What do you think?
Rate this book
More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics
Steven Landsburg's writings are living proof that economics need not be "the dismal science." Readers of The Armchair Economist and his columns in Slate magazine know that he can make economics not only fun but fascinating, as he searches for the reasons behind the odd facts we face in our daily lives. In More Sex Is Safer Sex , he brings his witty and razor-sharp analysis to the many ways that our individually rational decisions can combine into some truly weird collective results -- and he proposes hilarious and serious ways to fix just about everything. When you stand up at the ballpark in order to see better, you make a rational decision. When everyone else does it too, the results, of course, are lousy. But this is just the tip of the iceberg of individual sanity and collective madness. Did you know that some people may actually increase the spread of sexually transmitted diseases when they avoid casual sex? Do you know why tall people earn more money than shorter competitors? ( it isn't just unfair, unconscious prejudice.) Do you know why it makes no sense for you to give charitable donations to more than one organization? Landsburg's solutions to the many ways that modern life is unfair or inefficient are both jaw-dropping and maddeningly defensible. We should encourage people to cut in line at water fountains on hot days. We should let firefighters keep any property they rescue from burning houses. We should encourage more people to act like Scrooge, because misers are just as generous as philanthropists. Best of all are Landsburg's commonsense solutions to the political problems that plague our democracy. We should charge penalties to jurors if they convict a felon who is later exonerated. We should let everyone vote in two congressional their own, and any other one of their choice. While we're at it, we should redraw the districts according to the alphabetical lists of all voters, rather than by geography. We should pay FDA commissioners with shares of pharmaceutical company stocks, and pay our president with a diversified portfolio of real estate from across the country. Why do parents of sons stay married more often than parents who have only daughters? Why does early motherhood not only correlate with lower income, but actually cause it? Why do we execute murderers but not the authors of vicious computer viruses? The lesson of this fascinating, fun, and endlessly provocative book is many apparently very odd behaviors have logical explanations, and many apparently logical behaviors make no sense whatsoever.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
64 people are currently reading
1391 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
September 8, 2016
I'm distraught by the amount of negative reviews I saw here, but I'm not entirely surprised. I just re-read the book for about the 4th or 5th time over the years, and each time I find myself discovering that my previous frustrations with the author were, in fact, manifestations of my own logical inconsistencies. Landsburg is, in fact, a compassionate man of the highest order- we're just too clouded with our caveman minds to see it. Adam Smith became an economist because he was a moralist who wanted to figure out how to make moral decisions with limited resources. Landsburg carries on that vein of thought.
If you're an idealist who's easily offended by ideas like "disaster relief is bad" or "we shouldn't put poor people on ventilator support" or "sweatshops are a good thing", then you'll hate Landsburg. But if you take the time to carefully study his arguments, you'll realize that he's operating within constraints and limitations- he's being pragmatic rather than idealistic, offering applicable ideas and solutions rather than grand gestures.
At several points, Landsburg demonstrates (painfully, for me) the immorality of our own moralistic thinking. I will be re-reading this book for many years to come, just to get a sense of how sharp and incisive human thought can be.
If you're an idealist who's easily offended by ideas like "disaster relief is bad" or "we shouldn't put poor people on ventilator support" or "sweatshops are a good thing", then you'll hate Landsburg. But if you take the time to carefully study his arguments, you'll realize that he's operating within constraints and limitations- he's being pragmatic rather than idealistic, offering applicable ideas and solutions rather than grand gestures.
At several points, Landsburg demonstrates (painfully, for me) the immorality of our own moralistic thinking. I will be re-reading this book for many years to come, just to get a sense of how sharp and incisive human thought can be.
November 22, 2007
Ugh! The author comes off so cold and calculating I found it difficult to even finish the book. His arguments are based on economic analysis and pretty much nothing else. I get the impression that if he saw somebody drowning he'd pull out his notebook and calculate whether or not it'd economically worthy his time/effort to save the person.
As many others have said before me, read Freakonomics instead.
As many others have said before me, read Freakonomics instead.
February 7, 2008
A not-so-subtle libertarian conservative manifesto masquerading as a "freakanomics" style book to cash in on the trend.
December 16, 2008
Finally, I get to write the review I've been pondering since about page 165. I didn't care for this book AT ALL (so let's just establish that fact). I think the title should've been my first tip-off--a book that so clearly needs sex to sell can't have much going on between the covers. I would be terribly upset if I'd paid money for this book. As it happens it was thrust upon me by Judy (thanks.)
I'd just read Freakonomics and thought this might be similar. Let me assure you it is not. I know Freakonomics had no unifying theme--this one even less so. The author just kind of aimlessly wanders from point to point sometimes without even giving an answer to the question he raised. When he does provide an answer it's ultra-libertarian, pure costs/benefit analysis. Little Jessica down the well wouldn't have gotten saved if it were up to this guy. Call me crazy, but I like solutions to problems to have a shread of moral fiber running through them. Also, the author has a tendency to assert that anyone who disagrees with him is either A. not following his logic or B. an idiot. Here's a news flash Steven E. Landsburg: We're not morons; we follow your logic and it sucks!
For those who still have a desire to touch this book it's only worth a skim. Also, Landsburg has written some essays for Slate (I don't know how recently, but it seems like a lot of the book is based on those essays). So, find the essays, give them a read, and if you like them then read the book. At least you'll only waste minutes and not days of your life.
I'd just read Freakonomics and thought this might be similar. Let me assure you it is not. I know Freakonomics had no unifying theme--this one even less so. The author just kind of aimlessly wanders from point to point sometimes without even giving an answer to the question he raised. When he does provide an answer it's ultra-libertarian, pure costs/benefit analysis. Little Jessica down the well wouldn't have gotten saved if it were up to this guy. Call me crazy, but I like solutions to problems to have a shread of moral fiber running through them. Also, the author has a tendency to assert that anyone who disagrees with him is either A. not following his logic or B. an idiot. Here's a news flash Steven E. Landsburg: We're not morons; we follow your logic and it sucks!
For those who still have a desire to touch this book it's only worth a skim. Also, Landsburg has written some essays for Slate (I don't know how recently, but it seems like a lot of the book is based on those essays). So, find the essays, give them a read, and if you like them then read the book. At least you'll only waste minutes and not days of your life.
January 20, 2010
Let me be clear: I chose to give this book one star not because I thought the writing was horrible or the topic unpalatable; I merely disagreed with most of what he said. If I were to rate this book based on emotional reactions while reading it, it would have had five solid stars.
While I appreciate Landsburg's attempts to "shock and awe" the reader into a new way of thinking about economics, I would like to take him to task for two very major issues:
1) Landsburg has a tendency to point out holes in others' arguments while blithely ignoring the holes in his own. Beat down any argument you want, but for heaven's sake, don't ignore the fact that you're not fleshing out the many possibilities in your own. If he'd stated even once that there were countless other possibilities/outcomes/reasons/etc that he hadn't thought of, I would have read with more pleasure.
2) Most statements he made were merely based on his own feelings on a subject's importance/relevance. I'm not saying I'm too sentimental to place value on human lives, or that I can't abide by disagreeing with someone on moral issues. I'm saying he shouldn't have written everything as if his beliefs were the right beliefs.
I guess I just don't like arrogance.
While I appreciate Landsburg's attempts to "shock and awe" the reader into a new way of thinking about economics, I would like to take him to task for two very major issues:
1) Landsburg has a tendency to point out holes in others' arguments while blithely ignoring the holes in his own. Beat down any argument you want, but for heaven's sake, don't ignore the fact that you're not fleshing out the many possibilities in your own. If he'd stated even once that there were countless other possibilities/outcomes/reasons/etc that he hadn't thought of, I would have read with more pleasure.
2) Most statements he made were merely based on his own feelings on a subject's importance/relevance. I'm not saying I'm too sentimental to place value on human lives, or that I can't abide by disagreeing with someone on moral issues. I'm saying he shouldn't have written everything as if his beliefs were the right beliefs.
I guess I just don't like arrogance.
January 13, 2009
Landsburg's crafty way of illustrating the basic nature of trade offs and the application of cost/benefit analysis was not only refreshing but entertaining.
I'd recommend this book to anyone wanting to look at the world throught the wacky eyes of an economist.
I'd recommend this book to anyone wanting to look at the world throught the wacky eyes of an economist.
May 3, 2013
The author, an economist and columnist, uses cost-benefit analysis to tackle some thorny social issues, from the polygamy of the title to such varied topics as giving to charity, overpopulation, euthanasia, the global preference for baby boys vs. girls, disaster relief, the benefits of being tall and/or beautiful, the American propensity for self-denial, flaws in the justice system, and outsourcing jobs. Not only does he apply the principle of costs vs. benefits to these issues, he argues that this is the only rational way to approach them, dismissing in most cases such flimsy notions as patriotism or religion or human compassion. (In fact, he would say that cost-benefit analysis is the only compassionate route in the case of, say, taking a comatose woman off a respirator, since that respirator is then freed for someone who will presumably gain more benefit from it). He’s an intelligent writer who argues deftly, and his writing has the cocksure tone of the experienced professor, mixed with the somewhat defensive attitude of one who has heard many counter-arguments and gotten a lot of mail about his opinions before. The crux of his political thought is that if you’re not “footing the bill” (in various ways, not always with actual dollars), what others do is none of your business; this free-market libertarianism allows him to argue that, for instance, companies are doing the right thing by outsourcing jobs, as the jobs in India are just as “valuable” in an economic sense as an American one. That this should not be true to an American is lost on him.
Reading this book, which of course I found much to disagree with about, I was reminded of Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge, which makes a distinction between Humans, who do not always act rationally and have preferences for things that sometimes are not valuable, and Econs, who think everyone always knows what their neighbor is doing and include all available data in their calculations before acting. Landsburg is the consummate Econ – absolutely uncompromising, equating rationality with validity in every case, and nearly pod-like in his refusal to understand why his solutions would not work in the real world of irrational, patriotic, religious, humans, who cry over a picture of one hurt puppy but don’t blink at news reports of human massacres. This leads Landsburg to some bizarre conclusions, such as his argument that the world needs more people or that the world’s oil will not be over-used: since over-population and oil use must, according to Econ-style analysis, be voluntary, it will always serve our needs. (This is, of course, total nonsense; even if there was one person in the world and one can of oil, he could burn all his oil in one day and then be cold for the rest of his life, thus over-using it; and in the real world no one knows what others are doing with their oil use.) Landsburg’s Econ analysis also leads him to appear creepy and off-putting, as when he describes his daughter as a “cost.”
At times he is being jocular, as when he suggests that firefighters should be paid in the loot they save from fires; at other times he seems to be serious when he suggests the President of the USA be paid in land grants across the country, as if anyone becomes president for the big cash salary. All the time, his insistence of every action being a “cost” makes him appear downright obtuse, as when he claims that while a polluter might be costing a swimmer the ability to swim, the swimmer is costing the polluter the chance to dump gunk in the water! He really goes off the rails when he equates conservation with robbing the poor (people today) to give to the super-rich (our grand-children, who will surely be more prosperous than us!) – he seems truly unable to understand that a conservationist is not interested in transferring income but slowing consumption. Finally, although he’s clearly a very smart guy, he cheats on some of his own arguments, as when he claims that a husband who wants to bury his brain-dead wife is “preventing” the woman’s parents from feeding her and thus the parents have the greater claim – but he never classifies the parents as the “preventers,” who are stopping the husband from enjoying his right to bury. He also ignores his own respirator argument from earlier in the book: in feeding the daughter, the parents are selfishly “preventing” others from benefiting from the respirator, but he never mentions this. In short, some of Landburg’s arguments made me consider my assumptions. Some made me want to be in his class so I could ask follow-up questions. Some made me want to punch him in his stupid face. This must be, then, a very successful book: it captivated me and made me think about some things from an angle I’d never considered. I was engaged and enraged, and isn’t that a good thing?
Reading this book, which of course I found much to disagree with about, I was reminded of Thaler and Sunstein’s Nudge, which makes a distinction between Humans, who do not always act rationally and have preferences for things that sometimes are not valuable, and Econs, who think everyone always knows what their neighbor is doing and include all available data in their calculations before acting. Landsburg is the consummate Econ – absolutely uncompromising, equating rationality with validity in every case, and nearly pod-like in his refusal to understand why his solutions would not work in the real world of irrational, patriotic, religious, humans, who cry over a picture of one hurt puppy but don’t blink at news reports of human massacres. This leads Landsburg to some bizarre conclusions, such as his argument that the world needs more people or that the world’s oil will not be over-used: since over-population and oil use must, according to Econ-style analysis, be voluntary, it will always serve our needs. (This is, of course, total nonsense; even if there was one person in the world and one can of oil, he could burn all his oil in one day and then be cold for the rest of his life, thus over-using it; and in the real world no one knows what others are doing with their oil use.) Landsburg’s Econ analysis also leads him to appear creepy and off-putting, as when he describes his daughter as a “cost.”
At times he is being jocular, as when he suggests that firefighters should be paid in the loot they save from fires; at other times he seems to be serious when he suggests the President of the USA be paid in land grants across the country, as if anyone becomes president for the big cash salary. All the time, his insistence of every action being a “cost” makes him appear downright obtuse, as when he claims that while a polluter might be costing a swimmer the ability to swim, the swimmer is costing the polluter the chance to dump gunk in the water! He really goes off the rails when he equates conservation with robbing the poor (people today) to give to the super-rich (our grand-children, who will surely be more prosperous than us!) – he seems truly unable to understand that a conservationist is not interested in transferring income but slowing consumption. Finally, although he’s clearly a very smart guy, he cheats on some of his own arguments, as when he claims that a husband who wants to bury his brain-dead wife is “preventing” the woman’s parents from feeding her and thus the parents have the greater claim – but he never classifies the parents as the “preventers,” who are stopping the husband from enjoying his right to bury. He also ignores his own respirator argument from earlier in the book: in feeding the daughter, the parents are selfishly “preventing” others from benefiting from the respirator, but he never mentions this. In short, some of Landburg’s arguments made me consider my assumptions. Some made me want to be in his class so I could ask follow-up questions. Some made me want to punch him in his stupid face. This must be, then, a very successful book: it captivated me and made me think about some things from an angle I’d never considered. I was engaged and enraged, and isn’t that a good thing?
February 17, 2009
Really like these kinds of books. Landsburg is a professor at my school and I'd love to take one of his classes after reading this book. The title sums it up: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics. Economics can surprisingly be applied to so many situations in our lives (with results that you might not expect!). Quick and easy to read, very entertaining.
June 12, 2010
This book is so, so awful. The only thing worse than the author's flawed logic is his insistence on being purely vitriolic towards anyone who dares to offer a counterpoint. Arrogant a**hole economist thinks he's better at understanding HIV prevention than an M.D. That's only one example of the many times that he chooses to PERSONALLY ATTACK critics of his ideas instead of engaging in intelligent debate/discourse. A lot of the time I just felt uncomfortable reading this. So far, he's spent 25% of the book describing legitimate phenomena, another 25% proposing wackjob "only in theory" ideas based primarily on the logic of cost-benefit analysis (like, say, firefighters being allowed to keep whatever they save since that would be the only TRUE way for them to benefit from working their hardest???), and the remaining 50% launching angry, spiteful personal attacks on anyone who proposes a different viewpoint. I'm just grateful that I took this book out from the library and didn't waste money on it; I saved my money for Superfreakonomics! At this point I'm just finishing this book because I'm stubborn and hate quitting in the middle. Can't wait...
February 5, 2011
If there was a single page in this book which did not a contain an argument or logical construction which failed the laugh test, I can't recall it.
Oh, check that, there was one argument in the beginning which I vaguely recall making some sense. Unfortunately, I also remember that this argument could be used to invalidate the rest of the nonsense which followed.
I particularly enjoyed the author's description of handicapped ramps as unnecessary. The only place I could imagine ramps being unnecessary is a thus far nonexistent home supply store which only sells staircases.
Oh, check that, there was one argument in the beginning which I vaguely recall making some sense. Unfortunately, I also remember that this argument could be used to invalidate the rest of the nonsense which followed.
I particularly enjoyed the author's description of handicapped ramps as unnecessary. The only place I could imagine ramps being unnecessary is a thus far nonexistent home supply store which only sells staircases.
June 29, 2011
Landsburg uses abbreviated information to draw unsupportable conclusions. For example, the title of the book is taken from the notion that AIDS and other STDs are spread largely by high-risk individuals like prostitutes and others with large numbers of sexual partners. Landsburg contends, then that if more people had a few sexual partners, but not so many as the outright promiscuous (2 to 3 per person), the spread of these diseases would slow as fewer people would be visiting the promiscuous. This theory ignores several factors:
1) Some individuals will be more promiscuous than others for reasons unrelated to disease and thus one will not eliminate the promiscuous high risk contact by convincing more people to increase the variety of their sex partners.
2) Even if one ignores the issue of ongoing promiscuity, at some point, the portion of the population infected through his partner increase method is such that the population will eventually share the same risk as the population where the disease is spread largely by the promiscuous. In a gross oversimplification, let's say that one has a 1% AIDS infection rate and everyone has exactly 3 sex partners per year and 100% of those who contact an infected partner are eventually infected themselves. At the end of year 1 the infection rate is now 4% as the 1% have had 3 sex partners who are now infected. At the end of year 2, the infection rate is now 16% (4% original cases + their 3 new cases per person), by year 3, 64% of the population is now infected, and so on. Surely this is no safer than frequenting prostitutes?
Likewise the case where Landsburg claims that by having more children one increases the odds of genius being born ignores that genius is not randomly distributed: It is almost always fostered with resources, education and attention. If one has more children than one can afford to lavash with attention, education and resources, one decreases ones the fostering for all of the children thus decreasing the odds that any will make any significant contribution to humanity. Unfortunately, lack of nourishment including well balanced meals and education and care, also increase the odds of criminal or anti-social behavior. So before you go and start popping out as many kids as you can in the hope of winning the genius lottery, consider how many you can realistically provide with food, education and care.
1) Some individuals will be more promiscuous than others for reasons unrelated to disease and thus one will not eliminate the promiscuous high risk contact by convincing more people to increase the variety of their sex partners.
2) Even if one ignores the issue of ongoing promiscuity, at some point, the portion of the population infected through his partner increase method is such that the population will eventually share the same risk as the population where the disease is spread largely by the promiscuous. In a gross oversimplification, let's say that one has a 1% AIDS infection rate and everyone has exactly 3 sex partners per year and 100% of those who contact an infected partner are eventually infected themselves. At the end of year 1 the infection rate is now 4% as the 1% have had 3 sex partners who are now infected. At the end of year 2, the infection rate is now 16% (4% original cases + their 3 new cases per person), by year 3, 64% of the population is now infected, and so on. Surely this is no safer than frequenting prostitutes?
Likewise the case where Landsburg claims that by having more children one increases the odds of genius being born ignores that genius is not randomly distributed: It is almost always fostered with resources, education and attention. If one has more children than one can afford to lavash with attention, education and resources, one decreases ones the fostering for all of the children thus decreasing the odds that any will make any significant contribution to humanity. Unfortunately, lack of nourishment including well balanced meals and education and care, also increase the odds of criminal or anti-social behavior. So before you go and start popping out as many kids as you can in the hope of winning the genius lottery, consider how many you can realistically provide with food, education and care.
June 6, 2011
Three words are very important to keep in mind while reading this book: all else equal. This is a very common caveat added to economic arguments that allows one to set a scenario without having to worry about an infinite number of what-ifs/but-waits. Landsburg suggests the "rational" (read: purely economic) answer to many hard questions, but I think it's a given that these aren't actually solutions-- of course there are many other non-economic factors to consider. Because I read the book with this in mind, I enjoyed Landsburg's application of economic rules to everyday issues. It was an interesting read, if nothing else. Sidenote: I've found that pop-econ books all have the same redundant, drive-the-point-into-the-ground tone. I find it characteristic of the genre and don't judge this one book for it.
January 9, 2009
I liked this book but I didn't love it. I bought it to read since the back cover caught my attention like "Freakonomics" did. It wasn't as good in my opinion. This author confused me a lot and I am not 100% sure why. It wasn't as easy to follow as "Freakonomics" was. It really seemed to me like a lot of what he was arguing was purely from a methodical and calculating viewpoint. Basically the world wants only boys for children and we shouldn't give our money to more than one charity. Overall there were some interesting arguments and the stuff I did understand was thought provoking and nothing more.
February 23, 2010
This book is in the same vein as "Freakonomics" and in fact actually references the book a few times. Be warned, this book is mostly theory. For example, the author's suggestion for reforming the electoral system includes having all congressional reps run nationwide races with their constituencies divided by the alphabet, not state and county lines. If you accept that most of the author's ideas are not going to be packaged in any politician's list of new reforms, you can have fun with entertaining his assertions. A great read.
March 3, 2011
Wow, this is one of the worst books I've read in a long time. He ignores obvious arguments against his proposals, picks dumb counter-arguments to make fun of his critics with (while ignoring their good counter-arguments), has his politics and his economics overly intertwined, and several other amazingly frustrating things. And that was only in the first four chapters. I couldn't make it any more, maybe it gets better, but I doubt it. No, this review isn't fair, but nor is his book!
April 28, 2009
About 2/3 interesting insights, about 1/3 clearly misguided musings. The writing is Freakonomics-style with less research supporting the conclusions, but the armchair reasoning style makes this type of reasoning seem more applicable to everyday situations than Freakonomics (after all, who really has time to spend years researching a question before coming to a snap judgment anyway?)
October 31, 2010
Landsburg. Truly a brilliant guy. His tone here is a little argumentative, not unlike his blog sometimes. I can see why if you're used to people constantly disagreeing, you feel like you have to hit people over the head with things. Still, this is rare and it's otherwise a very thought-provoking book.
September 20, 2009
Catchy title, but does not really deliver on the content. If you are looking for a good informational book about economics type stuff, go with Freakonomics instead.
August 6, 2011
A social economist's perspective on some of the simplest phenomena. Interesting and thought provoking.
January 2, 2020
على الرغم من قراءتي كتب قيّمة للمؤلف إلا أني لم أتوقع كتاب مشتت بالأفكار وسرد ممل لا يستحق القراءة .
أقل فائدة مرجوة من كتاب تحدي البديهة هو أنه عديم الفائدة ، هنا قد أكون وفرت على القارئ وقتا ومالا وجهدا .
أقل فائدة مرجوة من كتاب تحدي البديهة هو أنه عديم الفائدة ، هنا قد أكون وفرت على القارئ وقتا ومالا وجهدا .
September 28, 2018
I am a fan of Irrationality and Behavioral Economics and had high hopes from this one but it rather turned out to be a little disappointing.
The concepts and insights could have been concise and the book could have been a 100 pages.
I would suggest to give it a pass.
The concepts and insights could have been concise and the book could have been a 100 pages.
I would suggest to give it a pass.
May 5, 2025
Steven E. Landsburg: More Sex Is Safer Sex
Overview
“More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven E. Landsburg is a thought-provoking book that delves into the surprising and often counterintuitive insights of economics. Behind its catchy title lies a serious exploration of how individual rational decisions can lead to collectively irrational outcomes. Landsburg uses a variety of engaging examples to illustrate his points, such as how avoiding casual sex can paradoxically increase the spread of diseases. The book challenges readers to rethink their assumptions and consider the broader implications of their actions.
Landsburg's work is about understanding human behavior and societal dynamics through an economic lens. He tackles a wide range of topics, from politics and justice to everyday decisions, always with a blend of humour and rigorous logic. By presenting complex economic theories in an accessible and entertaining manner, the book invites readers to see the world in a new light and sparks debate on many issues we often take for granted.
Synopsis
The various chapters of the book can be summarised as follows:
Part I: The Communal Stream
1. More Sex Is Safer Sex This chapter explores the counterintuitive idea that increasing the number of sexual partners among the more cautious individuals in society can actually reduce the overall spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Landsburg argues that when cautious people engage in more sexual activity, they dilute the pool of potential partners, making it safer for everyone.
2. Be Fruitful and Multiply Landsburg discusses the economic implications of population growth, suggesting that having more children can lead to greater innovation and economic prosperity. He challenges the common belief that overpopulation is inherently problematic, instead highlighting the benefits of a larger, more diverse population.
3. What I Like About Scrooge In this chapter, Landsburg defends Ebenezer Scrooge's frugality, arguing that saving money and investing it wisely can benefit society as a whole. He explains how Scrooge's behavior, often seen as miserly, actually contributes to economic growth and stability.
4. Who's the Fairest of Them All? This chapter examines the concept of fairness in economic transactions. Landsburg uses various examples to illustrate how what is perceived as fair may not always lead to the most efficient or beneficial outcomes. He encourages readers to reconsider their notions of fairness in the context of economic efficiency
5. Children at Work Landsburg tackles the controversial topic of child labor, arguing that in some cases, allowing children to work can be beneficial for their families and communities. He presents evidence that, under certain conditions, child labor can lead to better economic outcomes and improved living standards.
Part II: How to Fix Everything
6. How to Fix Politics Landsburg suggests that many political problems stem from the misalignment of incentives. He proposes solutions such as implementing more direct democracy and using economic principles to design better voting systems that align politicians' incentives with the public good.
7. How to Fix the Justice System This chapter explores the inefficiencies and injustices within the legal system. Landsburg advocates for reforms that would make the system more efficient and fair, such as better aligning punishments with the severity of crimes and using economic incentives to reduce crime rates
8. How to Fix Everything Else In this comprehensive chapter, Landsburg addresses a variety of societal issues using economic principles:
* How to Fight Fires He suggests market-based solutions for fire prevention and response, such as insurance incentives for fireproofing homes.
* How to Fight Crime Landsburg argues for economic incentives to reduce crime, such as rewarding good behaviour and creating economic opportunities for potential offenders.
* How to Prevent Accidents He discusses the role of liability and insurance in reducing accidents, advocating for policies that make individuals and companies more accountable for safety.
* How to Fight Pollution Landsburg supports market-based approaches like carbon trading and pollution taxes to reduce environmental harm.
* How to Solve the Kidney Shortage He proposes legalising the sale of kidneys to create a market that would increase supply and save lives.
* How to Fight Grade Inflation Landsburg suggests using standardised testing and other objective measures to combat grade inflation in education
* How to Shorten Waiting Lines He explores the use of pricing and other economic tools to manage demand and reduce waiting times in various contexts.
Part III: Everyday Economics
9. Go Figure This chapter delves into the importance of understanding and interpreting statistical data correctly. Landsburg emphasizes how misinterpretations can lead to flawed conclusions and poor decision-making. He illustrates this with various examples, showing how a proper grasp of statistics can reveal surprising truths and debunk common misconceptions.
10. Oh No! It's a Girl! Landsburg examines the economic and social implications of gender preferences, particularly in societies where boys are favoured over girls. He discusses the long-term consequences of such biases, including demographic imbalances and their impact on the economy. The chapter highlights how these preferences can lead to unintended and often detrimental outcomes.
11. The High Price of Motherhood This chapter explores the economic costs associated with motherhood, both for individuals and society. Landsburg discusses how traditional gender roles and expectations can lead to significant financial and career sacrifices for women. He also examines policies that could help mitigate these costs and promote greater gender equality in the workforce.
Part IV: The Big Questions
12. Giving Your All: A Defense of Pure Reason Landsburg argues for the importance of rational thinking and pure reason in decision-making. He defends the idea that logical, evidence-based approaches can lead to better outcomes in both personal and societal contexts, challenging the notion that emotional or intuitive decisions are inherently superior.
13. The Central Banker of the Soul This chapter explores the concept of moral accounting, comparing it to financial accounting. Landsburg discusses how individuals balance their moral "ledgers" and make decisions based on perceived moral debts and credits, drawing parallels to the role of a central banker in managing a nation's economy.
14. How to Read the News Landsburg provides a guide to interpreting news stories through an economic lens. He covers various topics such as racial profiling, disaster relief, global warming, trade deficits, outsourcing, and racism. He emphasises the importance of critical thinking and understanding the economic principles behind the headlines to avoid being misled by sensationalism or bias.
15. Matters of Life and Death This chapter addresses the ethical and economic considerations surrounding life-and-death decisions. Landsburg discusses topics such as capital punishment, euthanasia, and healthcare rationing, arguing that economic analysis can provide valuable insights into these complex moral issues.
16. Things That Make Me Squirm Landsburg reflects on various uncomfortable truths and paradoxes in economics. He discusses topics that challenge conventional wisdom and provoke discomfort, encouraging readers to confront and reconsider their deeply held beliefs about economics and society.
Why you should read it?
“More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven E. Landsburg is an intriguing and important read because it challenges conventional thinking and encourages readers to view the world through the lens of economic principles. Landsburg's ability to present complex economic theories in an accessible and often humorous manner makes the book engaging and thought-provoking. By using real-world examples and counterintuitive arguments, he invites readers to question their assumptions and consider the broader implications of their actions.
While you may not agree with all of Landsburg's statements, and some of his unconventional ideas can seem extremely bumpy or even controversial, the book's value lies in its ability to provoke critical thinking and debate. Exploring different points of view, even those that challenge our deeply held beliefs, is essential for intellectual growth and understanding. Landsburg's work encourages readers to think beyond the surface and consider the underlying economic forces at play in various aspects of society.
Critics and review
When "More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" was published, it garnered significant attention from both the general public and the professional community. The book's provocative title and unconventional ideas sparked curiosity and debate among readers. Many appreciated Landsburg's ability to present complex economic concepts in an engaging and accessible manner, making economics interesting and relevant to everyday life. The book was praised for its wit and the way it challenged readers to rethink their assumptions about various societal issues.
In the professional community, the reception was more mixed. While some economists and academics lauded Landsburg for his innovative approach and thought-provoking arguments, others criticised the book for its sometimes controversial and counterintuitive claims. Critics argued that some of Landsburg's proposals, such as legalising the sale of kidneys or suggesting that more sex could reduce the spread of diseases, were overly simplistic or ignored important ethical considerations. Despite these criticisms, the book succeeded in stimulating discussion and encouraging a broader audience to engage with economic ideas, solidifying Landsburg's reputation as a provocative and influential thinker in the field.
Verdict
"More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven E. Landsburg is a fascinating and thought-provoking read that successfully makes complex economic concepts accessible and engaging. The book's strength lies in its ability to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage readers to think critically about societal issues through an economic lens. However, it's important to note that those who are uncomfortable with questioning traditional economic ideas might find some of Landsburg's arguments shocking or controversial.
About the authors
Steven E. Landsburg is a distinguished professor of economics at the University of Rochester, where he has made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, economics, and philosophy. He is the author of several influential books, including "The Armchair Economist," "Fair Play," and "The Big Questions," in addition to "More Sex Is Safer Sex." Landsburg has published over 30 journal articles and two textbooks on economics, showcasing his expertise and dedication to advancing economic thoug. His research interests span a wide range of topics, including algebraic K-theory, quantum game theory, and the philosophy of science.
In addition to his academic work, Landsburg is well-known for his engaging and often provocative articles in Slate magazine, where he wrote the "Everyday Economics" column from 1996 to 2007. These articles provided the foundation for many of the ideas explored in "More Sex Is Safer Sex." Through his writing, Landsburg has reached a broad audience, making complex economic concepts accessible and sparking debate on various societal issues.
Overview
“More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven E. Landsburg is a thought-provoking book that delves into the surprising and often counterintuitive insights of economics. Behind its catchy title lies a serious exploration of how individual rational decisions can lead to collectively irrational outcomes. Landsburg uses a variety of engaging examples to illustrate his points, such as how avoiding casual sex can paradoxically increase the spread of diseases. The book challenges readers to rethink their assumptions and consider the broader implications of their actions.
Landsburg's work is about understanding human behavior and societal dynamics through an economic lens. He tackles a wide range of topics, from politics and justice to everyday decisions, always with a blend of humour and rigorous logic. By presenting complex economic theories in an accessible and entertaining manner, the book invites readers to see the world in a new light and sparks debate on many issues we often take for granted.
Synopsis
The various chapters of the book can be summarised as follows:
Part I: The Communal Stream
1. More Sex Is Safer Sex This chapter explores the counterintuitive idea that increasing the number of sexual partners among the more cautious individuals in society can actually reduce the overall spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Landsburg argues that when cautious people engage in more sexual activity, they dilute the pool of potential partners, making it safer for everyone.
2. Be Fruitful and Multiply Landsburg discusses the economic implications of population growth, suggesting that having more children can lead to greater innovation and economic prosperity. He challenges the common belief that overpopulation is inherently problematic, instead highlighting the benefits of a larger, more diverse population.
3. What I Like About Scrooge In this chapter, Landsburg defends Ebenezer Scrooge's frugality, arguing that saving money and investing it wisely can benefit society as a whole. He explains how Scrooge's behavior, often seen as miserly, actually contributes to economic growth and stability.
4. Who's the Fairest of Them All? This chapter examines the concept of fairness in economic transactions. Landsburg uses various examples to illustrate how what is perceived as fair may not always lead to the most efficient or beneficial outcomes. He encourages readers to reconsider their notions of fairness in the context of economic efficiency
5. Children at Work Landsburg tackles the controversial topic of child labor, arguing that in some cases, allowing children to work can be beneficial for their families and communities. He presents evidence that, under certain conditions, child labor can lead to better economic outcomes and improved living standards.
Part II: How to Fix Everything
6. How to Fix Politics Landsburg suggests that many political problems stem from the misalignment of incentives. He proposes solutions such as implementing more direct democracy and using economic principles to design better voting systems that align politicians' incentives with the public good.
7. How to Fix the Justice System This chapter explores the inefficiencies and injustices within the legal system. Landsburg advocates for reforms that would make the system more efficient and fair, such as better aligning punishments with the severity of crimes and using economic incentives to reduce crime rates
8. How to Fix Everything Else In this comprehensive chapter, Landsburg addresses a variety of societal issues using economic principles:
* How to Fight Fires He suggests market-based solutions for fire prevention and response, such as insurance incentives for fireproofing homes.
* How to Fight Crime Landsburg argues for economic incentives to reduce crime, such as rewarding good behaviour and creating economic opportunities for potential offenders.
* How to Prevent Accidents He discusses the role of liability and insurance in reducing accidents, advocating for policies that make individuals and companies more accountable for safety.
* How to Fight Pollution Landsburg supports market-based approaches like carbon trading and pollution taxes to reduce environmental harm.
* How to Solve the Kidney Shortage He proposes legalising the sale of kidneys to create a market that would increase supply and save lives.
* How to Fight Grade Inflation Landsburg suggests using standardised testing and other objective measures to combat grade inflation in education
* How to Shorten Waiting Lines He explores the use of pricing and other economic tools to manage demand and reduce waiting times in various contexts.
Part III: Everyday Economics
9. Go Figure This chapter delves into the importance of understanding and interpreting statistical data correctly. Landsburg emphasizes how misinterpretations can lead to flawed conclusions and poor decision-making. He illustrates this with various examples, showing how a proper grasp of statistics can reveal surprising truths and debunk common misconceptions.
10. Oh No! It's a Girl! Landsburg examines the economic and social implications of gender preferences, particularly in societies where boys are favoured over girls. He discusses the long-term consequences of such biases, including demographic imbalances and their impact on the economy. The chapter highlights how these preferences can lead to unintended and often detrimental outcomes.
11. The High Price of Motherhood This chapter explores the economic costs associated with motherhood, both for individuals and society. Landsburg discusses how traditional gender roles and expectations can lead to significant financial and career sacrifices for women. He also examines policies that could help mitigate these costs and promote greater gender equality in the workforce.
Part IV: The Big Questions
12. Giving Your All: A Defense of Pure Reason Landsburg argues for the importance of rational thinking and pure reason in decision-making. He defends the idea that logical, evidence-based approaches can lead to better outcomes in both personal and societal contexts, challenging the notion that emotional or intuitive decisions are inherently superior.
13. The Central Banker of the Soul This chapter explores the concept of moral accounting, comparing it to financial accounting. Landsburg discusses how individuals balance their moral "ledgers" and make decisions based on perceived moral debts and credits, drawing parallels to the role of a central banker in managing a nation's economy.
14. How to Read the News Landsburg provides a guide to interpreting news stories through an economic lens. He covers various topics such as racial profiling, disaster relief, global warming, trade deficits, outsourcing, and racism. He emphasises the importance of critical thinking and understanding the economic principles behind the headlines to avoid being misled by sensationalism or bias.
15. Matters of Life and Death This chapter addresses the ethical and economic considerations surrounding life-and-death decisions. Landsburg discusses topics such as capital punishment, euthanasia, and healthcare rationing, arguing that economic analysis can provide valuable insights into these complex moral issues.
16. Things That Make Me Squirm Landsburg reflects on various uncomfortable truths and paradoxes in economics. He discusses topics that challenge conventional wisdom and provoke discomfort, encouraging readers to confront and reconsider their deeply held beliefs about economics and society.
Why you should read it?
“More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven E. Landsburg is an intriguing and important read because it challenges conventional thinking and encourages readers to view the world through the lens of economic principles. Landsburg's ability to present complex economic theories in an accessible and often humorous manner makes the book engaging and thought-provoking. By using real-world examples and counterintuitive arguments, he invites readers to question their assumptions and consider the broader implications of their actions.
While you may not agree with all of Landsburg's statements, and some of his unconventional ideas can seem extremely bumpy or even controversial, the book's value lies in its ability to provoke critical thinking and debate. Exploring different points of view, even those that challenge our deeply held beliefs, is essential for intellectual growth and understanding. Landsburg's work encourages readers to think beyond the surface and consider the underlying economic forces at play in various aspects of society.
Critics and review
When "More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" was published, it garnered significant attention from both the general public and the professional community. The book's provocative title and unconventional ideas sparked curiosity and debate among readers. Many appreciated Landsburg's ability to present complex economic concepts in an engaging and accessible manner, making economics interesting and relevant to everyday life. The book was praised for its wit and the way it challenged readers to rethink their assumptions about various societal issues.
In the professional community, the reception was more mixed. While some economists and academics lauded Landsburg for his innovative approach and thought-provoking arguments, others criticised the book for its sometimes controversial and counterintuitive claims. Critics argued that some of Landsburg's proposals, such as legalising the sale of kidneys or suggesting that more sex could reduce the spread of diseases, were overly simplistic or ignored important ethical considerations. Despite these criticisms, the book succeeded in stimulating discussion and encouraging a broader audience to engage with economic ideas, solidifying Landsburg's reputation as a provocative and influential thinker in the field.
Verdict
"More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven E. Landsburg is a fascinating and thought-provoking read that successfully makes complex economic concepts accessible and engaging. The book's strength lies in its ability to challenge conventional wisdom and encourage readers to think critically about societal issues through an economic lens. However, it's important to note that those who are uncomfortable with questioning traditional economic ideas might find some of Landsburg's arguments shocking or controversial.
About the authors
Steven E. Landsburg is a distinguished professor of economics at the University of Rochester, where he has made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, economics, and philosophy. He is the author of several influential books, including "The Armchair Economist," "Fair Play," and "The Big Questions," in addition to "More Sex Is Safer Sex." Landsburg has published over 30 journal articles and two textbooks on economics, showcasing his expertise and dedication to advancing economic thoug. His research interests span a wide range of topics, including algebraic K-theory, quantum game theory, and the philosophy of science.
In addition to his academic work, Landsburg is well-known for his engaging and often provocative articles in Slate magazine, where he wrote the "Everyday Economics" column from 1996 to 2007. These articles provided the foundation for many of the ideas explored in "More Sex Is Safer Sex." Through his writing, Landsburg has reached a broad audience, making complex economic concepts accessible and sparking debate on various societal issues.
February 20, 2021
economics fun and nonsense
I enjoyed this book because it made me think. I disagreed with most of it, but it was a fun read for all that.
From the start I found problems with the arguments. The “more sex” is misleading because it actually means exactly the same amount of sex but with more distributed partners. In fact it relies on the assumption that one person having sex with another results in a third person missing out which seems unlikely to hold.
At one point in the book he makes a lovely point about how a lawyers record gives you an idea of whether he will be trying to deceive you, and hence should be viewed with close scrutiny - exactly the feeling I had when I started reading this book.
The main issue seems to be that the “logic” he uses depends upon the premise that humans are rational. He almost accepts that people may actually be irrational but discards this as unpredictable (which is also a false assumption) and essentially states we may as well assume humans are rational given that’s the only way we can proceed. This is just like the man who looks for his keys under the light, not because that’s where his keys fell but just because he can see better.
So the presumption and “logic” grates a bit, and the libertarian leaning opinions also bristle (deliberately to be fair) and he also seems to me to contradict himself (for example he suggests people rationally over eat, weighing up the value of the extra calories, but later drops a remark that his gut shouldn’t be trusted because it tends to suggest he should eat brownies).
Only towards the end of the book does he redeem himself a bit with some indication of humility - it turns out he doesn’t think he knows everything after all.
Not sure if I would recommend it - it kind of annoyed me, but it is entertaining, and it made me think. Unfortunately rather than making me think economics has insight into all areas of life, it rather made me doubt economics knows what it’s doing at all.
——-
Probably overkill, but I made a bunch of notes on all the chapters:
c1 maxwell wouldn’t have any incentive to use condoms as he knows he probably has hiv already - ridiculous
c2 - doesn’t matter how much oil you consume because it doesn’t affect others - nah
c2 people having children mostly think about the costs not the benefits - no way
c3 - scrooge is generous to others because he doesn’t consume much oil - contradicts c2?
c4 there is a note on c4 saying there is no need to email to point out how one scenario differs in important ways from reality. I feel this should apply to most of the book
c6 - seems to think giving everyone a conflicting interest will make things better because it will stop them blocking thing unnecessarily. Craziness! Also sweepingly advises to remove branches of govt with a single facetious remark as reason for doing so
c7 proposes financial incentives for getting the right verdict. May as well give financial incentives to sprout wings and fly. Suggests you can attract better jurors, but aren’t jurors picked by the state, by random? Suggests jurors are the cause of poor convictions but then gives examples when it was clearly the fault of those giving evidence. That’s a better place to look to fix things
Makes a lovely point about how a lawyers record gives you an idea of whether he will be trying to deceive you, and hence should be viewed with close scrutiny - exactly the feeling I had when I started reading this book
Suggests it’s ok to attack a defendants race or gender because people cannot choose these things. No regard for the side effect of encouraging racism or sexism, also that you are allowing a cyclical effect - blacks are convicted more, hence this black defendant is more likely to be guilty so more likely to get convicted
c8 - reward inventiveness without encouraging monopolies. Makes sense. Agree we should encourage more than just money making ideas. He has plenty apparently. Reading this book he certainly does, and most of them are not worth anything much.
Everything is based on simplistic concepts of money - everything would have to have a label stating exactly how much it was worth and that. slur would have to be same for everyone (firefighters immediately able to make correct assessments of the value of pianos in order to choose whether to save them)
Ridiculous idea that firefighters should get to keep the houses they save - what is the value in having them to the people? How would you do the same with doctors - they can’t exactly get the benefits of the lives they save. The exclusion of any humaneness is quite upsetting
c9 - explaining obesity. another fallacy: if people would have wanted super size meals years ago, Macdonalds would have made them. No appreciation of 2 things - 1: Some decided at some point to try increasing food size, they naturally would have taken smallish steps, of course they wouldn’t jump to the state of affair at when he wrote this book. 2: People don’t know they want something until it’s offered. Assumption is that econs somehow not only rationally know exactly what they want from available options, but also from all possible unavailable options.
His theory is that people see that healthcare is better and so rationally choose to get fatter because they know they can still live a long time. That sounds entirely irrational to me, and also entirely unlikely simply because it’s not what people think about when they choose to eat.
He also suggests low fat foods could be behind the obesity epidemic. Sounds like a great counter intuitive leap by a genius? No just sounds f***ing stupid.
c10 - girls are slightly more likely to cause divorces. No significant complaint here
c11 - cost of motherhood, not controversial
c12 - charity. better to give to a single charity than multiple because you can save a postage stamp. not very exciting.
c13 - why do people lock their refrigerator doors. He acknowledges that there is a fair explanation that people are irrational. But then dismisses it for some stupid reasons. 1 that irrational means inherently unpredictable- just wrong. 2 that it’s better to look for a reason which you can explain. This is the fallacy of the guy searching under the lamp for his keys because its easier to see, not because that’s where he dropped them.
Somehow thinks that a gene for demonstrating self control would pass down, where actual self control, or even simply healthier tastes does not.
I think he should stay out of the evolution theory
Doesn’t seem aware that while we evolved with food and sex available across millennia we didn’t have fridges
States there hasn’t been any improvement in people taking less revenge. His much quoted friend steven pinker would be sure to disagree
Funny enough he now seems to be flirting with the real answer which is that we fight our instincts in the short term future to benefit our outcomes for the long term future. But it is very conscious
c14 - news. Apparently journalists are all idiots. Somehow this comes across as too sincere. It’s indicative of his style in general that he is one of these people who wants to imitate comedians who can abuse people in a humorous way but misses the mark because it comes across that they actually mean it.
He states that government should not have helped people after the new orleans disaster because it will push house prices up. There may be a truth to this, but the way he expresses it shows such a lack of empathy and refusal to acknowledge the situation of immediate need that it’s hard to not bristle. He may have a point but he doesn’t have a solution.
c15 - life and death. Seems like a natural start point for landsburg - the discomfort we have with putting a dollar value on life is natural. The fact it is essential to do so is perhaps difficult for some to accept. no major disagreement with this chapter
c16 squirm. finally he starts to seem a little bit human. he shows some small amount of humility in accepting his gut feelings are not always right (also noting his gut leads him to eat brownies, which he implies is a bad thing which might help him to see difficulties in his fridge argument if he stopped to think about it).
However, he makes some claims about having children which are a different sort of wrong. He claims there is no logic in prospective parents being unsure whether to have a child because that child will always be the best thing in their life. This is amusingly unrealistic and against the grain of his usual approach of cutting down the idealistic “humans are too important to put a price on” attitudes so contemptuously. There are umpteen reasons why parents would think twice, and in many many cases they would be right to have abstained for their own good. The good of the child is harder to assess of course
Argument against allowing a man to switch off his wife’s life support because she is essentially dead hence her wishes don’t count seem uncaring a nonsensical. They are supposedly based on her being unrecoverable but do not consider the question of whether she is feeling pain for instance.
He wraps up with some overdue humility in not actually being sure where to draw lines for cost benefit analysis. So he isn’t so sure he knows it all after all. I would have trusted him more at the start if he had made that point earlier.
I enjoyed this book because it made me think. I disagreed with most of it, but it was a fun read for all that.
From the start I found problems with the arguments. The “more sex” is misleading because it actually means exactly the same amount of sex but with more distributed partners. In fact it relies on the assumption that one person having sex with another results in a third person missing out which seems unlikely to hold.
At one point in the book he makes a lovely point about how a lawyers record gives you an idea of whether he will be trying to deceive you, and hence should be viewed with close scrutiny - exactly the feeling I had when I started reading this book.
The main issue seems to be that the “logic” he uses depends upon the premise that humans are rational. He almost accepts that people may actually be irrational but discards this as unpredictable (which is also a false assumption) and essentially states we may as well assume humans are rational given that’s the only way we can proceed. This is just like the man who looks for his keys under the light, not because that’s where his keys fell but just because he can see better.
So the presumption and “logic” grates a bit, and the libertarian leaning opinions also bristle (deliberately to be fair) and he also seems to me to contradict himself (for example he suggests people rationally over eat, weighing up the value of the extra calories, but later drops a remark that his gut shouldn’t be trusted because it tends to suggest he should eat brownies).
Only towards the end of the book does he redeem himself a bit with some indication of humility - it turns out he doesn’t think he knows everything after all.
Not sure if I would recommend it - it kind of annoyed me, but it is entertaining, and it made me think. Unfortunately rather than making me think economics has insight into all areas of life, it rather made me doubt economics knows what it’s doing at all.
——-
Probably overkill, but I made a bunch of notes on all the chapters:
c1 maxwell wouldn’t have any incentive to use condoms as he knows he probably has hiv already - ridiculous
c2 - doesn’t matter how much oil you consume because it doesn’t affect others - nah
c2 people having children mostly think about the costs not the benefits - no way
c3 - scrooge is generous to others because he doesn’t consume much oil - contradicts c2?
c4 there is a note on c4 saying there is no need to email to point out how one scenario differs in important ways from reality. I feel this should apply to most of the book
c6 - seems to think giving everyone a conflicting interest will make things better because it will stop them blocking thing unnecessarily. Craziness! Also sweepingly advises to remove branches of govt with a single facetious remark as reason for doing so
c7 proposes financial incentives for getting the right verdict. May as well give financial incentives to sprout wings and fly. Suggests you can attract better jurors, but aren’t jurors picked by the state, by random? Suggests jurors are the cause of poor convictions but then gives examples when it was clearly the fault of those giving evidence. That’s a better place to look to fix things
Makes a lovely point about how a lawyers record gives you an idea of whether he will be trying to deceive you, and hence should be viewed with close scrutiny - exactly the feeling I had when I started reading this book
Suggests it’s ok to attack a defendants race or gender because people cannot choose these things. No regard for the side effect of encouraging racism or sexism, also that you are allowing a cyclical effect - blacks are convicted more, hence this black defendant is more likely to be guilty so more likely to get convicted
c8 - reward inventiveness without encouraging monopolies. Makes sense. Agree we should encourage more than just money making ideas. He has plenty apparently. Reading this book he certainly does, and most of them are not worth anything much.
Everything is based on simplistic concepts of money - everything would have to have a label stating exactly how much it was worth and that. slur would have to be same for everyone (firefighters immediately able to make correct assessments of the value of pianos in order to choose whether to save them)
Ridiculous idea that firefighters should get to keep the houses they save - what is the value in having them to the people? How would you do the same with doctors - they can’t exactly get the benefits of the lives they save. The exclusion of any humaneness is quite upsetting
c9 - explaining obesity. another fallacy: if people would have wanted super size meals years ago, Macdonalds would have made them. No appreciation of 2 things - 1: Some decided at some point to try increasing food size, they naturally would have taken smallish steps, of course they wouldn’t jump to the state of affair at when he wrote this book. 2: People don’t know they want something until it’s offered. Assumption is that econs somehow not only rationally know exactly what they want from available options, but also from all possible unavailable options.
His theory is that people see that healthcare is better and so rationally choose to get fatter because they know they can still live a long time. That sounds entirely irrational to me, and also entirely unlikely simply because it’s not what people think about when they choose to eat.
He also suggests low fat foods could be behind the obesity epidemic. Sounds like a great counter intuitive leap by a genius? No just sounds f***ing stupid.
c10 - girls are slightly more likely to cause divorces. No significant complaint here
c11 - cost of motherhood, not controversial
c12 - charity. better to give to a single charity than multiple because you can save a postage stamp. not very exciting.
c13 - why do people lock their refrigerator doors. He acknowledges that there is a fair explanation that people are irrational. But then dismisses it for some stupid reasons. 1 that irrational means inherently unpredictable- just wrong. 2 that it’s better to look for a reason which you can explain. This is the fallacy of the guy searching under the lamp for his keys because its easier to see, not because that’s where he dropped them.
Somehow thinks that a gene for demonstrating self control would pass down, where actual self control, or even simply healthier tastes does not.
I think he should stay out of the evolution theory
Doesn’t seem aware that while we evolved with food and sex available across millennia we didn’t have fridges
States there hasn’t been any improvement in people taking less revenge. His much quoted friend steven pinker would be sure to disagree
Funny enough he now seems to be flirting with the real answer which is that we fight our instincts in the short term future to benefit our outcomes for the long term future. But it is very conscious
c14 - news. Apparently journalists are all idiots. Somehow this comes across as too sincere. It’s indicative of his style in general that he is one of these people who wants to imitate comedians who can abuse people in a humorous way but misses the mark because it comes across that they actually mean it.
He states that government should not have helped people after the new orleans disaster because it will push house prices up. There may be a truth to this, but the way he expresses it shows such a lack of empathy and refusal to acknowledge the situation of immediate need that it’s hard to not bristle. He may have a point but he doesn’t have a solution.
c15 - life and death. Seems like a natural start point for landsburg - the discomfort we have with putting a dollar value on life is natural. The fact it is essential to do so is perhaps difficult for some to accept. no major disagreement with this chapter
c16 squirm. finally he starts to seem a little bit human. he shows some small amount of humility in accepting his gut feelings are not always right (also noting his gut leads him to eat brownies, which he implies is a bad thing which might help him to see difficulties in his fridge argument if he stopped to think about it).
However, he makes some claims about having children which are a different sort of wrong. He claims there is no logic in prospective parents being unsure whether to have a child because that child will always be the best thing in their life. This is amusingly unrealistic and against the grain of his usual approach of cutting down the idealistic “humans are too important to put a price on” attitudes so contemptuously. There are umpteen reasons why parents would think twice, and in many many cases they would be right to have abstained for their own good. The good of the child is harder to assess of course
Argument against allowing a man to switch off his wife’s life support because she is essentially dead hence her wishes don’t count seem uncaring a nonsensical. They are supposedly based on her being unrecoverable but do not consider the question of whether she is feeling pain for instance.
He wraps up with some overdue humility in not actually being sure where to draw lines for cost benefit analysis. So he isn’t so sure he knows it all after all. I would have trusted him more at the start if he had made that point earlier.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 19, 2009
It's a general principle of economics that things tend to work out best when people have to live with the consequences of their own behavior, or to put it another way, things tend to work out poorly when the consequences of our actions spill over onto other people. 4
the person who drops the banana peel and the person who slips on it are not usually the same person. 5
your actions have costs and benefits. As long as you feel all the costs and benefits, you'll tend to get the quantity right. 5
(significance of adolescent self-esteem) 55
That which is past is gone and irrevocable, and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come . . . a man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well. As a writer, I note with considerable dismay that although Bacon's advice is clear, succinct, profound, and apparently irrefutable, it has been in print for over three hundred years without any discernible effect on human behavior. How could an instinct that is invariably self-destructive have survived the vagaries of natural selection? Political scientists have long recognized that while revenge itself is costly and pointless, the threat of revenge is an effective deterrent. 184
(true altruism versus "imperfect altruism" - care about how others achieve their happiness) 185
Laibson argues that we can be imperfectly altruistic towards ourselves - by caring not just about our future happiness, but about how that happiness is achieved 186
If you love looking forward to parties, and if you know that you love looking forward to parties, then you can never look forward to a party. 186
Steven Pinker points out that understanding the origin of the Universe is not a terribly useful skill; it confers no reproductive advantage, so there's no reason we should have evolved brains capable of thinking about such a question. 190
Knowledge of the past is extremely valuable. It does not follow that each additional bit of knowledge of the past is extremely valuable . . . There are more fascinating things in heaven and earth than you'll ever have time to contemplate. When one disappears, you replace it with another. 199
Ideally, we should tax socially destructive activities and use the revenue in the most socially productive ways we can imagine . . . There's no reason alcohol taxes should be earmarked for alcoholism treatment . . . 201
outsourcing work is, from an economic point of view, exactly the same thing as discovering a new technology. If you can ship your problems abroad and have them come back solved, that's exactly as good as feeding your problems to a new kind of machine and having solutions pop out the other end. 207
***If putting a dollar value on human lives strikes you as cold-hearted, grow up. You implicitly put a dollar value on human lives every time you buy a candy bar with funds that could instead have been donated to the local fire department. No matter who you are, there is a limit to what you're willing to spend to save lives; the only question is whether you're willing to think honestly about what that limit is. Viscusi thought hard not about his own limit but about how to measure other people's limits, through observations of their behavior. That's where the $6.6 million comes from - it's an estimate of what real people in real situations are willing to pay to make themselves safer. 220
It's usually suboptimal to specialize in just one kind of mistake. If you never miss a plane, you're spending too much time in airports; if you never convict an innocent, you're not convicting enough of the guilty. 224
the person who drops the banana peel and the person who slips on it are not usually the same person. 5
your actions have costs and benefits. As long as you feel all the costs and benefits, you'll tend to get the quantity right. 5
(significance of adolescent self-esteem) 55
That which is past is gone and irrevocable, and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come . . . a man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well. As a writer, I note with considerable dismay that although Bacon's advice is clear, succinct, profound, and apparently irrefutable, it has been in print for over three hundred years without any discernible effect on human behavior. How could an instinct that is invariably self-destructive have survived the vagaries of natural selection? Political scientists have long recognized that while revenge itself is costly and pointless, the threat of revenge is an effective deterrent. 184
(true altruism versus "imperfect altruism" - care about how others achieve their happiness) 185
Laibson argues that we can be imperfectly altruistic towards ourselves - by caring not just about our future happiness, but about how that happiness is achieved 186
If you love looking forward to parties, and if you know that you love looking forward to parties, then you can never look forward to a party. 186
Steven Pinker points out that understanding the origin of the Universe is not a terribly useful skill; it confers no reproductive advantage, so there's no reason we should have evolved brains capable of thinking about such a question. 190
Knowledge of the past is extremely valuable. It does not follow that each additional bit of knowledge of the past is extremely valuable . . . There are more fascinating things in heaven and earth than you'll ever have time to contemplate. When one disappears, you replace it with another. 199
Ideally, we should tax socially destructive activities and use the revenue in the most socially productive ways we can imagine . . . There's no reason alcohol taxes should be earmarked for alcoholism treatment . . . 201
outsourcing work is, from an economic point of view, exactly the same thing as discovering a new technology. If you can ship your problems abroad and have them come back solved, that's exactly as good as feeding your problems to a new kind of machine and having solutions pop out the other end. 207
***If putting a dollar value on human lives strikes you as cold-hearted, grow up. You implicitly put a dollar value on human lives every time you buy a candy bar with funds that could instead have been donated to the local fire department. No matter who you are, there is a limit to what you're willing to spend to save lives; the only question is whether you're willing to think honestly about what that limit is. Viscusi thought hard not about his own limit but about how to measure other people's limits, through observations of their behavior. That's where the $6.6 million comes from - it's an estimate of what real people in real situations are willing to pay to make themselves safer. 220
It's usually suboptimal to specialize in just one kind of mistake. If you never miss a plane, you're spending too much time in airports; if you never convict an innocent, you're not convicting enough of the guilty. 224
August 5, 2017
This book consists of the articles that Landsburg has written over the years, added upon, and then compiled together. For this reason, the book doesn't really follow a consistent theme beyond things he thinks will surprise people or peak their attention. Some might find that style annoying but I don't mind hopping around from subject to subject. This is definitely not the kind of book that will turn someone new to the subject into an amature economist, but it might inspire that amature to start thinking a bit like an economist, and might get that person to pick up an interest. People have been comparing it to freakonomics and, personally, I consider that a mistake. I think this belongs in a different category. If you want to seriously learn about econ, you might want to read something thorough like Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell or pick up an economics textbook. If you want something less serious, Freakonomics is a good place to start. More Sex Is Safer Sex on the least serious end of the spectrum. It is a very fun, quirky, easy, and SHORT book.
It seems like a lot of the negative views about this book come from the wacky and insane suggestions that the author makes throughout. Although there are plenty of these, I interpreted them as tools Landsburg is using to make his point and convey the economic idea in question, not to mention drum up controversy in an attempt to sell more books. Rather than be offended by the outlandishness, I found them entertaining and occasionally comical. All we really know about his personal beliefs is his confidence in the fundamental ideas is he trying to convey, not how far he is really willing to take them, and that's good enough for me.
It seems like a lot of the negative views about this book come from the wacky and insane suggestions that the author makes throughout. Although there are plenty of these, I interpreted them as tools Landsburg is using to make his point and convey the economic idea in question, not to mention drum up controversy in an attempt to sell more books. Rather than be offended by the outlandishness, I found them entertaining and occasionally comical. All we really know about his personal beliefs is his confidence in the fundamental ideas is he trying to convey, not how far he is really willing to take them, and that's good enough for me.
July 30, 2007
With all the good pop economics book coming out, I really beginning to choosing to study political science rather than the Dismal Science.
More Sex is Safer Sex treads the same path as Freakonomics, The Wisdom of Crowds, and The Undercover Economist, all of which do a better or more entertaining job of tying economic principles into everyday life. Steven E. Landsburg revels in coming up with unorthodox solutions to problems—truly charitable people should only give to ONE charity, racial profiling ISN’T a terrible thing, and the titular solution of encouraging certain people to have more sex to prevent spreading STIs.
All of these are thought-provoking, though I think Landsburg drops the ball in his explanation his solutions. I can see that there’s solid math behind his arguments, but after reading through them, many, especially the section on charity, still weren’t completely clear to me. Perhaps this is a personal failing, but I haven’t had this problem with the other pop economics books I mentioned. One section that was quite clear to me was his tirade against xenophobia, calling it the new racism.
Also, Landsburg’s most common way of remedying problems is either having the government tax or subsidize good behaviors, but in the last section, titled “Things that make me squirm,” he references a chart that shows that economic openness leads to a stronger economy. Thus, subsidies that encourage the behavior he wants would hurt the economy as a whole. This puts a kink in many of his solutions that he doesn’t iron out.
More Sex is Safer Sex treads the same path as Freakonomics, The Wisdom of Crowds, and The Undercover Economist, all of which do a better or more entertaining job of tying economic principles into everyday life. Steven E. Landsburg revels in coming up with unorthodox solutions to problems—truly charitable people should only give to ONE charity, racial profiling ISN’T a terrible thing, and the titular solution of encouraging certain people to have more sex to prevent spreading STIs.
All of these are thought-provoking, though I think Landsburg drops the ball in his explanation his solutions. I can see that there’s solid math behind his arguments, but after reading through them, many, especially the section on charity, still weren’t completely clear to me. Perhaps this is a personal failing, but I haven’t had this problem with the other pop economics books I mentioned. One section that was quite clear to me was his tirade against xenophobia, calling it the new racism.
Also, Landsburg’s most common way of remedying problems is either having the government tax or subsidize good behaviors, but in the last section, titled “Things that make me squirm,” he references a chart that shows that economic openness leads to a stronger economy. Thus, subsidies that encourage the behavior he wants would hurt the economy as a whole. This puts a kink in many of his solutions that he doesn’t iron out.
February 9, 2009
Steven Landsburg at first came off as witty and amusing but he increasingly wore on me during this book as he became overly arrogant and bull headed.
It is obvious that he is a micro-economics guy and he seems to think economics is the be all-end all of the world. I appreciate his fervor but I feel he is dishonest in his means and blindly ignores answers that may disagree with his particular taste.
His seeming disdain for the ideas of macro economics or the thought that anything other than economics might play a role in decision making was irritating.
I like that he pushed his ideas to their ideological extremes and consequences but as the book wore on he became too self righteous about them.
It is obvious that he is a micro-economics guy and he seems to think economics is the be all-end all of the world. I appreciate his fervor but I feel he is dishonest in his means and blindly ignores answers that may disagree with his particular taste.
His seeming disdain for the ideas of macro economics or the thought that anything other than economics might play a role in decision making was irritating.
I like that he pushed his ideas to their ideological extremes and consequences but as the book wore on he became too self righteous about them.
July 22, 2009
For better or worse, not really about what the title says. This book is often being compared to Freakonomics, which I do not think is quite right. Similar to Freakonomics, but not as effectively, the book gives some examples of why people behave as they do. But as you get deeper into the book it becomes apparent the author is actually putting together an ethical framework for decision making. This could just as easily be classified as a political science or philosophy book.
I don't buy into some of the examples, at least not without more information, and I was going to give the book 2 stars until the last 30 pages or so when the author's goal finally starts to become clear. When he finally gets there, he makes some interesting points. It just takes a while.
I don't buy into some of the examples, at least not without more information, and I was going to give the book 2 stars until the last 30 pages or so when the author's goal finally starts to become clear. When he finally gets there, he makes some interesting points. It just takes a while.
January 23, 2014
Fun Book. The main premise is that when people do not receive the costs of a behavior they do too much—When people do not receive all the benefit of a behavior they due too little.
As for the title, there was only about 10 pages on the subject which is summed up below:
Having slightly more casual sex benefits others (if you don't have an STD) because you make the communal stream safer from STDs. Therefore there is too little casual sex.
This is the 3rd book that I have read from Landsburg. He does better than any other author I know in explaining ideas in the simplest way with the least amount of words.
3.5 STARS
As for the title, there was only about 10 pages on the subject which is summed up below:
Having slightly more casual sex benefits others (if you don't have an STD) because you make the communal stream safer from STDs. Therefore there is too little casual sex.
This is the 3rd book that I have read from Landsburg. He does better than any other author I know in explaining ideas in the simplest way with the least amount of words.
3.5 STARS
February 17, 2009
I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I suppose I've found myself agreeing with the title after reading half this book: statistically speaking, more sex is safer sex. The idea being that by having more people in the "pool", your risk of contracting disease is reduced. Steven Landsburg does a much better job of explaining than I do, I should add.
There is much about this book with which I disagree, but it has been thought-provoking nonetheless. I recommend this book if only to cause some frustration and active thinking in order ultimately to argue or agree with the author about his various topics - all analyzed from an "economist" standpoint.
There is much about this book with which I disagree, but it has been thought-provoking nonetheless. I recommend this book if only to cause some frustration and active thinking in order ultimately to argue or agree with the author about his various topics - all analyzed from an "economist" standpoint.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews