I hate to read books.
I tried reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and I stopped at page 200+ out of 700+.
But recently, I picked up a book from the local library. And I love this book.
The book in question? Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.
Written by a New York Times Magazine Journalist (Stephen Dubner) and an Economist at the University of Chicago (Steven Levitt), Freakonomics looks at the world in general and answers some of the more obscure questions from an economist's point of view. Do Sumo Wrestlers and Chicago public school teachers have anything in common? What caused the drop in crime rate in the US in the 90's? Does a politician like Obama win an election, just because he has more money? Parenting - Who's right on the perfect way of parenting? And what about real estate agents?
This book dares to talk about controversial issues, such as the Ku Klux Klan, narcotics (Crack, specifically), common names of people from different races, and even abortion being a benefit for society. But this book really makes you think more openly. It widens your mind and how you see economics around you.
Just to give a little taste of what the book is about, here's a little quiz. Which of the following is a main cause of lowering crime rate in the1990s in the US?
a) Increased number of policemen
b) Roe v. Wade
c) Strong economy
d) Aging population
e) Increased reliance on prison
Well, the correct answers are a), b), and e)
Why?
In an over-simplified manner...
a) + Policeman = more authorative figures, some of whom police small things that weren't policed before, such as urinating on the street corner, etc. As such, people were more disciplined.
b) In Roe v. Wade, The US Supreme Court legalised abortion in 1973. The result, single women, women unable to take care of a baby, low-income women, and teenaged girls are able to seek abortion. Some research pointed out that children born in above conditions have higher risks of being criminals (again, oversimplified. Not always the case). With most of these people out of population, by the time the cohort turned prime for crime (i.e.: late teens - early adulthood), they aren't alive to make trouble. Hence, we see lower crime rates.
c) Strong economy = more people in proper jobs. So less crime, right? Apparently, no. The 1960s was a period of growth, both economically and in terms of violent crime. So, it's easy to draw the correlation, but it's not conclusive.
d) Many researchers were looking at population data in the 80s and they predicted that as the kids of 1980s start growing till 1990s, crime will increase. Instead, crime decreased. They switched their theories to say aging population means more elderly folks, who are less likely to do crime. Ya right, as if a 16-year-old can suddenly become a 60-year-old in a matter of a decade. Nice try.
e) Increased reliance on prison - harsher punishments, to be exact - meant less incentive of doing crime. Previously, punishments were not as harsh - apparently most criminals were African-Americans and Hispanics, and the courts feared they would look racist. Result - slimmer chance of being convicted, or if convicted, short prison terms. It took much debate and after the 70s, more were landing in jail for longer terms, meaning less incentive to commit a crime.
I really enjoyed reading this book so far. It's amazing what you can learn from this book. You'll see Psychology, Mathematics, Economics, and Sociology mixed together into one book that is totally random.
Rating: 4.5/5. (not a 5, because the book jumps around between topics too much, and there's a bit of repetition at times.)
No comments:
Post a Comment