When to Rob a Bank...And 131 More Warped Suggestions and Well-Intended Rants

Freakonomics #4

by Stephen J. Dubner (Author and Narrator), Steven D. Levitt (Author and Narrator), Erik Bergmann (Narrator)

When Freakonomics was initially published, the authors started a blog—and they've kept it up. The writing is more casual, more personal, even more outlandish than in their books. Now, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the landmark Freakonomics, comes this curated collection from the most readable economics blog in the world.

Why don't flight attendants get tipped? If you were a terrorist, how would you attack? And why does KFC always run out of fried chicken?

Over the past decade, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner have published more than 8,000 blog posts on Freakonomics.com. Now the very best of this writing has been carefully curated into one volume, the perfect solution for the millions of readers who love all things Freakonomics.

Discover why taller people tend to make more money; why it's so hard to predict the Kentucky Derby winner; and why it might be time for a sex tax (if not a fat tax). You'll also learn a great deal about Levitt and Dubner's own quirks and passions. Surprising and erudite, eloquent and witty, When to Rob a Bank demonstrates the brilliance that has made their books an international sensation.

Genres: Nonfiction, Economics, Business, Audiobook, Psychology, Science, Sociology

8 pages, Audiobook

First published May 5, 2015

About the author

Stephen J. Dubner is an award-winning author, journalist, and TV and radio personality. In addition to Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics, his books include Turbulent Souls Choosing My Religion, Confessions of a Hero-Worshiper, and the children’s book The Boy With Two Belly Buttons. His journalism has been published in The New York Times, The New Yorker, and Time, and has been anthologized in The Best American Sports Writing, The Best American Crime Writing, and elsewhere. He has taught English at Columbia University (while receiving an M.F.A. there), played in a rock band (which started at Appalachian State University, where he was an undergrad, and was later signed to Arista Records), and, as a writer, was first published at the age of 11, in Highlights for Children. He lives in New York with his wife, the documentary photographer Ellen Binder, and their children.

Reviews

[Petra X · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF'd. This book is really patchy. The blogs - for that's what they were - go from really bad, almost facetious and ill-researched topics to some interesting ideas. The percentage of interesting to blah is only about 10% so rather than waste 90% of my time, I will spend it reading something more rewarding. As economists, I'm sure the authors will appreciate my reasoning.
_____

Put your coffee down before you snork it reading this. Raising politicians salaries much higher in order to attract a better quality of politician who will then be totally honest and not look for any other way of increasing their income. Pigs in a trough full of apples will still not ignore the barrel of swill behind them. The authors use the example of the Prime Minister of the tiny nation of Singapore who increased his own salary to $3.2M and other government members to other outrageously high levels, and the authors say proved their thesis.

Everyone except the very brave in Singapore agree with absolutely everything the Government does. It is an authoritatian democracy, nominally, and guarantees free speech for all except those that breach just about any number of laws that are there to ensure "responsible journalism". Anything that might damage the reputation of any member of the government, or how it governs the country, or... or... or... and this includes all media including documentary films and bloggers.

No one actually approved, which the book doesn't mention, and eventually the Prime Minister was forced to take a pay cut to $1.7 million. Obama earns $400K I think.

Also, the essay on the NHS betrays the authors' ignorance. They presume that the NHS is used in the same way by people as American private health care. Comparing apples and oranges and coming up with theories because they are both fruit doesn't cut it.

I'm not getting on with this book quite as well as I hoped.
_____

This is a collection of blog posts and it reads like it too. Is that a good or bad thing? Bad because I wanted to read a book of economic/sociological issues treated in depth, but good because it is interesting hearing thoughts on a range of subjects.

I'm reading about a book a day. That is the advantage of recovering from surgery. Not much else to do (other than eating, I do a lot of that too).

[J.K. Riki · Rating 1 out of 5]

Full disclosure, I did not finish this book. I had to put it down after 50 pages or so because my blood pressure was through the roof and my eye was twitching.

The collection of blog posts in this book range from interesting to unreasonably insane. Unfortunately there were too many in the latter category for my liking. I consider myself a pretty open person, but when someone writes that America should adopt a system where people have to pay for voting in an election, and you can have unlimited votes as long as you pay for them, that goes past my ability to listen. That is absolutely irresponsible. That's the kind of idea that may be interesting to think about, but you don't then actually honestly suggest it because... it is absolutely terrible. Yet it was suggested. And then attempted to be reasoned past with the idea that "rich people already influence elections anyway."

I know economists have a unique worldview, but these writers don't seem to be aware of reality. Another post suggests shutting down LaGuardia airport as an air traffic solution because a random pilot he met while waiting for a flight said to. Another post suggested getting rid of tenure in schools (which I'm not against or anything) and said it would work because it would work for the author, so clearly everyone else shares that opinion. And the people who wouldn't share that opinion are "bad teachers." One post on UK Healthcare laid out a plan and then backed it up by saying "I asked cab drivers in London if they liked it and they mostly said yes."

It boggles the mind.

I fear the number of people who will read these short snippets and believe the ideas are sound after zero research or actual information because "it sounds good." Or maybe because the authors are famous. Yes, some of them do sound good. Some of them, however, sound as if the writer absolutely does not live on the planet Earth with other human beings. It feels like to them human lives are just a data stream and as long as the numbers line up then whatever-it-is is automatically a good idea.

Human beings are not just data and numbers. Thank goodness.

[Blake · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a blog highlight reel, and lacks all of the analytical depth that the earlier writings of these "rogue" economists drew me in with. The effect is one of having an intelligent friend mention stray thoughts he'd had earlier that afternoon, many of which could lead to great discussion, if only you weren't in a loud bar and he too drunk to formulate any new ideas on the topics.

At least that covers some of them. Others simply don't seem well thought out from the start. For instance, one of the authors makes an entire post out of not understanding why "anti-God" books make for best-sellers. He can reason why conservatives who hate liberals will put an anti-liberal book on the best-seller list, but can't grasp why a non-believer would be so motivated about hating God that they'd pay $20 to read a book about it. He apparently doesn't see that these anti-God types don't hate a beneficent cloud man they believe fictional, they hate the effects of religious ideology on institutions, descrimination based on faith, and atrocities performed by individuals in the name of God. This isn't a difficult realization to make. Another, totally inane post gives a Buzzfeed-esque 10-reason list of reasons to like the Steelers, the NFL's Pittsburg franchise. (My one-reason list to dislike them goes unremarked upon: Quarterback Ben Roethelisberger's having been accused of rape multiple times.)

Other posts are just stories that don't present any new ideas or offer any theoretical insights whatsoever. One of the authors had a bunch of documents on terrorism in his bag, which was searched when he bought a last-minute, one-way domestic flight ticket. The TSA was suspicious and had their resident FBI representative clear the author before letting him on his flight. And that's the whole post.

The guest posts do no better, and have even less to do with analyzing the world's hard-to-explain phenomena with economic theory. Bringing back the prostitute from a previous book to answer reader questions was purely gratuitous, as was having the very much publicly doubted "rogue" [Man, is that word getting tired.] sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh relate his experience of watching The Wire's season five debut with actual drug trade criminals from NYC.

In all this feels like a cash grab on the part of the publisher. I simply don't know who this book is for. Dedicated blog readers will have already read these posts, and at least had the benefit of disagreeing with or expanding upon the topics in the comments section. Book-readers who hadn't read the blog, like me, will be let down by this not being a real book and the rapid-fire topics having no depth or representing any but the most pedestrian theories. Basically, if they've come up with anything actually great in the past few years, they must be saving it for their next real book.

Oh, and to spoil the misleading title: their answer is "never," which after not giving a reason for why a certain man robbed six banks, but always on Thursdays, felt a bit like a bait and switch. They did helpfully mention that the take is greater on average in the morning, however, and that despite this stick-up men do most of their robbing in the afternoons. Apparently those willing to risk imprisonment on a serious crime with one of the highest conviction rates, for the paltry average of $7,500, don't have the means or inclination to access the data.

[Jane Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Levitt should NOT NARRATE. Please have Dubner read all future books. (I listened to the audiobook.)

I love Levitt’s brain, but when he talks it’s hard for me to concentrate on what he says. He does not enunciate his words. My mind wanders. I replayed two sentences twice and I still didn’t know what word he was saying. One was “business trips and (compy).” Other examples follow (the correct word is in parentheses): on the rose (roads), the other rection (direction), cloth dipa (diapers), capit (capital), strateg (strategy), camp (campaign), fitty (fitting), verters (virtues).

A second problem is Levitt pauses at odd times.

But I love Levitt’s thinking and ideas. These guys are a great team.

The content of this book can be read for free on the Freakonomics website. It consists of blog posts by the two authors and interactions with readers. I wanted something in audio form so I was happy to buy the book.

CONTENT:
Many interesting ideas. I enjoyed it.

One thing surprised me - regarding sports: There is a home field advantage in soccer games. But it is not the fans influencing the players, it’s the fans influencing the REFS. Apparently, Refs make calls to please the fans. And the closer the fans physically are to the refs, the more calls they make to please the fans. This was noticed in games where there was a running track between the field and the audience. The guys were studying soccer, but this likely applies to other sports.

There were several suggestions from former gang members and others about how to reduce gang membership. One gang leader said he loses members when they get jobs. Someone else suggested the cops take a gang member and drop him off alone late at night in the middle of a rival gang’s territory. He’ll get beat up.

DATA:
Narrative mode: 1st and 3rd person. Unabridged audiobook length: 8 hrs and 13 mins. Swearing language: none, except one chapter used the word bulls*** several times. Sexual content: none. Book copyright: 2015. Genre: nonfiction, economics.

[David Rubenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of blog essays from the Freakonomics blog. The first part of the book arranges the essays by topic. As mentioned in the book itself, the second part of the book lacks any organization; the essays seem to be in a completely random order. The essays are short, and are rather superficial. Each of the essays seems to end with the reader hanging. And then what ? ..... So, if you are looking for the sort of anecdotal evidence for points of view that the Freakonomics books portray, then don't read this book. If you are looking at a semi-random scattering of interesting points of view that are really questions, and not answers, then this book may be of interest to you.

Nevertheless, this is a fun book. It contains lots of essays on a wide variety of topics. And, Levitt and Dubner are not afraid to take unpopular points of view on many issues. For example, is "buying local" the "right" thing to do? Does growing your own food make economic sense? Perhaps not, according to the authors. Some of the essays border on the absurd. For example, the authors advocate for a sex tax. Really? Are they serious?

I didn't read this book. I listened to the audiobook. Sadly, the audiobook is narrated by the authors. One of the authors (I forget who) is a satisfactory reader, but the other one has a voice that is too soft. While the reading is perfectly understandable, it almost seems like the author has no enthusiasm for his own writing. My recommendation; skip the audiobook.

[Abyssdancer (Hanging in there!) · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains blog entries from a website set up by the authors of the “Freakonomics” books … topics range from terrorism to the significance of naming babies, from high gas prices to the reasons for lying … this book was not nearly as substantive as the other three “Freakonomics” books - not all of the blog entries contained peer reviewed empirical data - but I enjoyed reading this book because the omnipresent “Freakonomics” sense of humor was spot on, and I liked the wide range of topics that they covered … the only thing that really threw me when reading this book was that the timelines of when the entries were posted was confusing, so it was hard to put some entries in the proper context … but I chuckled most of the time I was reading it - except for the postings about Steve Levitt’s sister … she died at the age of 50 in 2012 of an aggressive form of cancer, and Levitt included a posting from his father and the eulogy he himself wrote about his sister … tears welled in my eyes as I read the descriptions of how horribly she died but how fondly and lovingly she will be remembered …

So I would recommend this book, even if you’re not a “Freakonomics” junkie … as a psychology major, I enjoyed their opinions about human behavior, and the research they did cite was fascinating …

[S.Baqer Al-Meshqab · Rating 3 out of 5]

Because I am a big fan of Levitt and Dubner Works, I feel entitled to write this review. I have to admit, there has never been in my reading life, a series in which I was extremely absorbed like the Freaknomics Series. I never read all books published under one title consequently. I always thought I needed a break, no matter how good the series was. In Freakonomics, however, I read all four books straight, no break whatsoever.

Now Let us compare the time I spent reading these books.
Freakonomics = 5 days.
Superfreakonomics = 5 days.
Think Like A Freak = 5 days.
When to Rob a Bank = 10 days.

Can you see something here? When to Rob a Bank took me double the time spent on any of its predecessors. Why? Well, unfortunately, it wasn't good enough. There are several reasons for which I think I didn't find this book as desirable:

Number 1: Things are way too random. The authors just collected their blog entries and tried to make a book out of them. I could not find the general concept of Freakonomics (People responds to incentives) materializing everywhere. Some entries where utterly useless. I probably should have known, when I saw the number 131 in the title, that was careless of me.

Number 2: The strong suit of Freakonomics is making dull things interesting. I normally wouldn't care about Crack dealers, School Teacher Cheating, or Prostitution. The presentation of these ideas, and many more others did the trick. In When to Rob a bank, however, the presented blog entries were not given the time to be interesting (most of them). They were not reinforced with social experiments. Some of them were only.. life observations, like part of a diary.

Number 3 : Perhaps the voice of Dubner (in the audio book) was a major factor in drawing me in. He is GOOD. REALLY GOOD. Levitt, on the other hand, despite being half-responsible for the birth of such a great series, is actually not. (Sorry Levitt, I have to be honest).

At the end, I am and will always be a loyal fan of Freakonomics, and can't wait for the next book. (Please make it as good as the first three books). I already feel that I am starting to think like an economist, but who wouldn't?

[Marcel Santos · Rating 3 out of 5]

A simple collection of posts pasted from the authors’ blog. They are invariably very short and rarely have thematic pertinence one to the other. The occasional references to recent research are always interesting, but they are shallow most of the time. Not infrequent feeling of frustration due to moderate expectation raised by the authors on some themes, but without continuity. The humorous tone makes it a pleasant read despite the variable quality and lack of depth in the topics covered throughout the book.

[kat · Rating 1 out of 5]

I bought this on sale on Amazon and I'm really sorry I did. I vaguely remember at least somewhat enjoying Freakonomics, but this is a hot mess of disorganized blogorrhea that accomplished nothing except making me angry. There's little to no actual data or in-depth analysis, just a bunch of off-the-cuff ruminations that range from laughably ill-conceived to dangerously bad. This is a book of Levitt & Dubner's personal opinions, which are on the whole myopic, right-wing and self-congratulatory. Wish they'd spend more time thoughtfully examining their own biases and less time trying to be hilariously offensive rogues.

[Pinar Coskun · Rating 1 out of 5]

Perhaps a perfect demonstration of narcissism. Perhaps an attempt to produce original swag that the gentlemen have been marketing. Definitely great for the populist readers amongst us. A thing as beautiful as a bound book, filled with superficial American dinner table chit chat transcripts.

Having said all of that, I should have known :)

[Brian Clegg · Rating 4 out of 5]

After a certain amount of disappointment caused by the previous Freaknomics inspired book, Think Like a Freak, I was prepared to find the latest equally disappointing. After all, the authors admit this is just a transcription of parts of their blog. In economics terms, as they point out, this is the equivalent of buying bottled water - paying money for something you can get for free. However they do claim to have culled the best from their blog, so you don't have to, which is a useful service.

Like the huge successful Freakonomics and its successors, the blog is all about taking the tools of economics and statistics and using them in everyday life. Only here the uses are less thought through. Where they might have done a lot of work to get a piece together for one of the main books, here it's usually just a quick thought, without in-depth research attached. However despite this - and arguably sometimes because of this - a good number of the entries are thought provoking, challenging, fun or all three. You'll find everything from a debate with a number of experts on what you should do with $10 in your pocket when passing a drunken beggar and hotdog stall to an idea to 'fix' the UK health service (apparently David Cameron wasn't impressed) and some surprising considerations on what is and isn't good for the environment. Not to mention why most people get the answer totally wrong to 'why has consumption of shrimp gone up'... and, of course, the title question of the book.

Sometimes you do feel that they are just setting out to be provocative without any great reason to be - for example in the items on terrorism. (Though they do underline the important point that most security measures are for show, not to do the job.) Elsewhere, while what they have is an interesting theoretical solution to a problem, it's usually a classic example of economists not understanding psychology. Even though they make several references to behavioural economics, this is mostly classical economics with its undying belief in markets and assumption that we behave as homo economicus. This comes through, for example, in that UK health service 'fix', which is quite logical, but doesn't take any account of the psychology of the British attitude to healthcare free at the point of source.

For me, the biggest problem is the sport section, which I pretty much had to skip. Both participants seem obsessed with sport, and specifically with America's very parochial domestic sports, which to anyone outside of the country are likely to be as dull as all the entries on poker will be to non-gamblers. It was also quite sweet that Levitt and Dubner, for all their efforts at putting logic and numbers to the fore, couldn't overcome the US obsession with guns - so in various entries trying to see how it might be possible to reduce deaths and injuries by firearms, there is no mention of what the rest of the world sees as the blindingly obvious - get rid of the guns. Duh.

Despite the extremely boring sports bit and the gun-blindness, there is plenty to enjoy, so it really wasn't a problem. And if you get to the end and think 'I need more', you can always head over to the blog and get your fill in an all-you-can-eat Freakobuffet. Excellent!

[Yaaresse · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF. Abandoned at 32%
Source: Library e-book

Sometimes when I'm reading something dense or intense, I like to have a book going on the side that lends itself to an easy pick up/put down as a breather. Well, this one is definitely easy to put down.

This book reminded me of three things:
1. With rare (if any) exception blogs make terrible books. Not only are most blogs shallow and self-absorbed, but they're repetitive. It didn't take long for this book to become grating. It feels like sitting through the hundredth rerun of a show you weren't all that wild about the first time you saw it.
2. I have never met an economist I liked. They're like weather men crossed with used car salesmen: wrong most of the time and always trying to convince you that something works better than it will.
3. Theory is just that: perhaps interesting, but not very useful most of the time.

The book is a very annoying, very shallow collection of half-ass rants and self-absorbed marketing for their "real" books. Boring.

[Jason Luu · Rating 1 out of 5]

When to Rob a Bank by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner. This makes the fourth Freakonomics branded book I’ve read by Levitt and Dubner and the experience has been uneven at best.

The first Freakonoimics book was interesting, albeit a little directionless. Super Freakonomics had more narrative, but was surprisingly illogical with more political ideology than I expected or wanted. Levitt and Dubner hit their stride with Think like a Freak, combining a coherent narrative framework with stories and examples that were more focused on intellectual curiosity than political leanings.

To my disappointment, When to Rob a Bank is a gigantic step backward. To provide context, When to Rob a Bank is not actually a book so much as it is an organized and condensed collection of blog posts and podcasts. Consisting of 131 different topics, When to Rob a Bank runs the gamut from completely useless and idiotic (a section dedicated to how awesome the Steelers are) to interesting (why do people on welfare often over report their income). The vast amount of topics is a double edged sword. Sure, it’s great that the authors only spend 5 minutes talking up the Steelers, but once you finally come across a really interesting or worthwhile thought process, you never fully delve into the how and why, the inner turnings and complete picture of something you previously thought you understood – the hallmark that the Freakonomics brand was built upon.

Suffice to say, not recommended. Hopefully, the next book will actually be a book rather than a cash grab.

[Johnny Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Freakonomics this is not -- I love Freakonomics and Levitt was great with it. This is a follow-up but content taken from his blog. This is okay and it makes for a great light ---sporadic read. That means you can read it like a bathroom reader and consume a page or two at a time and not lose the current of the book. Why?
Because it is simply a collection of questions Levitt heard or lifted off his blog with some input form outsiders and the public sometimes with a splash of humor thrown in. There is nothing riveting about this book like Freakonomics but just some fun things thrown out to think about--

If you want a book that you can just grab at the bus stop -- or read a few pages at the doctors office-- or sitting on the ( sorry) throne-- Go for it--

I enjoyed it -- but regret paying retain--

Johnny

[Chafic (Rello) · Rating 4 out of 5]

No, this doesn't tell you the exact logistical details in how or 'when' to rob a bank.
This is just a provocative title that's designed to be eye-grabbing and make my coworkers wonder whether I'm a diabolical criminal in my off-time.

While this is just a collection of all the blog posts the duo have shared on their Freakonomics blog, it does provide some interesting insight into the uncanny correlations that exist in the world.

But if you're still reading this, the answer to the question you're looking for is never.

[Duncan · Rating 1 out of 5]

not worth the time or the money, don't recommend

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well this year has started off extremely slow for me, but I have to say, I'm not surprised. This book was excellent, I love these authors and I love the way they think. Highly recommend!

[Jay French · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you like “Freakonomics”, the book, you will find this collection similar. It is the same folks, covering the same kinds of topics with the same kind of humor and style. But these are snippets from their online blog, and while some topics curried a lot of interest in me, most of the time the treatment was too short or too limited in depth. I liked them, but this book was like a bowlful of Lifesavers where “Freakonomics” was a ravioli dinner – either can fill you up, but you feel a bit bad if you just ate Lifesavers. The point I most appreciated was hearing about the authors gambling in Las Vegas. Economists in Vegas, and they seem to enjoy themselves. I listened to the audio of this, with the authors narrating much like their podcast. Well done and entertaining, although forgettable.

[Akshay · Rating 2 out of 5]

When to Rob a Bank: ...And 131 More Warped Suggestions and Well-Intended Rants by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

A cynical cash grab masquerading as economic insight—131 blog posts that range from mildly interesting to dangerously irresponsible, revealing how contrarianism without rigor becomes intellectual malpractice marketed as "rogue" thinking.

Structural Flaws and Commercial Opportunism: The book’s main failing is its blatant recycling of blog content—material the authors themselves label as partially “rubbish.” Rather than a cohesive or insightful book, readers receive an uneven, loosely curated archive, much of which was already freely available online. This approach, coupled with the publisher's attempt to repackage "the best of the best" from thousands of posts, results in a volume many call “a gigantic step backward” from Freakonomics, and for some, a transparent “cash grab.” The reading experience is marred by repetition and tedium rather than the excitement or depth that characterized the authors’ earlier works.

Point-by-Point Critique of Major Arguments:

1. Pay-Per-Vote Democracy Proposal:

The suggestion that US voting should be pay-to-participate—unlimited votes for those who can afford them—ranks among the book’s most tone-deaf ideas. Rather than questioning entrenched inequality, the authors appear to legitimize codifying plutocracy, evidencing either deep misunderstanding or deliberate provocation. This proposal amounts to intellectual negligence by equating the existence of influence with the virtue of making it policy.

2. NHS “Reform” via Taxi Drivers:

Recommendations for UK healthcare reform are based on casual chats with London cab drivers, ignoring the fundamental differences in how Americans and Britons actually use their medical systems. Describing healthcare as something akin to a consumer gadget (“like a broken TV”) is seen by many critics as deeply insensitive, reducing human suffering to market logic and risking real harm if adopted as policy.

3. Singapore Prime Minister Salaries:

The book justifies Singapore’s sky-high political paychecks as a means to “prevent corruption,” sidestepping the regime’s authoritarianism, absence of free press, and the reality that massive salaries don’t guarantee probity. The comparison to the US president (whose pay is a fraction of his Singaporean counterpart) highlights the fallacy in linking compensation directly to ethical government or anti-corruption outcomes.

4. Closing LaGuardia Airport Based on a Pilot’s Comment:

Another controversial moment: the suggestion to close New York’s LaGuardia Airport based on a single pilot’s offhand remark. The authors ignore economic, logistical, and community impact, exemplifying their broader pattern of mistaking anecdotes for actionable insight.

5. Abolishing Teacher Tenure Without Evidence:

The push to remove teacher tenure is justified by personal opinion and dismisses all objections as coming from “bad teachers”—a logical fallacy that avoids engagement with decades of educational research and studies on labor dynamics, further underscoring a preference for contrarian talking points to rigorous evidence.

6. The Sex Tax:

The so-called “sex tax” is mentioned with minimal seriousness or detail, highlighting a tendency toward sensational suggestion over plausible reform. The absence of substantive discussion or exploration of consequences indicates that many proposals are more about provocation than policy.

Methodological Failures and Intellectual Dishonesty: The recurring pattern through the book is anecdote over data, controversy over careful analysis, and the flattening of complex human life into reductive, impersonal data points. Critics point to the authors’ uncritical acceptance of classic homo economicus assumptions, despite well-documented advances in behavioral economics that challenge them. Some reviewers even call out the duo’s seeming detachment from the “reality” faced by ordinary citizens who live with the consequences of bad policy.

Comparative Context and Brand Degradation: Where Freakonomics surprised and delighted with deep research and fresh insight, this volume too often presents “life observations, like part of a diary,” and squanders the authors’ analytic reputation. Prior successes like Think Like a Freak succeeded by following curiosities rigorously—here, curiosity is replaced with attention-seeking provocations and a lack of meaningful fact-based argument.

Production and Accessibility Issues: Even the audiobook is criticized, with poor narration and enunciation described as making it nearly impossible to follow, compounding the frustration with the book’s content and editorial approach.

When to Rob a Bank is a cautionary tale in the dangers of brand dilution—Levitt and Dubner, once respected for their data-driven curiosity, now opt for cheap provocation and intellectual shortcuts. The book’s greatest risk is not that its ideas will be implemented, but that its authors—riding on the “Freakonomics” name—lend authority to arguments that range from trivial to reckless. Readers seeking genuine economic insight should return to the rigor and humility of the original Freakonomics or seek out economists who balance accessibility with honest analysis.

 Rating: ⭐⭐✩✩✩ out of 5 stars 

[Neil Hepworth · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF'd at page 150 out of 350. The biggest problem with this book is that each blog post is so thin as to be nearly devoid of meaningful substance. And even when you group them together (loosely) by category, there is still no bigger picture. This book is not better than the sum of the parts, it is not even the sum of the parts. It is just a bunch of tiny parts. And none very interesting at that. Time to move on.

[Marla Loya · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was hard to get into at first because the blog posts are so short and random but once I stopped looking for “what’s the point”, I did mostly enjoy this. Some parts were less interesting than others. Overall a quick read but I don’t feel like I gained anything from it.

[Zieq Hakim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Insightful and entertaining as ever! Due to it's chaos organized way of publishing made it an easy read too.

[Viola · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tagad zinu labāko dienu,kad laupīt banku!

[Stewart Tame · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wound up liking this better than I expected to.

The title is certainly eye-catching. The fact that it was written by the authors of Freakonomics, though, gave me pause. I’ve never read that book, but assumed it to be one of those myriad business books that are published every year. And I’ve also always assumed that economics was a boring subject.

But this book still looked kind of interesting. And the blog entries of which it was comprised seemed mercifully short, so I decided to give it a try. I have apparently been wrong about economics all these years, or at least the vision of it contained in this book is actually kind of fun (at this point, I can almost hear the anguished cries of economics students: “No! Flee while you still can!”)

The book ranges across a wide array of topics. Samples include: “If Crack Dealers Took Lessons from Walgreen’s, They Really Would Be Rich”,”Why Are Kiwifruits So Cheap?”,”Is the Endangered Species Act Bad for Endangered Species?”,”Loss Aversion in the NFL”,”I’m A High-End Call Girl; Ask Me Anything”,”Shrimponomics”, and more. The book reminds me in some ways of popular science books that reveal the physics behind everyday objects and the like. This book does the same thing, just with economics.

I found it to be quite fascinating, actually, and I’m very probably going to be reading their other books at some point. Recommended!

[minh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I should’ve read Freakonomics first—I have no idea why I didn’t. While I took great delight in reading most of the essays, it felt more like supplemental literature of fans of Levitt and Dubner. I thought it gave me a very good sense of the authors’ writing styles, interests, and quirks, but underperformed in terms of research. Knowing this, I think I’d be the perfect audience for their more cohesive works, Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics, so I’ll definitely keep them on my reading list. It was a compilation of blog posts that the two authors had published previously; the final product is almost exactly why I expected.

As an Econ major, I appreciated a lot of the choices they made—featuring a wide variety of hypotheses, perspectives, and insights from the entire field instead of clouding the topics with their own opinions. There are some weird one-liners that caught me off guard (suggesting that same-sex intercourse should be taxed, a lot of the gun control chapter), but overall, I could follow their logic.

I don’t regret reading it. I think I just regret reading it before the other books.

[Edgar Arturo Polanco pulido · Rating 1 out of 5]

Es el primer libro en toda mi vida que prefiero dejar de leer por su contenido. Siempre he creído que todos los libros tienen algo por enseñarte, particularmente este me lo regaló mi papá, y quise leerlo por darle valor a su regalo y confiar en su criterio de selección. Sin embargo, no pude pasar de la página 80, respeto a sus escritores, finalmente consiguieron elaborar un producto en su blog atractivo para muchas personas, pero no hago parte de ese grupo, y preferí por primera vez en mis 31 años, dejar un libro a medias.

A pesar de todo, este libro generó en mí un gran conflicto moral, porque me duele pensar en la vida de un libro, el futuro de sus paginas, los árboles sacrificados para su impresión. Regalarlo sería de mal gusto, nisiquiera a alguien que no me agrade podría hacerlo. Espero encontrar algo útil que hacer con estas páginas no leídas.

[BluePhoenix · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting. There are many thought provoking articles about a myriad of topics. Mostly random, but still thorough. I enjoyed the Global Warming post, and there is also some comedy.

[Amy Hanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fun read. Some really good, thought provoking topics of conversation.

[Brittany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love this series

Another interesting look at life from these two. I listen to their podcasts, but I didn't realize they had a blog. Fun, thought-provoking reading.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the audio book. It was just like listening to their podcast, except the ideas weren't as fleshed out. BUT, I guess that was the intention. They're blog posts.