Regular marked price: $14.00Discount Price: $11.20
Cost Savings: $2.80 (20%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 306.3
EAN num: 9780029177761
ISBN number: 0029177766
Label: Free Press
Manufacturer: Free Press
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 251
Printing Date: March 01, 1995
Publishing house: Free Press
Sale Popularity Level: 15377
Studio: Free Press
Accessories:
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
Witty economists are about as easy to find as anorexic mezzo-sopranos, natty mujahedeen, and cheerful Philadelphians. But Steven E. Landsburg...is one economist who fits the bill. In a wide-ranging, easily digested, unbelievably contrarian survey of everything from why popcorn at movie houses costs so much to why recycling may actually reduce the number of trees on the planet, the University of Rochester professor valiantly turns the discusion of vexing economic questions into an activity that ordinary people might enjoy.
-- Joe Queenan, The Wall Street Journal
The Armchair Economist is a wonderful little book, written by someone for whom English is a very first (and beloved) language, and it contains not a single graph or equation...Landsburg presents fascinating concepts in a form easily accessible to noneconomists.
-- Erik M. Jensen, The Cleveland Plain Dealer
...enormous fun from its opening page...Landsburg has done something extraordinary: He has expounded basic economic principles with wit and verve.
-- Dan Seligman, Fortune
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers -
This is the rare book that will have you thinking about it months after reading it. The author presents some of the most basic principles of economics in an accessible format. For anyone who missed out on taking econ in college, this book is a useful read.
However, a few things keep this book from getting 5 stars. The author's hyperbole often borders on distracting, and a few of his conclusions seem unsupported by the evidence presented. Also, the author did not always distinguish between his opinions and economic analysis. In a book like this, the line between theory and opinion should be clear.
If you liked Freakonomics and you are looking for more economic reading material then you will probably like this book.
Rated by buyers 
-
This book isn't even something I would typically refer to as a book. It is more a cobbling together of blog-like material, short articles, rants against things and people in the popular media that the author doesn't like, bad examples of economic thought-processes that simply collapse at the very first poke of logical analysis, and contradictory arguments.
Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love economics, one of the most beautiful and fascinating sciences we have. I am not an economist, but am a successful business owner, fairly smart, well educated, and no slouch when it comes to analytical thought.
This book falls flat, not because of the subject matter, but because of the way it is presented. It seems more an attack on everything that ever annoyed the author. Ideas that might otherwise have been well presented seem somehow warped to serve the authors underlying opinions and politics, and the ideas suffer for it.
The author also displays a good bit of ignorance of things outside the field of economics, which damage the examples he uses to show economic ideas.
For example, much of the book amounts to rants that point out, directly or indirectly, his views on the stupidity of "environmentalists" and the "religion of environmentalism." There are places where he makes assertions which are scientifically wrong, then draws conclusions from them. I found myself wishing he had done even a little research on basic biology and ecology.
This isn't an issue of pro- or anti-environmentalism. Whichever side of the fence you fall on in regards to the issues, you will be disappointed with the lack of thought or knowledge behind much of this book.
That said, the author obviously has a good understanding of the tools and theories of economics (he is after all an economist), and if you are willing to set logic and critical thinking on the shelf for a bit, you may get some benefit from this book, but you will have to wade through an awful lot of ego and narcissism to get it.
More likely, you will end up with the impression that the author knows how to use the tools but uses them to create constructs that simply collapse.
Chances are, if you've read the excerpts and marketing material for this book and think it sounds like something you would like to read, what you are really looking for is more likely to be found in "the undercover economist" or "naked economics."
(This is where I would normally end a review, so you can stop reading here if you like - the rest is my personal reaction to a few specifics.)
A couple specific issues:
I normally try not to address specific issues as part of a review, because I know my personal responses may not apply to other readers. I do have a few specific responses that I just can't resist bringing up.
These are MUCH more personal than my general review above, so please take them with a grain of salt.
1.
One chapter describes how the author and some buddies have lunch (he said every day) and discuss "big mysteries" that seem to have stumped them. One of these questions is why ticket prices don't go up for certain performances that regularly sell out and have lines of people camping to buy tickets. He points out some economic principles, then mentions a theory that somebody offered to him, which seems pretty sensible. He then concludes by saying that this theory could be the answer, but nobody really knows. It's this type of mystery that economists theorize about and try to solve every day.
Honestly, when I was done laughing, this nearly made me put the book down. I know the author is discussing theory, but it reminds me of a statement by Alan Greenspan (I forget where he wrote/said it, but it stuck with me ) that he was shocked by the number of economists that have trouble differentiating between theoretical models and the real world of people, decisions, and data.
I strongly suspect that if Alan Greenspan wanted to know why ticket prices don't go up under certain circumstances, he'd have a first-year intern pick up the phone, hunt down some of the people responsible for setting ticket prices for these performances, and ask them. Sure, you may not get an economically sound theory dropped into your lap this way, but it should get you a lot closer than endless pontificating over coffee and bagels.
2.
In another chapter, the author uses the Simpsons to illustrate a few points about benefits and fixed resources. The argument goes something like this: The only thing to do in Springfield is go to the park, so the city of Springfield puts in a new, publicly funded aquarium, which is free to visit.
Now the Simpsons can go to the park or the aquarium, which initially sounds great. However, since the "cost" of standing in line at the aquarium will exactly balance ... Read More
Rated by buyers 
-
This is an accessable, fun read. I also read Fair Play and More Sex is Safe Sex by Landsburg. He is the best author in this area.
Rated by buyers -
Before I review the book, I have to provide a digression (I have to lay down these foundations before I can critique the book): There is nothing wrong with economics, it is a beautiful social science (I am a Ph.D. student in economics myself). What one has to bear in mind is that economics explains certain aspects of human behavior and how society works, it is a science, but not one without bounds. When applied methodically and correctly, it gives powerful insights in the subjects it studies. But one must understand that it is not without limitations, to name just a couple: economics is the study of "homo economus", it is by definition anthropocentric. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but certainly there are people who do not share the same view (environmentalists may think, for example, other species have rights too); another foundation of economics is that people are rational, but even economists admit that under certain conditions humans can be "unpredictable" or appear "irrational", and their preferences can be unstable (e.g. see Richard Thaler's works).
Now back to the book. Landsburg labels himself as a libertarian economist, and he takes such doctrine as "free market" as religion. It is true that under perfect competition, low transaction cost, etc., free market will achieve the most efficient allocation of resources. However, we must not forget that the real world is full of obstacles to competition and transaction costs can be forbiddingly high. But though Landsburg claims that he is trying to apply economic principles to "real world" problems, but more often than not, he retreats into the simplistic assumptions of very first year college microeconomics.
Parts of the book are simply bad economics. For example, when one reader complains about the quality of air is getting unbearable in the city he lives, Landsburg comments: the fact that he did not move away proves that he is indifferent (between living there and moving away) after all (I actually couldn't locate this in the book at the moment, but I am pretty certain he said something along that line), completely ignoring elasticity (people are not perfectly mobile and can't just move from one city to another on a whim) and transaction costs.
Parts of the book are bad writing. I've read the chapter about popcorns at theaters at least 3 times, to date I am still trying to figure out what he tried to say. Also as other readers point out, his arrogant and snobbish attitude permeates the whole book. He sounds like as if he's the only one who knows the answers to all the questions of the universe. Anyone who does not accept his logic is simply branded "unscientific". One gets the impression that Landsburg is not just impatient, but also a deeply insecure person.
Parts of the book are not easy to tell whether they are bad economics, bad writing, or both. For example, in Chapter 7, he says that he is not sure why he spends a 3 cents worth of effort to grab a one-dollar bill. I understand that the whole chapter is about cost-benefit analysis, but to say that he "is not sure why" is misleading to say the least, because his private gain from this action is 97 cents so it makes perfect sense to do so. I am sure Landsburg actually understands this, but the way he tells the story is just a bad presentation and will make the layman scratch his head (as Landsburg puts it himself): are economists really so "dense"?
Landsburg's attitude toward environmentalism and conservation is appallingly ignorant. He calls environmentalism "the religion of ecology" to imply how unscientific it is, but his own stubborn hatred toward the environment (not just environmentalism) and single-minded faith in libertarian economics are not a shred less unreasonable or zealous than any religious beliefs. I don't consider myself to be in the environmentalist group, and certainly extreme environmentalism has its pitfalls. But from Landsburg's writing, it is apparent that he never bothered to read the other side's arguments at all. For example, he says that if "you want large forests, your best strategy might be to use paper as wastefully as possible" (yes, he actually said "wastefully", chapter 24), but that is assuming people strictly care about the number of trees, and not the composition (diversity of the biota, native species vs. introduced species, etc.) of the ecosystem, not to mention the disturbance, distress and destruction logging can cause to the environment. To an environmentalist, a coastal Californian redwood surviving from Aristotelian times may well give her more "utility" (to use economists' jargon) than newly planted timber crop from lumber companies. It is pretty clear that Landsburg has not the faintest idea about these issues. In the same chapter, he also suggests that "we can pick up a lot of valuable knowledge by wiping out a few species to see what happens", well, have we humans been doing that for, uh, the ... Read More
Rated by buyers -
This was a great book.
A lot of people don't bother to think arguments all the way through when they make them, and this author did a great job when he took sample letters (from the paper) and carried the arguments contained therein to their logical conclusions. (The Sound and the Fury chapter).
In addition, sometimes people who like to read about Economics as a hobby don't notice a lot of the little things around them that need explaining. (Popcorn prices at movies.) This book does explain many of those things.
Lastly, the author does his best work by uncloaking the environmental movement as a religion and NOT as science. It is telling that he went against a coreligionist (a Jew) in stating his objection to the indoctrination of his child with a religion just as quickly as he went against a Christian for brining Santa Claus into the classroom.
The entire book was worth the purchase price if for no other reason than the chapter on environmentalism.
Find other books like this one:
