if the data they collected would be reliable. The experiment also took place during the winter. The report of the study even noted that there was some evidence that crime activity levels declined, just as street activity does, because of colder weather. Although the design of the study contained weaknesses, some of the methods used by the researchers worked well for this type of study. One of the strengths of this experiment was the different methods used to acquire illegal guns in the beat. By using a variation of ways to seize illegal weapons in the “hot spot,” it allowed officers to increase their chances of finding more illegal guns. Using different methods of search also could have led to greater number of potential offenders to know that officers were looking for illegal weapons and refrained from offending. Another strength of the study includes the relatively inexpensive method to try to answer their hypothesis. Increasing police patrol is one of the more inexpensive methods and it did manage to decrease the number of gun crimes and homicide in the
A traditional analysis gives a mistakenly high value to dollars in the future, money in the future is given the same value as money today; but in reality, money in the fu...
In order to find out what caused crime rates to rise; one must first determine whether or not crime actually rose during the time period. Manuel Eisner in his Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime claims that by using homicides as an indicator one can opt that crime actually showed a downward trend during the second industrial revolution (Eisner 85). But Eisner fault lies in the fact that his work only looks at violent crime. David Philips claims this may appear to be because of lack of “full-time paid uniformed police forces” thus the inaccurate, “uncoordinated” system, “contained apparent contradictions” (O'Brien and Quinault 156). Philips goes on to plot an upward trend in crime using committals and not just violent crime like Eisner; Philips plot shows a “very clear and rapid increase” in crime, one that was larger that could be accounted for by population increase alone (O'Brien and Quinault 158). Phi...
In looking at the Kansas City Patrol Experiment, it appears that adding more police officers has little or no affect on arrests or the crime rate. Please review the study and explain why more police does not mean less crime. Due Date March 11, 2005