Pop-econ Books

I’ve read a lot of pop-econ books as of late, so I thought I’d put together a little recap. These are some of the highlights of what have overall been some very enlightening books:

Freakonomics: This is the godfather of all the recent books. It made a huge impact on the field, opening the way to authors who finally had a book to say “THAT! I wanna write something like that!” The book collects some very interesting studies that attempt to get at real world economics. Cheating in sumo wrestling, dishonesty among realtors, and a very controversial take on the relationship between abortion and crime. It’s a worthwhile book to help you think about economics more broadly than just boring numbers about the value of the dollar and interest rates (though these can be very exciting, if you read about them).

The Economic Naturalist: Another writer described this book as being high concept low detail, where Freakonomics was low concept high detail. I think that is a pretty apt description. The Economic Naturalist are essays that answer questions about how things work in the world. Where Freakonomics looked at statistical details, this book answers questions based on economic principles, which assumes that people and companies make rational decisions. Definitely worth the read for clear, concise examples of economic thinking.

More Sex is Safer Sex: A very opinionated book with a libertarian slant. The author is quite a bit crankier about his answers, but if you don’t let the writing style get to you, there’s a lot of interesting ideas to find. The title refers to a study that suggests if there was limited promiscuity amongst a wider group of people, there would be less outbreaks of STD’s. You’ll have to read the book to get the details. If controversial ideas like that are of interest, this is the book for you.

Discover Your Inner Economist: Another high-concept book. Definitely oriented to how to think and approach different situations, this book takes the incentive idea and applies it to everyday life. Where other books focus more on describing economics of the everyday, this focuses more on prescriptions for making good choices. A fun book, I would recommend this one after reading some of the other ones.

Predictably Irrational: This book looks at one of the central ideas to economics: rationality. Economists assume that people will make the best rational decision for the circumstances they’re in. This book covers research that challenges that viewpoint. Behavioral economics is the newest branch of economics, and is extremely important to understand. It’s also a fascinating sub-discipline of psychology, looking at how we make our everyday decisions. While there may be some debate about how much rationality and irrationality there is in the human psyche, this is all important material to digest. Very highly recommended.

The Logic of Life: A good counterpoint to the book above, this book approaches things from a traditional economic standpoint, while still acknowledging the irrationality that can come into play. This book would probably be mid-concept mid-detail, with discussions of studies as well as their ideas and implications. This book as well as the author’s prior The Undercover Economist serve as good crash courses in basic economic thinking.

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions

Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist

Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics

The Logic of Life: The Rational Economics of an Irrational World

The Economic Naturalist: In Search of Explanations for Everyday Enigmas

Pennsylvania calls it for Clinton

Hillary beat out Obama by 10%, and the Democratic party lurches ever closer to a brokered-convention. My co-worker, a diehard conservative, is hoping for Hillary to run as an independent. I'm hoping we emerge with the best possible person in office. I don't know who that is out of the three candidates running. A complaint I've been hearing about Obama is that his not going on the attack enough is seen as a sign of weakness. I don't know how much of that is spin and how much is accurate. But it does make a certain amount of sense. People might not have a clear idea of what they would expect him to do, but they'll probably know it when they see it. I respect that Obama is trying to take the high road, and analysts have said that Clinton loses popularity more when she goes negative than Obama does as the result of her attacks, so I think her strategy still isn't working (and if that isn't reflected in certain races, it is reflected in the donation race).\

On to John McCain, who is in the enviable position of building his brand while his opponents spend all their time attacking each other. I really wish he wasn't trying to use technicalities regarding campaign finance. I'm not wild about the legislation in the first place, but his name's on it. If he's looking for loopholes, that's the sign of a bad bill. That said, I don't think that it's an easily enough to understand issue that people will be motivated. I'm unclear on the nitty-gritty specifics myself. It's certainly not the saddle that a possible anti-American pastor or lying about being under sniper attack is, and that gives him a good position in the fall. His number one drawback, I believe, is age. I don't think that people will hold it against him, I just think that when the campaigning is tough, he might have some fatigue issues.

We shall see, it'll be an exciting fall. And whoever ends up in office, they have a lot of work ahead of them. A falling dollar, falling housing market, sorting out immigration, and that's all inside in the house! Looking outside, we have a very chaotic and volatile world, that still has grand amounts of potential. One thing I don't want to see is the country thinking that the President is the person outside of ourselves who can "make it all better". We need to be the ones who make our lives better and our world better. The Presidency is a job interview. Policy decisions need to be made, but they need to be made with our input and with us holding the elected officials accountable.

Pundits call it for Clinton

The reviews of the debate I've read so far put Clinton ahead after last night's debate. Or, more accurately, John McCain. Certainly Barack was under more scrutiny than Hillary was. I still think he handled it well for the most part (unlike Hillary's "defense" of her Bosnia statements). The question is whether or not his affiliations are an accurate depiction of who he is. If they are, do we want a closet-radical as President? And if not, do we want a person who affiliates with anyone in order to get ahead?

I'm torn on the character issue. I think it's extremely important, but it seems to drown out any sort of policy debate. Democrats and Republicans represent two very different views of what the government should be doing. That issue should come first, and then character issues. We're a large country, we should be able to find someone who has good policy ideas who's a stand-up person as well.

What Obama does better than Clinton

It's funny, I think Barrack pays more attention to Bill Clinton's communication style than Hillary does. What Obama does very well is to reframe everything in a more positive light. I'm watching the debate right now, and someone just asked Hillary about her comment that she was shot at in Bosnia. They asked him if this was indicative about her honesty. He actually sidestepped it! He didn't want to go into the negative territory, because that would naturally put him in a negative light.

Hillary is now going on the Weatherman rant. This is my rookie prediction: Hillary won't win the primary. She'll never realize how important it was to have a positive image.

Aaron
www.aaronagostini.net

Broken Processes

We had a lunch and learn discussion today at work that was a bit depressing. Without going into specifics (which isn't allowed by our corporate policy), we have a process in place that can be very frustrating for our customers. Due to the many different players involved, such as us, our customers, indpendent vendors, government agencies, and our respective legal departments, there is no clear path to accoplishing the goal.

To me, this is a very tough problem that people can encounter in a variety of ways. Basically, no one wants to risk anything, so they put hurdles into place before they will agree to take action. This allows an idea to be shot down without anyone needing to accept full responsibility for saying "no". Each side can say that the other side wouldn't do x, or agree to y. This allows an equilibrium to develop where no one has to deal with the stress of making something work.

Thankfully, there are people out there who see their job as thinking outside the process. Sooner or later, through frustration, or just desire to do the best job possible, they push harder. They talk to each side, and try to find out what it is they really need.

A lot of times, communication is presented as a way to get over on people, to snow them with bs. I think that it's important to keep in mind the important value of being a brave communicator. Deadlocked situations are daunting, and bureaucracy can be draining. It's important to still be able to talk to all sides in these cases, because when we push through these hold-ups, we can achieve our biggest successes.

Go inject some sanity into the world.

Aaron
www.aaronagostini.net

Welcome!

Thanks for checking out my blog, I'll be posting soon.